Serious I Want To Apologize For Being So Hard on White Nationalists

[Intellectual]

Just to clarify, I am not in anyway endorsing white nationalist philosophy, I consider it racist and discriminatory, and I strongly condemn it, but I can see why someone would ascribe to it for the following reasons and thus I am more understanding of people who fall for the rhetoric:

>There are differences in average IQ among ethnic groups
>There are differences in average and variance regarding CIVILITY and VIOLENCE when examining differing ethnic types
>In-group preference is a natural human phenomena
>Anecdotal biases can be very hard to wipe from the mind, if one is mauled by a Golden Retriever, can you really blame that person for fearing them? Regardless of the actual expected danger
>Civil problems: Being a fan of art and history, seeing migrants burn down the largest library has really personally angered me. I think their anger is justified, but erasing history and culture of a civilization that invited you in was a step way too far.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

A jew saying I love Hitler is high IQ

 

[Sheldor]

Just to clarify, I am not in anyway endorsing white nationalist philosophy, I consider it racist and discriminatory, and I strongly condemn it, but I can see why someone would ascribe to it for the following reasons and thus I am more understanding of people who fall for the rhetoric:

>There are differences in average IQ among ethnic groups
>There are differences in average and variance regarding when examining differing ethnic types
>In-group preference is a natural human phenomena
>Anecdotal biases can be very hard to wipe from the mind, if one is mauled by a Golden Retriever, can you really blame that person for fearing them? Regardless of the actual expected danger
>Civil problems: Being a fan of art and history, seeing migrants burn down the largest library has really personally angered me. I think their anger is justified, but erasing history and culture of a civilization that invited you in was a step way too far.

High IQcels are cool

 

[wereq]

I Want To Apologize For Being So Hard on White Nationalists​

I don't need, want, or care for your apology.

Just to clarify, I am not in anyway endorsing white nationalist philosophy, I consider it racist and discriminatory, and I strongly condemn it,

Please get out and please us in peace soytard.

 

[blackedpiller]

Are you collective dismal the YouTuber?

 

[Stupid Clown]

It's okay. Just use lube next time.

 

[fang]

IQ and muh crime stats are cope because rice and even some curries mog most whites in this aspect
Appreciating the power of the white race is a more aesthete and spiritual thing

 

[Intellectual]

IQ and muh crime stats are cope because rice and even some curries mog most whites in this aspect

On average they do, but they have lower variance. It's why Asian societies are less innovative on average. Asians are more likely than whites to be 110 IQ, but whites are more likely to be 145IQ

Appreciating the power of the white race is a more aesthete and spiritual thing

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

On average they do, but they have lower variance. It's why Asian societies are less innovative on average. Asians are more likely than whites to be 110 IQ, but whites are more likely to be 145IQ

The variance part is cope. The reason rice didn’t invent as much as whites (mostly anglos) is explained very well by social structures, geography, and happen stances of history. This book details it very well.

It also explains why the American continent was getting gigamogged by people in the Old World and many other trends across different societies.

Once you read it, you will understand things like why certain cultures develop the way they do.

But if you are too lazy to read books, I can give a short video that introduced me to the subject as well.

 

[RandomGuy]

 

[Intellectual]

The variance part is cope. The reason rice didn’t invent as much as whites (mostly anglos) is explained very well by social structures, geography, and happen stances of history. This book details it very well.

View attachment 810042

It also explains why the American continent was getting gigamogged by people in the Old World and many other trends across different societies.

Once you read it, you will understand things like why certain cultures develop the way they do.

But if you are too lazy to read books, I can give a short video that introduced me to the subject as well.

