Yeah, this is absolute bullshit.
Serious White Nationalism is a fake ideology. It is actually a cope
I
ok, can you rebute it
If you actually read my post, you would understand that that's the point I was trying to make, you low IQ kike retard. No wonder stormfrontcels are widely regarded as a stupid joke. Sure, many high ranking communist officials in Russia had Jewish ancestry, but I'm not so sure about Joseph Stalin. Then again he was more into purging everybody, not just Jews, Koreans, or Caucasus mountain peoples.
Ironically, it was the Democratic Party that started the Ku Klux Klan, the American Civil War, and tried to preserve slavery and Jim Crow laws. Only through a successful campaign to clean up their public image and bury the truth did this change in the 1950s/1960s. "Oh look civil rights is fashionable, better hop on to this movement" worked out pretty well back then. Now they're trying to repeat the same success with the SJW thing, but it isn't working. I suppose screeching like a retard at everything and being desperate to get offended or act like you are isn't quite the support builder that gay marriage and black civil rights were.
No need to, IQ testing only started around 100 years ago and there is no reason to believe IQs looked much different 400 years ago than they do today. The burden of proof is on you
I
flynn effect
Even with all the people paddock killed he didn't put a dent in the violent crime statistics which blacks are overwhelmingly over represented in
And for a good reason too. Christianity didn't originate in europe and had to be forced onto the european people at the point of a sword. Its a slave religion and promotes a slave mentality.
Last edited:
T
So are you gonna deflect more or take responsibility for what he did?
Sure, as soon as you take responsibility for blacks committing the majority of all violent crime while being a small minority. My point was that paddock was an exception to the rule, an anomaly
Last edited:
T
Why are Whites the only people you think can't have nationalism?
This. All the immigrants here speak Dutch, some weaker than others but their offspring are able to speak it fluently. I even knew a teenager spoke Dutch fluently, turns out he immigrated 2 years before I met him, something I thought was impossible. I thought he was born and raised here, but he wasn't. I hope he's doing fine.
I've known this obvious fact forever. They pledge fealty to a fluid, arbitrarily defined and ever-changing socioeconomic group that not only does not even actually exist scientifically speaking, but that also by and large hates their fucking guts. They're fucking losers of the highest order.
LOL this is why nobody takes you far-right brainlets seriously. Most of the features we now associate with "whiteness" didn't even exist mere "tens of thousands" of years ago. Moreover we all originally came from Africa and later adapted. Fact.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...k-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals
LOL this is why nobody takes you far-right brainlets seriously. Most of the features we now associate with "whiteness" didn't even exist mere "tens of thousands" of years ago. Moreover we all originally came from Africa and later adapted. Fact.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...k-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals
Last edited:
Except now they have acid attacks, done by white people, you clueless idiot. Acid attacks are one of the most barbaric things an individual can do. Just lol at calling brown people barbaric when native British people do fucked up shit like that.
D
Literally never heard of a white person doing an acid attack.
You totally discredited anything you said or will say with this utterly ridiculous statement.
If anyone is atomized and individualistic it's whites. White people have next to no actual ethnic pride or tribalism outside of a handful of people who identify as white nationalists. If we did there would be mass rioting and lynching every time a Muslim child rape ring was exposed. If we were 1/1000000000000 as tribalistic as non whites every immigrant washing up on the shores of our countries would be shot and thrown back in the ocean.
Last edited:
Stop watching FOX News you fucking moron.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/
Want to know the "rape capital of the west?" It's the United States, genius! And no, not because of "the immigrants." Stop being a scared pussy. This is probably a big part of why you can't get laid.
Eh, I mean in The U.S. Indians are replacing East Asians as the most educated and affluent minority groups. Don't tell me we don't benefit from them.
And read up on The Flynn Effect because no discussion of "muh IQ" is complete without it. Working class whites are a standard deviation below college educated middle class whites but nobody is blaming them.
Are you living under a rock? Look up "John Tomlin UK" since you were sperging about immigrants and this one was directed at immigrants; it's usually used on gang-on-gang crime, nearly every perpetrator has been white. White people are absolute barbaric savages.
These low IQcels will believe anything written by breitcuck.
W
"White nationalism" is just pushing for whites to act similar to how ethnics do in their own nations. That is not to cuck like they do now and bend over for minorities.
