Refuting the white nationalist best question

STOP POSTING BEST GIRL OF THE SHOW YOU CRETINOUS KIKE

Attached: Sheboon.jpg (677x919, 382K)

Why the fuck are you asking Jow Forumstards to argue against racial nationalism? You're only speaking out to maybe ~5% of the board by doing so.

The best counter-argument I've heard against that is by the Distributist, but I still think that his reasoning is flawed for reasons he doesn't understand.

youtube.com/watch?v=p8mf1vKHG3k

The Distributist thinks that the White race is incidental to the things he likes, but he doesn't understand that if he desires longevity whatsoever, that overtime by the law of averages environmental conditions will cancel out such that the derivative of the civilisation will be inextricably linked to its genetic foundation. Take Germany for example, there is literally no reason Germany should still be a leading economic power raking in 4 trillion (more than all of Africa) in trade per annum. The Germans were hit with orders of magnitude of more depraving and impoverishing conditions than can be counted for any 'colonialism is why Africa is poor' narrative could ever dream of, yet everytime, like a compressed spring, it surges back to its former position of premier power and industrial might.

If you prefer nonWhite genetics over White genetics, then of course this argument doesn't work, but this isn't true for the vast majority of White people. Even Weebs and Whites who "love diversity" generally don't migrate to Japan or India.

Attached: Brick Expressionism.jpg (2816x2028, 2.49M)

>nature characteristic for humans to have, and thus is morally defensible

Didn't have to read any further than that to realize you were a retard. Read the sticky.

Apples to oranges. Give me something with equal population density and I might pay attention. If you live around 10 other people within 100 miles, you're not gonna commit any crime.

>Jewish Nationalists always love to brag about their people having an average IQ of 116.

What they fail to acknowledge is that there were Jews in the MiddleEast, N. and E Africa, Central Asia, and Europe. But the only area they have been successful; the only area they managed to earn enough wealth to buy their promised land is in Europe and America (where the primary racial demographic is white European). Almost like the only place they can be successful is if they parasite off Europeans.

What do you think will happen to their revenue stream and military support when demographics in Europe and America change for the worse?

Attached: 1515227050583.jpg (894x894, 167K)

>*drools*
Statistics, social trends and history are DUMB!

Attached: pwjk.png (406x452, 30K)

say you'd rather live in a jewish/chinese neighborhood
less crime and higher IQs, plus its more exotic, which is exciting

West Virginia has a low crime rate and is 95%+ white. Mississippi is the blackest state and is tied with WV for poorest and has a way higher crime rate.

You can't. Whites are better than niggers.

I used to rent in a Chinese neighborhood and I can tell you from experience it's not exciting or exotic. Unless, of course, you enjoy being looked at and treated like a retarded second class citizen.

Fucking mainland chinks man. People think whites are racist, wait until they run this shit.

Attached: 1540857655609.gif (500x375, 953K)

>one show stopping argument
>That i cant refute. “If you had the choice, would you rather live in a minority white city/country or a majority white city/country?” The obvious implication is that white people are more desirable.
>How do i counter this argument?

You don't. It's not an argument, but their best attempt at a strawman hypothetical. By trying to answer them, you have already given in to their implication.

What do you think the implications of wanting to live in a proportionally Whiter area are?

Worst girl

statistics with no solutions or context behind them arent at all convincing. fair trade vs free trade agreements are a purely economic factor that impacts different nations and subcultures within those nations in a way that statistics and utilitarianism wont just solve. interjecting emotion and empathy into crime is much more beneficial than just saying "blacks commit crimes XDDD". what crimes do they commit? to what demographics? are they treated institutionally differently than mexicans and whites? are they treated fairly by practices like redlining, cia drug runners, gerrymandering, economic discrimination, etc? obviously there has been a lot of progress to make an egalitarian society but only a rookie economist would look at current statistics instead of trends, the big picture, and factors from the past that influence the current state before making their conclusion. i hope you understand what i mean when i say these things. facts are facts but just Logos alone is not a convincing argument.

its a premise. they ask a yes or no question and extract an implication from the answer

I have to go do the afternoon school run but I suggest you look into AltHype if you want a right-wing perspective on the influences of social trends on criminal and economic statistics.
youtube.com/watch?v=RrsNr-NGqE8

ill check it out, ty.

