Which perpetually victimized group of gaslighting whiners is more annoying?

[Deleted member 2798]

LMAO. What a hilarious monologue by yet another triggered WN coper.

It's hilarious how in all of this text you AGAIN failed to comprehend a single point I made and just attacked a strawman. It's fascinating how Westerners can type wall of texts without writing anything meaningful.

I explained my point perfectly, it's not my problem that you failed to understand what I wrote and much less respond to it in a meaningful way.

You're a typical WN NPC who is triggered by the modern West not giving much damn about you despite your eagerness to defend its ruins.

Enjoy having your generic WN rant in your thread that nobody gives shit about.

When in doubt, “that wasn’t worthy of a response”

Not a smart strategy to play the "I'm too good to respond to this" card when you already have multiparagraph responses in this thread. You won because you gave up, ok.

At least I can tell you read this last post, because you're quite mad about it. I just wish you were less of a roach and could give it an honest response (for once).

"Thread noone gives a shit about"

We're both shitposting on an obscure forum, you coping leech. I don't attach especial significance to this or any other thread. But it's worth noting that it's a full page long at writing with many votes in the poll. Half of its physical length is taken up by your incoherent posts.

This whole post reeks of it, but that flaccid snipe, paired with an effective surrender, is a dead giveaway that, basically, actually, essentially you are a generic spineless lackey of the current order posturing as a dissident, who us ebicly TRIGGERED by being called on your dissimulation and sophistry. If anyone else actually bothers to read our whole exchange, you're going to come away looking like a shitlib who's in out of "his" depth. Gg homo. See you later.

@Ledgemund is the biggest victim. The point of his rants is basically this: "Us white people are the biggest victims. You have to identify with white race, because one day you will be a victim too."

Definitely mad. Basically.

 

[Teutonic Knight]

Not a smart strategy to play the "I'm too good to respond to this" card when you already have multiparagraph responses in this thread. You won because you gave up, ok.

At least I can tell you read this last post, because you're quite mad about it. I just wish you were less of a roach and could give it an honest response (for once).

"Thread noone gives a shit about"

We're both shitposting on an obscure forum, you coping leech. I don't attach especial significance to this or any other thread. But it's worth noting that it's a full page long at writing with many votes in the poll. Half of its physical length is taken up by your incoherent posts.

This whole post reeks of it, but that flaccid snipe, paired with an effective surrender, is a dead giveaway that, basically, actually, essentially you are a generic spineless lackey of the current order posturing as a dissident, who us ebicly TRIGGERED by being called on your dissimulation and sophistry. If anyone else actually bothers to read our whole exchange, you're going to come away looking like a shitlib who's in out of "his" depth. Gg homo. See you later.


Definitely mad. Basically.

There is literally nothing to respond to your post, since it's a one big strawman as you can't understand what I even stand for. You're the one who gave up as you basically ignored to address what I wrote and just went in your NPC mode whining about Muslim immigration. That's why you had to write such a long post, because you wanted to mask your inability to answer my points directly.

Just to point out for one last time what I actually stand for... I never said I supported some sort of multireligious utopia and a society with free migration or anything like that, so your strawman that I'm some sort of "refugee welcome" type embracing "Muslim" refugees is ridiculous. That's why your entire post is irrelevant strawman and not worthy of replying. I also never had any particular sympathies towards Islam other than pragmatic support for certain Islamic groups that resist the West and the fact that I consider the West to be the biggest problem (which it is).

I support Catholic monarchy and Catholic social doctrine. This is, by default, against any type of racism. It's also the only ideology which actually counters the modern West and its core concepts. "White race" is a meaningless concept that doesn't exist, and is particularly irrelevant in Eastern Europe where literally no one gives a damn about it other than pro-Westernist cucks who support Euro-Atlantic integrations, the same people that actually want the refugees and other migrants to come.

You're basically just another proof that white racists will ALWAYS end up siding with the degenerate West like the willing servants you are. You self-identified Western "white men" have been programmed and disciplined to be servants to your elites, to the point that you even don't recognize it and act like NPCs whenever someone says anything bad about your beloved West (and about your masters). You're just another Breivik-like and Tarrant-like degenerate racist who is only brave attacking the weak "ethnics" but lays down his weapons in front of the representatives of the Western states and follows the sacred Western laws and procedures and bows down in front of sacred Western institutions. The "ethnics" trigger you because they don't have the same respect for your pathetic West and suck money out of it (rightfully so) and shit on it (again, rightfully so).

Which basically proves my initial post that triggered you:

White men who support the West are the worst.

All the other groups are just out there trying to get something for themselves, while the pro-Western white men want to change the world to fit their disgusting materialistic secularist ideology.

Your reaction basically proves that you are one of these men, so thanks for entertaining us with your rants and proving my point.

 

[Braincel14w]

WTF so many votes for jbwcels surely there is more unity than this here? I'm appauled tbh even though jbw is annoying it's nothing compared to the hypocrasy of foids.

 

[Deleted member 16455]

WTF so many votes for jbwcels surely there is more unity than this here? I'm appauled tbh even though jbw is annoying it's nothing compared to the hypocrasy of foids.

yes im surprised too. Being ethnic is way worse than being a foid so their bitching is more valid.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

There is literally nothing to respond to your post, since it's a one big strawman as you can't understand what I even stand for. You're the one who gave up as you basically ignored to address what I wrote and just went in your NPC mode whining about Muslim immigration. That's why you had to write such a long post, because you wanted to mask your inability to answer my points directly.

Just to point out for one last time what I actually stand for... I never said I supported some sort of multireligious utopia and a society with free migration or anything like that, so your strawman that I'm some sort of "refugee welcome" type embracing "Muslim" refugees is ridiculous. I also never had any particular sympathies towards Islam other than pragmatic support for certain Islamic groups that resist the West and the fact that I consider the West to be the biggest problem.