Because we're too smart to embrace retarded ideologies like nationalism.
Hitler would have hated the guts of most modern WNs. He would have found them largely stupid and degenerate, like William Pierce did.
As to the Nazi regime, by and large, it was more into eugenics and imperialism than "nationalism". This can be seen in Himmler, whose SS was meant to become the new order of knighthood in Europe.
Last edited:
He wouldn't care about you. He would care about his black brothas.
Prisons are probably an excellent place to distill racial dynamics study material.
Lol no. Not if I pay him.
Maybe in the alternative reality you fedoras exist in. Real history shows that Europeans converted themselves, on their own free will, starting with the Romans. Some converted even though they were the ones putting others through the sword, like the Normans, who converted after invading the Franks.
Reminds of me this article by David Bentley Hart:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/believe-it-or-not
Euphoriacels know next to nothing about either history or religion, and they understand their own atheism even less.
The truth of the matter is that there is no European civilization without Christianity. This is where the Nazis went wrong.
Last edited:
Very high iq post.
So basically you want first world countries to be similar to niggers? Go to the third world if you want 'Nationalism'. Or better yet, Israel.
Completely true.
With a few exceptions, of course. The Saxons were indeed forcibly converted by Charlemagne, as were later, at least in part, the Baltic peoples by the German Order.
But for instance, none of the Nordic peoples were, something which many often believe. The Vikings took to Christianity by their own free will, quickly and wholeheartedly.
European countries were by default nationalistic until very recently. Then the 60's came along and gradually European nations were increasingly forbidden to display nationalist sentiment or base their social contract on a nation state rationale. Hell, it might offend those "poor" immigrants, you know...
Last edited:
Saxons were asking for it. Charlemagne had more patience with them than any other monarch from that time would have given them. Charlemagne needed that side of the border secured in order to conduct his campaigns abroad in peace, so he stipulated a treaty with the Saxons which they broke over the over. They came in across the border to sack villages and churches. Charlemagne had to come in person, which probably pissed him off already quite a bit, knocked them silly, destroyed their shrine Irminsul as retribution for the churches the Saxons had ravaged, and forced them to sign another treaty, which the Saxons broke again as soon as he left. He had to come a second time in 775, defeated them again, and made them swore oaths of loyalty to the Frankish Empire. Charlemagne even took hostages to make sure the Saxons would maintain their promises, which of course they didn't do. They waited for Charlemagne to start a campaign against the Lombards to break their oath of fealty and start sacking villages again. Charlemagne was forced to go back in the middle of a military campain, and i can only imagine the state of mind he was in, beat the shit out of the Saxons again, and made them convert to Christianity and forced them to accept his authority as king, and the Saxons pledged their nation to Charlemagne as proof of their subjugation to him.
He forced them to convert to make their attacks stop, which is a bit different to what we are told by atheists, wouldn't you say? After that, Charlemagne established a stronghold in Saxony known as Karlsburg, which was supposed to keep the Saxons in check. Thinking he had solved the problem, Charlemagne went on a campaign against the Moors in Spain. The Saxons of course used that opportunity to rebel again. They destroyed Karlsburg, they sacked a bunch of churches again and plundered their way following Rhine all the way up to Koblenz. Charlemagne had to go back again in the middle of a war with the Moors, defeat the Saxons again, made them swore another oath of loyalty and even appointed Saxon nobles as counts in 782. At that time the Slavs begun attacking the Saxons, and Charlemagne sent a mixed Frankish-Saxon force to deal with them, a gesture which to me demonstrates a fantastic degree of magnanimity. I can't image how level headed a person Charlemagne must have been to still trying to win the Saxons over to his side.
Needless to say, that didn't do anything. The Saxons rebelled again, this time destroying the very forces Charlemagne had left there to protect the Saxons. But see, this time the rebellion was actually an act of treason, because the Saxons at that point were legal members of the Frankish empire, and the penalty for treason was death. According to the Carolingian royal annals, the number of Saxons executed after Charlemagne defeat them again was almost five thousand, a number which may have been exaggerated for all we know, as was normal in that day. Charlemagne issued the Capitulatio de partibus Saxonie, which prescribed the death penalty to anyone refusing baptism (Charlemagne still believed converting to Christianity would have pacified the Saxons), or who destroyed churches or anyone who committed any act of treason again, or plotted against Christians. Widukind himself, the leader of the Saxons, had become a Christian as well, fully accepting baptism as well as the authority of Charlemagne.
