/politics/ - News & Politics

>>3944

I haven't touched the Jewish Question first, so let's do that. The white nationalist here behaves like the black nationalism calling for affirmative action. He points to the history of the persecuted Jew as proof that Jews did something wrong.

Indeed, Western Jews today seem to push left wing policy. But is this surprising? Would you if a Jew want a repeat of the National Socialist revolution? Of course they do what they do. It's called saving their own skin, and there's no racial explanation needed. An entirely cultural one suffices.

Jews are different racially, but it's hard to argue that they are inferior. The same IQ system that the white nationalist finds rock solid to explain black behavior suddenly becomes a scam when it comes to explaining the Jews. Seeing Jews high up in completely opposite movements, the white nationalist reaches for nepotism as an explanation, but if this was true, why would Jews oppose each other in these completely opposite movements? Even though Jews lean left, they are over-represented in right wing politics too.

Could it be that the Jews are just really smart? That's what the IQ stats say anyway. Ashkenazim in particular have a greater number of high IQs than whites and even east-asians. It would be surprising if they didn't get to the top. Back in the 20s and 30s, whites even employed reverse affirmative action against them in Universities, and they still made it.

The fact of the matter is, there's no such thing as an "evil gene". The Jewish problem to the extent that it is one is a cultural one. European Kings imported the Jews due to biblical restrictions on usury. They needed a working banking system, and you can't have one without profit (which is what interest rates provide), so they imported the Jews, and when things went wrong (boom and bust is inevitable regardless of who is in charge), they just pointed the peasants at the Jews and saved their own skin. No wonder the Jews became insular and resentful! Or is it just a chicken and the egg problem, and we shouldn't focus on the blame game?

Perhaps the answer is to stop pushing the idea of attacking the Jews. Perhaps the answer is for whites and Jews to make up with each other. Only then will Jews feel more comfortable moving to the right. Ceasing to call them kosherservatives and demonize them would help with that. Don't create your own problems!

If the Jews are a problem and need to be deported, then as I said it's certainly a cultural one. It's the same for the Muslims. Contrary to American blacks, what you might not know is that African immigrants to the UK perform academically at levels far beyond what previous IQ estimates would show. Even black low performance may not be universal to the incredibly genetically diverse group that are the Africans. That you can see here: http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

The real problem for Europe is the Muslim religion + the Arabic clan system. The reason for so much upheaval in the Middle East is that the second one of those is undergoing a process of collapse right now. Assaulted by modernity and atomization, the Arab extended family and its attending hyper-conservatism is falling apart. Those who fear the Islamification of Europe should instead consider the Europeanization of Islam and the Arabs. We've already seen it in the Middle East. Just compare Turkey to Afghanistan to see what strict secularization can do to that blighted clan system channeled through Islam that engenders honor killings and hate.

The answer for Europe is not ethno-nationalism, but civic-nationalism. Controlling the borders does not require racial jihad. The Nazis have a point when they speak out against the suicidal self-hatred in Europe. If Europe doesn't believe in its own cultural values, it won't even be able to enforce them. However, this is a matter of standing firm behind liberalism and secularization, not rejecting them. We need to move away from the progressive form of liberalism which contains its own undoing. We need to believe that our laws and institutions are better, and to enforce them equally, without folding to Islam for fear of being called racist.

That is the path we should tread to manage this crisis. If equality before the law had been practiced, then the scum behind Rotherham would never have got away with it. But if Nazi ideology becomes popular, then we will simply destroy our societies in the name of saving them.

So that's why I reject ethnic nationalism and you should too. Continue to red pill liberals on race and negative culture, because that's what we need; not nationalism, but a liberalism willing to defend itself.

>pro-abortion

>pro-Jew

OP, your logic is sound and you're right about a lot of things, but you are working off of some very faulty premises, from which you draw several very incorrect conclusions. I'm just going to go line-by-line and try to dissect what you wrote.

>I believe that the races have biological differences and that the data on IQ and certain genes like MAO-A paint a picture of the negro as having less intelligence on average and being prone to more spontaneous aggression.

I agree with you here.

>However, while recognizing this makes me an ebul racist, I am not a nationalist. Why?

