all 63 comments

[–]Parthings 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (32 children)

Idiocy. Even in an attempt to create an ethnistate you are trying to liberal.

Here is a simple question, what history are you going to teach the non original peoples? That discrimination that their parents faced was all legal, proper and moral. And that they should not feel bad for the discriminating others facing similarly things today? Ie new generation of immigrant partners?

Here is the basic problem with you white nationalists types. While You have an idea of who you are, you have no idea of who the “other” is. As long as you don’t define it clearly, mark strict boundaries, you will let emotions and your favorite logic of the day create a crisis of identity that will continue to backfire.

I’m brown and Indian. And maybe the biggest shame on my country is that ancestors of wimps with the ideology of a pacifist crucified Jew were able to rule it for as long as they did.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That discrimination that their parents faced was all legal, proper and moral. And that they should not feel bad for the discriminating others facing similarly things today? Ie new generation of immigrant partners?

I should have been more clear when I wrote my post. When I say ethnostate I'm going under the assumption I've already kicked out most non white people. I'm not talking about starting an ethnostate with the current demographics in the united states. I'm talking about a fictional ethnostate established sometime in the future after most non whites have left voluntarily or been persuaded to leave.

Side note: My ethnostate would have very very few Jews so the non whites that do remain would not have news, movies, and corrupted officials that propagandize them into thinking white people are terrible oppressors.

[–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No matter where you start from, what you incentivize through the state will lead to a future of more people linking the incentive.

Let’s say your state is 100% “your perfect category” of people. You decide to allow 1% of an “other”. How well “other” intergrates into “your perfect category” is key.

Europe decided that language was the way to define “other”. Has messed it up. America had an racial identity but like your post it failed to identify an “other”.

Think of this in another way. If a black nationalist movement starts today, they too have problems defining the category “black”. But they have no issues defining the “other” category.

If an Islamic state exists, they have 0 trouble defining the “other”

Ideological clarity of defining who is not in either. The basis can be by action, belief or birth. All this so that is “your perfect category” has an identity it is willing to be proud of and maintain in dignity

[–][deleted]  (5 children)


    [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    That is for political reasons but it’s Not reality. To see how a people behave, they must be in confident power.

    The reality is that in America they are a 10% minority with an 70%ish antagonist majority. So the smaller 1-4% groups are strategic “Allies” in antagonism to the large majority. Communists know the politics of majority and minority.

    Let’s see nations which had a majority black population with tiny pockets of brown population. Caribbean ones like Trinidad Tobago, Guyana all places the brown folk were/are severely persecuted. Is there any brown affirmative action there for minorities ?

    In Africa, Uganda saw a exodus en masse, South Africa has been anti white but if history is any regard, it will be anti brown soon as well.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      If history is a reference, then majority African countries are antagonistic to brown and yellow people after the white leave.

      Will the same play out in America ? Not sure. African Americans have a differnt history from most other Africans

      [–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      That isn't surprising. If the one drop rule dictates that a person is black, they're black. Black nationalism was born in the West and those who designed it knew that blacks are the floor.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I agree with your point here. Very clear in group out group definitions are key.

      In my mind in group is Europeans outgroup in non europeans. The 9% people's community isn't going to be a group of people we import every year. It's a way to start the ethnostate without 100% white people in the territory. Which would be really difficult with today's demographics. After the state was established the only people my ethnostate would really 'import' would be people that are ex pats seeking right of return. Otherwise it's a closed system. People that are non white that want to come to work, study, and do cultural/religious exchange can never be more than 1% of the population and can't legally marry anyone in the core 90% population. I think that's a pretty good recipe for keeping a core ethnic/racial family intact and healthy yet not too cut off from the outside world.

      All three groups would also have different rules and laws that govern them. Foreign nationals would have the least rights and citizens the most right. People's community somewhere in the middle.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

      On a side note, why are the Indian nationalists making such a fuss about the Aryan invasion?

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

      I see it as a perversion of history. It all starts when a new category of scientists, ie linguists realize that Latin and Sanskrit are connected in the hip. The contemporary reality of their times makes them pre supposed erstwhile Europeans came to India. This also helps them develop the savior complex and absolve any guilt of colonizing.

      There is more linguistic and genetic evidence of people moving out of India than into India. So Europeans are native to India and all humans before that are native to Africa.

      The big reason why people take issue with it now is not the perversion of history though. It is the politics that this perversion has enabled.

