So then I would concede that your initial argument makes sense if we are analyzing multiple behavioral paths.
Option A. 90% Positive
Option B. 70% Positive
Option C. 40% Positive
Option D. 20% Positive
All options applying to the same situation, there is going to be some options that are superior to others in securing a positive result. Each of these options is its own generality, containing its own general truth. But if we zoom out and fixate on the bigger picture, that is the scenario itself, what you’re basically saying is that there is no General Strategy to the given scenario, always ever a collection of strategies with various outcomes*
Am I understanding this correctly?
I’m a civic nationalist, so for me it’s less what preserves a race and what preserves a nation. Though to be more honest and accurate it’s not really about preserving anything, it’s about being able to express that I find the people I really care about to irreplaceable, therefore I will act in a way that proves that to them.
- If I have a POC cousin or friend then I like them.
- If I like them then I don’t want them to disappear anytime soon.
- Therefore I will endorse ideologies and behave in a way that mitigates their disappearance.
I also think immigrants should denounce their home. If your original home is so great, then why abandon it? And if they know it isn’t great then there’s no reason to deny those in good faith. I’m a 7th gen immigrant myself and I legitimately think I’m no different than a 2nd gen (or even 1.5 gen) or higher.
Might does not make right, but the moral should strive to be mighty, because if you are not able to take when morality demands it, you are nothing.
I agree. I definitely think power is necessary and I’m not masochist.
Oh and I still care about the nation too. I’m not a criminal apologist and dislike that so many of my peers are.
This is essentially the same principle as Ethno-Nationalism, only we value different people, or rather different qualities within people. To this I would ask you, what is a Nation then without its founding stock?
A Nation originates from a foundational group of people, these are the people the Nation strives to protect. What then does the Nation become when the individual bonds that forged it are no longer alive in 100 years? This is where I often find civic nationalism breaks down into abstractions and hyper individualism, while Ethnic Nationalism would still see value in preserving and protecting the descendants of the Founding Stock.
I have ethnic cousins and friends as well. I want to see them living in a world where their sense of belonging is not determined by arbitrary values, but by hard coded and inalienable rules. And I also recognize that of the ones of them that are mixed, there is and always will be a fundamental fracture in their identity, always split between two trees. They can’t look back and claim a singular heritage or culture as their own, they are strangers to both. I don’t want to be a stranger to my heritage, and I don’t want my children to be strangers to it either. That is my principle.
We can quantify Who is more American by their lineage. My ancestors have been here since the 1700s. And I don’t care if somebody merely says the right words or affects the right behavior, they don’t have a history here that extends as far back as my own. Why then should I devalue my own existence to pander to any generation of migrant that comes after my forebears? Why then should I reduce my identity and heritage down to a mere Economic Contract that anyone and everyone can be a part of just so long as they say mere words? And what’s more, what do I honestly have to leave behind for future generations, if I abandon that history? Abandon that culture? Abandon those traditions and that sense of identity?
I think if you really value your ethnic comrades, and if you really value yourself, you might strive to create a sense of identity that is more long lasting, and not one that is constantly pandering to statistical exceptions to try and forge Truth out of abstractions.
All options applying to the same situation, there is going to be some options that are superior to others in securing a positive result. Each of these options is its own generality, containing its own general truth.
This part is right.
what you’re basically saying is that there is no General Strategy to the given scenario, always ever a collection of strategies with various outcomes*
No, there is an optimal strategy. You have to create a metric based on the order of operations. For example, a cost-benefit accounts for two things across multiple options.
So then lets extend this into your own Civic Nationalist Ideology. Upon what basis do you believe that Civic Nationalism is the optimal strategy? Insofar as you believe it allows you to protect those people, those exceptions, that you find valuable, is it truly effective in achieving this result?
What is a nation without it’s founding stock?
A standard nation like any other. All nations over time become a ship of Theseus. So many prominent features get replaced that it’s hard to even recognize it as the same country anymore. Is ancient China the same as modern China? It helped shaped modern China but it definitely isn’t the same.
So by this logic I live in the present and maybe it is hyper individualistic of me to live like that but when you truly believe change is the only constant in life it’s easy to find any other lifestyle futile.
I think if you really value your comrades, and if you really value yourself, you might strive to create a sense of identity that is more long lasting, and not one that is constantly pandering to statistical exceptions to try and forge Truth out of abstractions.
I don’t know how to do that without compromising our disappearance. I’m not even sure any stable identity is even achievable either. I just accept everything is impermanent and strive for mitigation. It’s not like me or any of my comrades will be alive 100 years from now anyway. I’m also assuming all my grandkids won’t all be celibate and kill the lineage anyway.
