United States The United States and Immigration Policy

Hastur of Carcosa said:
So... Kind of like your doing now? I see walls and walls of text but the streets are awfully quite for someone an entire subset of the population who claims this is all a lost cause. For all of the lefs keyboard warrior crap at least they have antifa. Meanwhile for all your guy's talk You traditionalist can't even seem to be bothered to vote, run for office or even open up a business.
Click to expand...

tbh I think this is just ignorance on your part. There's a ton of stuff along these lines on the nationalist, traditionalist, and dissident right. Fundraising PACs, political campaigns, political conferences? All exist. Activist and action groups, campaigns on behalf of our political prisoners, businesses opened to support these causes and to avoid having to give money to the enemy? Those too. There's also at least one lawfare attempt against the SPLC. And that's not counting how many people in normie conservative groups and stuff are on our side, among the grassroots. And even those of us who don't want to risk getting involved directly can be contributing financially. I know I do.

The reason I, and I suspect others, don't shill this stuff harder here, is because I'm not sure what would be over the line with respect to a few of the rules.
 
Last edited:
ShieldWife said:
Do you have statistics on how often US soldiers massacred native Americans? Of course not, its a ridiculous request. Of course, you can list some examples of American soldiers committing such atrocities, we can also discuss examples of Indians doing so as well.
Click to expand...
All right, but do you have any reason to think that Indians did it more often than whites?
 
strunkenwhite said:
All right, but do you have any reason to think that Indians did it more often than whites?
Click to expand...
Why is that even relevant? You’re talking about two different ethnic groups with vastly different cultures clashing over land. No shit there’s going to be conflict because that’s what happens all throughout history. “Whoever did the least massacring is the good guys” is retarded.
 
FriedCFour said:
Why is that even relevant? You’re talking about two different ethnic groups with vastly different cultures clashing over land. No shit there’s going to be conflict because that’s what happens all throughout history. “Whoever did the least massacring is the good guys” is retarded.
Click to expand...

Everyone else is just upset that Europeans were really good at collective violence and therefore ended up with a larger portion of the world pie. Of course, since we have grown soft and weak and effeminate, our pie is now becoming their pie.
 
FriedCFour said:
Why is that even relevant? You’re talking about two different ethnic groups with vastly different cultures clashing over land. No shit there’s going to be conflict because that’s what happens all throughout history. “Whoever did the least massacring is the good guys” is retarded.
Click to expand...
It seems relevant to the proposition "western imperialists were uniquely kind".
DocSolarisReich said:
Of course, since we have grown soft and weak and effeminate, our pie is now becoming their pie.
Click to expand...
Bye, bye, American pie.
 
strunkenwhite said:
It seems relevant to the proposition "western imperialists were uniquely kind".
Click to expand...

Perhaps 'uniquely incompetent' or 'uniquely suicidal' are better descriptions.

strunkenwhite said:
Bye, bye, American pie.
Click to expand...

Which only goes to show that wasting compassion outside the tribe is a weakness and a moral failing that can only ever ultimately result in pathetic self destruction.

"The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy"~ Carl Schmitt
 
DocSolarisReich said:
Which only goes to show that wasting compassion outside the tribe is a weakness and a moral failing that can only ever ultimately result in pathetic self destruction.

"The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy"~ Carl Schmitt
Click to expand...
Excessively reductive to the point of being counterproductive.
 
FriedCFour said:
Not really, because to do that you need to compare other victors to victors, ie look at how Africa, Asia, and the Americas were as imperialists.
Click to expand...
I think I see: you're saying that even when Indians had local superiority, and were seemingly in a similar position to commit massacres as whites were at other times, the long term strategic situation influenced their behavior—is that right?
 
strunkenwhite said:
I think I see: you're saying that even when Indians had local superiority, and were seemingly in a similar position to commit massacres as whites were at other times, the long term strategic situation influenced their behavior—is that right?
Click to expand...
No. And honestly this is way off track into major irrelevancy in regards to what immigration policy the United States should have. The only point in rehashing the Indian wars is to try and say that America can’t restrict immigration because of it which is retarded.
 
FriedCFour said:
No. And honestly this is way off track into major irrelevancy in regards to what immigration policy the United States should have. The only point in rehashing the Indian wars is to try and say that America can’t restrict immigration because of it which is retarded.
Click to expand...
On that I would agree.
 
DocSolarisReich said:
Oh I see, whites are supposed to feel bad for things no one else does, because reasons.
Click to expand...
No:
1. I reject the idea that there is categorically no pragmatic use for even the smallest degree of compassion for outsiders (or: the qualifier "wasting" makes your claim useless, since no one is going to disagree that wasting is to be avoided where practical);
2. Trying to reduce political relations to a friend/enemy binary where neutrality doesn't exist is not useful IMO. You could, I suppose, argue that an allegedly neutral party actually has interests, predispositions, habits, etc. that make it fall on one side or the other of your friend/enemy dichotomy, however slightly; but they could then vacillate between friend and enemy at the drop of a hat, and what kind of useful classification is that?
 
DocSolarisReich said:
Perhaps 'uniquely incompetent' or 'uniquely suicidal' are better descriptions.



Which only goes to show that wasting compassion outside the tribe is a weakness and a moral failing that can only ever ultimately result in pathetic self destruction.

"The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy"~ Carl Schmitt
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I thought you claimed to be a Christian?

I honestly can't tell if you're just shit-posting, or if you've completely thrown the gospel out altogether.
 
strunkenwhite said:
No:
1. I reject the idea that there is categorically no pragmatic use for even the smallest degree of compassion for outsiders (or: the qualifier "wasting" makes your claim useless, since no one is going to disagree that wasting is to be avoided where practical);
2. Trying to reduce political relations to a friend/enemy binary where neutrality doesn't exist is not useful IMO. You could, I suppose, argue that an allegedly neutral party actually has interests, predispositions, habits, etc. that make it fall on one side or the other of your friend/enemy dichotomy, however slightly; but they could then vacillate between friend and enemy at the drop of a hat, and what kind of useful classification is that?
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's different from what I've said.
 
Captain X said:
It's a good thing I never made that argument then. ;)
Click to expand...
You have a weird habit of replying to people without quoting them. Note that I said “that’s why you’d bring it up”. The only other reason is to use your identity politically, which you absolutely have been doing lol. You’re clearly invested in it, you value it, and it impacts your views. You wrote a big post of “from a native perspective” and of “schadenfreude”.
 
ShieldWife said:
You have no idea about any political activism I (or anybody else here you're criticizing) have engaged in outside of this forum. The left can have Antifa because the police look the other way while they terrorize their opponents where as right wingers who even try to defend themselves from Antifa go to prison for years.

It seems like you just want to express disagreement but instead of trying to construct an argument, you're just saying that we aren't doing enough when you have no clue what anybody else is doing.
Click to expand...

fair enough I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top