      There is a state (Tamil Nadu) that resists Indians from other parts to maintain a proud “Dravidian” heritage. These idiots did not see Britishers as any more foreign ruler than rather their cultural elite “Brahmins” (who were elite only because of the acceptable coolie status British rule gave them) as the aryans who came to destroy their culture. They so called Dravidians have a toxic narrative that relies heavily of the dim-lit theory that has gained traction in other parts of India where they are asking for identifying indigenous status of most castes and the exclusion of certain upper castes as invaders. They also extend strange theories of a connection with Africans through a lost continent of lemuria.

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      bro rlly drank the rss kool aid entrely

      their cultural elite “Brahmins” (who were elite only because of the acceptable coolie status British rule gave them)

      this is retardation and im saying that as a tamil

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Maybe look up what British said about Brahmins in south India (madras province) and the Socio economic status in early censuses they conducted

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Alright sure ignore scripture, genetics, iq tests, millennia of social custom. Brahmins only came up because muh britbong collaborators.

      That's fucking retarded man. Having an anti Brahmin stance basically robs you of 80% of the productive human capital of all Indian descent peoples. Suicidal to push them out. I'm not Brahmin either just looking at it objectively and without ego.

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I’m not ignoring all that. The British selected Brahmins from 2 areas, Tamils and Bengal. Not from Maharashtra, not from Kashmir, not from Uttar Pradesh and related areas? Why? Because of scripture IQ and other reasons? No because these 2 areas had least resistance and even less by Brahmins in 1857. So after 1857, thr were carefully cultivated. The same time period Maharashtra Brahmins were not cultivated to be serve British and most early independence leaders were from there

      So yes they were a deserving elite in the pre colonial times, but in colonial times, they were not elite, they became coolies, and most of them continue to be.

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Okay but who tf cares what happened in the british era? The fact is that these people on average are higher iq and higher in conscientiousness. The highest average iq race in the world arguably and we squander that human capital for woke bullshit.

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Precisely why I call prefer calling them coolie than elite. I have respect for Tamil/Bengal Brahmins who have excelled in many fields but they are also the most woke bunch one comes across

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      Ah yeah, good old lemuria. There's always a mythical phase in the racist narrative, and it seems to stick to Conan's lore.

      I get the need to crack upon the separatists. In my country we have to deal with German-speakers and they are extremely annoying. You should definitely take decisive actions against them.

      But. My point was that the yamnaya heritage is something pretty much proved, both culturally and genetically, and it's not something particularly European by itself. Europeans are the result of intermixing between locals and yamnaya as much as Iranian and Indians. So you are basically trying to claim that in fact the yamnaya were from India or that India wasn't indeed touched by the yamnaya? What's the point? It's called Indo-European civilization for a reason.

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      The point is human beings, defined by genes are super interealted to each other. The African genetic makeup is significantly different from all other humans.

      Now is the non African male, Indian first or European first. The evidence seems to indicate all genetic haplogroups are Indian first and then European later. Hence if there is an Aryan invasion, it is the invasion of European lands, not India.

      Now we can engage further about what the reality is based on differnt levels of linguistic (most familiar with this) or genetic, archaeological evidence. But that’s not the point. The point is politics of identity that is now playing out on a misrepresented version of history.

      I’ll also add that if you look at mythology, before Europe adopted the fatherless Jewish god, there is a lot of similar threads of stories which I feel is a strong possible connection between Indian and European peoples.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      The evidence seems to indicate all genetic haplogroups are Indian first and then European later.

      I'm a little confused. Are you trying to say that all Caucasoids are descended from Indian?

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yes, he is.

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yeah, all humans are first African, then north Indian , then other parts of the world

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Implying that any portion of the Indian population originates from foreign incursion is offensive in the religious sense, because foreign origin is inherently considered impure and polluting. To many who follow Hinduism to the letter, implying a central Asian origin is akin to calling them impure foreigners.

      Ah yeah, good old lemuria.

      eh it's about as real as atlantis or hyperborea, fun bit of lore before retards start kanging over it

      [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

      And maybe the biggest shame on my country is that ancestors of wimps with the ideology of a pacifist crucified Jew were able to rule it for as long as they did.

      Absolutely based.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      It's not based, he is just spitting on Europeans, whose identity is based upon Christianity. It's understandable because the Britons colonized India, and nationalism promotes hatred toward the enemies of the nation.