Why do you dismiss my explanation as a cope

 

[svgmn1]

>There are differences in average and variance regarding CIVILITY and VIOLENCE when examining differing ethnic types

I don't have anything to say about the rest of points but this one is just so cucked and hypocritical that I must call it out. many of those slander civility on one hand, preaching Kaczynski style anarcho-primitivism and unironically taking "return to monke" "chimps are based" and other cucked ideas promoted by redpilled cucks and mainstream media like soy rogan as a literal basis for their thoughts. and on the other hand they bash people for not having civility or acting violent, which raises the following fallacies:

-you cannot criticize niggers and other third class races for acting like complete chimps only for you to slander society for it's civil values and lack of violence or preach anarcho primitivism. humans in primitive eras were literally chimps with fine motor skills (the equivalent of a nigger on fentanyl interms of violence) so that point was fucking retarded and ironically makes you low iq just like niggers.


-tolerance is one of the cucked baisis for civility. you cannot praise civility when civility is in fact one of the factors that led you to tolerate non civil groups, which in terms resulted in tolerating niggers and those fucking creatures in the first place.



in order for you to remove these fallacies, you have to get rid of these following issues and/or address them correctly when bringing your point about civility and violence :

-getting rid of promoting other cucked ideas to solve these cucked issues, which infact DO NOT solve issues with society but AGGRAVATE it instead (like anarcho-primitivism and redpill/non blackpilled bullshit)

-removing certain cucked values and refinance of civility's definition e.g. abandoning tolerance for those who are not civil.

-abandon your current mindset and realize that being racist is a sacrifice* you have to make in order to achieve the utopian civility you seek for by total annihilation of these third class races. meaning in order to achieve the rules you want you have to go over them sometimes and be violent and not civil at the cost of contradicting your own mindset again. so you cannot afford having a moral high ground here.

* (I would't phrase it thay way, but I'm phrasing it from your pov as someone who apparently thinks racism is bad)

 

[svgmn1]

@Intellectual you have to keep in mind that everyone is racist. racism is innate in our species it's just that some people are less racist than others and some people are good at hiding it by means of virtue signal (utterly cucked). I don't want to go in detail for that, I think I sperged out enough text in this thread. have fun reading.

 

[svgmn1]

@incelerated return to monke:

progress to camel:

 

[Intellectual]

I don't have anything to say about the rest of points but this one is just so cucked and hypocritical that I must call it out. many of those slander civility on one hand, preaching Kaczynski style anarcho-primitivism and unironically taking "return to monke" "chimps are based" and other cucked ideas promoted by redpilled cucks and mainstream media like soy rogan as a literal basis for their thoughts. and on the other hand they bash people for not having civility or acting violent, which raises the following fallacies:

When did I ever espouse those ideas? I am very pro-civilization

-you cannot criticize niggers and other third class races for acting like complete chimps only for you to slander society for it's civil values and lack of violence or preach anarcho primitivism. humans in primitive eras were literally chimps with fine motor skills (the equivalent of a nigger on fentanyl interms of violence) so that point was fucking retarded and ironically makes you low iq just like niggers.

I'm not a primitivist.

-tolerance is one of the cucked baisis for civility. you cannot praise civility when civility is in fact one of the factors that led you to tolerate non civil groups, which in terms resulted in tolerating niggers and those fucking creatures in the first place.

Civility doesn't mean tolerance, it means the ability to control yourself and function within a civilized structure. A civilized person can still act violent in a controlled and concentrated manor, they simply have control over it. A perfect example would be the Founding Fathers of the United States, they were violent, but they were educated and CIVILIZED in the sense that they had rational objective for what they did.

in order for you to remove these fallacies, you have to get rid of these following issues and/or address them correctly when bringing your point about civility and violence :

-getting rid of promoting other cucked ideas to solve these cucked issues, which infact DO NOT solve issues with society but AGGRAVATE it instead (like anarcho-primotivism and redpill/non blackpilled bullshit)

-removing certain cucked values and refinance of civility's definition e.g. abandoning tolerance for those who are not civil.