I support Catholic monarchy and Catholic social doctrine. This is, by default, against any type of racism. It's also the only ideology which actually counters the modern West and its core concepts. "White race" is a meaningless concept that doesn't exist, and is particularly irrelevant in Eastern Europe where literally no one gives a damn about it other than pro-Westernist cucks who support Euro-Atlantic integrations, the same people that actually want the refugees and other migrants to come.

You're basically just another proof that white racists will ALWAYS end up siding with the degenerate West like the willing servants you are. You self-identified Western "white men" have been programmed and disciplined to be servants to your elites, to the point that you even don't recognize it and act like NPCs whenever someone says anything bad about your beloved West (your masters).

Which basically proves my initial post that triggered you:



Your reaction basically proves that you are one of these men, so thanks for entertaining us with your rants and proving my point.

I get your "positions" perfectly well. They just don't make any sense taken together and I get the sense you haven't really thought them through but rather just use them to put on a templar costume for online larping.

All this talk of a "universal brotherhood", but you then say only sympathies are with the Catholic Church, nested within in Christianity (which Europeans built up from obscurity and spread around the globe), nested within monotheism, nested within religiosity nested within "the world". Catholicism positions itself as universal, but not everyone is Catholic nor will they ever be. You assume the whole world outside of your apartment is just brimming with le based potential converts. It is isn't and many are outright hostile to you. The Catholic Church itself has been complicit in outright genocide of plenty of le based browns too, pal. The Church is infested with pederasts and the current Pope is a stooge for neoliberalism. It's coeveolved with "the Western state" and is no better off than it really.

You "don't support multiculti" yet you're vehemently opposed to anyone even skeptical of immigration. Not wanting welfare parasites who fornicate, steal, and integrate themselves fully into liberal systems and lifestyles to be packed into an apartment complex with you seems to somehow be "racist". At least you seem to think that the composition of a state's people doesn't matter and " we're all the same lol. Except for stormcopers who did cuckoldry".

I don't want to make this a thread ad about "your views" anyway when you have yet to answer for your ridiculous assertions:

"You are RACIST because I say. There are no such thing as genetic or cultural similarity. Diversity doesn't ruin group cohesion, which I know very well as a recluse who lives entirely among other Poles. When you do RACISM, you are beta orbiting liberals who like it when you are RACIST. NATO uses RACISM"

How do you expect me to "argue" with this? This is all you ever say and you've never given any evidence for it. You've never made a rigorous genealogy of "racism" of even given a real definition of it beyond jumbling together things you read somewhere about "Naturalism and materialism and Darwinism invented the White man's burden so they could make everyone liberal. Tribal affinities do not exist and group differences are ackshchthshually meaningless."

Again, the worst part of this is that you try to deflect from your own tendency to make strawmen by accusing me of doing it. Reminder that there are 10+ points in my initial post you never responded to and just barreled ahead with "you worship the White race because your masters the UN told you to. You are WN who believe in LIBERALISM. I AM CATHOLIC. Coincidentally, my "universal brotherhood" and "anti-racism" gives me almost all of the exact same positions as everyone else in the liberal West, but I am the opposite of them because I'm religious and don't like women. YOU ARE LIBERAL because I'm going to tell you what you believe and why all of these things are the same as things that they aren't. Evidence? I MADE GREAT POINTS!"

As though you didn't come in here and imply that "brown people (and foids) are noble and beautiful because they're greedy and gluttonous (seven deadly sins? What are those?. It is White cuck who do everything wrong)."

I am White. Everyone else thinks that I am, so else could I be? "Genetics are a material illusion and all peepo are the same. Either that or you can be Caucasoid and you are like basically the same as someone from the Middle East. Not Indo-European and definitely not anything at a finer scale than that. No there hasn't been any genetic or cultural exchange between Poland and its neighboring populations throughout their deeply interconnected histories." No, you sophist. I'm living in America so I'm in effect "White" because of how I look and because of my origins. That's how I am classified by everyone else and consequently the terms in which I have to think of political realities in my life.

Again, this is a very ridiculous position anyways. Your flexible "definition" of "cuck" makes it look like you're denigrating all Whites and sucking off the based browns "just trying to get dat money . They are beautiful souls who don't mean it when they fornicate, crossdress, and pierce themselves. It is only bad when Whites do it because they believe in it." Your positions are not those of a dissident, they are almost indistinguishable from an Atheistic human rights advocate on Reddit. You are either naïve, suggestible, or cowardly to cope the way you do, probably all three.

 

[Teutonic Knight]

I get your "positions" perfectly well. They just don't make any sense taken together and I get the sense you haven't really thought them through but rather just use them to put on a templar costume for online larping.

All this talk of a "universal brotherhood", but you then say only sympathies are with the Catholic Church, nested within in Christianity (which Europeans built up from obscurity and spread around the globe), nested within monotheism, nested within religiosity nested within "the world". Catholicism positions itself as universal, but not everyone is Catholic nor will they ever be. You assume the whole world outside of your apartment is just brimming with le based potential converts. It is isn't and many are outright hostile to you. The Catholic Church itself has been complicit in outright genocide of plenty of le based browns too, pal. The Church is infested with pederasts and the current Pope is a stooge for neoliberalism. It's coeveolved with "the Western state" and is no better off than it really.

You "don't support multiculti" yet you're vehemently opposed to anyone even skeptical of immigration. Not wanting welfare parasites who fornicate, steal, and integrate themselves fully into liberal systems and lifestyles to be packed into an apartment complex with you seems to somehow be "racist". At least you seem to think that the composition of a state's people doesn't matter and " we're all the same lol. Except for stormcopers who did cuckoldry".