      [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      European identity is not based on Christianity. With that said, I also do not see anything "based" about the quoted statement.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      There wasn't any common European Identity before Christianity. The white identity is very late, and nor the Greeks nor the Romans used to see themselves as particularly related to Germans. The first kind of explicit racism in Europa was the Spanish idea of limpieza de sangre, purity of blood, which was directly connected to the idea of Christianity (those who were not pure in fact were the moriscos, half blacks, because they was regarded as secret Muslims, and the marranos, half Jews, who were regarded as secret Jews). ~1400.

      [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      There wasn't any common European Identity before Christianity.

      This is correct, but it is a different claim from saying that European identity is based on Christianity. For many centuries in many different areas of Europe, Christianity set Europeans against other Europeans. The fact that eventually a fairly short lived, united Christendom existed which only coincidentally covered the region of Europe should not be mistaken as the source of a genuine, intrinsically European unity.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      source of a genuine, intrinsically European unity.

      Yeah but that's a different topic, I was speaking about the identiy.

      [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I could have been clearer. I think my statement applies to identity, too. There is nothing intrinsically European about the identity of Christendom - not during the Christian-pagan conflicts, the Catholic-Protestant ones, or today when Christianity has become a chiefly non-European phenomenon.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      There is the historical fact that the European Identity was built upon the premises of the Christianity.

      [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I can agree with that, that is an acceptable statement.

      [–]shilldetector 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The details of an "ethnostate" are not really the issue. There are plenty of ways to do it in a relatively fair and humane way, and regardless of whether it has it's flaws and doesnt appeal to shitlib sensitivities, it will likely need to happen in some form regardless because of the dysfunctional anti white racial cauldron said shitlibs have unnecessarily created in this country. Their protests are rendered irrelevant by their years of acceptance of, funding of, and promotion of a Jewish ethnostate that has repeatedly violated every human right they claim to care about. It would have to include the break up of the US, as it would be totally unrealistic and unfair to expect all non whites to leave North America entirely.

      The issue is convincing other whites that it would be an unfortunate but necessary step, and as the US collapses and chaos and even worse racial problems rein that should be increasingly easier to do except for the fact Jews control pretty much all mass communications in the US and have no intention of ever allowing that to change, as their constant kvetching and scheming over Elon Musk's twitter bid shows.

      [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

      If we ever started a new white ethnostate in American we could basically reproduce the U.S. constitution with one major addition

      The US constitution is worth less than toilet paper. Its gridlock system of checks and balances prevents the state or any one man from ever taking decisive action and dealing with oligarchs and interlopers. The founders lived in the 18th century when royal absolutism was the big issue of the day and state power was the big boogeyman.

      They were also huge Romaboos and thus were obsessed with creating a system in which a Ceasar-like figure could never emerge. The thing is that in their obsessive drive to limit state power and to limit the rise of a demagogue, they ensured that no one could ever take any decisive action against a hostile elite or a plutocracy.

      This is why no American government was ever able to simply seize the money of the properties of the Jewish bankers and Hollywood directors and kick them out of the country.

      The representative, democratic nature of the US constitution ensured that political power in the country would always be a puppet to money power because big money is what bankrolls politicians like Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR.

      It's not a coincidence that America was the first country to fall to ZOG and America was the place where all the Jews of Eastern Europe fled to. They established themselves there precisely because they knew that it had a system they could game and infiltrate.

      The Russian Empire had 70% of the world's Jews during the 19th century and they never got anywhere near the halls of power because Russia was an autocracy. Even in Germany, the Jews grew rich but never dictated policy or entered the halls of power because power in the country was in the hands of the Prussian aristocracy and the military.

      America thanks to its enlightenment constitution became a prime nesting ground for the Jewish fly.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      because Russia was an autocracy.

      An autocracy that was taken over by Bolshevik Jews in the 20th century. Did you not read this comment? Say what you will about the constitution but it has made the United States the oldest continuous government world history.

      [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      I said government not empire.

      I could really care less about empire.

      [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      France lasted near uninterrupted from the treaty of Verdun in 843 up to 1940, 1197 years.

      Sweden has exited from 1523 to this day.

      Britain has existed from 1688 to this day.

      Denmark has existed from 987 to this day.

      Japan has existed as a continuous state from 1600 to this day.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Those are states not continuous governments.

      [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      No. They are continuous governments. States have lasted even longer.

      [–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      The numbers on that website are debatable.

      The Russian empire did not begin in 1721. It actually began in 1480, when Ivan the Great liberated Muscovy from the Golden Horde.

      The Byzantine empire did not disappear in 1204, with the sack of Constantinople. It simply went through an interregnum, with competing emperors.

