/lit/ - Literature

>>14785000
Depends on the moral system.

It's a sign of being an npc

>>14785044
Racism is the most heterodox view you can possibly have as a westerner in 2020. The amount of linguistic gymnastics that whites have to go through to justify having things or spaces for themselves is astounding.

>>14785049
>Racism is the most heterodox view you can possibly have as a westerner in 2020
/pol/ people really believe this. Didn't you retards get the memo that ever since '68, being "counterculture" is part and parcel of the status quo? There is no SJW without the /pol/ack, there is no "political correctness" without the rabid fascism lurking underneath. You're just as much a part of the system as your foil.

>>14785049

It's not 2010 anymore, racism is unironically just bullying at this point. "SJW's" are a stale boogeyman, white people don't need a safe space.

>>14785056
>>14785059
Multiracialism and open support of promiscuity and homosexuality is the standard position of contemporary capital. Just look at Trump, every move to restrict immigration has to be placed under the guise of protecting American jobs, reducing crime, or some other excuse not to name the irreversible demographic changes that mass immigration will cause. Most major cities in the US and Europe are only half white.

>>14785073
What part did you not understand about you and the "standard position" being complicit foils? Your very thoughts exist only because things like that picture also do.

>>14785081
Because that's just hollow horseshoeism. If being entirely opposed to everything pushed by the state and capital also makes you part of the "system" you're just saying words at this point. It's great and all to have 4D political opinions that transcend such things as economics and demographics but were talking about the real world here.

>>14785073

The United States isn't a white ethnostate, and never ever was one. Since it's inception blacks, Chinese, Hispanics have been a part of the country, not to mention Native American's

>>14785081
And no, SJWs would exist with or without /pol/ or any "fascist" boogieman of the month. They exist to browbeat whites into accepting the complete and utter destruction of racial homogeneity in their nations, which is the default opinion of whites. If it weren't for a constant barrage by corporations to open the floodgates the West would still be 90% white. Westerners do not want to live with brown foreigners, but they also dont want to lose their jobs and reputations at the hands of diversity zealots.

>>14785107

>racial homogeneity

Never a thing in America

>>14785102
Citizenship and the ability to immigrate was only given to white men of good character, and later on freed negroes. The first acts of Congress were to cement America's status as a white nation in its foreign policy. It wasn't until the 1960s that the source of foreign immigrants shifted away from Europe. The Chinese came in relatively small numbers, and where excluded during many periods. Up until the 1930s Hispanics were barred from immigrating, and during the great depression millions (with citizenship) were deported to protect white labor.

It wasn't until the mythologizing of the integrationist movement that America was anything but a white nation.

>>14785111
America was 90% white for the vast majority of its history.

>>14785124
>America
>white

>>14785122

>anglo's take over north america from natives
>introduce negro slavery
>import chinese to build railways
>complain hundreds of years later that "their" country isn't anglo anymore

>>14785124

If you consider Irish white, which they weren't back in the good ole days

>>14785139
The negroes and Chinese arent the problem. Blacks had no choice in coming here, and have been a demographically static. Importing both was, however, even back then the desire of greedy aristocrats and was opposed by common men of the day. The largest reason that abolition gained the traction that it did was because Americans wanted to be settled by white Americans, not Col. Sanders and his village of BDSM negroes

Despite this the demography was basically fine until 1965, when the doors were blown open to Latin America and every other toilet country on the globe. The civil rights act was even passed with stipulations that it wouldn't alter the racial demographics of the nation, which was an utter lie.

>>14785025
fpbp

>>14785000
Everyone is racist/xenophobic, they just grow up and learn to go about their own business instead of making it an excuse for their own failure

>>14785154
cope

>>14785049
A lot of NPCs adopt heterodox views. Just look at /pol/. It's essentially an NPC board and all they have are heterodox views. Racists are NPCs - face it.

>>14785000

I think of calling someone a racist as an ad hominem. “I can call you a name so you’re wrong!”

It’s not morally wrong but you shouldn’t engage in their system where certain things are racist. Don’t play their game.

>>14785107
> Westerners do not want to live with brown foreigners
>Source: My ass
This is a fucking tired talking point that isn't borne out in any data. Most white people don't give a single solitary fuck about the homogeneity of the U.S.
> About two-thirds of Americans say that demographic predictions of a majority of the U.S. population being made up of African Americans, Latinos and people of Asian descent over the next several decades will be neither good nor bad for the nation. About two-in-ten (21%) say that this will be a good thing, while 13% say that it will be a bad thing.
https://www.people-press.org/2019/12/17/views-on-race-and-immigration/
>inb4 bs infographic about controlling the data narrative
Unironically go back to /pol/ with this idea that every white person is secretly hating people that move in.

>>14785122

Not only that but court cases were held to determine who was white and who would be allowed to stay if their whiteness was in question. There were cases with the Indians, Syrians, Japanese, and Finnish.

>>14785000
>Is being racist/xenophobic morally wrong?
Being racist means to love your own race over all others. It's totally natural and has nothing to do with the negative connotation that it was given by the crooked western left and the jews (which are literally the same).
Racial tensions only occur, when two races are pushed to live together, that are naturally divided by borders, or even worse continents. Worse meaning in the context of being even more divided because of longer geographical distance.
Neigboring countries/nations/societies are more familiar/similar to each other, which causes less tensions since mostly only slight differences in their way of living and their familiar languages divide them (if not migration happening on a too large scale).
Why should i have to be pissed on niggers and shitskins when they are not messing with my country/nation/society? I start getting angry at them, when they start transforming MY country/nation//society to something that resembles their country/nation/society of origin.
Especially this becomes problematic, when these two countries/nations/societies are totally differnt.
Hence the "xenophobic" part mentioned, combined with "racism" is utter bullshit. And every book viewing/describing racism as a xenobobic trait/property or view MUST be bullshit and not worth reading.
Racism creates stability within your own country/nation/society, since all are familiar with the social codex, mimics and other traits of their race that are established within their country/nation/society.

>>14785102
Who cares about the US? And why should the US be considered as the moral standard how a society in other parts of this planet has to look like?
Racism in the context of "good or bad" can't be discussed on a sample of an artificial formed country/nation/society that basically came to existence through mass migration itself.
Such countries/nations/societies via their internal racial tensions, can only confirm that racial preferrences, that make you favor your own race over others are evident. Despite muhh "proud nation and flag" (civic nationalism/artificial nationalism)
That's why natural grown countries/nations/societies and their borders are a neccessity. To avoid inner tensions based on race, religion and their respective interests and ways of living.

Globalists like to overcome this naturally preferred way of living, which in itself causes tensions and is the source of instability (divide and rule).
You can see such tensions and divisions in all multi ethnic countries/nations/societies and all those mentioned, where multicultural agendas are pushed in. And they very often are the cause for genocides and civil war.
The US is running towards such a civil war scenario, based on racial tensions, as well as the western european countries/nations/societies are for the very same reason.
I personally can't find this a preferred condition. Wether it is prior or post civil war.
Racism is natural and NOT a political agenda.

>>14785154
>The largest reason that abolition gained the traction that it did was because Americans wanted to be settled by white Americans, not Col. Sanders and his village of BDSM negroes
You have to be baiting. This argument goes against the literal massive American and global sentiment on slavery at the time. We don't even have to look that far to find massive influencers of American systems to find out that they abhor slavery. Post legit any person who wants to abolish slavery because they wanted whites to settle America.

>>14785107
>And no, SJWs would exist with or without /pol/ or any "fascist" boogieman of the month.
No, they wouldn't. These people got indoctrinated and were stupid enough to buy into liberal values.
That would have never happened, if they lived in a racial homogenic society, where certain internationalist and rootless people weren't allowed to push their agenda or live there at all.
Liberal values are created for one single purpose: "division" to create struggle.

Someone who really loves his race, won't destroy it from the inside.
Allthough i belive that even in a racial homogenic country/nation/society such idiots potentially recipient to those stupid liberal ideologies exist. But they would (for obvious reasons of too low IQ) not be able to climb the ranks of their society to positions, that makes them able to push for multiculturalism (like the rootless internationalists do).

>>14785154
>The negroes and Chinese arent the problem.
Especially with negroes, i see them causing problems everywhere.
And when it comes to asians, i see them causing problems as well. Since they create "china towns" all over the US, where drug dealing, prostitution and block building is a thing (racial preferrence).
I don't blame each of these groups for flocking to their own.
Especially the negroes are proven unable to live among whites.
We all know their "nigger behavior" that constantly creates violent clashes and confrontations, that only are a thing because negroes don't have themselfes under control.