I don't want to make this a thread ad about "your views" anyway when you have yet to answer for your ridiculous assertions:

"You are RACIST because I say. There are no such thing as genetic or cultural similarity. Diversity doesn't ruin group cohesion, which I know very well as a recluse who lives entirely among other Poles. When you do RACISM, you are beta orbiting liberals who like it when you are RACIST. NATO uses RACISM"

How do you expect me to "argue" with this? This is all you ever say and you've never given any evidence for it. You've never made a rigorous genealogy of "racism" of even given a real definition of it beyond jumbling together things you read somewhere about "Naturalism and materialism and Darwinism invented the White man's burden so they could make everyone liberal. Tribal affinities do not exist and group differences are ackshchthshually meaningless."

Again, the worst part of this is that you try to deflect from your own tendency to make strawmen by accusing me of doing it. Reminder that there are 10+ points in my initial post you never responded to and just barreled ahead with "you worship the White race because your masters the UN told you to. You are WN who believe in LIBERALISM. I AM CATHOLIC. Coincidentally, my "universal brotherhood" and "anti-racism" gives me almost all of the exact same positions as everyone else in the liberal West, but I am the opposite of them because I'm religious and don't like women. YOU ARE LIBERAL because I'm going to tell you what you believe and why all of these things are the same as things that they aren't. Evidence? I MADE GREAT POINTS!"

As though you didn't come in here and imply that "brown people (and foids) are noble and beautiful because they're greedy and gluttonous (seven deadly sins? What are those?. It is White cuck who do everything wrong)."

I am White. Everyone else thinks that I am, so else could I be? "Genetics are a material illusion and all peepo are the same. Either that or you can be Caucasoid and you are like basically the same as someone from the Middle East. Not Indo-European and definitely not anything at a finer scale than that. No there hasn't been any genetic or cultural exchange between Poland and its neighboring populations throughout their deeply interconnected histories." No, you sophist. I'm living in America so I'm in effect "White" because of how I look and because of my origins. That's how I am classified by everyone else and consequently the terms in which I have to think of political realities in my life.

Again, this is a very ridiculous position anyways. Your flexible "definition" of "cuck" makes it look like you're denigrating all Whites and sucking off the based browns "just trying to get dat money . They are beautiful souls who don't mean it when they fornicate, crossdress, and pierce themselves. It is only bad when Whites do it because they believe in it." Your positions are not those of a dissident, they are almost indistinguishable from an Atheistic human rights advocate on Reddit. You are either naïve, suggestible, or cowardly to cope the way you do, probably all three.

What I try to tell you and what you didn't understand is that the concept of the "white race" is racist in itself and completely meaningless and also very harmful for these "white" people themselves. You talk about tribal affinities yet if I actually wanted to have that I would have tribal affinity to Slavs who are an actual ethno-cultural group of people, and not this imaginary concept of "white race" which never had absolutely any meaning in Eastern Europe, and for the most part of history it didn't exist in the Euro-Atlantic Western world either.

The thing about ethno-national identities like Slavic nationalism and individual Slavic/EE nations is that even though they're also very imaginary and artificial in itself, they at least represent some sort of political reality and actual political ideology and have 200+ years of struggle behind them. So pragmatically, I would actually support a nationalism that is against the Euro-Atlantic integrations, like for example Hungarian nationalism, or Polish nationalism and so on if it's strictly against the EU, against the NATO and against the West. Historically, a lot of Catholics supported their individual nationalisms of the predominantly Catholic nations and it wasn't wrong by itself, as long as it didn't become some sort of pagan idolatry.

On the other hand, identifying as "white" in Eastern Europe means that you basically put yourself in the position where you're embracing being a Westerner, and therefore, embracing degeneracy, liberalism, feminism, LGBT etc. It doesn't matter if you're proud of your "whiteness" or ashamed of it, just by using this identification for yourself you become part of the Westerner discourse and a useful idiot. So then you get Eastern European "white" right wing cucks who praise the EU and Euro-Atlantic integrations for putting Eastern European countries together with the "advanced" Western (implicitely white) "civilization" and saving it from the darkness of Oriental/Balkan/Asiatic forces (Russia, Ottoman past etc.). These cucks then embrace LGBT, feminism etc. because they see as part of this enlightened white West. And the Eastern Euro left wing cucks also love the concept of white race because they can then use the "white guilt" thing on Slavic people and try to make us feel guilty for something and promote Euro-Atlantic integrations in the sense that we're now fighting against the darkness of the patriarchical tribalist past. Believe me, the local Eastern Euro SJWs would love nothing more than to see Slavs identifying with "white race" and WNs popping up, because they could then copy the entire Western American-like discourse (that's all their good for, they have literally zero original ideas).

Notice, those nationalisms that I mentioned in a more positive light (Hungarian, Polish) are also against this migration and refugees that you talk about, and rightfully so, since this was something that was forced by the EU. And yeah, obviously I don't want Merkel's migrants coming over. I never had any illusions that these migrants coming to Europe are anything more than opportunists, however in the bigger picture, they're pretty irrelevant, especially for Eastern Europe since not a single one of those guys wants to stay here. They literally beg to get them to Germany or some other rich country. For them, Eastern Europe is a total shithole and therefore they have absolutely zero intentions to be around here. Even if you force them to be here, they're just waiting for the first opportunity to get over to Germany. Eastern Europe will NEVER be attractive enough for them to live here in large numbers, unless we somehow experience some economic miracle. Eastern Europe is totally lost in space and time and people are leaving, not coming. But even if they did, the way to oppose them is not by WN but by local nationalism, or simply by being anti-EU like I am.