      If interregnums cause empires to stop existing, then that means the Ottoman empire only lasted from 1299-1403. That was when there was the civil war by competing sultans.

      [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Still, France lasted near uninterrupted from the treaty of Verdun in 843 up to 1940, 1197 years.

      Sweden has exited from 1523 to this day.

      Britain has existed from 1688 to this day.

      Denmark has existed from 987 to this day.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Best way to have the ethnostate is just to enforce the jus sanguinis, which means that citizenship can only be acquired trought hereditary means.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      (Warning long incoming spergy comment.)

      which means that citizenship can only be acquired through hereditary means.

      That's essentially what I'm describing above. It's a more flexible way to do it. Ethnostates in the modern world need to deal with the fact that it's easy for people of even modest means to travel everywhere and race mixing has already occurred in many regions.

      You need to have a way to legally reward the edge case people that all societies have and genetically bring them back in to the extended family. With the rigid hereditary system you describe you're going to have a lot of hybrid whites and white presenting people that contribute to the state, may love the state, but can never have a path to full citizenship over generations of service.* When you have no path for these people they fall easily into Jewish ideologies and become enemies hidden within. I don't want a system that's so rigid it's easy to attack by liberal minded types. I think this is big reason for the Russian civil war. For generations the aristocrats and orthodox church was struggling to govern too many different ethnic groups and it had a shrinking group of 'core' Russians. Jews seized on the opportunity to convince these edge case groups to form together as an ideology against the state and church. Many core Russians that attempted to maintain alliances with the church or had generational land, i.e. the Kulaks, were wiped out in the chaos. Someone that knows Russian history please chime in if I'm wrong.

      Another problem, when you have a hereditary only system the state runs the risk of creating a smaller and smaller gentry. The gentry then forms into closed off aristocrats. The other issue with hereditary only is that it creates a purity spiral. You can't have factions constantly arguing about who the purest whites are. Hitler saw this problem as well. Slavic peoples were a problem because they were allowing the ideology of communism to spread through Europe. Hitler bashed slavs as he rose to power. I don't think Hitler hated slavic people but hated the divisivness the slavic state: Russia was bringing to Europe. As he gained physical control of Germany and heavy influence over continental Europe he realized there were lots of areas with slavs, and Germans in close proximity that would need to be governed peacefully. He realized there were lots of non Germans that were still Germanic in blood to some degree. That's the idea behind the 'people's community'. Share my blood and you are my brother. Share my blood but seek to undermine my ethnostate? You're out. Part Jews (aka mischiling Jews) were also allowed in the people's community. Even Hitler believed there were some good Jews.

      *you might be thinking to yourself this 'dilutes' the white race. I disagree. In fact it can be used as a way to dilute and 'bleach' Jews into becoming more compassionate and high trust i.e. white. I'm not proposing genocide of the Jews of course. I want them to live safely and peacefully in their own lands away from whites. Before this law would be passed I'd give Jews time and shekels to leave. If they stayed or obscured their identities to stay in a white ethnostate then their children would slowly be more white over time naturally. That's their parents fault not the states fault. It's also really important to point out that this whole people's community doesn't work if you import millions of non whites for labor and they want to be on the path to full citizenship.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I proposed the jus sanguinis because it's extremely common, even in Europe. You aim for a double jus sanguinis, which means that both the parents have to be citizens in order to pass down citizenship to the children.

      Usually you have some other ways to acquire citizenship which involves marry someone, being in the country for a vast amount amount of time without leaving, having a job, stuff like that. Which means that is hard but not impossible to acquire the citizenship. That allows to keep immigration low and to proactively absorb immigrants in the main stock.

      [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Majoritarianism is the a way forward for sure. To continue with your thought experiment, no political rights shall be granted until generational assimilation as well.

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

      Plenty of Edge Case countries already exist: Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Cuba.

      There's no reason for them to stay. Just pay them $10,000 to leave, and they can live like Kangz in any 3rd world country of their choice.

      [–]JapsDoEverythingRiteNegrolatous glownigger cock-sucker 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      No one's living like a Kang in those countries with that much. They'll spend that money so quick on moving into some other white country.

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      The GDP per capita of Mexico is only $8,346.70 US Dollars. That's more than enough money to resettle in an upper class neighborhood and take on a high paying job.

      They'll spend that money so quick on moving into some other white country.

      Who says you have to let them in? Be like Japan or Israel and outright refuse foreigners if you have to.

