United States The United States and Immigration Policy

[LindyAF]

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.

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.

 

[strunkenwhite]

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.

All right, but do you have any reason to think that Indians did it more often than whites?

 

[FriedCFour]

All right, but do you have any reason to think that Indians did it more often than whites?

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.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

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.

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.

 

[strunkenwhite]

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.

It seems relevant to the proposition "western imperialists were uniquely kind".

Of course, since we have grown soft and weak and effeminate, our pie is now becoming their pie.

Bye, bye, American pie.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

It seems relevant to the proposition "western imperialists were uniquely kind".

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

Bye, bye, American pie.

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

 

[strunkenwhite]

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

Excessively reductive to the point of being counterproductive.

 

[FriedCFour]

It seems relevant to the proposition "western imperialists were uniquely kind".

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.

 

[strunkenwhite]

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.

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?

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Excessively reductive to the point of being counterproductive.

Oh I see, whites are supposed to feel bad for things no one else does, because reasons.

 

[FriedCFour]

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?

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.

 

[strunkenwhite]

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.

On that I would agree.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Oh I see, whites are supposed to feel bad for things no one else does, because reasons.

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?

 

[Captain X]

It's a good thing I never made that argument then.

 

[LordsFire]

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

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.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

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?

I don't see how that's different from what I've said.

 

[FriedCFour]

It's a good thing I never made that argument then.

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”.

 

[strunkenwhite]

I don't see how that's different from what I've said.

I don't understand how—but that being the case, I guess the disagreement was illusory.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

I don't understand how—but that being the case, I guess the disagreement was illusory.

You have used many words to suggest why whites are supposed to feel guilty for winning when no one else does.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

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.

fair enough I suppose.