>I am not a nationalist because I also believe that while blacks have some lower capacity on average, the progression of a state and the expansion of its productive capacities has little to do with the masses to begin with. The average person only maintains the current level of existence through the menial tasks that need doing. While this is vital, what actually expands the economy are the efforts of scientists coming up with new advancements in our understanding of physics, engineers working out methods of applying that understanding to real machines, and entrepreneurs working out ways of managing the usage of those machines such that we get more revenue from them then they cost to employ.

I disagree with the notion that every job will soon be automated away, and I think nearly everyone who has fallen for the automation scare has a misunderstanding of what fundamentally drives job creation, and a misunderstanding of the relationship between job creation, economic growth, population growth, and energy/resource usage.

The real reason that the job market has gotten progressively bleaker over the past several decades is that per-capita energy usage in the united states peaked 45 years ago, and is now in outright decline. On a fundamental level, civilization as a whole is basically a super-complex chemical reaction that requires a constant input of energy to keep it going. Of course, there are countless other variables besides energy, but on a fundamental, physical level it becomes impossible to drive the factories, automobiles, and machinery that drive industrial civilization without energy inputs in one form or another. Energy efficiency can only stretch things so far before you are once again faced with the same fundamental problem: every job, and every unit of economic activity that occurs in our society requires some minimal amount of energy, below which it becomes impossible to make things any more efficient. You will never be able to use the energy from a 40-watt lightbulb to drive an entire tractor, or power a city: on a physical level, there is always a limit to how efficient things can be made.

Mainstream economists like to ramble incoherently about "muh service economy", but even the most ephemeral, abstract office jobs are ultimately dependent upon that same industrial base. It should be obvious that not every job can be a service job; at some point along the supply chain, something physical needs to be produced, or else there are no goods to buy or sell to begin with. Even if we one day uploaded everything, including our minds, into massive computers, we would still not be free from the fundamental constraints of physical reality; at some point along the way we would need to build, maintain, and repair enormous supercomputers, all of which requires a monstrous amount of energy to do.

As we have been running into energy constraints for the past few decades, the number of available jobs has also come under pressure. A bit of critical thinking would reveal that there is plenty which needs to be done: we have a crumbling road system, an electrical grid in serious need of repair and upgrade, water and sewage systems which in some parts of the country have become wholly inadequate, and the ever-present need to build new infrastructure for our growing populations. This doesn't even touch on the need to build infrastructure in anticipation of future problems (e.g. erecting flood barriers in New York City, or relocating the people and infrastructure of southern Florida to a region of the country that won't be underwater in 100 years). So if there are so many things which need to be done, why is nobody doing them, and why are there no jobs?

The truth is, there is not enough energy to go around right now, to fuel a growing, globalized, industrializing economy of 7.3 billion people with a GDP of $70 trillion. The pie is no longer growing quickly enough to sate the demands of the growing hordes of third-worlders, who are demanding increasing levels of affluence year-after-year. That $70-trillion dollar figure is fundamentally tied to the amount of energy we use http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html , so if you want to increase the level of wealth of the average person, you have two options:

>increase global energy use

>decrease the population

>>4100

(continued)

Now here comes the darker truth: because our supply of fossil fuels is finite, there will come a point in the future when our global energy supply stops growing altogether, and begins to decline. The only way out of this is probably renewable energy, which is why it is of utmost importance that we ramp up our use of solar, wind, and nuclear power as quickly as possible (even if it turns out that they are somehow insufficient to power industrial civilization on their own, there is really no other alternative but to try to make it work). Western nations are already experiencing declines in our energy use per capita, which is why the job market is absolute shit, the number of people out of the workforce keeps increasing even during our 'recovery', and our economy seems unable to grow quickly enough to keep things running smoothly.

In a world of highly constrained or even declining energy use, computerization no longer becomes economically appealing, since computers, as I said earlier, require monstrous amounts of energy to run: http://science.time.com/2013/08/14/power-drain-the-digital-cloud-is-using-more-energy-than-you-think/

The whole dream of 'universal basic income' is a clever ruse based on the false notion that it is automation that has been taking our jobs away, when in reality it is energy shortages that are the real culprit. This also becomes obvious when you realize that, in a world economy that contains billions of jobs, global annual sales of industrial robots are only on the order of ~200,000/year: http://www.statista.com/statistics/264084/worldwide-sales-of-industrial-robots/