Now guess what happened next. The Saxons rebelled again, and this time Widukind went seeking an alliance with the Danes which would have threatened the entire Frankish empire if successful. We don't even know how much support Widukind had gathered in the north, but if he had been successful the Saxons would have become a serious threat to the empire. This forced Charlemagne, who at this point was probably exasperated beyond belief, to return once again, and this time he essentially annihilated the entire Saxon nation, by braking the Saxons apart and relocating them through out the empire, after which he rebuild Saxony as a Frankish province, securing that side of the empire for good, so much so that when when the north did invade the Frankish empire, once Charlemagne was already dead of course, they had to avoid this side of the border since Charlemagne had made it virtually impregnable.
And that's the history of what actually happened, and not what atheists and anti-Christian historians would have you believe happened.
He forced them to convert to make their attacks stop, which is a bit different to what we are told by atheists, wouldn't you say? After that, Charlemagne established a stronghold in Saxony known as Karlsburg, which was supposed to keep the Saxons in check. Thinking he had solved the problem, Charlemagne went on a campaign against the Moors in Spain. The Saxons of course used that opportunity to rebel again. They destroyed Karlsburg, they sacked a bunch of churches again and plundered their way following Rhine all the way up to Koblenz. Charlemagne had to go back again in the middle of a war with the Moors, defeat the Saxons again, made them swore another oath of loyalty and even appointed Saxon nobles as counts in 782. At that time the Slavs begun attacking the Saxons, and Charlemagne sent a mixed Frankish-Saxon force to deal with them, a gesture which to me demonstrates a fantastic degree of magnanimity. I can't image how level headed a person Charlemagne must have been to still trying to win the Saxons over to his side.
Needless to say, that didn't do anything. The Saxons rebelled again, this time destroying the very forces Charlemagne had left there to protect the Saxons. But see, this time the rebellion was actually an act of treason, because the Saxons at that point were legal members of the Frankish empire, and the penalty for treason was death. According to the Carolingian royal annals, the number of Saxons executed after Charlemagne defeat them again was almost five thousand, a number which may have been exaggerated for all we know, as was normal in that day. Charlemagne issued the Capitulatio de partibus Saxonie, which prescribed the death penalty to anyone refusing baptism (Charlemagne still believed converting to Christianity would have pacified the Saxons), or who destroyed churches or anyone who committed any act of treason again, or plotted against Christians. Widukind himself, the leader of the Saxons, had become a Christian as well, fully accepting baptism as well as the authority of Charlemagne.
Now guess what happened next. The Saxons rebelled again, and this time Widukind went seeking an alliance with the Danes which would have threatened the entire Frankish empire if successful. We don't even know how much support Widukind had gathered in the north, but if he had been successful the Saxons would have become a serious threat to the empire. This forced Charlemagne, who at this point was probably exasperated beyond belief, to return once again, and this time he essentially annihilated the entire Saxon nation, by braking the Saxons apart and relocating them through out the empire, after which he rebuild Saxony as a Frankish province, securing that side of the empire for good, so much so that when when the north did invade the Frankish empire, once Charlemagne was already dead of course, they had to avoid this side of the border since Charlemagne had made it virtually impregnable.
And that's the history of what actually happened, and not what atheists and anti-Christian historians would have you believe happened.
Last edited:
Very detailed and informative reply. Those pain in the ass Saxons! Applause!
T
Would less than 20% of blacks committing violent crimes be an annomoly? It seems like their are more factors at play than just "Bleh the blacks are genetically more disposed to violence". Anyway, I'm not here for a race debate.
N
The entire Alt Right movement which at the end of the day is just an internet based loser club. The movement is full of bitter white men, some due to being ugly and not getting girls, others for not having the kind of jobs or educations they desire. Others living in poverty, but what makes them unite is their love for finding scapegoats instead of blaming themself. And their issues will never be solved due to scapegoating instead of self-reflecting.