-abandon your current mindset and realize that being racist is a sacrifice* you have to make in order to achieve the utopian civility you seek for by total annihilation of these third class races. meaning in order to achieve the rules you want you have to go over them sometimes and be violent and not civil at the cost of contradicting your own mindset again. so you cannot afford having a moral high ground here.

* (I would't phrase it thay way, but I'm phrasing it from your pov as someone who apparently thinks racism is bad)

 

[svgmn1]

When did I ever espouse those ideas? I am very pro-civilization

I'm not a primitivist.

you didn't, you aren't and that doesn't matter at all. I'm talking about the majority of arguments that are raised as a solution for the current problems within our current civilizations and societies. the same ones that you are bringing these "rhetorics" you mentioned from.

Civility doesn't mean tolerance, it means the ability to control yourself and function within a civilized structure. A civilized person can still act violent in a controlled and concentrated manor, they simply have control over it. A perfect example would be the Founding Fathers of the United States, they were violent, but they were educated and CIVILIZED in the sense that they had rational objective for what they did.

this is more like your own view on the concept of civility and what you like to believe. it is different in the applied sense, in a similar manner to how communism and other models seem brilliant but only on paper. I don't want to hover over everything here, as I mentioned before I feel like I sperged enough without the need for clarification, but only for the sake of your argument and curiosity.

 

[svgmn1]

The variance part is cope. The reason rice didn’t invent as much as whites (mostly anglos) is explained very well by social structures, geography, and happen stances of history. This book details it very well.

View attachment 810042

It also explains why the American continent was getting gigamogged by people in the Old World and many other trends across different societies.

Once you read it, you will understand things like why certain cultures develop the way they do.

But if you are too lazy to read books, I can give a short video that introduced me to the subject as well.

I wouldn't like agreeing with it but this is unfortunately true to some extent.

 

[Intellectual]

you didn't, you aren't and that doesn't matter at all. I'm talking about the majority of arguments that are raised as a solution for the current problems within our current civilizations and societies. the same ones that you are bringing these "rhetorics" you mentioned from.

this is more like your own view on the concept of civility and what you like to believe. it is different in the applied sense, in a similar manner to how communism and other models seem brilliant but only on paper. I don't want to hover over everything here, as I mentioned before I feel like I sperged enough without the need for clarification, but only for the sake of your argument and curiosity.

Would you not consider the British Empire to be civil? I'd consider captains of British military vessals to be civil by any definition, even if they commited violence.

 

[svgmn1]

Would you not consider the British Empire to be civil? I'd consider captains of British military vessals to be civil by any definition, even if they commited violence.

that way you just agree with the third proposal I made. although judging it from a philosophical moral perspective it would be the least moral solution. so why ostracizing racism in the first place?

 

[svgmn1]

-abandon your current mindset and realize that being racist is a sacrifice* you have to make in order to achieve the utopian civility you seek for by total annihilation of these third class races. meaning in order to achieve the rules you want you have to go over them sometimes and be violent and not civil at the cost of contradicting your own mindset again. so you cannot afford having a moral high ground here.

* (I would't phrase it thay way, but I'm phrasing it from your pov as someone who apparently thinks racism is bad)

 

[Intellectual]

that way you just agree with the third proposal I made. although judging it from a philosophical moral perspective it would be the least moral solution. so why ostracizing racism in the first place?

What's your third proposal?

I don't think that racial extermination is needed.

I think racism is a bad thing, but the idea that racist colonizers in the past may have been civil themselves or acted uncivil in certain scenarios does not contradict that.

 

[svgmn1]

What's your third proposal?

it's above your post.

 

[Intellectual]

it's above your post.

Just responded to it.

 

[svgmn1]

acted uncivil in certain scenarios does not contradict that.

srs? because uncivil acts do contradict that, in the literal and vocabular sense.
I don't feel adding anything to my arguments tbh. but your concept of civility is more of a nobility than civility. you either have to accept that civility is a utopian/platonic concept that comes with sacrifices or abandon civility altogether you can't do both.