In fact, I'd consider a Universal Basic Income to be a net harm to society at this point in time, both for the same reasons that welfare states are normally dangerous, but also because it runs the risk of taking even more of our remaining productive workers out of the economy at a time when we desperately need people to be putting their full effort towards keeping this rotting edifice of western civilization from collapsing on all of our heads. This idea of 'free money for everyone' is literally reddit-tier childish utopian liberalism at work. It is supported primarily by twenty-something millennials who have been forced out of the labor market for so long that they have developed an actual fear of work, and will cling to any slightly legitimate-sounding kike-tier idea that gets peddled around and promises to get them out of performing real labor at any point in their lives. You didn't honestly believe that getting the vast majority of the population to stop working altogether would actually solve our problems, did you?

>>4102

(continued)

>Introducing the black average will not destroy civilization because the white average was never responsible for each stage of civilization to begin with. Everyone at the bottom has at least maintained each stage, but could not advance it. Even Marxists recognize this, which is why Lenin reintroduced capitalism in his New Economic Policy so that capitalists could continue to expand the productive forces through their exploitation. The elites may stand upon the masses, but only those with the time and intelligence to come up with new ways of doing things can bring any advancement at all. The final advancement will do away with even the maintenance role that the masses play.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that a larger population will have no negative effects on society. Since energy and resources are limited, growing the number of people participating in your nation's economy will decrease the amount of resources each person has available to them. Considering the fact that IQ is heavily correlated with the probability that a given person will contribute something meaningful to society, our society will be more prosperous if it contains people with an average IQ of 100 as opposed to people with an average IQ of 85. For a given population level, to maximize the rate of innovation would mean maximizing the average level of intelligence of your citizens. I also reject the idea that only the super-intelligent ever contribute meaningful advances to society; a lot of the hidden yet important advances come from small improvements to our manufacturing processes or to the way we manage our supply chains, and countless engineers with perhaps an IQ of 110 or 115 have undoubtedly worked along the edges of our society's efforts at innovation, and made countless incremental advances they will likely never be lauded for. To reduce the proportion of people in this range of intelligence through a dysgenic immigration policy would be to introduce a vast source of inefficiency into society: suddenly, there are perhaps tens of millions of more mouths to feed, but since the average IQ of these people is lower, they will have a lower probability of contributing positively to their societies.

>Liberal policies on abortion have already decimated the black population and continue to damage the stupid more than the smart and the white.

Agreed.

>Blacks do not need removing at all. You have to weigh the cost of things up. What's the point of a massive violent revolution to ship them "back" to Africa, when they only comprise a higher ratio in a crime rate that is already steadily going down? The cost of nationalism is far too great compared to the benefits.

I mostly agree with what you wrote here too, but I'd like to add that if there comes a time when energy and resources become so scarce that we're faced with the choice between taking a massive step backwards in our quality of life as a civilization, or removing a racial group with a low average IQ and a tendency not to integrate into larger society, then we should throw the blacks out for the sake of saving what parts of western civilization we still can. For now, the cure is worse than the disease, but this remains true only if the disease itself doesn't get worse.

>>4103

(continued)

>I haven't touched the Jewish Question first, so let's do that. The white nationalist here behaves like the black nationalism calling for affirmative action. He points to the history of the persecuted Jew as proof that Jews did something wrong.

>Indeed, Western Jews today seem to push left wing policy. But is this surprising? Would you if a Jew want a repeat of the National Socialist revolution? Of course they do what they do. It's called saving their own skin, and there's no racial explanation needed. An entirely cultural one suffices.

I am of the opinion that most jews are just regular people, but it is undeniable that there are also many Jews out there who wish to do harm to the white race. For fuck's sake fam, we have direct video footage of them saying as much. Just look at what Barbara Specter said, or that German Jewish politician who said that he was glad that German birthrates were so low and that it was a good thing that the Nazis were bad at having children (I'll try to find the video if you're interested).

Regardless of whether the cause of this hatred is racial or cultural (and I lean towards cultural too), you will not be able to change the culture of a group of people who have resisted integrating into society for thousands of years. You cannot wish away cultural differences with a magic wand, so the options available are:

>just live with the fact that you will always have these incompatible groups that will never get along, with all of the attendant social problems that result from it;

>act like a retarded liberal and pretend that a government-driven policy of forced "integration" will fix things instead of making them even worse;

>deportation

Regardless of the root cause, you are still left with the same options, and to me it looks like option 3 would be the best in the long term (assuming there will ever be a time when it becomes politically feasible to do it).