What the Western elites want with these migrants is to turn them into some janissaries for the West. However the migrants don't want to assimilate into the West and take welfare and don't want to work, which is, under the circumstances, actually a good thing because they don't want to integrate into being productive for the West, so at least they don't make those states stronger. I'm not idealizing them, but between a hard working Westerner who believes and worships the institutions, the procedures, the legislatures, the secular state etc. and a "lazy" migrant, I prefer the latter because it's more "normal". It's the Westerners that are fanatical because you have to be pretty ideologically brainwashed to be willingly working hard for this garbage of society, and that's what the "white" Westerners are, although even they are turning to be "lazy" asocial welfare NEETs in countries like Germany which is ALSO a good thing.

If you actually want to save "white" people in Eastern Europe, you should support their local nationalisms and local anti-EU resistance, rather than forcing the label of "white" on them which is something foreign and harmful and only assists the local SJWs. It also means flushing down the toilet the actual Hungarian/Polish/Serb/Ukrainian/Belarus local tradition in exchange for some really vague and artificial "white" identity that people never identified with.

Being anti-Western is literally the only sensible politics in Eastern Europe and that means rejecting the influence of other "white" countries as well. Declaring yourself as "white" in Eastern Europe means that you're under some sort of Western influence (either a self-hating "white guilt" cuck or some "muh Western civilization" right winger which wants to protect LGBT and feminism from the Oriental darkness).

 

[Deleted member 2798]

What I try to tell you and what you didn't understand is that the concept of the "white race" is racist in itself and completely meaningless and also very harmful for these "white" people themselves. You talk about tribal affinities yet if I actually wanted to have that I would have tribal affinity to Slavs who are an actual ethno-cultural group of people, and not this imaginary concept of "white race" which never had absolutely any meaning in Eastern Europe, and for the most part of history it didn't exist in the Euro-Atlantic Western world either.

The thing about ethno-national identities like Slavic nationalism and individual Slavic/EE nations is that even though they're also very imaginary and artificial in itself, they at least represent some sort of political reality and actual political ideology and have 200+ years of struggle behind them. So pragmatically, I would actually support a nationalism that is against the Euro-Atlantic integrations, like for example Hungarian nationalism, or Polish nationalism and so on if it's strictly against the EU, against the NATO and against the West. Historically, a lot of Catholics supported their individual nationalisms of the predominantly Catholic nations and it wasn't wrong by itself, as long as it didn't become some sort of pagan idolatry.

On the other hand, identifying as "white" in Eastern Europe means that you basically put yourself in the position where you're embracing being a Westerner, and therefore, embracing degeneracy, liberalism, feminism, LGBT etc. It doesn't matter if you're proud of your "whiteness" or ashamed of it, just by using this identification for yourself you become part of the Westerner discourse and a useful idiot. So then you get Eastern European "white" right wing cucks who praise the EU and Euro-Atlantic integrations for putting Eastern European countries together with the "advanced" Western (implicitely white) "civilization" and saving it from the darkness of Oriental/Balkan/Asiatic forces (Russia, Ottoman past etc.). These cucks then embrace LGBT, feminism etc. because they see as part of this enlightened white West. And the Eastern Euro left wing cucks also love the concept of white race because they can then use the "white guilt" thing on Slavic people and try to make us feel guilty for something and promote Euro-Atlantic integrations in the sense that we're now fighting against the darkness of the patriarchical tribalist past. Believe me, the local Eastern Euro SJWs would love nothing more than to see Slavs identifying with "white race" and WNs popping up, because they could then copy the entire Western American-like discourse (that's all their good for, they have literally zero original ideas).

Notice, those nationalisms that I mentioned in a more positive light (Hungarian, Polish) are also against this migration and refugees that you talk about, and rightfully so, since this was something that was forced by the EU. And yeah, obviously I don't want Merkel's migrants coming over. I never had any illusions that these migrants coming to Europe are anything more than opportunists, however in the bigger picture, they're pretty irrelevant, especially for Eastern Europe since not a single one of those guys wants to stay here. They literally beg to get them to Germany or some other rich country. For them, Eastern Europe is a total shithole and therefore they have absolutely zero intentions to be around here. Even if you force them to be here, they're just waiting for the first opportunity to get over to Germany. Eastern Europe will NEVER be attractive enough for them to live here in large numbers, unless we somehow experience some economic miracle. Eastern Europe is totally lost in space and time and people are leaving, not coming. But even if they did, the way to oppose them is not by WN but by local nationalism, or simply by being anti-EU like I am.

I agree with most of this, but this was highly obscured behind what you actually posted prior.

I don't advocate for any kind of pan-Europeanism, as it's effectively already been realized in the appalling form of the EU. However, when you tarred "racism" as a form of mere materialism, but one that can only distinguish Caucasoids and Australoids or something, I meant to show that "race" is indeed a material reality, exists along a gradient, and that you are more similar to a German than a Turk. You can have your ancestry finely traced using bioinformatics. It is not meant to be treated as a "philosophy" though; the material component is just that and any attempt adduce a whole system from it is a vulgarization. There are also political, social, and cultural factors as well that unite a particular group of people in the same historical destiny, which is less tenuous across Europe than it is between Estonia and Pakistan.

"White" nationalism still doesn't make sense for the whole of Europe I agree, but I didn't think that was what we were talking about. You came into this thread defending liberalism's golden geese because they parasitize from Western systems and support them wholeheartedly so they remain patronized. A lot of "White" men are irredeemable and I have no intention of defending them (wish you hadn't jumped headlong into "worshipping the White race", because I dislike all of these people too), but to pretend they're any worse than the bioleninist coalition of ethnicopers, foids, and deviants strikes me as nauseating and foolishly contrarian. All of these people "just trying to get something for themselves" are unwaveringly loyal to the system because it is the guarantor of gibs and status.