>muh 'peal to nature is wrong
Not convincing me, humans are not robot s, the way we assign value and morals is not always rooted in logic. But nevertheless, let's try this way; I assert that it is just and right and proper for a parent to love their own child more than any other child on earth. There is no logical reason to it, it isnt because they're better looking or smarter or cleverer than other children, though they very well may be. But whether your child is a superstar or the most wretched creature you will love them for the simple fact that they are your own flesh and blood. You will also value their survival more than a child half way across the world, and there is nothing wrong with this. Do you agree or disagree? Please bear in mind, you'll lose the confidence of any parent should you disagree. Next up, it follows that it is morally acceptable to care about your family more than a stranger, is this not also true? I am going to donate my money to my poor sister rather than a poor homeless man, and nobody would call me unjust. I expand this same principle, that your family, i.e. degree or relatedness, is a perfectly valid metric by which to assign relative importance to various human beings. Children>immediate family>cousins>extended family>ethnic group>race>species. This is the most logical way to partition your emotional and physical resources, and there isnt a person in the world who would be more distraught at a child on the other side of the planet dying than their own.
Also, please see my point about in-group preference being a requisite for altruism to not be outcompeted by less altruistic groups and refute that.

It's a trap. It's either, you choose one way because you agree I'm right, or you choose what I believe to be wrong because you're a libcuck ect

thats an alright idea. ill try it out next time i see my friend

There is no way to refute it since most races would rather live in a white majority country.
specially those that are hard working or successful.

they'll kill themselves off because they're only ever as good as their host

>Duuhh statistics are stupid and useless
>Duhhh fair trade vs free trade
So you're basically another anti-nationalist faggot who thinks "we're all humans maaaaan"
>You should interject emotion into crime and punishment
I'm glad that every court in the US disagrees with you and has mandatory sentencing standards to avoid problems with idiots like you.
>Duhhh are they treated differently
Everyone is treated differently by everyone regardless of age, skin color, sex. It's an unavoidable truth that will always exist. You can try to drill down to every single why/how/when/whatever but it will never change that as it's an evolutionary feature that ensured survival of the species over tens of thousands of years.
Again, there are objective truths, and you're obviously just trying to avoid them to placate your emotions. You're a brainlet and the furthest thing from an intellectual one could possibly be. If you're so jammed up about figuring out the world, you need to get your tongue out of your leftist professor's asshole and seek out knowledge on your own by starting with base philosophy, not what some shave-headed dyke shat out last week on a paperback. Once you realize that the foundation of all philosophy is nature itself then maybe you won't sound like such a sob-story dumbass out to collect victimization points. Marcus Aurelius would be a good start for a soft little bitch like you.

Attached: 0iq.png (200x200, 62K)

my father left 1 year ago and i packed his bags. family is family but theres people i love and value 10 times more than my brother or my father. my dad said there was nothing left for him in a relationship with me and wrote me out of the will. this isnt an appeal to emotion. im just showing that it truely isnt as cut and dry that family is family till the end. id sooner donate money to my church missions trips than give a penny to my father. i do understand the overarching point, but i dont see race as above species. obviously americans are more valuable to me than any other nationality, obviously californians are more kin to me than any other states citizens, but the distinction between a european and an african doesnt follow this trend. maybe thats just me. id obviously prefer to live among majority europeans as opposed to minority europeans but thats where my road block is. theres no reason to say id rather live in a majority african or asian nation when i see the state of the western countries vs eastern or even south american countries. but when it comes to race i dont see europeans as above or below an african or asian or whatever south americans are. i cant explain this very well but i hope you get my point.
tl:dr- i would rather hypothetically live in a majority white society but given the current circumstances i dont value one race over the other. its a purely hypothetical answer.