>>4106

(continued)

>Could it be that the Jews are just really smart? That's what the IQ stats say anyway. Ashkenazim in particular have a greater number of high IQs than whites and even east-asians. It would be surprising if they didn't get to the top. Back in the 20s and 30s, whites even employed reverse affirmative action against them in Universities, and they still made it.

Agreed; the Ashkenazim undoubtedly have a very high average IQ, the data don't lie. Sephardim and other types of Jews do score much lower, and in particular lower than the average european person, but if I'm not mistaken most of the Jews in America are Ashkenazim regardless.

>Perhaps the answer is to stop pushing the idea of attacking the Jews. Perhaps the answer is for whites and Jews to make up with each other

That would certainly be nice, wouldn't it? However, neither of us are able to speak for the Jews or for every White, and fixing racial hatred that goes back thousands of years is much more difficult and complex than just getting everyone to give each other a group hug. In fact, the best possible solution for achieving peace in the long term is to probably give both whites and jews their own respective homelands. By separating them entirely, the old rivalries will no longer be at the forefront of people's minds and may ultimately fade with time.

>The answer for Europe is not ethno-nationalism, but civic-nationalism. Controlling the borders does not require racial jihad. The Nazis have a point when they speak out against the suicidal self-hatred in Europe. If Europe doesn't believe in its own cultural values, it won't even be able to enforce them. However, this is a matter of standing firm behind liberalism and secularization, not rejecting them. We need to move away from the progressive form of liberalism which contains its own undoing. We need to believe that our laws and institutions are better, and to enforce them equally, without folding to Islam for fear of being called racist.

In a happier time, I would have agreed with you. However, considering the number of muslims in Europe, combined with their level of radicalization and the wider impending problems coming our way that I outlined earlier, I fear that racial jihad may be coming our way whether we like it or not. Certainly, there are countless muslims living in Europe who, if they had their way, would force everyone else to live under Sharia law. Because many muslims are vehemently opposed to integrating into European culture or adopting European values, we can only afford to enforce western values as long as Europeans remain a majority in their own countries. After they become a minority, your brand of liberalism will once again become self-defeating. It sounds like you are proposing that we 'give a stern talking to' the muslims in the hopes that they'll see our ways of doing things, but I can tell you ahead of time that most of them are not interested. They will reject our values, and if we don't reject the muslims in turn then they will eventually destroy our values altogether.

I think it stands to reason that cultures communicate more effectively from remote origins, where there are two tangible bodies that can coherently observe and interact with each other, as opposed to integrated relations, which, while they may seem to be bringing cultures closer together, are actually just creating noise in the larger dialogue which creates unrest and ultimately, perpetual deterioration of any possible coexistence.

There can physically be no coexistence without spatial boundaries; at least not without a degenerative amount of compromise from either both, or more likely just the more tolerant one of the parties involved.

That said, I think the real problem with nationalism is simply the raw tribalism of it, which seems like as much a function of identity politics as those it means to abolish. Ideally, individualism in society would be viable enough that people wouldn't feel the need to maneuver around each other based on things like racial realities and such, as it would be irrelevant to each's own success or failure. It's in this way that I still reject socialism in favor capitalism, which, whether naively or not, I'm convinced would not foster an oligarchy like what currently exists if implemented properly. But if I were to accept any degree of socialism, it would have to be based in nationalism, otherwise things might as well keep on as they are.

>>4271

>stormfront-or-sjw?

whatever fam; of course there are whites who wish harm to niggers; have you ever been to /pol/?

If you believe that people are not fundamentally equal, the logical solution is to embrace some form of identity politics. My argument is that whites are more capable of building an advanced society than blacks, and not vice-versa, and from what I've seen, the preponderance of evidence stands on my side.

And furthermore, what you said doesn't invalidate any of the other points I made, though I think it's cute that you picked out the single sentence in my entire 5-post-long argument that you were able to actually formulate a feeble counterargument against, while ignoring both the context of that sentence and every single other argument that surrounded it.

also im drunk

>>4295

This nigga gets it.

