Canadian Native American Boyfriend

By today I mean in our era

You called me a "psued" for stating the glaringly obvious. The average white American is 98.6% European, and over 90% of them have no detectable traces of non-European genes, even now.
>The fact they were introduced in the late 17th century is just one of the reasons they are irrelevant today
You're either arguing fallaciously that "what is new is what is good", or you're stating something I already said, which is that they are no longer in place.
And that wasn't my point to begin with, it was that being here for a long time as a white family is hardly a guarantor of being a mutt, given that the majority of that time (and in OP's case, the vast majority) was in a system where such mixing was illegal and scorned.

So not only does my point stand, you managed to miss it completely. In general, I find those who leap to calling anyone they don't like an "idiot" are retarded themselves. I've argued with plenty of anons, and some obviously more intelligent than others, even if I found their morals repulsive. You fall on the wrong end of the bell curve in that regard if your mess of a post is any indication.

You’re a bizarre parrot for antiquitied values. You don’t even formulate points, you just say random data and claim it supports your rigid, autistic view.

>antiquated
So you were, in fact, claiming that what is new must somehow be good.
>random data
Hardly. If you want to make this about my views on relationships, the data I post directly relates to my claims, both in terms of what is actually going on and what effects promiscuity has. There are perfectly valid reasons to condemn promiscuity as harmful--and if you value things aside from overall stability and happiness, to praise it. Go ahead, interpret my sources for yourself. Do tell us all how they don't really say what they say. I'm sure you can do it without even reading them!

But as I predicted you don't bother with anything as complicated as thinking.

Most of the time, your points only boil down to opinion. You use data to try to give your and give your opinions weight they don’t deserve, to try and make it look as though your words are intelligent and should matter to others.

You are the one misinterpeting my point. I didn’t say anything about white nationalism, let alone whether it’s good or bad. All I said is that those laws you mentioned were antiquated and therefore stopped being enforced way before their abolition. You’re being misleading to everyone when you pretend those laws had significant, actual weight in the present era.

White nationalism is a politically invalid cult, and nothing you’re doing is changing that. A bunch of basement dwellers can take it on all they want, until they morph again and pervert into something even more disturbing. I might get a gun when that time comes. God bless America.

We killed the Nazis and we can do it again.

Penis

>your points only boil down to opinion.
Any use of data is going to be shaped by the values one holds. However, towards certain ends data is objective. In the end, you're just as devoid of objectivity as I am, the difference being you don't even try to order your thoughts or guide your actions. don't drag me down to your level.
>You use data to try to give your and give your opinions weight they don’t deserve
The opinion is that I value societal stability and happiness, and from that I value chastity rather than promiscuity. I use the data to show that this isn't an arbitrary connection to make. The data unequivocally supports my position--to someone who doesn't value what I do, it's irrelevant, but to those who want to maximize chances of a stable and happy relationship, it is far from it.
You're free to argue otherwise, but nobody ever has evidence, and only rarely do they attempt rhetoric.

>I didn’t say anything about white nationalism
Neither did I in my one-sided argument with you. You came out foaming at the mouth by calling me psued for stating fact, and you were quite clear in contesting the law rather than my actual point.
>All I said is that those laws you mentioned were antiquated and therefore stopped being enforced way before their abolition.
It took a Supreme Court case on the enforcement of them to get rid of them. It wasn't always practical or desirable to have people banging down bedroom doors at 2 AM, but to claim that they were symbolic alone is false. I also gave you a source showing overwhelming support of those laws under a decade before their abolition.

>You’re being misleading to everyone when you pretend those laws had significant, actual weight in the present era.
I brought them up because OP doubted being fully white (since you obviously won't look yourself, here), as evidence to show the rarity of mixing in the past. The present era is wholly irrelevant to this. Maybe you should learn how to read.

Again, stop pretending. This isn’t the first time you and I have conversed. I know you’re well versed on your facist crap, even if you aren’t fully sperging it at us right now.

You pussies pretend to be softcore, like wolves in sheep’s clothing. You’re not benevolent, not at all. Fuck off.

Eh I don't get it. People should be able to associate, including hyper-associate, with whoever they wish. From a purely conservationist point of view, it would be good if certain genotypes are preserved, but there are enough causasians in the world such that extinction of the genotype is an unlikely occurrence for at least a few hundred years, especially now that certain European countries are shutting their borders to mass immigration.

As a point of curiosity, how would your ideology adapt when human genetic engineering becomes viable? At that point improvement-modification will be the nominal paradigm in a process akin tob racemixing (ie, creation of new genotypes).