And I don’t care if somebody merely says the right words or affects the right behavior, they don’t have a history here that extends as far back as my own.
Well laws are just words too and behavior is especially important. You can’t just assume every statement is a lie and every behavior is an act and ignore it. Even the book of lies holds some truths. People lie, but they don’t lie that much nor are they even capable. Seriously. Try to keep track of more than three lies at a time. It’s really difficult.
Another issue is that I want to adopt principles that aren’t my own or my ancestors creation. For instance white families like to push their kids out at 18 then shortchanged them they need help. I much prefer family values where parents act like their 30 year son or daughter is still a baby and only move out when they marry.
I’m tired and might be writing gibberish but:
We probably came to the nationalism part for similar reasons. I want criminals to be punished regardless of it being “racist” or “sexist” or “mean” or not to do so because that only punishes innocent people. This requires more enforcement and stronger sense of unity.
Since I’m so obsessed with propaganda or the normalization of whatever, I want hard power to be strong enough to weaken the soft power. As I believe soft power is stronger in weaker governments and soft power is more dubious in its propaganda. It’s the same reason you want cops instead of cartels. Leaving everything disorganized to some vigilantic justice creates bigger problems. This makes me care about abolishing free speech and freedom of religion more. I.e controlling the dissident ideologies of the state.
Who knows if it actually works because it requires civic nationalists to win and we aren’t winning but it’s the strategy that makes the most theoretical sense to me.
On a smaller scale, it probably helps my poc friends from being targeted less often? yAy
Also who knows, I knew a biracial white nationalist (because internalized racism is a bitch ig) who was very close to me in my teens and I kept saying racism is bad and later he killed himself so like fuck it maybe nothing matters and everything is fucked. I blame the village! the child who fails to feel the warmth from the village will burn it down to feel its warmth, except when they’re too weak to do so they just light themselves on fire instead ahahahaha the village is full of murderers, can’t all of you scumbags just die? Ahahaha
This post ties into the ideas of giving people the benefit of the doubt, and managing instead of killing. Equal chances I’m paranoid-hallucinating or daydreaming all this.
The government routinely convicts innocent people. We know this because of the exonerations from DNA evidence. But, the system we have isn’t going to get better at pointing the finger (think jury trials) and DNA evidence doesn’t always apply. The system does not reach “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is the standard it proclaims. It has illegitimized itself.
Prison for life without parole is seen as a way to execute someone, that is artificially “cheaper” than execution. People view it as an execution because they imagine losing all the things they like about their lives. I think there is going to be a push to make prison less punishing and less debilitating.
On one hand I know there are people who I want contained because they are volatile and dangerous, but I don’t hate them. I don’t want their lives to be wasted. On the other hand, making prison into adult daycare means society will send people to prison even more readily for longer. It blends the system of criminal control into regular life. Imagine someone talking to you about doing a couple years lumber-jacking in a work-camp for public intoxication as if it were just an odd life experience or line on a resume.
The Indo-European root for the word “Nation” historically refers to a People Group who share a common ancestry. Were such a thing so futile, then why would our ancestors codify it with a word, and the establishment of Societies that lasted much longer than themselves that still upheld that foundational principle?
Impermanence is oxymoronic, because in order for impermanence to exist, it must be a permanent state of affairs. Thus, nothing really changes, and the truth is only obfuscated.
However, we can measure the Nations and Societies throughout history that both Practiced a long standing example of Ethnic Homogeneity, and compare them to the societies which abandoned this principle, to see which are healthier, and whose citizens are the more fulfilled.
Iceland and Japan are great examples of Ethnic Homogeniety, and as a consequence of this, they have longer lifespans, above average IQs, more social cohesion, more trust, etc.
Compare them to Nations such as Brazil, or ancient India, it is quite clear which is the healthier and more effective survival strategy.
Where do you think laws come from if not from Actors with various behavioral and intellectual proclivities? If America was explicitly founded for White Immigrants, than the Laws and the Nation reflect this, and thus the importation of immigrants into such a country would contradict the founding fathers intentions, leading to the collapse of the nation.
Again, it is absurd to assume that migrants can perform in the West the same as Whites, when their own native societies don’t reflect the same degree of competence.
I should also note that the trend of kicking children out at 18 is very recent, like within the past 100 years. Whites historically have passed on their land to their children.
I want criminals to be punished, which means more Blacks and Browns punished on average because they commit more crime. Everything about this is fair, and the people, the exceptions to the rule you would cite to spare them from judgement, are often the people protecting these criminals.
When a migrant rapes a child in UK (Which happens almost every week), it doesn’t matter if his family is innocent of this, they are often complicit in his crimes, and should be deported alongside him.
If your colored friends don’t want to be targeted so often, tell them to commit less crimes.