>>4336

>>4337

Jesus Christ dude, I've never seen someone put so much effort towards disguising an anti-White and anti-European stance as you have in these two posts. It is both disgusting and terrifying to me that a sophist like you might actually one day lead people astray and prevent them from implementing any positive societal changes that could meaningfully fix the problems we're facing:

>Oh, I've seen those. I just expect it. The problem is that they are left wing and Jews have good reason to be left wing. As soon as you admit that not all Jews are responsible, you target left wingers as a whole instead.

Nonsense. Admitting that not all Jews are responsible doesn't broaden the scope of who should be 'targeted', it narrows it: we should 'target' only the Jews who are actively working against white people and who refuse to either integrate into wider society or leave for Israel.

>My problem comes from when nationalists want to remove Jews just because they are Jews, even though they have a long history and tradition in Europe. It's a fricative one, but I'd rather try and work out the differences between us than immediately jump to mass deportation.

Imagine if I were to say the same about Muslims. It would be just as true (c.f. Ottoman empire, Caliphate of Cordoba, etc.,), and yet:

My problem comes from when nationalists want to remove Muslims just because they are Muslims, even though they have a long history and tradition in Europe. It's a fricative one, but I'd rather try and work out the differences between us than immediately jump to mass deportation.

does not justify in any way what is happening to Europe right now. Saying that Muslims have a long history in Europe does not justify turning every European capital into an Islamic ghetto, just as saying that Jews have a long history in Europe does not justify tolerating people like Barbara Spectre who are attempting to demographically displace the entire continent for personal gain.

>It's not one sided like that. It's not all on the Jews.

They did not create European culture. They moved to Europe after Europeans had already lived there for thousands of years, and they benefited from its institutions and its resources. Many of their people want to destroy the original inhabitants of Europe, who evolved to be well-adapted to that continent's climate and geography and who, by all sane measures, are the rightful heirs to that part of the world. Jews do not have a right to tell the European people that they have to adapt or capitulate in any way to Jewish ideas, in the European homeland. That's not how this works. After all, you do not come into somebody else's home, start squatting in it, and demand that they do things your way.

>People don't have to love each other. There are varying levels of "not getting along". Not all of them end with civilization being destroyed.

I have already explained why civilization, as we know it, is rapidly coming to an end unless we make some very tough decisions about what parts of it we're willing to save. If the subset of Jews calling for the destruction of Europe do not stop, there will be no Europe, and if the nationalists don't kill them then the Muslims eventually will.

>Not all integration policies are made equal. Liberal integration is retarded because its liberal not because it is an attempt at government driven integration.

Any form of forced cultural integration carried out by the government is, by definition, liberal:

liberal (adj): open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.''

You're discarding traditional European demographics and replacing it with a government program. You would rather destroy two cultures (European and Islamic) than admit that your policies are wrong for everyone. This is exactly the behavior of a liberal.

>How much integration have liberals really done anyway? They seem to want to appease their victim groups and let them have their lawless ghettos when it comes to Islam, and don't even want to enforce the law for fear of being called racist.

>The Jewish problem is more high class than that and is more of an intellectual issue anyway, so it's not like you need the government to do much.

In Europe they're asking families to let the invaders live with them in their own homes. That's about as extreme as you can get when it comes to integration. The liberals have given it their all when it comes to integration, and have made exactly zero progress.

There is literally nothing the government can do to convince people intent on destroying the west,, to simply stop. What liberals like you don't get is that most people value their religion, their race, and their future more than they value what the government says. Short of threatening violence, there is no government program that could fix race relations.

This applies to the Jews as well.

>>4388 (continued)

>Ultimately, if you admit that the Jews have influenced whites through rhetoric, then we can do the same to the Jews.

How about we stop trying to "influence" entire cultures through rhetoric altogether? The Jews tried it on Whites, and they ended up creating /pol/. If we act Jewish towards the Jews themselves, we will increase their hatred of us in the exact same way that they increased our hatred of them. Again, your liberal policies begin with good intentions, and end up making things even worse.

Perhaps everyone has a right to practice their own culture in their own homeland, and we should stop this insane practice of using government intervention to destroy culture. If the Jews decide to assimilate, it should be because they want to do it, but we need to make it clear that 'the alternative is deportation to Israel, as this is the only option which allows both cultures to continue to exist in peace.