 

[svgmn1]

srs? because uncivil acts do contradict that, in the literal and vocabular sense.
I don't feel adding anything to my arguments tbh. but your concept of civility is more of a nobility than civility. you either have to accept that civility is a utopian/platonic concept that comes with sacrifices or abandon civility altogether you can't do both.

what I am aiming here is: niggers for example won't be civil as a whole race. no matter how hard you try.

 

[Intellectual]

srs? because uncivil acts do contradict that, in the literal and vocabular sense.
I don't feel adding anything to my arguments tbh. but your concept of civility is more of a nobility than civility. you either have to accept that civility is a utopian/platonic concept that comes with sacrifices or abandon civility altogether you can't do both.

This is a semantic argument.

They acted uncivil in the sense that on a grand macro scale, they behaved unfairly and violently towards innocent people.

THey were still civil on a micro scale, they were able to cooperate as white europeans and build a functioning and technologically advanced civilization. They were able to build warships that were capable of crossing the atlantic.

 

[svgmn1]

what I am aiming here is: niggers for example won't be civil as a whole race. no matter how hard you try.

keep in mind that I myself am not white, I am a middle easterner arab. racism doesn't bother me and I don't consider it unnatural, I consider racism a natural innate aspect.

 

[Intellectual]

keep in mind that I myself am not white, I am a middle easterner arab. racism doesn't bother me and I don't consider it unnatural, I consider racism a natural innate aspect.

And keep in mind that I am generally anti-racist. I'll defend you with my whole heart if someone is mean to you based on race.

 

[svgmn1]

They acted uncivil in the sense that on a grand macro scale, they behaved unfairly and violently towards innocent people.

THey were still civil on a micro scale, they were able to cooperate as white europeans and build a functioning and technologically advanced civilization. They were able to build warships that were capable of crossing the atlantic.

this seems hard to grasp, are you sure of the way you phrased those points? because it just seems illogical.
you probably meant acted uncivil in a micro scale but remained civil in the grand macro scale

 

[svgmn1]

this seems hard to grasp, are you sure of the way you phrased those points? because it just seems illogical.
you probably meant acted uncivil in a micro scale but remained civil in the grand macro scale

because the opposite means they were uncivil mostly which means they are more uncivil than civil, which raises a contradiction again.

 

[Intellectual]

this seems hard to grasp, are you sure of the way you phrased those points? because it just seems illogical.
you probably meant acted uncivil in a micro scale but remained civil in the grand macro scale

Here's what I meant

1) As a whole the british empire acted uncivil, it brutally conquered other nations like it was a "nigger" in the ghetto robbing people

2) On an individual citizen level, the Brits acted very civil. They cooperated with eachother and worked together to bring about a technological powerhouse civilization.

 

[svgmn1]

And keep in mind that I am generally anti-racist. I'll defend you with my whole heart if someone is mean to you based on race.

Ok but how does that solve anything? will that make my race the current ultimate and dominant race instead of caucasians?

you have to understand that defending a race based on your moral compass is not benefitting you in anyway as well, nor does it boost your morals. likewise criticizing a race doesn't affect your morals, or so that I believe.

 

[Intellectual]

Ok but how does that solve anything? will that make my race the current ultimate and dominant race instead of caucasians?

you have to understand that defending a race based on your moral compass is not benefitting you in anyway as well, nor does it boost your morals. likewise criticizing a race doesn't affect your morals, or so that I believe.

I'm not making a moral statement, the whole point of this thread was to sympathize with people i disagree with.

 

[svgmn1]

Here's what I meant

1) As a whole the british empire acted uncivil, it brutally conquered other nations like it was a "nigger" in the ghetto robbing people

2) On an individual citizen level, the Brits acted very civil. They cooperated with eachother and worked together to bring about a technological powerhouse civilization.

ok, you are trying to present a more sensible approach than the third proposal I mentioned (which included total annihilation of lower races ) the problem is that such things just don't work. you have to present a more radical and revolutionary solution or a concept that suits such a large scale problem. otherwise it will be difficult to achieve in the applied sense.

