all 15 comments

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This isn't a God damn football game. We're talking about the dispossession of the entire European race in their own homelands and colonial societies built and founded by our ancestors. We do not benefit from non-whites having first dibs, therefore we are against it.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

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

    Well, from a debate perspective, I think that ethnic loyalty is an important value and as such I wouldn't support not sticking to that principle.

    By displaying ethnic unloyalty you prove yourself as an evil person and, as such, incapable of holding the moral high ground. you are also displaying pathological perversion in the form of ethnomasochism, so I think that the moral option here would be to prevent you from acting in such way.

    [–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Why stop with African Americans, there are even MORE needy people in Googaboogaland. People with Mango Worms in their eyeballs. Standing in waist high water? Boo Hoo. These people have mango worms in their anuses!

    Equity == we're all living in nigger infested shitholes vs. the types of countries our ancestors built through selective breeding, i.e. racism.

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

    I don't think Kamala has the moral high ground here. Distributing based on racial groups is discriminatory. The individual is the smallest minority. A white individual could potentially need help more than any other member of Kamala's personally selected racial group, which in my opinion means she is descriminating against minorities based on race.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

    Imagine you were arguing with a white liberal repeating Kamala’s position

    They are being anti white

    [–][deleted]  (16 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      Yes, it does. It is a very simple response and it highlights exactly the issue instantly.

      Will you convince leftists? No. But white normies? Yes certainly. The follow up question would be why would whites support someone who is anti white? And from this you frame the entire discussion and they will have to:
      1) agree that they are anti white
      or 2) be in a defensive position arguing why they are not actually anti white

      2 is best, because it puts them on the defensive and everyone watching can see that they're just making excuses. 1 is also fine, because now everyone knows that they don't represent them, if they're white.

      It also reinforces a white group identity which is good.

      [–][deleted]  (5 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        Yes, but I would never try to convince a white liberal. I would try to convince the audience.

        It is pointless to argue with liberals. They are anti white.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          Are you seriously talking about "the less fortunate" during a fucking hurricane? Sorry, lady, I can see that your entire house and neighborhood has been completely obliterated by the hurricane, but your skin is white, so we have to help Shaniqua first even though her house barely has any damage.

          To be honest, it is easy to argue against "the less fortunate" argument, especially where I am from in Denmark, because we've spent the past 40 years arguing for NOT seeing race and not generalising on the basis of race. Woke arguments only really work for those who are anti white, not normies.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            You wanted the moral highground? They're being a racist antiwhite person advocating for racediscrimination against white people? How many normies do you think will see THEM as having the moral highground?

            Only those who also hate white people will come to their defence and they are not our allies or friends.

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

            ^ This jew is right, nobody cares about their evil genocidal intentions against white people being pointed out. The reason being this is official policy and they're just going along with jewish power, there's no repercussions for hating white people. In fact there's somewhat of an incentive system in place whereby declaring your loyalty you can avoid punishment: an 'Emperor Has No Clothes' or 'Point Deer; Make Horse', situation. There's of course no reward for publically declaring your loyalty to jews, but at least you can temporarily avoid their cruel and unusual punishments.

            [–][deleted]  (7 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

              The argument is inconsequential, you can post facto conjure up any justification for why going along with power is supposedly correct based on any chosen classification.

              [–][deleted]  (5 children)

              [deleted]

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

                This isn't a club that worships debate, the debate is about discussing our ideas. Not just a universal debate club that wants to 'deboonk' any random nonsense.

                [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                [deleted]

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

                  Nobody was convinced by ideas, they just go along with power. You are the only one with a non-understanding of the situation, or at least feigning so.

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

                  How would logic apply to historical revolutionary movements like the Nazi's,Bolsheviks, Maoists etc? They didn't hold the/many levers of power and took powers in a large part due to people buying into their ideas?