>European Jews are Europeans too. They can't all live in Israel and Israel wouldn't take them anyway because it is so crowded.

What does it mean to be 'European'? Does it mean physically living in Europe? If so, we could also call every last Syrian invader who came to Europe this year a European.

Or maybe there is something more to it: a cultural and genetic element which defines the European essence. If a group of people who hail from an entirely different region of the world come to Europe and refuse to assimilate any of the European culture or values, and in fact actively work to destroy them, what part of that is European? Let's heed Orwell's warning about redefining words: don't redefine what it means to be a European just to appease those who wish to permanently change the continent for their own gain.

>We need more political and academic rhetoric that incorporates the Jews into a Western narrative of civilization. If the right instead pushes Jews away, then of course they are going to remain left wing and destructive to the Western order of civilization.

We need to turn our universities into genuine centers of learning and knowledge again, instead of using them as political tools to push a narrative. I will not stand to watch the right use the exact same tactics the far-left did. Their tactics are every bit as responsible for the shitty world we live in as their intentions. Such a world would not be worth fighting for.

Incidentally, the Jews are an extremely tiny minority of the population (~2% in America) and in terms of growing support for our ideas, we frankly don't need them. If you were to argue that we should take their disproportionate power in government and academia and convince them that to use it for good (which would entail relinquishing that very same power), well, good fucking luck with that.

>deportation equals war.

What would you call 1.5 million people, most of whom are young men, flooding into Germany alone from the middle east every year?

If the outcome is the total demographic displacement of Germany and eventually Europe, then would you not consider that a form of aggression against the continent's original inhabitants, particularly when those young Arab and African men are also raping and murdering those inhabitants in disproportionately high numbers? Unless something is done (taking into account low European birth rates as well), the final outcome will be identical to an invading army coming in to Europe, slaughtering its people, and replacing those people with its own.

We're already at war fam. We just haven't retaliated yet.

> You talk about the difficulty of changing culture without acknowledging that calling for the mass deportation of an ethnicity would ignite comparisons to the Nazis and "never again" and so on, and you'd end up with half the white populace decimating each other in a massive war... Yet again.

>We've tried that. It doesn't work.

I talk about the impossibility of changing culture when the people themselves are unwilling to change. Muslims as a whole are unwilling to change their culture. In fact, they want to impose their culture on others, and one day they'll be the majority in Europe. In some areas they already are, and the police don't even go to those areas because they are too dangerous. You can either create some kind of Orwellian nightmare where you give the government power to brainwash people into abandoning their cultures (which they have every right to practice in their homelands in the middle east), or you give the government power to retaliate against what amounts to an invading army, power it already has but refuses to use, and send them back to where they came from which is by far the most humane solution to this nonsense.

>Then people like me have to do our best to trasmute it into cultural jihad.

Then people like me will have to stop you, one way or another.

>>4389 (continued)

>Certainly, but that's why I'm not a liberal and I actually propose strict border control. I could be a liberal if liberalism actually cared about its own survival, but clearly it's insufficient.

Considering that you're advocating for top-down government control of people's cultural beliefs, I'd consider you an extreme liberal (who happens to also want to close the borders). To think that you can brainwash all the Muslims into believing in liberal European values is nonsense. They will resist fiercely, and it will only make them even angrier at us. In the same way that American intervention in the middle east (ostensibly to change the way those people live) has only created more backlash against America, if we do the same thing to the Muslims already living in ghettoes in Europe it will cause the exact same type of backlash.

It's like you people never learn from your mistakes.

>Nationalism seems like the extreme option for when there is no other choice, however, the absolute last option, because there will be war when people start to recognize a "final solution".

There is nothing extreme about nationalism. There is nothing extreme about wanting to preserve your people's heritage and culture. Nationalism was the norm until a few decades ago. The true extremists are the globalists like you who want to destroy all cultures and borders and turn the entire world into some deformed mockery of the West. And as I said earlier we are already at war, but most people just haven't caught on yet.

>I'm proposing to actually enforce the law unlike the liberals. And we shouldn't be afraid to enforce our culture and secularize the Muslims in education and so on while they are still a minority.

This has been tried, and it has already failed. This is precisely what moderate liberals would like to do, and there is nothing in your statement that someone like Bill Maher would disagree with.