>>14785342
>Being this retarded
> Neigboring countries/nations/societies are more familiar/similar to each other, which causes less tensions since mostly only slight differences in their way of living and their familiar languages divide them
This post is completely ignorant of the sheer history of conflicts between countries that have closer proximity to each other (Britain v France, Korea v Japan, any number of tribal conflicts between areas in Africa, Central and North America)
This is especially retarded because its using modern ideas of race as a backdrop for the argument you claim races fight when put together but use modern racial concepts (i.e. whites v non-whites) This argument would only work if there wasn't literal mountains of historical evidence that says people who would today be considered the same race are extremely different
>Hutu and Tutsi tensions stirred by belgians and germans in rwanda based upon psuedo-scientific evidence about racial charecteristics
>Irish discrimination by the English regarding their ability to be considered white often being compared to blacks
>Koreans and their conflicts with Japanese due to more shitfligning nonsense about the "superior asians"
These peoples and countries are extremely close to each other and fought all the fucking time so to argue that they would fight less in the status quo is beyond ignorant and you even shoot yourself on the foot in this issue.
> Why should i have to be pissed on niggers and shitskins when they are not messing with my country/nation/society
Your generalization of these groups shows that you don't give a single solitary fuck about the nuance required to form a coherent argument about them but you do this at the same time you have no problem screeching about this weird genocide narrative that is somehow inevitable if you put them together which has no factual basis when looking at most modern multicultured countries don't tend to genocide other "races" as you describe it and the ones that do attack people groups within their immediate proximity something that you claim should be extremely unlikely.
People fight with each other all the time but it is fucking retardedly reductionist to look at any national tension that has people of multiple races in it and just say "its cause one is black and the other is white lmao"
> The US is running towards such a civil war scenario, based on racial tensions, as well as the western european countries/nations/societies are for the very same reason.
This is also a massively autistic point. The belief that the U.S. is entering into a civil war based upon something like race is a fucking sub 80 iq take because even looking to the causes of the first civil war it was due to issues of economic future of the south and the legal/moral stances of states in their regard to own slaves and how that coincides with the federal governments ideas. It also had a massive buildup tha likes of which we haven't even begun to see signs of. Cont.

>>14785342
>>14785411
Andrew Jackson literally prevented seccession during the nullification crisis by threatening to hang the first person by the first tree he saw. Its a one off example sure but the overarching point is that shit has to get so insanely bad to even consider a civil war that the chances that you are correct are infinitesimally low. Especially when you fucking boogyman race as the MAJOR CAUSE of the split you literal troglodyte. This mindset is only available to people who read Breitbart and random youtuber bullshit all day. This isn't even talking about the other utter horseshit in your post like how you fucking out the gate show everyone that you don't care about this conversation but want to shit on people
> the negative connotation that it was given by the crooked western left and the jews (which are literally the same)
Have you ever stopped to consider for the briefest of moments that individuals who aren't Jewish or aren't from "the west" find racism bad because they do hence why people care about it in other parts of the world.
Your use of "globalism" as a boogyman to disrupt your fucking headcannon about german women dancing in grain-fields only shows the motivated reasoning in your post and you probably need to get your head checked or at least get a vasectomy because this is some top tier retardation.

>>14785000
meaningless words.

>>14785102
I don't care about the rootless Americans I'm European.

>>14785142
Anti white canard

>>14785107
You're really, really fucking stupid.

>>14785411
Part 1
>I'm retarded but try to rival your oipinion anyway.
Feel free to do so.

>This post is completely ignorant of the sheer history of conflicts between countries that have closer proximity to each other (Britain v France, Korea v Japan, ...
Did i write something about conflicts between nations?
I did write on racism based on racial homogenity WITHIN a country/nation/society.
These conflicts were based on culture, political and geostrategical grounds. One country fighting the other for domination over the region or continent.
This doesn't disprove, but rather prove my point of view.
How well do you think, brits and frenchies would have lived together if pushed doing so, if they could not even stand living next to each other?
You try to mix political, geostrategical and economical reasons with racial tensions involved between countries with why racial homogenity WITHIN a country/nation/society doesn't work or at least is ignorant to historical facts. This is beyond all logic.
Through history and time, there are no countries/nations/societies that haven't fought over mentioned issues.
But as said, this fact doesn't prove me wrong.

A racially homogenic society is less likely to destroy itself from within, because factors like race division, cultural division and differences in the way of life are out of the equation.
There are only political division and maybe (if politics is bad) economic and social division (poor vs rich) left. Which logically means less potential reasons left that could cause a division within a country/nation/society.

>Hutu and Tutsi tensions stirred by belgians and germans in rwanda based upon psuedo-scientific evidence about racial charecteristics
>Irish discrimination by the English regarding their ability to be considered white often being compared to blacks
>Koreans and their conflicts with Japanese due to more shitfligning nonsense about the "superior asians"
How do these points made disprove that racial homogenic countries/nations/societies work?
If they can't even live next to each other, why should they llive among each other? This defies logic.
Wars based on racial differences are rather wars held for other gains, abusing racial differences to justify the takeover of a neigboring country/nation/society.
Like: "We should take over their country because they are inferior to us." But in the end, it's all about winning land, stealing their raw materials and wealth or simply for geostrategical and power benefits.

>These peoples and countries are extremely close to each other and fought all the fucking time so to argue that they would fight less in the status quo is beyond ignorant and you even shoot yourself on the foot in this issue.
I never said a single word about bilateral conflicts or did i? But don't push opinions or project views into my comments i never said, mentioned or stand for.
What type of discussion are you trying to come up with? The rootless internationalists strawman way?

>>14785411
Part 2:
>Your generalization of these groups shows that you don't give a single solitary fuck about the nuance required to form a coherent argument about them ...
Why should i go for individualism and divide the problem into endless small pieces, when we talk about country/nation/society that requires to see the overall perspective on the situation? This ALSO does not make sense at all.

>... but you do this at the same time you have no problem screeching about this weird genocide narrative that is somehow inevitable if you put them together which has no factual basis when looking at most modern multicultured countries don't tend to genocide other "races" as you describe it ...
Seriously, you say i'm ignorant and a retard, while you retardedly ignore that both the US and western Europe are near a societal collapse just because of these reasons related to mass migration and hence racial diversity WITHIN the respective countries? Once again, you try to defy logic here.

>People fight with each other all the time but it is fucking retardedly reductionist to look at any national tension that has people of multiple races in it and just say "its cause one is black and the other is white lmao"
You clearly have issues with your ability to understand the stuff you read.
I did say that a several potential causes for unrest or violent conflicts within a country/nation/society are out of the equation when a society is racially homogenic.
I did NOT say that no conflicts will occur. Cite me instead of projecting bullshit.

>The belief that the U.S. is entering into a civil war based upon something like race is a fucking sub 80 iq take ...
I guess you willingly don't see the racial tensions and issues that are fought over in the US?
What do you think is the first and major reason the crooked media in the US complains about Trump and his politics?
I'm usre they never accused him for racism right? And how come this is a topic? I'm sure that a theoretically 100% white USA would not complain about a walled Border between Mexico and the US being racist.
It's because the division that was created with immigration, where different races have different opinions based on their race.

>... because even looking to the causes of the first civil war it was due to issues of economic future of the south and the legal/moral stances of states in their regard to own slaves and how that coincides with the federal governments ideas.
So this historical fact (allthough wrong in details) is the reason why the US will never ever have a civil war based on racial conflicts? Are you an oracle?
I see the tensions rising and that especially racial minorities are screeching about "muhh rights and quotas" in every aspect of life and society.
And ask yourself, who exactly si pushing for this bullshit. And who furthermore creates division among whites with LGBTQ and other bullshit.
This is all artificial made to divide and rule.
If you don't see this, you are part of the problem.

>>14785442
>Have you ever stopped to consider for the briefest of moments that individuals who aren't Jewish or aren't from "the west" find racism bad because they do hence why people care about it in other parts of the world.
I did and i agree. But once again, who is politically pushing this upon us in the west? It's majorily jews and their helpers and of course the migrated minorities that already are within the western countries.
Prove me wrong.

>Your use of "globalism" as a boogyman to disrupt your fucking headcannon about german women dancing in grain-fields only shows the motivated reasoning in your post
A lot of jewish styled projection in your comment.
Good luck then with trade deficits, and losing your job, because chinks are cheaper.

>boogyman
>fucking headcannon
>german women dancing in grain-fields
>get your head checked
>get a vasectomy
>top tier retardation
Wow, this is what it looks like, when someone has no valuable points to make.
But i am not stunned the slightest, since this is the normal with screeching liberal lunatics.

>>14785649
>Did i write something about conflicts between nations?
"Neigboring countries/nations/societies are more familiar/similar to each other, which causes less tensions since mostly only slight differences in their way of living and their familiar languages divide them" You quite literaly name countries and nations in the post don't try to walk it back and you do it on more than one occasion "Especially this becomes problematic, when these two countries/nations/societies are totally differnt" Please stop lying when we can quite literally see what you just said
>I did write on racism based on racial homogenity WITHIN a country/nation/society.
These conflicts were based on culture, political and geostrategical grounds. One country fighting the other for domination over the region or continent
You are expanding on a point you never made you don't mention politics or geostrategy at any length in your original post don't claim you said something that you never did. You brought everything down to race then when you get called out you act as if your argument had some form of nuance to other matters it never brought up.
> How do these points made disprove that racial homogenic countries/nations/societies work? If they can't even live next to each other, why should they llive among each other? This defies logic.
You're heavily misintepreting the point and somehow still doing it poorly I mentioned that the Hutu v Tutsi problem was something created at most and overwhelmingly excacerbated at least. Secondly, the entire point of bringing those groups up is that one group lives within close enough proximity to another that by your stated logic the conflict would never happen Hutus and Tutsi lived together for an extremely long period of time the same goes for Irish individuals and English ones this means that their conflicts with one another would lie outside of race but your entire point reduces it to race in your original post.
> But in the end, it's all about winning land, stealing their raw materials and wealth or simply for geostrategical and power benefits
This actually is entirely contradictory to your earlier post. You state firstly that races living together is a major proponent of conflict that leads to "genocide and civil war" but you claim in your very next post that race is ultimately irrelevant, "but in the end it's all about winning land"
> Why should i go for individualism and divide the problem into endless small pieces, when we talk about country/nation/society that requires to see the overall perspective on the situation? This ALSO does not make sense at all.
This is a massive false dichotomy. There is 0 reason why you can't look at larger conflicts on a deeper individual level and saying that there are too many "small pieces" isn't an excuse for choosing to ignore possibly key pieces of information.
Cont.