>This isn’t the first time you and I have conversed.
After a while, the non-arguments tend to blend together.
>I know you’re well versed on your fascist crap
I'll take the compliment, although something tells me you have an inaccurate picture of my beliefs.
>You pussies pretend to be softcore, like wolves in sheep’s clothing.
I've been quite open with my beliefs. That doesn't preclude being civil, provided the same courtesy is afforded to me.
>You’re not benevolent, not at all.
Universally so? No, and I don't make any effort at pretending this. Nor would you--I doubt you'd care if every white nationalist was thrown into a camp. However, I do care about societal morality, and whatever your opinion is of my broader ideology, there is plenty of information to be found that you can use yourself. Put another way, if the bad guy in a movie captures the superhero and starts rattling off his evil plan, do you honestly think it's a good idea to just ignore him?

I don't think I need to explain that chastity is not a synonym for fascism (nor, for that matter, is white nationalism), but with someone like you I can't be sure.

>People should be able to associate, including hyper-associate, with whoever they wish.
In the current situation it's not tenable to keep all people in autistic boxes. I don't want every last white to be forced to marry within their race--however, I do want to preserve white societies. The "we live in a SOCIETY, man" meme has some merit. That's why I support a white ethnostate but have no desire to destroy any example of multicultural ones. If anything, they're a useful pressure release valve for leftists who otherwise would fester. Meanwhile, the leftists wouldn't have to suffer the presence of "racists" who have their own state.

>From a purely conservationist point of view, it would be good if certain genotypes are preserved
Funny you should mention that--I used to be relatively leftist in my views growing up, but my environmentalism is what led me to nationalism.

>now that certain European countries are shutting their borders to mass immigration.
I fear it's too small a change and too late. The populations already there are ensuring major damage socially and genetically, and in some countries it's becoming a near-impossibility to solve the issue by the ballot.

>how would your ideology adapt when human genetic engineering becomes viable?
I haven't given it much thought, but generally it wouldn't change--since my focus is not simply on having white individuals exist, but white societies. My main issue with genetic modification is with the impact it would have on morality--just like welfare and now UBI, it would provide another barrier between actions and responsibility, and thus encourage immoral actions. The system may be sustainable, and technically it wouldn't be different from a "traditional" one, but the failure of such a system would by virtue of its complexity be more severe.

We live in the ‘free world’, so nobody here is going in camps. This is just a pretend time game you have.

That was a hypothetical, to show that neither of us has professed unconditional benevolence at any point.

Real Nazis bother me less than rednecks or autismos pretending to be Nazis.

I'm "literally" Hitler, as in, not literally Hitler. I have many disagreements with NatSoc policies, even if I find them preferable to the status quo.

You have no solutions to the status quo, because you are a pseud with no real effect on the world. I wish you would change the status quo in a good way.

If you were important in society, or had magical powers, you clearly would just hold the universe in about 1915.

>You have no solutions to the status quo, because you are a pseud with no real effect on the world.
How do you propose an abrasive sperg should impact things positively? The best shot I figure I have is in spreading information and advocating for practical change. In the grand scheme of things, it's of course very little, but that's to be expected--there are 7.5 billion people walking around, I'm just one of them.

>you clearly would just hold the universe in about 1915
In terms of morality, you'd have to go back a bit further than that, although not much.
We're in a rut, civilizationally--past the point of remembering God but too primitive to create Him anew. It's easier to turn back the clock than advance it, but in absolute terms the best outcome is advancing it. After all, recreating old systems would also recreate old problems like famine and disease, which is hardly in line with my ideals.

Modern society did away with the old problems by discarding morality. My greatest hope is that the old problems can be kept at bay with new solutions, and morality can make a return.

>In the current situation it's not tenable to keep all people in autistic boxes. I don't want every last white to be forced to marry within their race--however, I do want to preserve white societies.
Fair enough; that's reasonable.
>I haven't given it much thought, but generally it wouldn't change--since my focus is not simply on having white individuals exist, but white societies.
In a hypothetical scenario where genetic engineering is commonplace, then historical races (i.e. genotypes) would quickly disappear. If this is the case, then it would not be possible for there to be White ethno-societies. For me, this is actually irrelevant, as once ethical objective genetic improvement of the human organism becomes possible, then it would be a far more imperative paradigm than historical-genotype conservation. Essentially it would become like Vaccine Issue today - it would be stupid and irresponsible to hold to traditional genes in the face of objectively improved ones - both on individual and societal levels.
Given the variability of the race element, what remains is the culture element - which is where I am, personally. I'm a Western culturist. I don't much care about the genotype of the collective biological platform upon which this idelogy runs (within reason, say, in context of racial IQ) - only that the ideology is existent, actualized, and powerful within the world.