You’re choosing nihilism and apathy, saying “The problem is difficult” and thereby never striving to fight for the right answer because of your emotional attachments to certain individuals. This emotion clouds your judgement, and causes you to project your weakness onto others.
The Indo-European root for the word “Nation” historically refers to a People Group who share a common ancestry.
And ancestor comes from antecessor, which means predecessor or fore-goer. Meaning the people before you established the nation. A noticeable lack of blood relation is mentioned here.
Where do you think laws come from if not from Actors with various behavioral and intellectual proclivities? If America was explicitly founded for White Immigrants, than the Laws and the Nation reflect this
I do not care if whites started on good terms because they are not finishing on good terms.
Again, it is absurd to assume that migrants can perform in the West the same as Whites, when their own native societies don’t reflect the same degree of competence.
Just because the non-whites started on bad terms doesn’t they can’t finish on good terms. I did mention that I think any new immigrant has to acknowledge their original home is bad aka incompetent.
I should also note that the trend of kicking children out at 18 is very recent, like within the past 100 years. Whites historically have passed on their land to their children.
That only strengthens my point of impermanence. Whites are not acting like they used to and it’s not because they’ve been conquered, it’s because they’re pushing their white behaviors to the logical extremes. White countries are more prone to individualism. The more they think independence is virtue the colder they become.
and the people, the exceptions to the rule you would cite to spare them from judgement, are often the people protecting these criminals
And that goes both ways. Funny how the only juror in the Lindsay Clancy jury who said she was guilty was a black man. Maybe the whites protect their criminals too. Whites protect their criminals so hard they make it look like their crimes aren’t even real. If a white woman wants to commit infanticide then her white peers will just simply decriminalize infanticide for her. You’re complaining about who broke rules while ignoring who creates and recreates them and then rewrites the language surrounding it as “ethical altruism”.
If your colored friends don’t want to be targeted so often, tell them to commit less crimes.
My point is they aren’t committing crimes but they’re being held accountable for the actions of their peers when they don’t even talk to those bad actors. It’s all guilt by association and the association part is barely even real.
and causes you to project your weakness onto others.
It’s not a weakness to be mad at the people who stole from you. It is not a weakness to seek justice.
Nihilism is just how I express fatigue. I’m recharged after good nights rest.
If you’re willingly seeing people as honorary criminals then I’m forced to see you as an honorary murderer.
The only thing I’m weak in, is being legitimately too afraid to even think about taboo thoughts. How can I light up the dark if I’m too afraid to even immerse myself in it?
In the future I will be stronger about this.
This post ties into the ideas of giving people the benefit of the doubt, and managing instead of killing. Equal chances I’m paranoid-hallucinating or daydreaming all this.
Nah, you’re correct!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
However I’m not actually talking about criminals but I am referencing legal terms to help establish a moral framework.
The reason criminality is being referenced so much is because it’s 1) legitimately a feature of the topic and 2) if anyone is ever talking about second-class citizens or an even lower group, they’ve effectively relabeled them as “proto-criminals” which forces me to redirect to criminality.
I’m making this post to try and link my post to the thread topic better. The most ironclad case for labeling people proto-criminals would include an actual assessment of many factors including things not demonized in the media like trauma and hormones. The sneakiest, most politically acceptable way to use a pre-crime system would be imposing the sort of soft controls we see in probation/parole/bail situations.
It’s not finishing on good terms because we betrayed our own existence.
Non-Whites have never finished on good terms, never, not anywhere in history. Doesn’t matter if they acknowledge their home as bad, their genetics and their people are what made it bad.
Whites historically have been conquerors. We did not extend individual liberties to people until now, because we are corrupted. If we want to return to that, you need to stop encouraging this evil yourself.
Lindsay Clancy is not a pure bred White. And a single nigger on a jury who doesn’t even understand the law doesn’t change anything. We agree that there is poison among us, not that it is our most defining feature, or any extuse to simply abandon what is right and stop striving for the Truth, like you’re doing, using this as an excuse to hold to a faulty course of actions.
Yes, all blacks are criminals by birth. Genetics is a bitch, sorry.
Are you both a Woman and Brown?
I’m starting to understand why you can’t understand statistics…
We didn’t steal shit from you nigger, we gave you everything, literally everything. We doubled your life expectancy, raised your IQ, gave you roads, infrastructure, education. Hell, we even preserved your languages because most of you were too stupid to do it on your own. Yet despite all this, Blacks and Browns still persist in their degeneracy, and Whites have to pay the price for it.
I’m a white woman, sorry.
Anyway I wasn’t accusing whites of theft, I was accusing a certain ideology of it. I was just rambling.
Do whatever the hell you want.