>>14785000
Maybe not racism/xenophobia but Johnathan Haidt and others have written about the conservative impulse to be wary of outsiders and want more border controls as one side of the 'omnivore's dilemma'- the liberal impulse to embrace novelty and have looser borders is both helpful and also dangerous. For example, global trade and interaction is great but in the past has about things like the black death or smallpox epidemic. Both sides need each other for society to function and I suppose that conservative caution towards other peoples is described as xenophobia by the left, or more increasingly nowadays as 'racism'.

>>14785102
Read more and learn to spell.

>>14785649
> retardedly ignore that both the US and western Europe are near a societal collapse just because of these reasons related to mass migration and hence racial diversity WITHIN the respective countries?
This claim isn't substantiated anywhere you're arguing about this societal collapse while providing no metric for reaching this conclusion other than more immigration. You're trying to prove a point that absolutely requires some form of empirical evidence then provide none but rather rely on some tirade about racial divesity which your only argument against being that it causes conflict which you then later contradict by saying that "But in the end, it's all about winning land, stealing their raw materials and wealth or simply for geostrategical and power benefits"
>I guess you willingly don't see the racial tensions and issues that are fought over in the US?
> It's because the division that was created with immigration, where different races have different opinions based on their race.
Once again you're arguing a point that requires some form of emperical basis that you fail to provide. The argument that immigration and demographic change is a source of tension is not shown in any data. The opposite is actually shown that most people have no opinion either way about the concept.
https://www.people-press.org/2019/12/17/views-on-race-and-immigration/
So don't try to run this argument especially since you don't have the data to back it up
> So this historical fact (allthough wrong in details) is the reason why the US will never ever have a civil war based on racial conflicts? Are you an oracle?
Sadly I'm not i'd be much more wealthy if i were but i am capable of doing basic mental calculations of major vs minor issues. I am also especially capable at reading and finding massive contradictions
> Racism is natural and NOT a political agenda
Stating this
>I see the tensions rising and that especially racial minorities are screeching about "muhh rights and quotas" in every aspect of life and society.
And ask yourself, who exactly si pushing for this bullshit. And who furthermore creates division among whites with LGBTQ and other bullshit.
This is all artificial made to divide and rule.
But also stating this is a pretty good example of a contradiction. Secondly your point about racial civil war is based upon near infinitesimal chance does not work argumentatively. Merely claiming that somehow someway something could possibly happen isn't a justification to act upon it.
>So this historical fact (allthough wrong in details) is the reason why the US will never ever have a civil war based on racial conflicts? Are you an oracle?
By this logic we'd be hiding from all sorts of things
> Wow, this is what it looks like, when someone has no valuable points to make.
You crying about ad homs is beyond ironic
> niggers and shitskins
> liberal lunatics
> Globalists
> jewish styled projection
> rootless internationalists

I"m convinced all this ethno-nationalist LARPing is mostly a reaction to how annoying multiculturalists are

>>14785709
>waaaaah
kek

>>14785124
Burgers truly are subhuman. I'm Mediterranean and if I went over to your country I'd be considered "white". The thought of being grouped in with disgusting fucking anglos is sickening. Kys

>>14785000
The word "racist" was first popularized in the 1930s, long after all the real philosophers were dead

Many humans are predisposed to racism and xenophobia, so it isn't 'wrong' in the sense of something like Spinoza's bodily/health-based ethics. In a broader social context (which gives rise to deontology and social contract theory), it would be considered 'wrong' (meaning that, if you're part of the body politic, it's up to you to alter your disposition to be less racist), but the underlying reality of being racist/xenophobic is probably ineradicable, so that's that
You can read Fichte's late work on the 'Aufenborg' to get an idea of how/why we've come to believe that things like racism are socially wrong, but you should take it with a grain of salt (or a whole shaker-full) to avoid slipping into outmoded idealism
or, what /I/ consider to be outmoded idealism; can't speak for anyone else

>>14785000
pretty boy

>>14785795
Part1:
>You quite literaly name countries and nations in the post don't try to walk it back and you do it on more than one occasion "Especially this becomes problematic, when these two countries/nations/societies are totally differnt"
What did i mean when i wrote:
>Neigboring countries/nations/societies are more familiar/similar to each other, which causes LESS tensions ...
I did also write:
>(if not migration happening on a too large scale)
in the same sentence.
Which you INTENTIONALLY ignore, just to make a point. Strawman again based on falls accusations made by of something i never said nor ment.
I did also mean that in the context of people from one country migrating to a neigboring country and that this causes less problems, since they are more racial and cultural familiar to each other (if not migration happening on a too large scale).

>You are expanding on a point you never made you don't mention politics or geostrategy at any length in your original post don't claim you said something that you never did.
Now you're getting in full retard mode here.
It was YOU who came up with bilateral conflicts and counted up historical examples, which i replied to and explained the reasons to, since you seem to be unable to understand it or differentiate it yourself.
As said, you have comprehension issues. You can't blame me for your own shortcomings.

>You brought everything down to race ...
No, i did not, i just said racial homogenic countries/nations/societies are less likely to struggle from within, since they have less potential issues left they can fight over.


>then when you get called out you act as if your argument had some form of nuance to other matters it never brought up.
I nuanced from the beginning, since i never brought up nor mentioned bilateral conflicts myself.
It was YOU wo tried to disprove racial homogenic countries/nations/societies being more stable with conflicts between different countries/nations/societies being a historical fact. I called yo out on that, which you can't handle.

>You're heavily misintepreting the point and somehow still doing it poorly I mentioned that the Hutu v Tutsi problem was something created at most and overwhelmingly excacerbated at least.
And you are heavily misinterpreting and ignoring the fact that YOU YOURSELF also mentioned a several other examples, wich i ALSO ment when i replied and explained to you.
Once again, reading/understanding issues on your side.

>Secondly, the entire point of bringing those groups up is that one group lives within close enough proximity to another that by your stated logic the conflict would never happen
I never (cite me if i stated there are no exceptions) said that this is impossible. In science rules literally get confirmed by exeptions. Where is your problem?

>Hutus and Tutsi lived together for an extremely long period of time the same goes for Irish individuals and English ones
So what? Did i ever say that this wasn't the case?

>>14785795
Part 2:
>this means that their conflicts with one another would lie outside of race but your entire point reduces it to race in your original post.
Holy motherfuckin' fuck. WHERE DID I SAY THAT. I literally stated that many conflicts, especially bilateral ones are because of things like territory (geostrategical reasons), raw materials, power.
What makes your deficiencies even worse is, that you literally cite what you ignore to understand right under your complains.

>This actually is entirely contradictory to your earlier post. You state firstly that races living together is a major proponent of conflict that leads to "genocide and civil war" but you claim in your very next post that race is ultimately irrelevant, "but in the end it's all about winning land"
OMG I'm discussing a nutcase here.
Can you please not try to intentionally mix up what i said?
When i talked about racial conflicts, i ment it WITHIN a Country/nation/society.
When i talked about conflict over raw materials, territories and such, i ment BILATERAL, that means a conflict BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES/NATIONS/SOCIETIES.
WHAT does BILATERAL mean to you?????

>This is a massive false dichotomy.
Someone wo has reading issues comes up with dichotomy. You can't make this up.

>There is 0 reason why you can't look at larger conflicts on a deeper individual level and saying that there are too many "small pieces" isn't an excuse for choosing to ignore possibly key pieces of information.
Shall we now discuss Jerome Washingtons stance who is living in Bell Street 1018 Los Angeles? And what about his fucking neignor? Shall we consider the stance of his kids also?
It is literally stupid to break down into every single persons aspects and opinions, when you talk about general issues between races in ONE country/nation/society.

You don't complain about me being wrong, you complain because of your lack of comprehension of the read.

>>14785000
He cute

>>14785102
Yes it was, retard

>>14785870
Part1:
>This claim isn't substantiated anywhere
What is Yougoslavia?
What is Nigeria (conflict south vs north)
Both race and religion divides them
What is Moldavia?
Russians vs ethnic Romanians (moldavians) causing a civil war ending in the division of this already small country (Transnistria)
I could come up with a fuck ton of more xamples.

>You're trying to prove a point that absolutely requires some form of empirical evidence then provide none
As said, you seem to be absolutely unwilling to see the racial tensions in the US and western Europe that is entirely based on mass migration. There you have my point proven.