This is definitely debatable. The priestly classes held back scientific advancements like the discovery that earth is not the center of the universe because they wanted to keep the stranglehold on people's mind.
Regardless, Christianity is a slave religion that pushes a slave mentality. Originally it was popular among the roman slaves and you know it makes sense that this religion would be popular among slaves. If you are being promised eternal glory in the afterlife (which is not assured) then you aren't so worried about your circumstances on this earth (the only life that is assured)
So you admit white men in the west are becoming disenfranchised through immigration lowering wages, but you also think they should keep their mouths shut about this problem? I could reflect on myself all day, it won't change our demographic situation and there are no representatives in our government who give a shit about the problem since the republicans want cheap labor and democrats want to dilute the white population because they hate whites.
Blacks display similar levels of predisposition towards violent crime in every country they exist in. You can't run from this problem. Also this is a white nationalism thread so just fucking LOL at you not being here for a debate about race
Last edited:
T
Exactly.
You think the success of the west is based off of diversity? If we were a homogeneous nation that would be the only similarity we would have with countries like Nigeria, whites abandoned living in squalor thousands of years ago.
E
Of course, the majority of stormfags are subhuman copelords.
Apparently according to stormfags the USA is now some "white homeland" despite europeans literally wiping out almost the entire native population to settle there lmao.
Apparently according to stormfags the USA is now some "white homeland" despite europeans literally wiping out almost the entire native population to settle there lmao.
This is not an argument.
This is nothing new, the founding fathers intended this to be a white country, not a multiethnic shithole like it has become. Read their diaries
The native population were violent savages stuck in the bronze age. They were conquered by a superior people with superior technology.
E
So did they allow so many slaves and coloured people in the country then? Those idiot founding fathers were really short sighted.
Also if the white man can take over foreign lands and claim it as his own, then by your logic so can ethnic folks.
Slaves didn't have rights, they were considered property that is why they were allowed in. That problem was brought to a head 80 years after the founding of the country during the civil war where even lincoln wanted to send the blacks back to africa but was killed before doing so
Conquest is different than government enforced demographic displacement, though if ethnics want to try to take our land by force that would be hilarious
E
Source regarding Lincoln wanting to send slaves back? I know Liberia was founded by former slaves but I'm not sure if that's what you're referring too.
"Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship freed black slaves away from the US to British colonies in the Caribbean even in the final months of his life, it has emerged."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-wanted-to-deport-slaves-to-new-colonies.html
Liberia is actually an ethnostate. We should send all the alt-righters there.
So far all the white man is doing is being cucked by Jews threat they made up in their heads and getting beaten up by everybody and being doxxed.
Pic related is the white man's modern day struggle.
Pic related is the white man's modern day struggle.
Its a black ethnostate, and the perfect example that the constitution is not what makes america great because they have essentially the same exact constitution and a complete shithole because it is full of blacks
Jewish supremacy is real, there is nothing made up about it
well thats because a poorly-done rip-off of a product won't be as good as the original, but just because cheap chinese crap is horrible does not mean the original is also shit. The original is good.
Liberia failed as a state because it was full of blacks just like every other black country in Africa. The infrastructure of the system of government is irrelevant, thats my point
D
Gang on gang? How many white gangs are there? Lol. All the times I've heard of acid attacks they have been perpetrated by ethnic garbage. Mainly Muslims.
Barbaric savages? Ok, why don't you crawl back under the turd world rock you came from if we're such savages? You shouldn't subject yourself to white savagery. Go back to your own country and be with your people since they're so civilized.
Look at this mad cumskin. Stay mad, the Brits are degenerate savages. Sick cumskin bastards always defend each other. Just lol at twisting the facts around. It's cumskin gangs who do it, not ethnics.
Slavery and the foundation of America have nothing to do with one another. The slaves were sent to America to produce goods that were meant to be sent back to Europe. Nobody expected a country to rise out of that, and when it did it led to war because the British didn't want to recognize it's independence. The founders actually bemoaned slavery and to blame them for it is simply not historically correct. They didn't create they system, they merely inherited it.
D
No proof whatsoever for your assertion and a whole bunch of name calling. Turd world subhuman IQ (or lack thereof) on full display.
Typical ignorant cumskin who's in denial of his barbaric nature. Just lol.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