 

[svgmn1]

I'm not making a moral statement, the whole point of this thread was to sympathize with people i disagree with.

if you're sympathizing with these point does that mean you absolutely agree or disagree?

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Why do you dismiss my explanation as a cope

Because it’s a common cope made by people “whites have lower iq but we are more creative bro” or “we have larger diversity bro”. None of that is ever substantiated, but the case for environmental factors being very important are also true.

Plus iq is complicated. Average IQs have been increasing in the world, and in America the average black iq today is the same as the average white iq from the 1950s. So it’s not just genetics (which are an important factor) but an interplay of many different things that matter.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Just to clarify, I am not in anyway endorsing white nationalist philosophy, I consider it racist and discriminatory, and I strongly condemn it, but I can see why someone would ascribe to it for the following reasons and thus I am more understanding of people who fall for the rhetoric:

>There are differences in average IQ among ethnic groups
>There are differences in average and variance regarding CIVILITY and VIOLENCE when examining differing ethnic types
>In-group preference is a natural human phenomena
>Anecdotal biases can be very hard to wipe from the mind, if one is mauled by a Golden Retriever, can you really blame that person for fearing them? Regardless of the actual expected danger
>Civil problems: Being a fan of art and history, seeing migrants burn down the largest library has really personally angered me. I think their anger is justified, but erasing history and culture of a civilization that invited you in was a step way too far.

Things missing:
>these differences are of gentic origins
>living in a mixed society has lead to whites being villainized in their own countries
>it has lead to them being burdened with a dispropotionate part of the blame for the present and historic failings of the underperforming ethnic groups
>the good whites did has been willfully ignored (it sure as hell wasn't the africans who fought a civil war to end slavery and enforced the ban across the world. successful slave traders are still treated as folk heroes in many african cities, with their autobiographies being sold in the shops and their statues standing tall and proud)
>financially a major subsection of the immigrants nothing but a burden
>while politically democarcy has been subverted by a simple unspoken trade agreement, where democrats mass import immigrants without caring about their human capital and these immigrants in exchange vote democrats into power

If you cared about ethnics in their home countries, you would start a pro-white propaganda campaign to get these nations to accept mor whites in leadership positions. Haiti killed their "oppressors" and now they are a shithole where cannibalism is making a comeback. On the very same island the dominican republic still has functioning garbage collection.
You have no moral highground to stand on

 

[Cell78]

Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

 

[Intellectual]

ok, you are trying to present a more sensible approach than the third proposal I mentioned (which included total annihilation of lower races ) the problem is that such things just don't work. you have to present a more radical and revolutionary solution or a concept that suits such a large scale problem. otherwise it will be difficult to achieve in the applied sense.

I am a moral utilitarian. I want us all to work together

 

[svgmn1]

I am a moral utilitarian. I want us all to work together

if morals and ethics are dead. how are you going to convince all to work together for pursuit of happiness? it's over

 

[Intellectual]

if morals and ethics are dead. how are you going to convince all to work together for pursuit of happiness? it's over

I don't think morals and ethics are dead.

 

[svgmn1]

I don't think morals and ethics are dead.

I do, it's over

humanity is dead

this ship is breached. you have to realize that the times in which the human spirit and mind were once dependable sources and basis of morality are long gone. in a similar manner to how god became dead, the soul and the mind, virtue, morals and ethics, to summarize, humanity itself, followed him...

incels.is

 

[incelerated]

@incelerated return to monke:

progress to camel:

I don't understand anything anyone is saying in this thread but I agree that camel >>> monke

 

[svgmn1]

I don't understand anything anyone is saying in this thread but I agree that camel >>> monke

thank you yk this means a lot