>The argument that immigration and demographic change is a source of tension is not shown in any data.
You really cope hard here.
So then, the rise of right wing parties in western european countries happens for no reason? Interesting but retardedly stupid stance.
Posting a (((fake-news media))) site doesn't change reality on the streets Bernie.
If i'd believe everything they write, i'd be as ignorant as you are.

>So don't try to run this argument especially since you don't have the data to back it up
I see the demonstrations, the violent incidents and the tensions in my and other societies about this very issue.
And you seriously want me to ignore and pretend this doesn't happen, just because you come up with a libshit influenced fake-news site that wants me to play good goyim and smile at my own extinction if this shit continues?

>i am capable of doing basic mental calculations of major vs minor issues.
You have yet not proven this to be true.
Even worse, you have disproven your claim above a several times already.

>I am also especially capable at reading and finding massive contradictions
You have yet not proven this to be true.
Even worse, you have disproven your claim above a several times already

>But also stating this is a pretty good example of a contradiction. Secondly your point about racial civil war is based upon near infinitesimal chance does not work argumentatively. Merely claiming that somehow someway something could possibly happen isn't a justification to act upon it.
Logical reasoning (which is not happening in you) is the reason others can see developments heading into certain directions that lead to other things.
Set electricity available, if i turn on a heating plate, it's logical that it will be hot five minutes later, right?

>By this logic we'd be hiding from all sorts of things
In the context you've written this, it doesn't make sense at all and can't be replied to either.

>You crying about ad homs is beyond ironic
No, it rather shows your low level of IQ, since you try to compensate or win a discussion with insults rather than coming up with reasonable arguments.

>>14785870
Part2:
> niggers and shitskins
Behave bad and get called bad names for that.

> liberal lunatics
re-read your comments and tell me this is not justified

> Globalists
Is this now an insult?

> jewish styled projection
Because they discuss like this

> rootless internationalists
How have internationalists roots that aren't rooted anywhere?

>>14785000
It’s not about morality - it’s just fundamentally irrational.

Is being a xenophile morally right?

>>14786104
> it’s just fundamentally irrational.
Sure, you would prefer the foreigner over your own people. Totally rational.
Gimme a break.

>>14785000
Is being able to comprehend basic statistics and having a survival instinct morally wrong? Then no to both

>>14786150
According to leftyshill i debate here, no such basic statistics exist and complains about migration and race related tensions because of this don't exist at all.

>>14786145
No, you’re putting words into my mouth, dope. You can have rational, logical reasons not to like another group - for instance common law systems generally don’t tolerate excess religiosity which is why they tend to repulse against Islam, etc. What you can’t do is just have no reason other than “dunno, suspicious” or “other”. That’s just retarded. You have to have reasons and those reasons have to be both open to testing AND have a basis in rationalism or reasonableness.

>>14785102
>it's
>American's
You have to learn to speak English properly.

>>14786202
Not him but autocorrect, arsehole.

>>14785059
So racism was good in 2010? Is that what you're saying? Wtf I love /lit/ commies now?

>>14786174
Look, racism is natural, since we all are born with it.
Racism in ancient times prevented us from being robbed and killed by other rivaling groups.
We (humans) have always been a tribal based species. No matter what race.
When one tribe tried to enter another tribes territory, the other tribe defended itself against the others, preventing it's assets, and girls being stolen/raped or it's territory taken over.
Other species (animals) are the same.
You won't make zebras and lions or cats and rats/mice live together in one society.
You can push as hard as you want. Even different races from one species very often don't work in a group because of the differences.
No matter how hard you push for that.

>>14786260
Based

>>14786260
You’re ‘arguing’ a straw man, moron. I’ve said nothing to warrant this diatribe as a response. Just stick to what I said.

Jesus. Way to go actually proving my point.

>>14785963
>(if not migration happening on a too large scale)in the same sentence. Which you INTENTIONALLY ignore, just to make a point
> The argument that immigration and demographic change is a source of tension is not shown in any data. The opposite is actually shown that most people have no opinion either way about the concept.
if you're going to lie make it believable
>I never (cite me if i stated there are no exceptions) said that this is impossible.
>Obfuscating this fucking hard
You're conclusions are based upon the reduction of possibility to extreme degree. Thats the point. you're making a statement about something being relatively likely and downplaying it which you then hide behind rhetoric such as "never said it was impossible"
> So what? Did i ever say that this wasn't the case?
No but you must not be capabale of understanding the point in me bringing them up these groups live together in immediate proximity and speak the same language but conflict happened and was excacerbated to the extent that you imply is impossible thats the point.

You are just stating contradictory things and lying to cover them up. You say that racial conflicts happen within countries because of the differences between groups so homogeneus areas are less likely to have these conflicts
> Neigboring countries/nations/societies are more familiar/similar to each other, which causes less tensions since mostly only slight differences in their way of living and their familiar languages divide them (if not migration happening on a too large scale).
Then say that racial conflicts are for resources
> Wars based on racial differences are rather wars held for other gains, abusing racial differences to justify the takeover of a neigboring country/nation/society.
Then proceed to say that these resource wars etc. are between different countries. Do you honestly not see how these two statements argue with each other? Your entire premise about race the whole point of your argument in this thread is to show that homogeneous societies are better than others due to conflicts caused IN LARGE PART BY the prevalence of other people groups. but you then go on to state that race is used merely as a tool in response to already ongoing conflicts. This doesn't make any sense unless your frame of mind is that racism is just a switch that is turned on when group a goes to war with group b which needless to say is a bad thought process.
> Shall we now discuss Jerome Washingtons stance who is living in Bell Street 1018 Los Angeles? And what about his fucking neignor? Shall we consider the stance of his kids also?
It is literally stupid to break down into every single persons aspects and opinions, when you talk about general issues between races in ONE country/nation/society.
This is clear hyperbole for the purpose of making a point taking this is the literal purpose of polling and surveys to determine how people feel about certain events. Which doesn't align with your worldview

>>14786269
>NOOOO UR NOT ALLOWED TO WIN THE ARGUMENT NOOOOO
Pathetic faggot

>>14786287
You ‘won’ fuck all, dope.

>>14786293
Seethe.

>>14786269
OMG
Then label it as bullshit next time you make a comment.
Yet so far, i can't read minds.
And since libs very often are retarded enough to make even worse claims, it's had to identify this as bullshit ment.

every time I open a thread and see massive back-and-forth posts with 1:1 greentext/black-text paragraphs i know the discussion is either about race or women

>>14786315
It's because of simps and race-cucks. If people realized that white-knighting anything on 4chan doesn't help fuck all, then maybe they would stop, but the people who think mass immigration is good are retarded anyway.

>>14785000
phony racism of the black, white and yellow kind is a disgrace and a sham, no room for nuance... have a little respect for race

>>14785963
>So then, the rise of right wing parties in western european countries happens for no reason? Interesting but retardedly stupid stance.
No the rise of right wing parties happens for a number of reasons but the consensus tends to stick around the fact that they arose out of economic fear following the 2008 crisis predominantly
>Posting a (((fake-news media))) site doesn't change reality on the streets Bernie.
If i'd believe everything they write, i'd be as ignorant as you are.
So I post a source you don't like and its just automatically wrong and you post nothing and just expect me to trust your ass as a source of reliable infomation? Seems pretty fucking stupid to me
>I see the demonstrations, the violent incidents and the tensions in my and other societies about this very issue. And you seriously want me to ignore and pretend this doesn't happen, just because you come up with a libshit influenced fake-news site that wants me to play good goyim and smile at my own extinction if this shit continues?
Listen just because you watch some youtube videos about anitifa doesn't mean that those things are the majority. Also you claim you don't want to listen to the sources because they're lying and yet you want me or OP or whoever the fuck to believe you and take your word for it when the only thing close to evidence is prattling of some european conflicts and one in africa. Thats just ridiculous and you know it.
Then your other post is just defending ad-homs for some reason while crying about me using them so i won't even wast my time.

>>14786298
no u

>>14786260
>misunderstanding his point this hard
anon is saying that just because it exists due to tribal nature doesn't mean it is always logical. because and lets be honest here there are a lot of things that people do behaviorally that is illogical but they do it because they're instinctual and besides the thread is dicussing racism from a moral perspective not from a biological one so making the argument from the perspective of animals is so far besides the point that its irrelevant. Now are people still tribal? Of course. Does this come in handy? It probably does in ways that we might not know (i definitely don't i'm not a sociologist). But the question is is it moral to continue to induldge in this behavior? Probably not imo just because of the results and historically reached logical conclusions.

>>14786279
Part1:
>if you're going to lie make it believable
I can't force you to belive the obvious, nor can i obviously force to to stop being obviously retarded. hahaha

>You're conclusions are based upon the reduction of possibility to extreme degree. Thats the point.
As longs as this is spot on and correct, i don't see any issues with it. You don't either. It's just my overall stance on racism and that i'm defending it what's making you cherrypicking and projecting.
You simply feel the urge to fight racism, rather than debating over it a reasonable way.

>you're making a statement about something being relatively likely and downplaying it which you then hide behind rhetoric such as "never said it was impossible"
I never downplayed anything and i am totally correct with, that the stuff you accuse me for or that you bring up as a point against me was never said by me. How can this be wrong?
Have i ever said racism will end ALL conflicts for all eternity? If so, feel free to cite me

>No but you must not be capabale of understanding the point in me bringing them up
Sorry but, HOW and WHY should I justify or defend myself for things YOU put into my words? Since when is this a reasonable way of debating?
If i project stuff into your comments you never ment nor said, do you feel the obligation to defende this madeup stance that isn't even yours? I guess not.