      [–]JapsDoEverythingRiteNegrolatous glownigger cock-sucker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      You count on every first world country to deny them, and that's harder when you give them the ticket to move around freely.

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      All countries have control of their own airspace/borders. If for some weird reason we can't control the skies (which is weird, as both 9/11 and Covid showed we can ground all planes if we want to) then force them to get on a ship, but it's only allowed to dock in 3rd world countries of their choice.

      This ironically, was already invented by Black nationalists 100 years ago. Look up the Black Star Line, which was a ship that only accepted Black Americans and went straight to Africa.

      [–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

      Why allow 1% foreigners? The only time a foreigner should be allowed into the country is if it's a high-ranking state official coming to have meetings with our high-ranking officials.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      if it's a high-ranking state official coming to have meetings with our high-ranking officials.

      That would be part of the 1%. There are lots of reasons to bring in foreigners. Study. Economic reasons. Foreign relation reasons. Sports. Cultural exchange. I think when you cut yourself off totally to cultural exchange you set up yourself for subversion. Have a 1% flexibility to bring in foreigners is like an insurance against your populace getting too cut off from the outside world.

      [–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      Even if I were to agree with your reasoning, 1% is way too much. For every 99 of your fellow countrymen, there will be one foreigner? Not acceptable.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Remember that in this system these are friendly foreigners. They are people that have a different set of laws applied to them. They don't have full rights and privileges compared to the other two groups in society. Right now we have 30-40% foreigners in the country. Having less than 1% foreign population only encourages a purity spiral which can break down your ethnostate. Purity spirals are real.

      [–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      White nations had far less than 1% foreigners for centuries and millennia and we managed just fine with these supposedly horrible purity spirals. Racial purity spirals are healthy and eugenic. Usually, a tribe doesn't feel the need to correct or fight over small differences in genetics within the tribe, but on the odd occasion that it does happen, it's perfectly healthy.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      1% is a cap. Obviously I'm fine with even lower numbers of foreigners.

      White nations had far less than 1% foreigners for centuries and millennia and we managed just fine with these supposedly horrible purity spirals.

      Sure. You're correct. Ancient societies had strong in group out group distinction. I want us to return to that but I'm more concerned with not getting subverted again. It seems like we got too comfy. Our people almost became spoiled on the benefits of a homogeneous society. How else do you explain this mind virus that is liberalism and the love of the outsider we are currently experiencing? Personally I think it's a result of white liberals not understanding outsiders enough. Many liberals only experience the talented 10% of foreigners and never really comprehend what the destructive nature of the hordes they are bringing in. We've allowed outsiders to penetrate our societies and our people are easily convinced that the outsider is a friend and source of financial growth. I'm just trying to figure out a way that our people can experience and interact with the outside word and still possess a strong desire to maintain a homogeneous ethnostate. That's the reasoning behind the 1% thing. It can also be used as a punishment for people that breed outside of their race. I.e. you can still live here but your kids won't have citizenship. That would be a real deterrent for mud sharks.

      [–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      honorary white people

      What is an honorary white person? Someone who whites are willing to reproduce with? Why wouldn't they just be honorary citizens of the state?

      [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

      What is an honorary white person?

      Cute Asian girls and MENA baddies.

      [–]pcpmasterraceDer Ewige Anglo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Asian no, hapa yes.

      [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Why wouldn't they just be honorary citizens of the state?

      So Let me just go ahead and clarify my terms.

      People's community members are essentially edge case white people, foreign white people, and honorary white people.

      Edge case white people: People living inside of the ethnostate that might have some European genetics considered on the 'edge' of Europe: Jews, Some Iranians, Some Turks, etc. Edge case white people are also people with less than 50% white genetics. Think Hapas, mullatos, mestizas, etc. Think half breed.

      Foreign white people: White people that are living outside of the ethnostate and want to return or migrate to the ethnostate. Ex pats essentially.

      Honorary: Non white people or people with less than 50% European genetics who have done something extraordinary for the state. Think military background. High academic achievement. Heroism for the state. Long term history of pro whiteness; Living many generations in a pro white way. Etc. I wouldn't make these people full citizens but they would have the option to breed with full citizens. That's their gift. And it is a gift. If they truly love the ethnostate their children get to be full citizens assuming a full citizen wants to breed with them.

      [–]pcpmasterraceDer Ewige Anglo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)


      No Jews. Except Brother Nathanael. And Abby Shapiro.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      quietly writes in khazarian milker amendment

      [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Emily Ratajkowski and Gal Gadot also deserve special harem status.