Wtf

This, how can people be so stupid to not want to sacrifice their hard work for strangers, and in general not let themselves get replaced...

>China is Demographically homogenous
Stopped reading rite there.

because what typically happens is one ethnic group dominates the others, or the whole thing is a clusterfuck of interethnic conflict

>Arab countries and Asia are ethnically homogenous
lol

>India is the largest democracy on Earth and is tremendously multi-ethnic
Exactly, everyone likes to live in India, and its going to be a superpower in 2030
youtube.com/watch?v=s6Lznha9EQ0
Aristotle himself would have opened the boarders as wide as possible, its it the only reasonable thing.

We get replaced either way user, you're projecting immigrants to hide from your own death

I'm speaking relative to India and Brazil obviously. No shit any modern nation isn't going to be totally homogenous

No I'm embracing and accepting the replacement, after all we are all the same and it wouldn't matter, they were just unfortunate and got oppressed by us. My kids(I most likely wont have) or my tribe in general may have a really terrible life but it is the price we have to pay for being this evil but at least we are losing and they will sort everything out.

Is the human race not a tribe?

Yes it is and why I said we are all the same.

What a pathetic post. I hope you're larping user.

You can scream all you want but its you who are on the wrong side of the history. I really don't understand why you're resisting, after all its the sins we have to pay.

Now that is not the type of larping I enjoy. I like personal emotional stuff better. I once larped as this ageing doctor character whose son was dying of a congenital defect. That was something.

What larping user, the most biggest western countries are already transforming but it just a color, it doesn't matter.

You know I'm not actually against you here. I just find the argument that we should hold loyalty to the European race on the basis of mere genetic relation alone to be retarded. If we hold loyalty to the white race it's because we have a historical record of being morally and intellectually superior and a beacon of all civilization and progress. Its the difference between being a common nigger or a tribalist Jew and the Imperial notions of citizenry and production that the West was founded on

No we just got lucky by being on the right place and by oppressing people, now its time for their revenge.

why? i don't see anything wrong with what he thought? are you some democracy-loving libtard or something?

This has been historically proven and demonstrated hundreds of years later. I invite you to check out Tocqueville's Democracy in America, where he marvels how the vast majority of Americans all occupy the same economic class and practice a true functional democracy as a result. It makes a great deal sense of moving forward too consider the Civil War, can you imagine any state or its people today having the agency required to secede? It's fucking unthinkable.

>all occupy the same economic class and practice a true functional democracy as a result
You forgot the slaves

>Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...

LKY knows what's up.

This is such a terrible misreading omg

He did, actually. And he is correct.

>India is the largest democracy on Earth and is tremendously multi-ethnic

The government is also incompetent and corrupt AF. They've also been plagued by ethnic strife; muslims, tamils, though presently better.

Greeks during that period did not have a contemporary conception of ethnicity. What secondary literature is this?

brazil and other latin american nations are historically politically unstable and underwent periods of authoritarianism within living memory. even today brazil is extremely corrupt

they certainly saw a difference between hellenes and barbarians

>let themselves get replaced...
I hold no fealty to an idea of "whiteness." I assume you mean that my "race" will be displaced and not that a Ugandan immigrant to the US is going to kick me out of my apartment and take my ssn.
>sacrifice their hard work for strangers
Are others of my race not equally strangers?

Anybody who wasn't Greek was a barbarian. The word literally comes from them ridiculing non-Greek speech, calling it 'ba ba'.

Veeky Forums, the place where /pol/ fails to identify its own tired irony.

youtu.be/advhsWr3B8w

It's a hell of a lot more than a color. Even if Germans were 5% in their own nation they could wreck these invading 70 IQ desert muds with ease. And anyone expressing fealty to the kike replacement plan should be deported alongside the browns. It's beyond pathetic.

That guy is fucking trolling you, you dumb kids.

He's not serious about telling you all to feel guilty for being white and let yourselves be replaced. That's just retarded.

I'm laughing with him though, this guy trolled the whole fucking thread.