>these groups live together in immediate proximity and speak the same language but conflict happened and was excacerbated to the extent that you imply is impossible thats the point.
WHERE did i say this specific conflict is impossibe or did never happen?
What did i say about rules being confirmed by exceptions?
Why are you unable to get a grip on this?
Seriously, i literally typed the same fucking points more than twice now. Should be enough for someone wo claims to be good at understanding (you).

>Then say that racial conflicts are for resources
Citing myself:
> Wars based on racial differences are rather wars held for other gains, abusing racial differences to justify the takeover of a neigboring country/nation/society.
Now you're doing the same bullshit again. That was not what i said. I mean you literally cite my comment directy under it.
You MUST be retarded. There is no other logic or reasonable explanation to your autism.

>Then proceed to say that these resource wars etc. are between different countries. Do you honestly not see how these two statements argue with each other?
No, there is no contradiction, since:
>Wars based on racial differences are rather wars held for other gains, abusing racial differences to justify the takeover of a neigboring country/nation/society.
was ment (and i told you that already earlier in the debate) a war between two nations (bilateral).
So now that you (hopefully) know, you can stop complaining about it. even if i am convinced you will ride this train of ignorance indefinitely.

at this point trying to get a long is not only wrong it's evil.
it's never worked before it will not work now no matter how many human sacrifices you perform.

>>14786279
Part 2:
>but you then go on to state that race is used merely as a tool in response to already ongoing conflicts.
It doesn't make sense to YOU, since you are totally unable to understand and get a grip on what i'm saying.
We are debating your shortcomings, not contradictions you fabulate to exist.

>This is clear hyperbole for the purpose of making a point taking this is the literal purpose of polling and surveys to determine how people feel about certain events. Which doesn't align with your worldview
There is a saying:
Never trust any statistics you haven't falsified yourself
With that said, i can just assume everything from my side has been said, explained and stated a several times now. The reason for this repetitive and tiring concept of debating you, is YOUR inability to understand logical reasoning or followning a debate.

>>14785000

Being “racist” is about self-preservation and protecting yourself and it’s totally natural.

Look how bad things are in European countries from importing these people. Knife and acid attacks in Britain. Sweden getting bombed and Denmark having to shut down the border to avoid gang members. Rapes of women and kids throughout all of Europe. Pretty much every Islamic terrorist attack in recent years in Europe.

So to be anti-racist you have to be okay having your cities bombed and your kids raped

>>14786260
>Look, racism is natural, since we all are born with it.

It being natural, means nothing.

It's not natural to use antibiotics, or get surgery, yet we do it.

Rape and murder happens amongst all species, yet we have laws and punishment for those actions.

Whether something is natural or not, in and of itself, is meaningless.

Unless you believe in anarcho-primitivism, which makes it ironic and even hypocritical for you to be writing this online.

>>14786494
>it’s totally natural.

Please read above.

>>14786537
means it's in accordance with human nature, the way a human is supposed to live.

>>14786547
>, the way a human is supposed to live

Based on?

>>14786554
based on god decreeing so.
maybe there are more persuasive reasons but that is the real reason.

>>14786556
>based on god decreeing so

Ah, trolling?

>>14786563
no

>>14786569

I've seen people argue that being racecentric (which is not the same as racism) is God decreed, but not Racism.

You genuinely believe that God has ordained you to be disdainful and hateful towards people of your race? You think that God wants you to be a disdainful and hateful person? Spending time insulting and degrading people?

(Again, being racecentric is not the same as being racist. You don't need to be abusive or disdainful to people not of your race, in order to love your own race.

Just like you don't need to devalue other kids, to love your own kids the most.)

>>14786591

*towards people not of your race...

>>14786537

Are you just going to ignore the rest of my comment?

I mean, it would be moral to be racist than not since being non-racist means to be pro-machete murders, rape, bombing, stabbings. It’s not immoral to not want to see your country destroyed.

>>14786364
Part1:
>No the rise of right wing parties happens for a number of reasons but the consensus tends to stick around the fact that they arose out of economic fear following the 2008 crisis predominantly
LePen in france exists since the seventies if i recall this correctly. A time when France and Europe in general had an economical upswing

AfD in Germany got founded in 2013. Before that, they had the NPD, that is existing since the 60th and they had a several other right wing parties like "die Republikaner" which were founded in the eighties.
At a time, when Germany still were in full "Wirtschaftswunder mode".

Sverigedemokraterna, a Swedish right wing party that were founded in the mid eighties and that changed it's name twice since then.
They also recently got the AfS (Alternativ för Sverige). Also a right wing party that was founded in 2016 and not 2008.
Your reasoning about right wing b´parties being founded because of strafe economical times is bullshit.
Germany has and ongoing islamistic mass migration since the early sixties and already in the seventies, racial tensions started to occur and block building in society happening.
At that time, Germany were (as i mentioned already) in the middle of their Wirtschaftswunder.

>So I post a source you don't like and its just automatically wrong and you post nothing and just expect me to trust your ass as a source of reliable infomation?
If the source obviously states something that is not mirrored by reality in the daily lifes of the average people, then it deserves to be called out as bullshit.
I myself grew up in a now islamized city district. But sure, people have no issues with it, they just make the white flight out of no fucking reason. hahaha

>Seems pretty fucking stupid to me.
It seems pretty stupid to me to ignore reality and belive in jewish media bullshit that states the opposite of what is reality.

>>14786364
Part2:
>Listen just because you watch some youtube videos about anitifa doesn't mean that those things are the majority.
What is real life experience?
What is real life experience of countless other people having the same issue and stance on mass migration like me?

>Also you claim you don't want to listen to the sources because they're lying and yet you want me or OP or whoever the fuck to believe you and take your word for it ...
No, i want you and OP to open your eyes and try to get a grip on what's happening around you.
I want you to realize that right now as we speak, every bigger city in western Europe is islamized and has massive problems and tensions ongoing following mass migration.
You can't get away from this, even if you try to cope hard.

Me:
>I see the demonstrations, the violent incidents and the tensions in my and other societies about this very issue. And you seriously want me to ignore and pretend this doesn't happen, just because you come up with a libshit influenced fake-news site that wants me to play good goyim and smile at my own extinction if this shit continues?
You:
>when the only thing close to evidence is prattling of some european conflicts and one in africa. Thats just ridiculous and you know it.
Here you do it again, you mix stuff mentioned in different contexts just to make a point.
You stated that i have no evidence of racial tensions existing within a country/nation/society, i posted examples of where racial tensions ultimately can or will lead.
And what has that according to you with the west not having any issues with islamistic mass migration?
I don't know what shithole you live in and i honestly give a full blown fuck about it, but you seem to not live in a western country and you also seem to be unable/unmotivated to see what is happening here.

>>14786607
>Are you just going to ignore the rest of my comment?

Yeah, because you mixed; race, culture, mental health, and religion into one confused mess. To be blunt.

Islam isn't a race.

Glasgow (at one point early in the 21st century) had the highest murder rate in western Europe. And it was white kids stabbing other white kids... It took massive social outreach and police intervention to reduce the murder rate.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, etc, brought it traumatized people from 3rd world countries, who grew up amongst violent crime and war,

There are massive culture differences.

Etc.

Simply reducing those things to race, misses the complexity.

Russia is a very violent country, and it's white. Again, reducing the dysfunction displayed by certain demographics as simply 'race' misses the mark.

However... I am firmly a closed border person, I only agree with immigration if there is vetting and monitoring, like the Australian immigration program. I also agree with Nativist economic polices, like can be found in Thailand.

In no way to I support open borders, or the insanity happening in Europe. But the /pol/ "Lol, it's all genetic, your stupid cuck" mindset, honestly screams to me that those people haven't read much about sociology, the behavioural problems that can result from trauma/poor parenting, etc.

>>14786449
> As longs as this is spot on and correct, i don't see any issues with it. You don't either. It's just my overall stance on racism and that i'm defending it what's making you cherrypicking and projecting.You simply feel the urge to fight racism, rather than debating over it a reasonable way.
>Reductionism is good because i think that no one can tell the rhetoric i use is made to hide behind
Ah I see
>I never downplayed anything and i am totally correct with, that the stuff you accuse me for or that you bring up as a point against me was never said by me. How can this be wrong? Have i ever said racism will end ALL conflicts for all eternity? If so, feel free to cite me
>See above: Also applicable learn what the word obfuscation means if you genuinely think you're words mean what you think they do here
>WHERE did i say this specific conflict is impossibe or did never happen?
>conclusions are based upon the reduction of possibility to extreme degree. Thats the point. you're making a statement about something being relatively likely and downplaying it which you then hide behind rhetoric such as "never said it was impossible"
> was ment (and i told you that already earlier in the debate) a war between two nations (bilateral).
>Imagine thinking racism can be turned on and off just because two nations are at war while also thinking that racism is the major cause of internal conflict that you don't cite evidence of
> Never trust any statistics you haven't falsified yourself
Failure to provide evidence so you don't have to verify it is retarded but it might be a big brained idea anon an interesting strategy.
So you have failed to provide evidence that the U.S. is about to collapse socially as well as Europe except for what you "have seen" or "are currently seeing" which amounts to not shit and you want people to take that seriously. But when confronted with actuall evidence that people don't give a shit about demographic change then you immediately call it some liberal jewish conspiracy while not even trying to prove that claim. You fail to rectify your contradictions as to how race is used to further military goals and your only defense is that its somehow different from other countries rather than just internal and you fail to show how racism is or isn't moral. I see no need to continue engaging with your tirades about race. I genuinely hope that you get out of whatever possess you to hold this thought process

>>14786405
>anon is saying that just because it exists due to tribal nature doesn't mean it is always logical.
Since when is defending your own crowd and yourself not always logical?
Sure, if someone thinks it's totally logical or rational to not defend your people or yourself .....