On this note, "White" nationalism at least makes sense in America, Canada, Australia, etc. because that's pretty much what everyone there of European descent exists as politically. I'm not going to greet the demands of beggars as "based", especially when it's clear that their modus operandi is to push for more and more with the ultimate goal of taking over the apparatus and institutions of liberalism for themselves.

What the Western elites want with these migrants is to turn them into some janissaries for the West. However the migrants don't want to assimilate into the West and take welfare and don't want to work, which is, under the circumstances, actually a good thing because they don't want to integrate into being productive for the West, so at least they don't make those states stronger. I'm not idealizing them, but between a hard working Westerner who believes and worships the institutions, the procedures, the legislatures, the secular state etc. and a "lazy" migrant, I prefer the latter because it's more "normal". It's the Westerners that are fanatical because you have to be pretty ideologically brainwashed to be willingly working hard for this garbage of society, and that's what the "white" Westerners are, although even they are turning to be "lazy" asocial welfare NEETs in countries like Germany which is ALSO a good thing.

Understandable, but as far as I see it the difference is not in desire but in ability. Those immigrants who are intellectually capable end up in the top strata of liberal institutions and work diligently to preserve the open society's permissivity, especially when it provides opportunity to agitate for demographic advantages. Now, if you think this is ultimately going to be good in that it will lead to disorder and collapse as liberal institutions are plundered by those with competing grievance claims, I might agree, but what comes after that?

Already one can get presentiments of the future wherein interlopers fight each other for scraps of a decaying society, as in this US Congressional hearing a few days ago with Asian, Blacks, Arabs, etc. fighting among other using "White nationalism" as a proxy.



Now, if you're a "White" man in a multiethnic country maybe they expropriate directly from you and just keeping crying about systemic racism while they rob your corpse, or maybe things fall apart because they all hate each other too. Remains to be seen.

If you actually want to save "white" people in Eastern Europe, you should support their local nationalisms and local anti-EU resistance, rather than forcing the label of "white" on them which is something foreign and harmful and only assists the local SJWs. It also means flushing down the toilet the actual Hungarian/Polish/Serb/Ukrainian/Belarus local tradition in exchange for some really vague and artificial "white" identity that people never identified with.

Being anti-Western is literally the only sensible politics in Eastern Europe and that means rejecting the influence of other "white" countries as well. Declaring yourself as "white" in Eastern Europe means that you're under some sort of Western influence (either a self-hating "white guilt" cuck or some "muh Western civilization" right winger which wants to protect LGBT and feminism from the Oriental darkness).

This is your perspective as someone that still has the luxury of living around people like yourself though. I agree that it makes sense, but it doesn't for people that are already deracinated and "White".

 

[tehgymcel420]

@tehgymcel69420XD, for instance, refuses to go back to Egypt because "Egyptian girls are ugly and everyone is inbred and the all believe in the sky guy XD there's no updoots in Egypt."

There are lots of reasons I don't want to live in Egypt, it isn't necessarily because of how ugly everyone is.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

There are lots of reasons I don't want to live in Egypt, it isn't necessarily because of how ugly everyone is.

Like being born into a religious cult that threatens to kill you if you leave

that and the sky guy XD

Egypt BTFO, my good sir

By the way, I don't "want to" go to Thailand.

 

[tehgymcel420]

that and the sky guy XD

Egypt BTFO, my good sir

By the way, I don't "want to" go to Thailand.

Ya, I hate religious people.

 

[Deleted member 16455]

Ya, I hate religious people.

Yes fucking ethnic copers

 

[jerrycan dan]

Women are much harder to avoid.

 

[Teutonic Knight]

All of these people "just trying to get something for themselves" are unwaveringly loyal to the system because it is the guarantor of gibs and status.

They are only loyal to the system as long as it pays them. This is the biggest difference. As soon as the Euro-Atlantic system won't have the economic abilities to pay them off, they will abandon it like rats abandoning the sinking ship.

The difference between the people who migrated from non-West areas and the local white people is that white people growing up in the West have been disciplined and raised in a way that they respect their institutions, their state, their legislature, their constitutions etc. and worship those things without ever questioning them. So the problem is that in the case of system getting into trouble, these white people might still be willing to defend it.

What needs to change is first and foremost the mentality of the local white Westerner population, they need to start questioning their system that they take for granted, they need to start making demands, they need to start showing emotions and manly impulses etc. And I think this is already happening more and more with the yellow vests and "populists" rising (something that no one would imagine even 10 years ago). So the focus should be on what needs to change with white people, and not with the immigrants, because as long as local "white" European people keep being servants to the system, it will continue to work and push its ideology.

The best realistic scenario for Western Europe right now is a wide-scale "populist" sentiment against the degenerate elites. Once the Euro-Atlantic empire of filth collapses, things will fall into place very quickly.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

This.

White cucks are worse than both. Women and nonwhites are acting in their own self-interest. White cucks are ruining things for their peers without any rational reason to do so, just out of cuckoldry and virtue-signaling. They're odious and pathetic.

Without white cucks feminism and multiculturalism would have never been possible.

Ngl this is an incredibly superficial appraisal. "Virtue signaling" and "cuckoldry" are huge weasel words. Why are they virtue signaling? Just for the sake of doing it?

The link I posted outlining "bioleninism" is very relevant here. The author takes a very flexible approach to facts and seems rather like a reformed libertarian - his idea of "Leninism" is pretty convoluted, so bioleninism isn't exactly a good name - but the central thesis here is very incisive and ultimately true.