>I can BTFO all your best arguments, though I won't give any evidence of this
>Except for this really stupid and simple one
Reminder that in order to not bump a thread, you have to type "sage" in the options field. I recommend people do that to this thread

>you should injerject emotion into crime and punishment
not what i said at all. i said you should look at the circumstances besides just statistics. courts dont use that 50% statistic in their rulings. when you understand what context the statistics have you can actually use them argumentatively.
emotion is an appeal. humans arent robots, we accept arguments based on logos, pathos, ethos.
>anti nationalist faggot
we can talk economics of fair trade agreements vs free trade agreements in another thread.
>everyone is treated differently
and we look at the treatment and factors that go into these outputs of statistics and data because we cant treat every single statistic as if it exists in a vacuum.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/

>Why ask Jow Forums to argue against it
If you can't forsee the Counter-Reformation, you can't weave the counter-terrorism argument into your original argument. Playing devil's advocate, entertaining other people's viewpoints and figuring out exactly why they're wrong is how you expand your worldview (and/or become based and redpilled)

>babies like their own race so we should have a white ethnostate
literal baby tier thinking

Couldnt even directly answer a yes or no. But thank you anyways, because you implicitly agreed with me. I would guess you've called your father a piece of shit. Or if you haven't, others would, and I doubt you would correct them. Because your father abandoned you. You cited this because you know that it is wrong for a parent to abandon their child. You too have Internalized the concept of blood mattering. If it didnt, your father owes you nothing, no more than I do. I failed to follow your ramblings about states and Africans versus Europeans. You must understand that a parent is beholden to their child by virtue of their relation. Yes or no? This highlights the underlying moral responsibility to your blood. If that weren't the underarching principle, why would a normal (ignore your piece of shit father

>Not what I said at all
That's precisely what you said, in fact. Statistics are meaningless to you, but why someone committed a crime requires the utmost attention. Are you fucking retarded or do you not know what you typed?
As the other user already said, you claim to have "BTFO" of "white nationalists" on so many points but can't even provide evidence of your position on the most basic positions. You can barely keep up with being called out as an idiot ITT. An appeal to emotion is logical fallacy and as such, if you bothered to read the fucking sticky on this board, is banned outright for a reason. You're trying to interject your bullshit on to a board that is built on objective truths, facts, statistics. In all honesty, mods should punt your dumbass over to /b/ or Jow Forums because your contributions here are utterly useless.
>We can't treat all statistics as if they exist in a vaccuum
No one ever claimed they did, but you're the exact type of faggot to willfully ignore the very same statistics when over and over again they show the same pattern for the same people, or demographic, or socio-economic strata. You're the posterchild for cognitive dissonance, you're not here to find answers you're here to whine and cry and try to convince us that your dumbass emotions trump objective truth. You're wrong, a faggot, and your shit's all fucked up. Read a book written before 2010 sometime, child, and stop getting your rhetoric from the latest tranny's bumblr post, you look ridiculous with your horse shit.

>If you live around 10 other people within 100 miles, you're not gonna commit any crime.
Found the poster who never lived in a rural area.

I'd happily live (and have lived) in Japan. White people are a minority there. You just need to learn more about other countries, that's all.

why did you leave?

I was living there only on a study visa.

OP has a shitty father figure and no sense of national pride. color me not that surprised.

>Every time i argue with a white nationalist i can usually refute their points about immigration, economics in crime, and about fair trade agreements
sure thing plebbit

>i cant fathom how you admit white societies are better yet do not want to preserve a white society
im not for the destruction of white society, i just dont think the means to obtain a white society is worth a white ethnostate. i live in california, an already minority-majority state, i do think that its a better place to live than some white states and i love my state. hypothetically i would rather california be white if i could just snap my fingers and make it happen. the reason i made this thread is because i cant argue against the logic while also being consistent in the belief that ethnicity and race doesnt determine value. i made the thread because i wanted counter arguments to it, not because i was good at arguing against it.
>the father thing
i reached character limit before so imma make this shorter. my dad was a shitty dad because he was a shitty person. him leaving was the best thing he could do for me, the relationship was toxic. i think because of the normal state of father son relationships being good we societally expect every father to have a good relationship with their son and expect a moral obligation to always act like a father in a normal relationship would. to reiterate, most fathers are normal, my dad wasnt a shitty person because he wasnt like most fathers, he was a shitty person because he was a shitty person and had a toxic relationship with me/my family. i said in my original post that i value people more than my father to dispute the claim that family is above anything else in that heirarchy you made, not to imply that he owed me anything. i think its hard for people in functional families to understand when people tell them family isnt absolute. they arent beholden to their child by anything but society and law, once the child is 18 they no longer have those expectation in the relationship.

You can't because whites are superior in almost every way.