>But the question is is it moral to continue to induldge in this behavior?
It is ALWAYS moral to defend your own crowd over others. This secures your crowds survival.

>>14786532
>It being natural, means nothing.
Being natural means EVERYTHING.

>It's not natural to use antibiotics, or get surgery, yet we do it.
Yes it is natural, since the will to survive is natural. And that's the very reason we invent tools, weapons or medicine for that matter.

>Rape and murder happens amongst all species, yet we have laws and punishment for those actions.
With clearly islamists, niggers and other migrants leading all crime stats in both Europe and the US. Despite still being a minority. How come?
Do you not deem this being a problem?

>Whether something is natural or not, in and of itself, is meaningless.
This is beyond all logical reasoning. I could fill books on why you are wrong. I spare myself from doing this.

>Unless you believe in anarcho-primitivism, which makes it ironic and even hypocritical for you to be writing this online.
So you set the rules people being racist MUST be this or that?

>>14786554
>Based on?
Based on your and your tribes natural will to survive and to protect each other from being killed by other tribes

>>14785411
this and checked. the sheer number of wignats on this thread is embarrassing. muh “white” who probably cant even speak their “native tongues” larping as european, or some dubious definition of whiteness is just peak anglo subhumanism. FUCK ANGLOS

>>14786654
>It is ALWAYS moral to defend your own crowd over others. This secures your crowds survival.
This isn't incorect but i don't think that its the point defending your crowd in a tribal society and getting mad when a black person moves into a house nearby is a different thing.
"Your crowd"/=/ people who look similar they CAN be but that doesn't mean that they are an old saying is that "just cause they your skin folk dont mean they your kin folk" (old as hell black people say this on extremely rare occasions so im suprised i even fucking remember it) but there needs to be a line drawn from protecting me and mine from you and yours vs. they are different ergo they are bad

>>14786042
whats written on paper isnt necessarily a metaphysical reality, or even destiny. ben franklin wanted america to be literal “new england”, and just look at the percentage of germans and etc at the time. this “whitemens land” is just anglo untermensch’s wetdream, not realizing the metaphyisical destiny of american revolutionary ideals a la enlightenmentism and masonic ideas. face it, modern america is what is was meant to be. after designing a slippery slope, and declaring it to be perfectly leveled floor and whine later thar you are slipping is just retarded

>>14786642

I never said it’s all genetic nor did I say Muslims are a race. I guarantee I know more about Islam than you. This thread is about being racist.

If these people who you’ve improved en masse for no reason are raping and murdering then don’t import them anymore and get rid of the ones you have. Go forth and be racist.

I honestly thought that when you point out how migrants can’t stop raping and sodomizing most people would be above claiming that they are such poor, downtrodden refugees so hurt by war and poor parenting they must rape children to express their emotional hurt, but no, guess you’re not above that!

How many countries can this excuse work in? In the US blacks rape more and in Europe. How can you be so downtrodden you must rape a kid in your pain?

>>14786677
>Being natural means EVERYTHING.
Expound on this a little bit. I think I know where you're going, but it would be better to hear it directly from you.

>>14785139

>>14786643
Look, i can't seriously debate someone who cites words as min the aren't mine.
You are just disqualifying yourself doing so.
Since you (if you wouldnt project bullshit into my comments) wouldn't have something to argue over.

>Failure to provide evidence
Go to a western european city yourself and open your eyes while visiting it or living there.
The evidence is out on the streets. I told you.

>So you have failed to provide evidence that the U.S. is about to collapse socially as well as Europe except for what you "have seen" or "are currently seeing"
AGAIN, maybe you are unable to logical reasoning and don't have the willl to see where stuff leads to, but that doesn't mean others have your disabilities.

>But when confronted with actuall evidence that people don't give a shit about demographic change
People being brainwashed by jewish controlled media you forgot to say.

>immediately call it some liberal jewish conspiracy while not even trying to prove that claim.
See pic related idiot.

>You fail to rectify your contradictions
No contradictions in my words, just your lack of comprehension of the stuff you read. I told you already.

>I see no need to continue engaging with your tirades about race.
I see no need to continue engaging with an illiterate dumbfuck leftist.

>>14786696
your entire comment doesn't make any sense.

>>14785342
>Being racist means to love your own race over all others.
Racism is inherently evil and ignorant by definition. You need to differentiate between concepts such as racism and racialism in order to avoid confusion. If you do not accept the inherent evil imbued in a word then do not accept its use and make use of a more proper term.

>>14786677
>Yes it is natural, since the will to survive is natural.

By your reasoning everything is natural, and nothing can be classed as unnatural.

>>14786710
>This isn't incorect but i don't think that its the point defending your crowd in a tribal society and getting mad when a black person moves into a house nearby is a different thing.
Not with one black, but when your neigborhood changes entirely because whites move out because of a huge number of blacks moving in, and you happen to find yourself in a minority position in your own country that is natively white, then this will cause tensions.
It's about quantities also.

>but there needs to be a line drawn from protecting me and mine from you and yours vs. they are different ergo they are bad
Agree. To fuck over people just entirelöy based on race because they happen to live in your area is plain stupid, but it becomes a necessity to attack these people, when they are quantitative taking over your country/nation/society.
No country/nation/society should be forced to accept this. no matter if white or not.
The occupation of India by the brits weren't right and the India had all rights to send the brits home.

>>14785157
Very based

>>14786799
>Racism is inherently evil and ignorant by definition.
Whose definition? We don't really have a universally agreed upon definition.
Most people probably agree that it's a "bad/evil thing", but in that case they could just call a person bad/evil and avoid the confusion. But we all know avoiding confusion is not the goal of people who call others racists. Rather their goal is to use the label as a political/ideological tool and the vagueness of the term helps them.

>>14786755
>Expound on this a little bit. I think I know where you're going, but it would be better to hear it directly from you.
What i mean is that going against the natural traits properties of your species or distance yourself too far from the natural environment, causes problems on multiple levels and ways.

After all, we are all just animals that happen to be smart as heck compared to other species living on this planet. Even if i sometimes doubt some being smart. You know what i mean. Smart people can make ridiculously stupid decisions.
If people straighten a river to fatser get ships carrying stuff on them, it will lead to the water flow getting fatser, because no curves are left that could slow the flow down. This results in floods destroying settlements near the river wich causes casualties also.
Pretty stupid to do so. But despite that, humans still do this shit.
This is what happens if we distance ourselves from nature too much. We lose the understanding of nature.

>>14786813
> and you happen to find yourself in a minority position in your own country that is natively white, then this will cause tensions.
That's the thing though demographic change doesn't really cause tensions to rise at least not in the U.S.
https://www.people-press.org/2019/12/17/views-on-race-and-immigration/
Synopsis is that most people aren't opinionated about the issue in either way so
> The occupation of India by the brits weren't right and the India had all rights to send the brits home.
I disagree with this characterization of the situations Indian resistance to British Colonization of India would be something very different to something like White Flight from neighborhoods.

>>14785000
>Is being racist/xenophobic morally wrong?
no

>>14786799
>Racism is inherently evil and ignorant by definition.
In the mindset of a leftist shill that has been fed with a negative and made up connotation of the word "racism. Yes.

>You need to differentiate between concepts such as racism and racialism in order to avoid confusion.
Racialism is an artifical madeup concept to flee criticism of racism.

>If you do not accept the inherent evil imbued in a word then do not accept its use and make use of a more proper term.
Indeed, i do not accept the diversification and cherripicking made possible with artificial concepts or alternatives to racism.
Hence the entire criticism, based on artificial negative connotations made is meaningless to discuss.

Racism means to prefer and love your own race over others.
Racism does not imply you have to hate other races.
Hate over other races comes from either bad experiences (mass migration and its following problems) or simply being uninformed and having opinions based on imagination

I have no problem to interact with people of other races, no matter if that's in my or their countrynation/society. But i don't want them to move here in the millions and by that change my country/nation/society to something that doesn't feel "homeland" anymore.
This is basically where racial tensions WITHIN a country/nation/society start growing.
I start repeating myself.

>>14786843
> What i mean is that going against the natural traits properties of your species or distance yourself too far from the natural environment, causes problems on multiple levels and ways.
I mean this logic seems kinda flawed. This isn't a thought process that we use with any other behavior. No massive programs are created to preserve and reinvigorate the function of certain vestigial organs. We also deal with this in scientific and social ways. The concept of indentured servitude or slavery isn't natural (at least for bipedal mammals) but these are concepts that we created and ran for extended periods of time (and still do) despite little evidence for them being natural and so on. I don't believe I entirely disagree with the point of staying close to nature but there are better ways of doing it than holding on to certain ideals that result in what is arguably something anti evolutionary which has been in many cases the self-destruction of the species (i.e. humans)

Antiracists are the only race that needs to be permanetly exterminated.