"White cucks" are absolutely part of the bioleninist coalition, they are just at the very foot of the hierarchy. What you are dealing with is in effect just a motley assortment of system loyalists who depend on the maintenance of the current one for the inordinately esteemed positions they enjoy. Foids, homos, trannies, ethnicopers. People whose loyalty is baked into their genetic constitution and who pledge fealty in exchange for status. Under any other conceivable regime of value, they could never hope to be the most prominent and overrepresented citizens in the public imagination or have at least been convinced of this.

Soft, screwy, or weak White men - cucks - represent a unique problem for the system in that their loyalty is the most precarious. They are near, but not at, the bottom of the status hierarchy under bioleninism because that of the other subjects is neurotically referenced against them and dependent upon their relatively lower position; similarly low under natural hierarchies for more obvious reasons. The mere material comforts afforded by the system and the false promise of vicarious ascendance through White guilt, colonial atonement, and finger wagging is offered by the system, contrasted with memories of being shoved into lockers, harassed, and humiliated by jocksuckers, as an improvement on a former or alternative condition. It is a mirage to keep them in line, but their motives for staying in line are the same as the rest. Ultimately, ethnicopers, foids, and cucks are the same types of people propping up the current state of things for the same reasons.

They are only loyal to the system as long as it pays them. This is the biggest difference. As soon as the Euro-Atlantic system won't have the economic abilities to pay them off, they will abandon it like rats abandoning the sinking ship.

The difference between the people who migrated from non-West areas and the local white people is that white people growing up in the West have been disciplined and raised in a way that they respect their institutions, their state, their legislature, their constitutions etc. and worship those things without ever questioning them. So the problem is that in the case of system getting into trouble, these white people might still be willing to defend it.

What needs to change is first and foremost the mentality of the local white Westerner population, they need to start questioning their system that they take for granted, they need to start making demands, they need to start showing emotions and manly impulses etc. And I think this is already happening more and more with the yellow vests and "populists" rising (something that no one would imagine even 10 years ago). So the focus should be on what needs to change with white people, and not with the immigrants, because as long as local "white" European people keep being servants to the system, it will continue to work and push its ideology.

The best realistic scenario for Western Europe right now is a wide-scale "populist" sentiment against the degenerate elites. Once the Euro-Atlantic empire of filth collapses, things will fall into place very quickly.

I can't agree. It reaches deeper than economic determinism.

Moreover, from the second generation and beyond, the descendants of immigrants are fully integrated into "Western" lifestyles and conceits. This is what I meant by chipping apart the "Western" and leaving the "degeneracy" intact, even embellished. I might have been confusing your particular argument in this thread though, because in your "nationalists" thread I remember you arguing that legalism and deference are somehow uniquely inherent to Europeans and their culture. If you just mean that the current form of Western states needs to collapse, that much I obviously agree with, but I very much disagree with the attempt to locate the kernel of modern decadence in the Faustian spirit. Decadence is not exclusive to Europe; all things die.

China is a good example of a non-European, geopolitically autonomous state very much independent of modern Atlanticist hegemony. They have their own tradition of legalism, with the teachings of Confucius being effectively a direct expression of this. Despite the state policing internet access and expression, the structure is starting to quake - it's covered in the bioleninism post too. Here's an article from not long ago about a few companies offering foids leave from work to go and chase Chad, despite the abysmal M:F ratio that makes every hole a coveted prize. Noxious, DSA-style feminism is burgeoning of late. Mao and the CCP were harbingers of gender egalitarianism (Communism is a "Western" ideology - actually part Jewish/Magian too - but you can't pretend that Maoism wasn't a uniquely Asian expression of it that bears little in common with Marx). Japan is even worse, but maybe you can chalk that up to the heavy hand of the US during post-WWII Reconstruction. Foid rights will be coming to Saudi Arabia before long.

Feminism, LGBTQWTF, even republican democracy with a universal franchise are the most artificial things in the world and are only possible in conditions of sufficient technological development. Only when you totally remove necessity, danger, and unpredictability from human life are such trivial people able to be lionized and enabled. Europe was the first to fall into hedonistic inertia, effectively a victim of its own success, and with the universalization of modern technology the rest will soon follow.

Certainly White men need to reclaim their dignity and independence, but if their servitude is uniquely bad, it's only because they're the few who should be capable of escaping it. Maybe being endlessly scolded and solicited by JBW shitniks will even help some snap out of their stupor.

 

[Mainländer]

Ngl this is an incredibly superficial appraisal. "Virtue signaling" and "cuckoldry" are huge weasel words. Why are they virtue signaling? Just for the sake of doing it?

The link I posted outlining "bioleninism" is very relevant here. The author takes a very flexible approach to facts and seems rather like a reformed libertarian - his idea of "Leninism" is pretty convoluted, so bioleninism isn't exactly a good name - but the central thesis here is very incisive and ultimately true.

"White cucks" are absolutely part of the bioleninist coalition, they are just at the very foot of the hierarchy. What you are dealing with is in effect just a motley assortment of system loyalists who depend on the maintenance of the current one for the inordinately esteemed positions they enjoy. Foids, homos, trannies, ethnicopers. People whose loyalty is baked into their genetic constitution and who pledge fealty in exchange for status. Under any other conceivable regime of value, they could never hope to be the most prominent and overrepresented citizens in the public imagination or have at least been convinced of this.

Soft, screwy, or weak White men - cucks - represent a unique problem for the system in that their loyalty is the most precarious. They are near, but not at, the bottom of the status hierarchy under bioleninism because that of the other subjects is neurotically referenced against them and dependent upon their relatively lower position; similarly low under natural hierarchies for more obvious reasons. The mere material comforts afforded by the system and the false promise of vicarious ascendance through White guilt, colonial atonement, and finger wagging is offered by the system, contrasted with memories of being shoved into lockers, harassed, and humiliated by jocksuckers, as an improvement on a former or alternative condition. It is a mirage to keep them in line, but their motives for staying in line are the same as the rest. Ultimately, ethnicopers, foids, and cucks are the same types of people propping up the current state of things for the same reasons.