But what you wrote still gives away the truth:

>while they are still a minority.

one day they won't be a minority, and just as the invading Germanic tribes did not accept Roman values when they moved to that declining empire, the Muslims will not abandon their religion just because schools tell them they should. Hell, schools have already been forcing liberal values down the throats of whites for over 40 years, and yet there is still a massive resurgence of right-wing thought in the younger generations. Indoctrination never works forever, because people can see the truth when they look outside of their windows. Don't kid yourself, the Muslims can see what's happening too, and they would rather remain Muslim because they see how these liberal values are leading to the death of Europe. The younger generations of Muslims born in Europe are more radical than their parents. Willingness to give up one's identity is an exclusively White phenomenon.

>Perhaps nationalism will be the only way in the end, but I don't see why we can't cross that bridge when we come to it, and why we can't in the meantime try to forestall massive civil war and death and try to actually fix things.

>Why not at least try? I would say we have 30 years at least to do so.

We're already at the bridge. We reached the bridge when this "refugee" crisis began. 1.5 million people will invade Germany this year alone. Even if those numbers somehow don't increase, that means 45 million will arrive in the next 30 years. That's 45 million more people coming to a nation of 80 million. If you think Germany or anyone else can handle those kinds of numbers you are insane. In 30 years it will be far too late, elderly German people will not stand a chance fighting against tens of millions of radicalized Muslims, and the Muslims will not take a dying culture seriously enough to adopt its values.

>>4390 (continued)

>You can reject Islam without rejecting people.

Islam is just an idea held by a large number of people. The majority of Muslims in the middle east and North Africa support enforcing Sharia law; transferring these people to Europe does not magically cause them to adapt European values. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

In fact, the second and third generations of European Muslim immigrants are often even more radicalized than even their parents: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whats-driving-european-muslims-extremism/

Since Islam is at its core a phenomenon of people (Islam doesn't exist without its adherents), you cannot reject Islam without rejecting its people. You have three choices:

-force people to abandon their faith (yes, adherence to Sharia Law is a part of the Islamic faith)

-deport people

-have European values destroyed forever and replaced with Islamic ones

Pick one.

>Look at how we pacified Christianity.

And look at the result: nihilism, despair, and the death of the West. I wouldn't wish what "you" did on my worst enemies, and doing the exact same thing to the Muslims as was done to Europeans will only make the world a worse place. What happened to Europe is unique: European societies (were) homogeneous and had high levels of trust among the citizens. In ancient times, people needed to band together to survive the harsh European winters, which selected the genepool for unusually high empathy. Those conditions do not exist in the middle east, and you will not be able to pacify these people. And once the Europeans are gone, they'll turn to their long-time enemies the Jews and go after them next.

>Bad though Islam may be, the Arab extended family system is the real threat, and economic atomization is already attacking that. I see phenomena like ISIS less as a resurgent Islam, and more of a reactionary last gasp

Reality disagrees.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/15/myth-integration-muslims-europe-getting-radical-time-not-less/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British-Muslims-getting-more-radical.html

>I believe that the West is stronger and more subtle than you think. What you see as degeneracy, I see as people being made irrelevant. Atomization isn't a destructive force because what is destroys simply becomes unneeded.

What a ridiculous thing to say. How could anyone believe that "people being made irrelevant" isn't destructive? You're proposing not only that we embrace every Muslim immigrant that arrives, but that we also keep in place all of the other destructive values that are undermining the West. And you call yourself a conservative?

>The soft power of the West is immense.

Soft power means nothing without hard power to back it up. You can't use "soft power" to reason with people who would rather see you die than convert away from their religion, especially when the bulk of your own people are elderly and unwilling to fight. They will just kill you for blaspheming against their religion, and when they are the majority nobody will be left to stop them.

>You see, I'm patriotic

You're not a patriot to anything at all.

Nothing distinguishes you from a liberal except your refusal to call yourself one. Your ideas are disgraceful and people like you will be the death of the West.

>Why I'm not an ethno-nationalist, by Giant Faggot.

>>4100

>>4102

>>4103

>>4106

>>4107

>>4287

>>4289

>>4388

>>4389

>>4390

>>4391

This my dear anons, is how you completely and utterly destroy an argument

>>4570

>completely and utterly destroy an argument

being a fredditor?

>long walls of text

===

fredditor

r

e

d

d

i

t

o

r

>>4629

fag