>>14786803
>By your reasoning everything is natural, and nothing can be classed as unnatural.
No, multiculturalism is unnatural,
The politification of being gay is unnatural
Just two examples

>>14786691

A race is not the equivalent to a tribe.

A tribe is a very small group, that shares living space, language, and customs multigenerationally.

The various ethnic groups of the race do not necessarily share; living space, language, and customs. Anyone who knows anything about Irish and Itallian language and culture will see the stark differences, along with the differences between French and Greek, Russian, and British, Swiss and Spanish culture. They are distinctly different...

To think that a tribe, or even ethnicity, is the equivalent of a race, IMO is either ignorant or dishonest.

One thing I strongly dislike about racecentric people is their disdain for ethnic differences, which is why I highly respect ethnocentric peoples > racecentric people.

Racecentric people pretend that there are no significant differences between ethnicities of the same race, and would think is A-OK for if White Americans completely annihilated Russian culture, through their influence or marrying Russians.... As long as they are white, they don't care if an entire ethnic heritage is wiped out.

>>14786865
>That's the thing though demographic change doesn't really cause tensions to rise at least not in the U.S.
stop posting (((fake news)))

>Synopsis is that most people aren't opinionated about the issue in either way so
How come blacks live in their city districts and whites in another one?
See Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and many more.
If people wouldn't have an opinion about it or wouldn't care, white flight wouldn't exist.
No matter what the jewish media states about it.
And since i don't live in the uS, but a naturally grown and very homogenic country/nation/society, i can assure you, that this IS a HUGE issue here.

>I disagree with this characterization of the situations Indian resistance to British Colonization of India would be something very different to something like White Flight from neighborhoods.
You do it AGAIN!!!!
You mix two things, said in different contexts with each other to make a point. STOP THIS BULLSHIT!!!

>>14785307
And yet whites flee to white spaces as soon as the diversity arrives to their current neighborhood.

>>14786916

>No, multiculturalism is unnatural,

It's human nature to be curious, and intermingle. It's happened throughout history.

White ethnicites (they are different cultures) have mixed cultures, throughout history.

It's natural to be be curious of others environments, and its natural to welcome or allow others in to your environment. Look at how different species co exist in the same environment, look at how species migrate.

>The politification of being gay is unnatural

Politics comes from a desire to express ones values, which can be even found in children.

Homosexual sex can be found amongst other species.


Those arguments are based on the same level of reasoning as yours, in your attempt to pretend that surgery is not a sentient invention and intervention (i.e. unnatural), rather than an organic process (i.e. natural).

>>14786905
It's not flawed, it is logical.

Of course we are not messing with organs to make our body change functions or properties. why shoud we. If it's not for health related reasons.

>The concept of indentured servitude or slavery isn't natural
It is, since the natural law of "the stong rules over/or prays on the weaker" (darvinism)
Is describing/respecting natural law perfectly.
The question is rather if these natural behaviors (holding slaves or praying on weaker races is still a necessity. Seen to agricultural machines, slaves aren't needed.
Looting other countries for their resources isn't either, since trade routes are established and international money transfer can be easily done to order stuff without even going there.
It's only greed (another natural trait/habit) of the human species, that makes one country/nation/society colonize or invade and loot another one. Is it natural? Yes. Is it justifyable? Hell no. It never was. Since it's not needed to cover the very needs to your own existence or that of your own race in most cases.

>I don't believe I entirely disagree with the point of staying close to nature but there are better ways of doing it than holding on to certain ideals that result in what is arguably something anti evolutionary which has been in many cases the self-destruction of the species (i.e. humans)
I don't mean to be anti-evolutionistic, but i wish we could make better decisions respecting natural laws a little more.

>>14786956
Oh its you. You gonna post another infographic about how "the evil jewish people cause all the problems" even in areas where they aren't prevelent again or are you gonna interact with the actual question OP posted this part of the thread? Just lmk
Also
>If people wouldn't have an opinion about it or wouldn't care, white flight wouldn't exist.
White Flight is based upon preventing a lowering of their economic status as a result of decreasing property values as a result of blacks moving in also White flight isn't exclusive to racial basis white flight is just a specific portion of other predatory practices like redlining etc. Nice try with that gacha though maybe if you had a source to back up your claim other than some infographic about DA JOOS it would be worth thinking about for more than a few seconds. But until then your "evidence" only outs you as either a /pol/ fag or some other right leaning larper

>>14787026
>It is, since the natural law of "the stong rules over/or prays on the weaker" (darvinism)
>Based retard not knowing the difference between lions eating gazelles and chattel slavery
Nice obfuscation m8 the funny part is im not even arguing racism isn't natural (i don't think it is but that's not the point of the thread) im arguing that we do a whole shitload of things that aren't "natural" but we do it anyway so to say "do x because we've been doing it" is shit logic

>>14786954
>A race is not the equivalent to a tribe.
Agree on that. But despite you being correct on this, you would still prefer your tribe over another and try to protect it over another.
Mostly tribes consist of racially homogenic populations

>The various ethnic groups of the race do not necessarily share; living space, language, and customs.
But that's my entire point. If you happen to force these groups to live in one space, they will sure start fighting each other.

>Anyone who knows anything about Irish and Itallian language and culture will see the stark differences,
And i also know about how northern italians and southern italians not get along especially good. They rather prefer sticking to their own people and areas.

>along with the differences between French and Greek, Russian, and British, Swiss and Spanish culture. They are distinctly different...
I never said something questioning this.

>To think that a tribe, or even ethnicity, is the equivalent of a race, IMO is either ignorant or dishonest.
Does not apply to me since i have the same stance on this.

>Racecentric people pretend that there are no significant differences between ethnicities of the same race, and would think is A-OK for if White Americans completely annihilated Russian culture, through their influence or marrying Russians.... As long as they are white, they don't care if an entire ethnic heritage is wiped out.
That's the reason i always say: "country/nation/society" to make clear what exactly i mean.
People of different race but same color can have entirely different social codexes, religious takes on the same religion and overall a totally different culture and mentality. These must not fit well into another host country/nation/society and can cause huge problems.
Not all whites are identical in terms of the above mentioned.

>>14786980
>It's human nature to be curious, and intermingle. It's happened throughout history.
Interracial mixing has always occured. but if that happens on a larger scale, tensions rise.
It's as i said earlier about quantities.

>It's natural to be be curious of others environments, and its natural to welcome or allow others in to your environment.
when the guest receiving get too big in quantity, this causes tensions.
No one has problems with tourists or some few thousands moving to a 100 million people country/nation/society.
But 5 million and it gets tricky.

>>14787049
>Oh its you. You gonna post another infographic about how "the evil jewish people cause all the problems" even in areas where they aren't prevelent again or are you gonna interact with the actual question OP posted this part of the thread? Just lmk
Let that be my decision. You wanted to have a proof of jews worshipping diversity, you got it. now shut up.

>White Flight is based upon preventing a lowering of their economic status as a result of decreasing property values as a result of blacks moving in
the most ignorant explanation i have ever heard.
Whites move out, because blacks are anti white and start to hassle and fuck it up for whites with crime and violence in these areas. That's why whites move out.

>White flight isn't exclusive to racial basis white flight is just a specific portion of other predatory practices like redlining etc.
hahahaa. liberal lunacy in full rage mode.

>Nice try with that gacha though maybe if you had a source to back up your claim other than some infographic about DA JOOS it would be worth thinking about
Look we all know by now that most media branches and corporations are owned and controlled by the jews. that's nothing i have to prove in the year 2020.
If you still don't believe it, you are unwilling to see the obvious.

>But until then your "evidence" only outs you as either a /pol/ fag or some other right leaning larper
Until you don't disprove the obvious, you are nothing more as a jew yourself or a liberal low IQ victim.

>>14787073
>>Based retard not knowing the difference between lions eating gazelles and chattel slavery
stop projecting stuff into my comments i never said nor ment.
Of course i know the difference of slavery and prey. How can someone not?

>>14785000
Cute boy. I would like to bust on his face.

>>14787083
>Agree on that. But despite you being correct on this, you would still prefer your tribe over another and try to protect it over another.
>Mostly tribes consist of racially homogenic populations

That still does not mean that a Tribe is the equivalent to a race.

Localism is more closer to the affinity that a person has with a tribe, than race. People on the other side of the country, of the same race, can have distinctly different cultures.

Localism is akin to Tribalism, but being Race centric or racist is far from a Tribe.

>But that's my entire point. If you happen to force these groups to live in one space, they will sure start fighting each other.

No, your drawing an equivalence between race and tribe.

Population density alone (even in racially homogeneous places) can create social dysfunction. Studies have shown that rural areas have a higher rate of trust, than urban areas.

>They rather prefer sticking to their own people and areas.

Yep, that's another example of why race is not the equivalent to tribe, and is why is wrong to use tribalism as a justification for racism.