Just finished reading that essay on Biolenilism, fascinating tbh. One of the most interesting things I've read as of late and the competition is not lightweight at all since I've been marathoning on @Leucosticte 's threads. I already had some notion of how the left purposefully caters to the weak, undesirable and inept, but I hadn't thought about the loyalty factor. Makes all the sense.

As for my previous post, I have the bad habit of using the word "cuck" in a excessively broad way. By "cuck" I was referring not only to the Inceltears type of weak male feminist, but to the white men responsible for empowering women and other groups antagonistic to them within their own countries in general. But now I see what you mean, the white elites purposefully do it nowadays, and as for the older generations responsible for things like that, like the Wisconsin miners, well, they were just doing the good ol' short term thinking and trying to get some pussy.

As for an observation about Biolenilism, here in Brazil the progressive left has even gotten to the point of praising body parts which are considered more dirty and low status, such as the asshole. They literally have a "o cu é lindo" (the asshole is beautiful) trope that appears quite often in their art. I don't know if it's an original version created here, probably not, but I've only seen it here so far.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Just finished reading that essay on Biolenilism, fascinating tbh. I already had some notion of how the left purposefully caters to the weak, undesirable and inept, but I hadn't thought about the loyalty factor. Makes all the sense.

As for my previous post, I have the bad habit of using the word "cuck" in a excessively broad way. By "cuck" I was referring not only to the Inceltears type of weak male feminist, but to the white men responsible for empowering women and other groups antagonistic to them within their own countries in general. But now I see what you mean, the white elites purposefully do it nowadays, and as for the older generations responsible for things like that, like the Wisconsin miners, well, they were just doing the good ol' short term thinking and trying to get some pussy.

Ah yeah, I should have noted that too. A lot of men who aren't particularly disadvantaged by the current order (average-looking, mid-status men that can wrangle whores every once and a while) are politically inert and don't much care which way things turn (in America, imperialist multiculti clownworld under Democratic "control" or imperialist multiculti clownworld with lower corporate taxes under Republican "control" are your "options"). A good-looking and high-status man is even a beneficiary and has no reason to oppose a system that allows a procession of holes to ruin themselves on him, abort the consequences, then remove themselves from the picture to go chase the next Chad, leaving him with no further obligations. They have to pay symbolic tribute to the new heroes of diversity, but what does that matter ultimately?

High-T, uncucked, ugly and outcasted men - and the share of "ugly" grows by the day, along with social atomization - is the group that feels the effect most strongly and whose position has slipped the most. If you were a fighting type before, you could join the military and valorize yourself that way, now you can join the military and get PTSD fighting a useless war no one in your home country really cares about; you can work construction, throw out your back when you're 30 and get addicted to fentanyl. If you're a thinker, you used to be able to do meaningful theoretical, systemic, and empirical work; now you can work on a PhD in political science until you're 40 just to be trained as an apologist for the system that hates and robs you, or you can write code for actually important work so an idling foid on your 20+ member team can be acclaimed for it. For creative types, unless you're a nog or a pretty boy, there's no room for men in music anymore.

The older generation trying to get some pussy is a great and important point too. I think E. Michael Jones or someone similar mentioned somewhere how magazines like Playboy used the promise of new values and emancipated female sexuality to sell sexual liberation (along with the broader goals) to American men. Monopolizing the prudish girl next door for your own sexual fulfillment; "girls gone wild" in nuce. It was probably pretty easy to be naïve back then; imagine some prurient young guy hyped up on the idea of free love being pushed into "counterculture" like the '68 student movement. You still see echoes of this today; people say things like "why would incels hate sluts?? Don't they want to have sex??"

 

[Mainländer]

Ah yeah, I should have noted that too. A lot of men who aren't particularly disadvantaged by the current order (average-looking, mid-status men that can wrangle whores every once and a while) are politically inert and don't much care which way things turn (in America, imperialist multiculti clownworld under Democratic "control" or imperialist multiculti clownworld with lower corporate taxes under Republican "control" are your "options"). A good-looking and high-status man is even a beneficiary and has no reason to oppose a system that allows a procession of holes to ruin themselves on him, abort the consequences, then remove themselves from the picture to go chase the next Chad, leaving him with no further obligations. They have to pay symbolic tribute to the new heroes of diversity, but what does that matter ultimately?

The current system benefits the elites and Chads, as well as the bottom of the barrel (who gets to be elevated to hero status by the progressive Biolenilist left), while pretty much everyone the middle gets fucked. Even women, as much as their plight isn't as bad as incels', they too are miserable if you see the statistics. Well, incels are arguably the group in the worst position in the current hierarchical system, since we're bottom of the barrel as well but are not recognized as much, on the contrary, we are treated as an evil elite of white rapey men.

Also JFL at your definition of Democrat and Republic, on point.

High-T, uncucked, ugly and outcasted men - and the share of "ugly" grows by the day, along with social atomization - is the group that feels the effect most strongly and whose position has slipped the most. If you were a fighting type before, you could join the military and valorize yourself that way, now you can join the military and get PTSD fighting a useless war no one in your home country really cares about; you can work construction, throw out your back when you're 30 and get addicted to fentanyl. If you're a thinker, you used to be able to do meaningful theoretical, systemic, and empirical work; now you can work on a PhD in political science until you're 40 just to be trained as an apologist for the system that hates and robs you, or you can write code for actually important work so an idling foid on your 20+ member team can be acclaimed for it. For creative types, unless you're a nog or a pretty boy, there's no room for men in music anymore.