By law is not the same thing as morality. The average person thinks it in bad taste when parents automatically kick their children out at 18 or charge them rent. They recognize the underlying principle. I'm going to try to make this as absolutely simple as possible so your brainwashing can't get the better of you. A parent loving their child more than any other child in the world. That is discrimination. Is this Morally good, or bad? Dont cite your family, with all your talk here you fail to grasp what an outlier is, that is your situation. The average parent is expected to love their child more than another child. Do you agree or not? Is this morally good, or bad?

Race and ideology have an interactive realtionship that helps determine how that society functions. WNs usually care too little about ideology, and most post-enlightenment ideologoes care too little about race. Id love to live in a magical place where eveyone agrees on one ideology or is all the same race but its not pragmantic. So instead I aim for a white supermajority, as its far more likely that they will share the same values and ideology as me. So I lean more towards fascism, high propensity towards the same ideology, as well as maintaining a shared ethnic identity, though this is a bit less important, as seen in the falangist movements.

>im not for the destruction of white society
You de-facto are if you're in favor of a multi-racial proposition state that attempts to be egalitarian. There's a concept in ecology called "competitive exclusion". Gause's Law of competitive exclusion states that two species that compete for the exact same resources cannot stably coexist. This is true for any two organisms that try to occupy the same niche, and if you don't think races have reached speciation yet (there's no reason not to), they are unquestionably sub-species, and the law is still in effect. As far as "race doesn't determine value", that's a subjective opinion of yours with objective answers in you ask, "which is the superior race at X". You're also extrapolating your own admittedly broken family life onto white America as a reason why replacement is arbitrary. You're a mother fucking moron and should kill yourself OP.

>Commiefornian
You stay there and die with the shitskins, we unironically don't want you, so don't worry about it.

Attached: 1501566285632.jpg (819x595, 343K)

You don't. You admit you were wrong and fuck off.

yeah its fine for parents to discriminate.
final answer and nothing beyond this point changes that its not morally wrong for a parent to love their child more than other children

i already said its the average expectation. parents are expected to love their child and thats not a bad thing. my point was that i have a different perspective of parents and children that fail to meet that expectation because of my own situation. if a child is toxic to a parent then i dont see it as wrong for them to throw the child out. a parent discriminating is not morally wrong. societal expectation of every parent behaving the same way to their child and vice versa as the normal families do is silly. using a societal expectation based on successful families to dictate how disfunctional families should operate is dumb, but thats just my hot take. so lets take the opposite. is it morally wrong for a parent to favor a random child over their own flesh and blood? what would your answer be? for me its no, its not. this is still consistent with the first answer.

so what resource is exclusive in this case? money? political power? legal power? state benefits? expand on this. i dont extrapolate my family onto america. i specifically cited that because it had to do with the value hierarchy in the dudes post.

i gotta put my wifes son to bed now and im probably gonna call it a night too. hopefully someone contributes more arguments against this premise in the OP. night fellas.

Oh my sweet summer child

Okay cool, what is the underlying principle we use to determine that it is acceptable, good, and right for a parent to love their child more than a random child? For me its the genetic relation.

For your question, it would depend on the age of the child. I use the world "child" literally, not as a synonym for offspring. If you love that child in Africa you're donating a quarter per week to, more than your own infant/toddler who can have done no wrong, yes you're a bad person, or at the very least a broken one. Once your child has grown and there are extenuating factors such as is your child a murderor or whatever, of course you might love someone else more. But that's complicating things needlessly. I'm trying to distill things down to their most basic elements, and so I am envisioning a newborn/infant/toddler/small child who is basically a sack of meat, and can have nothing to justify the love a parent feels for them besides their own biological relation, a discriminating love that you and I both agree is morally defensible. Please extrapolate that principle from there, I have to go to bed. I know it's really hard to admit that you could be wrong about such an overarching world view that's been beat into your head, and it takes courage to admit you've been lied to, but I have hope you can do it. You seem to have argued in an earnest manner, and may have the intellectual fortitude. Have a good night, user

>Marcus Aurelius
my nigga!
youtube.com/watch?v=5897dMWJiSM&index=14&list=LLhwyHGn5huo3_x_ns5xrZTQ&t=0s
youtube.com/watch?v=9pOHmcOHT48&list=LLhwyHGn5huo3_x_ns5xrZTQ&index=8