Tribalism supports localism, not a race wide affinity. Why would someone have a natural affinity for someone on the other side of the world who is of the same race, who doesn't share the same customs, language, life experience. That's IMO conditioning.

>People of different race but same color can have entirely different social codexes, religious takes on the same religion and overall a totally different culture and mentality. These must not fit well into another host country/nation/society and can cause huge problems.
Not all whites are identical in terms of the above mentioned.

Fair enough, we are in agreement then.

My post doesn't apply to you then, and is the kind of thing I routinely say to racecentric or racist people, who try to argue that it's 'natural'.

Again, I think it's absurd to think that a White American who has a stronger affinity with a Russian living in rural Russian village, than their black coworker, who works in the office next door to them, is anything but ideological conditioning. It's definitely not based on a 'natural' affinity of a tribe.

>>14787098
>Interracial mixing has always occured. but if that happens on a larger scale, tensions rise.
It's as i said earlier about quantities.

Surgery exists on a international scale, but you still claim it's natural.

>when the guest receiving get too big in quantity, this causes tensions.
No one has problems with tourists or some few thousands moving to a 100 million people country/nation/society.
But 5 million and it gets tricky.

Antibiotics are taken by millions everyday, but you still say it's natural.

>>14785044
>Netflix politics aren't npc
Kys

>>14785157
So they just become cucked and feminine you mean

>>14787143
> Let that be my decision. You wanted to have a proof of jews worshipping diversity, you got it. now shut up.
>Seething /pol/ack becaue no one believes his excuse for "evidence"

> Whites move out, because blacks are anti white and start to hassle and fuck it up for whites with crime and violence in these areas. That's why whites move out.
> Look we all know by now that most media branches and corporations are owned and controlled by the jews. that's nothing i have to prove in the year 2020.
If you still don't believe it, you are unwilling to see the obvious.
>/pol/ tries to "subtly" throw in their propaganda with bad arguments
>Gets btfo cause they have no evidence or is dubios and resorts to weird language usage to hide contradictions
>REEEEEE ITS ALL THE JEWS LOOK AT THIS INFROGRAPHIC ALL YOUR EVIDENCE IS BAD FUCK BLACKS
gets em every time

>>14787163
>That still does not mean that a Tribe is the equivalent to a race.
What?? Re-read the comment.

>Localism is more closer to the affinity that a person has with a tribe, than race. People on the other side of the country, of the same race, can have distinctly different cultures.
Not rivaling the concept of racism and it's unity. especially not against other countries/nations/societies.

>No, your drawing an equivalence between race and tribe.
Because it's partially funcioning the same

>Population density alone (even in racially homogeneous places) can create social dysfunction. Studies have shown that rural areas have a higher rate of trust, than urban areas.
Not incontradiction to the points i made


>Yep, that's another example of why race is not the equivalent to tribe,
I never said it equivalent

>and is why is wrong to use tribalism as a justification for racism.
I never did that

>Tribalism supports localism, not a race wide affinity. Why would someone have a natural affinity for someone on the other side of the world who is of the same race, who doesn't share the same customs, language, life experience. That's IMO conditioning.
If this one racially identical person on the other side of the world gets invaded by another race you don't have the slightest identification/similarities with.

>Not all whites are identical in terms of the above mentioned.
i never said that.

>Again, I think it's absurd to think that a White American who has a stronger affinity with a Russian living in rural Russian village, than their black coworker, who works in the office next door to them,
But if the black happens to be a criminal savage, then i guess the perspective on this thing changes.

>>14787253

You said that to be natural means it's the way that human beings are supposed to live.

I asked you based on what.

You said...

>Based on your and your tribes natural will to survive and to protect each other from being killed by other tribes

So it seems clear to me that you are using Tribe as an equivalent to race, in order to justify racism.
>But if the black happens to be a criminal savage, then i guess the perspective on this thing changes.

I explicitly mentioned a black coworker. To assume that a black coworker is a 'criminal savage' would be an incredibly irrational supposition with evidence (unless you work in as a bouncer, or something).

>>14787205
>Seething /pol/ack becaue no one believes his excuse for "evidence"
YOU are seething since you are obviously a liberal dipshit.
And no, it is not no one but only you and your likes of stupid libshits that don't belive in my words. The rest of the world has already understood.

>/pol/ tries to "subtly" throw in their propaganda with bad arguments
Bad arguments you can't rival are good arguments. You just fucked yourself Bernie.

>Gets btfo cause they have no evidence or is dubios and resorts to weird language usage to hide contradictions
I did not get btfo. You came with silly twists of why whites make a flight. Not me. ahaha

>>REEEEEE ITS ALL THE JEWS LOOK AT THIS INFROGRAPHIC ALL YOUR EVIDENCE IS BAD FUCK BLACKS
Ok, then prove me wrong, send links that proves that the majority of the media is not controlled and owned by the jews.
Pro tip, you can't.

>>14787253

I asked how can justify racism as natural.

You said that to be natural means it's the way that human beings are supposed to live.

I asked you based on what.

You said...

>Based on your and your tribes natural will to survive and to protect each other from being killed by other tribes

So it seems clear to me that you are using Tribe as an equivalent to race, in order to justify racism.

>But if the black happens to be a criminal savage, then i guess the perspective on this thing changes.

I explicitly mentioned a black coworker. To assume that a black coworker is a 'criminal savage' would be an incredibly irrational supposition without evidence (unless you work in as a bouncer, or something).

Just assuming that he might be a 'criminal savage' simply because he's black (despite being your coworker) would be a good example of how irrational racism can make a person.

My college educated black coworker, who sat next to me in my office, is unlikely to have been a gangbanger. I'm not going to think that, unless I have a good reason to think it (him being black alone, is not a good enough reason).

>>14785000 (checked)
>Is being racist/xenophobic morally wrong?
No.

>What books explore this?
Literally thousands upon thousands of them. If you can't find them you probably can't figure out how to breathe, making this thread something of a mystery.

>>14787316
This

>>14785000
It isn't a moralistic argument. The question should concern whether it is justified, which it absolutely is. Precognitive bias is an innate defense mechanism your brain has refined over hundreds of thousands of years as a means of survival.
The

It isn't a moralistic argument. The question should concern whether it is justified, which it absolutely is. Precognitive bias is an innate defense mechanism your brain has refined over hundreds of thousands of years as a means of survival.
The question is akin to asking if war is morally wrong or if it is wrong for people to need sexual fulfillment.
Common courtesy would dictate that you rein it in, whether racism is morally wrong is a moot point.

>>14787316
>So it seems clear to me that you are using Tribe as an equivalent to race, in order to justify racism.
Look, tribes and racial homogenic groups serve the same purpose allthough NOT BEING IDENTICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you need it once more?
I can copypasta it to spam levls, so that even you finally get what i ment.

>I explicitly mentioned a black coworker.
and i explicity mentioned a black criminal savage, to make clear that if "my scenario" of the story would make you chose skin color/race over that of a nearby person existing in your area with a different race/color
I am fully aware that you intentionally mentioned a coworker who is NOT a criminal and that you wanted to make a certain point, which also came through. and i agree on your stance fully.

>To assume that a black coworker is a 'criminal savage' would be an incredibly irrational supposition without evidence
I made up an alternative storyline and did not state that the black coworker absolutely must be a criminal because he happens to be black.
Where did you get this from???
Can you people please stop projecting shit into my comments i never said?

> (unless you work in as a bouncer, or something).
what???

Is for you guys automatically everything in don't explicitly exclude or denie my opinion?
And when, how come?
You should ask if you don't understand 100% what i say instead of just making false assumptions.
This gets tiresome and is by no means a productive way to discuss things.
If i start doing the same with you guys, the entire discussion will go totally nuts.

>Just assuming that he might be a 'criminal savage' simply because he's black (despite being your coworker) would be a good example of how irrational racism can make a person.
That's why i said ASK ME before making assumptions or start thinking yourself what i could have ment with it. If not 100% sure, ASK ME.
But stop making assumptions that arent correct.

>My college educated black coworker, who sat next to me in my office, is unlikely to have been a gangbanger. I'm not going to think that, unless I have a good reason to think it (him being black alone, is not a good enough reason).
As said, i made up an entirely alternative storyline to make my point clear. not hard to grasp this.
I did NOT say criminal coworker or did i? So why do you spin it as being so?

>>14785000
im not racist but i dont consider blacks, pygmys, khoi san, asian "negritos" or australian/papuan natives as fully human.

all other races are based

Look at almost fucking any college humanities syllabus wtf

>>14785122
there were never legal bars to hispanic immigration. hispanic populations were part of the US since the louisiana purchase and the mexican american war

>>14785000
Kafka's Metamorphosis.
It doesn't tackle it, but personally I can say it puts a question mark above what is or isn't human, and whether we treat our fellows fairly.

>>14785000
you should have probably stated in our post whether you are asking about believing racist things or acting in a racist way.

One of those is not even a choice, we are generally more attracted/favorable to and trusting of people that are close to us genetically speaking
>>14785142
yes they were, Europeans have always viewed other Europeans in the united states as part of their ingroup when it came to the outgroups like blacks. Jim crow laws were not for irishmen, having different ethnicites with tension between them does not prove america was not racially white.

>>14785899
i've never seen a point proven so quickly