B r u t a l

You still see echoes of this today; people say things like "why would incels hate sluts?? Don't they want to have sex??"

I see that type of comment quite often whenever I venture myself in lower quality spaces such as Inceltears or 55chan's /escoria/ incel-themed threads. It's basically a loud scream of "I don't know anything at all about that subject", in the best case scenario, or "I'm dumb as FUCK" in the worst.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

The current system benefits the elites and Chads, as well as the bottom of the barrel (who gets to be elevated to hero status by the progressive Biolenilist left), while pretty much everyone the middle gets fucked. Even women, as much as their plight isn't as bad as incels', they too are miserable if you see the statistics. Well, incels are arguably the group in the worst position in the current hierarchical system, since we're bottom of the barrel as well but are not recognized as much, on the contrary, we are treated as an evil elite of white rapey men.

Late response on my end, but truly this is the great vindication of sub-95th percentile men.

Some more points regarding the instrumentalization of the constitutionally dependent by the modern Left:

The Frankfurt School intellectuals and "Cultural Marxism" is a frequent and often abused talking point that comes up among a lot of reactionary types. However, it's worth noting that there are definitely valid reasons for this. That whole milieu certainly did emphasize the monopolization and reorientation of culture under the guidance of new ideology, further attempting to inculcate "revolutionary consciousness" through institutional hegemony, anticipated by Antonio Gramsci's heterodox Marxism that identified culture as setting the mold of political values. Rudimentary outlines of "bioleninism" as a political strategy were even drafted in Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man all the way back in 1964:

However, underneath the conservative popular base is the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other colors, the unemployed and the unemployable. They exist outside the democratic process; their life is the most immediate and the most real need for ending intolerable conditions and institutions. Thus their opposition is revolutionary even if their consciousness is not. Their opposition hits the system from without and is therefore not deflected by the system; it is an elementary force which violates the rules of the game and, in doing so, reveals it as a rigged game. When they get together and go out into the streets, without arms, without protection, in order to ask for the most primitive civil rights, they know that they face dogs, stones, and bombs, jail, concentration camps, even death. Their force is behind every political demonstration for the victims of law and order. The fact that they start refusing to play the game may be the fact which marks the beginning of the end of a period.

This is an idea so important and foundational in understanding the course modern political systems are taking (and what really lies behind "identity politics" beyond its use as a buzzword) that it merits its own thread really.

I also posted a link to Kaczynski's The System's Neatest Trick above, another nice short read, which explains how the system recruits proselytes, janissaries, and enthusiasts as ostensible "rebels", by coopting their frustrations and directing them toward its own ends. In effect, "progress" congenial to the system's needs is pushed through using socially marginal "radical" elements who act to condition the public to social change, exaggerating demands and chimping out so that when the system is able to legislate the desired objective its seen as a compromise. Moreover, activist groups and "rebels" act to shift the perceived locus of change from its true source in the system to the demands of the "oppressed and their allies" (as though these people were actually important).

Examples of this are endless. This will explain the endlessly escalating controversies over "gay/trans/hole rights" even after their stated objectives are reached. I'm not old enough to remember the full development of the debate, but "gay rights" are particularly illustrative in that demands elevated from "tolerate our behavior in the privacy of our homes" to "let us be who we are as members of society" to "give us marriage rights" to "normalize our behavior, make it as visible as possible, schoolteachers will file lawsuits over being fired after using Grindr to meet teenage boys" to..? And still you have people demanding more - and they'll get it because sodomitical, loyal consumers with an added dose of feminine vanity and impulsiveness are better than "plain" consumers.

Ethnicopers are in on exactly the same grift. You'll often notice them complain here that "liberal SJWs are STILL RACIST. THEY STILL DON'T GIBS AND THEY DON"T MEAN IT!" Implication being it would be a good thing if they did mean everything they said and followed through with it (they do too, ethnicopers can't face the fact that shitlib foids want Chadpreet and not incels - and they are incels, not 9/10 oppressed ethneesells). Their priorities lie here; their primary identity is not "incel" but "ethnic" despite all their taqiyya or the equivalent about "it's over incel brothers" or whatever. They are a fifth column and entirely untrustworthy. Note that this is not just any non-White (I like plenty of them here), but rather one who calls themselves an "ethnicel" and is the sort of pouty fuck-up to blame White males for all of his problems, which all too many do.

As for an observation about Biolenilism, here in Brazil the progressive left has even gotten to the point of praising body parts which are considered more dirty and low status, such as the asshole. They literally have a "o cu é lindo" (the asshole is beautiful) trope that appears quite often in their art. I don't know if it's an original version created here, probably not, but I've only seen it here so far.

I'd be interested to hear more about the situation in Brazil tbh. Racially at least, it seems a lot like the endpoint that the US is going to reach.

As far as the promotion of sodomy and ass fixation, that's a common thing I've noticed everywhere too. I always thought the "thicc girls/ass/anal sex is a psyop" was a joke at first, but I've increasingly been wondering about this and the extent to which sexual proclivities can be conditioned. I'm trying to starve desires I have of this nature, which, it's worth noting had been present before I'd ever watched porn. Tbh it strikes me as the ultimate degeneration of male-female relations to the point where they are reduced to a sexualized dialectic of humiliation. Pounding some fat hog in the wrong hole and leaving it in a mess of its own smeared makeup and effluvia, you both go on to new liaisons with a little more hatred and disgust seeded anew in your hearts and so on down the line. The goal here is clear if you consider the awful state of the sexual market as a desired outcome. Reasons may be reduced family formation and extra-state loyalties, dysfunction, distrust, anomie. More to think about.