>My main issue with genetic modification is with the impact it would have on morality
In what context? Promiscuity? Miscegenation?

One of my best friends is Cree/Black Foot.
He's great. One of the people I can really say that I love.
I know his mom too. She's often homeless. It's hard for natives to really get a place in society. I like her too.

Anyways, the whole "native culture" thing is pretty much bunk. They're been fucked with the gigantic English dick of the British Empire. There is very little left of their culture. And the people who live now don't give a shit.
I tried it with my mate's mum. "Hey tell me about native history as if I weren't white". She laughed so fucking hard. She just said pour another glass of wine for us. Which I did and drank. And then she laughed some more.
That old women said she'd fuck me rather than tell history she never even got to know

>If this is the case, then it would not be possible for there to be White ethno-societies.
If it were widespread, it would open a huge can of worms in that it would make possible the direct engineering of a population--there's no reason to believe it would be used solely for benevolent purposes (and given historical precedent, plenty of reason to think the opposite), and even if it were, there is no reason why it would have to work out well.

>it would be stupid and irresponsible to hold to traditional genes in the face of objectively improved ones - both on individual and societal levels.
Not necessarily. While your point is noted and I don't mean to discard it, it's also a fact that in "modern" societies , allergies are far more common than before (and than in less developed regions). This is not simply a matter of improved ability to diagnose, but also one of modern lifestyles which ostensibly 'improve' quality of life. Now, I'm not saying that we should go out and eat handfuls of cow shit, but there are negative consequences to such meddling.

>In what context? Promiscuity? Miscegenation?
All of it, really. Already society is becoming increasingly atomized because people frankly don't need each other, and they don't need to learn many social behaviors that in the past were essential not just to fit the notion of morality but directly for their well-being. Those behaviors then carried over into everyday life, even when not needed. Basically, we're removing ourselves further and further from what we were designed to do, and we're surviving without effort. People become selfish and arrogant and they have increased comfort and increased control over their surroundings. Manipulating genes themselves is just another step in that direction, devaluing life itself.

We may be improving our capacity to act, but we are neglecting and even attacking the morality of actions. A smart villian is more dangerous than a dumb one, after all.

No we need more brown girls.

>If it were widespread, it would open a huge can of worms in that it would make possible the direct engineering of a population
>there's no reason to believe it would be used solely for benevolent purposes (and given historical precedent, plenty of reason to think the opposite)
The same can be said for many disciplines including chemistry and medicine. We have legal frameworks to regulate that, there's no reason we can't develop some for this, should it occur. Certainly,legalities etc won't help your North Koreas or Irans, but we can't hold back human advancement because of a few asshats.

>and even if it were, there is no reason why it would have to work out well.
>but there are negative consequences to such meddling.
Fair. But this is why in my opinion it needs to be a massive focus of research and development.

>Basically, we're removing ourselves further and further from what we were designed to do
Since the dawn of mankind, humans have been observing and ordering the natural world according to their interests. It's why we're the apex life-form on this planet. Every advancement we've achieved can be characterized as this.
The next stage of that paradigm is located within ourselves - to master and order our physical forms, for our own purposes. You're right - there is a mismatch between our latest advancements and the capabilities of our naturally constrained physiologies. But instead of doing away with our advancements, we can modify ourselves to rectify the incompatibilities. And I would say - we have to, as far as possible: we can't stay high-functioning animals forever. IMO three things need to occur for our advancement (elevation, really): genetic self-engineering, technological integration, and space-exploration/colonization.
If these things prove impossible to practically achieve or control, then we'll have to default to our current paradigm of working with and within limitations. But till then we have to try. For existential reasons.

...cont

This is actually why I personally subscribe to conservative principles: it's a means to an end. I want to ensure our civilization to remains intact, functional, and productive, for the specific purpose of the engines of science and engineering to process these challenges - as opposed to say, getting irrevocably broken or destroyed by, say, the idiot prescriptions of the Radical Left. If this means dialing back our ways of life to more traditional, nature/psychology according ways, then so be it. But that core engine of technological advancement/ordering-of-nature, needs to continue.

And it has to be *us*, i.e. the West, that needs to do it. There's no telling what the other civilizations such as China or Russia would do with the tech. Apart from humanitarian concerns, this also needs to happen, to secure our dominance for the coming eras.