The people who wrote that are going to be the new academic force. Ugh.

>Are others of my race not equally strangers?
No, you are more genetically similar to them. If you had to choose between saving the life of your mother and some jigaboo from Senegal, which would you choose? Tribe is that basic concept extended outward, except in brainwashed whites who have been enticed by jewish moral incentive schemes through Christianity and liberalism to worship the other instead of their own.

>migrant
>implying middle easterns/africans not free travelling europeans (polish)
propaganda aimed at sub 80 IQs kek

t. american

this wtf stop applying liberal values to two thousand year old people

India is a dysfunctional quasi-failed state and China is in no way homogeneous lmao. Indonesia is effectively a Javanese empire, democracy exists for Javanese muslims only. I don't know why you'd even try to pass off Latin America as a model of democracy considering most of theirs last no more than twenty years at a time.Democracy has in effect existed only in North America and Europe for prolonged periods. The United States has been the only 'diverse' democracy that has stood the test of time, the constitution is currently the oldest working document of government in the world which is a testament to the wisdom of our founders.

The thing is, multi-ethnic status doesn't matter so much so long as there is a solidly dominant ethnic group. Other ethnic groups in America are able to vote, but historically it has been the white American who has constituted the polity of our democracy. We hail from many backgrounds, but generally do not seriously form ethnic interest groups based in those backgrounds. Those are for recent immigrants, who are accepted into the polity for the sake of making sure we continue to have a governing 'homogeneous' ethnic majority. If we were still working on the Founders' vision of whiteness we would have been nonwhite majority by the 1890's. 'White' is a slippery slope designed to incorporate a majority of people. It's only recently that this model has started to be undone, one sign of the times being a change that actually reduced the number of white people on the census roll, by separating Europeans from caucasoids of Asia (Arabs, Indians, ect), which had previously been counted as white.

As for Arabs, Aristotle wrote exactly why middle eastern people always live under despotism. He also wrote that Northern Europeans would never amount to much, but he didn't know how powerful his own civilization was at the time.

>Wtf, I hate Aristotle now!
Not sure why. Prove him wrong.

>The strongest democracy in the world is a multiethnic, multi-everything society.
Ok Aristotle.

>multi-ethnic status doesn't matter so much so long as there is a solidly dominant ethnic group

It's not about ethnic, it's about value. When resources are limited, a population will automatically split into groups to compete with each other. Grouping is based on any similarities individuals may have. Ethnicity could be a defining feature or skin color because that is easy to tell up front. But people can also be divided by their party affiliation i.e. red vs blue. But as long as there's an overall common feature that everyone in the state shares that is not limited to ethnicity, such as the belief in freedom, then a multi ethnic society can still function.
People will naturally divide, even when the population is homogeneous in ethnicity people will then start finding other features to divide.
The U.S. survives for this long precisely because it understood this natural tendency and so it splits groups down to the level of individuals. That's why the most important document in the U.S. is the bill of rights which was geared toward protecting individuals and not groups of people.

Don't listen to the shitters, user. What you say can be done, but humanity needs something higher than countries to keep the, much needed, humillity to be united.

Yeah, and our values of individuality and conceptions of individual liberty are based in white values.

>democracy

Is there a more useless word in English? Literally no one agrees upon what it means.

"politically unstable" is codeword for "phistorically exploited"

what book

this

>read a philosopher from 2500 years ago with the mindeset of our current culture
Brainlets really need to step up their game.

>a junkie autist has the same voting power as I do
>someone who doesnt even understand how our government works can just choose to vote on a whim
>people can rally over dumb shit they don't know anything about just, because

The aristorcrats were right, democracy is a meme

It's like communism; good on paper, horrible in practice

You need to look into the history of India friend. Protip: multiple regions have been cleaved off of it due to ethnic/cultural strife.

i think hes completely right, muhammad ar-bin-shalfi does not have the same wants and needs from government as you do.

So because people die, we shouldn't ever be selective about what groups we let into our country? That's grade-A tard logic there, my man.

I've read a lot of Aristotle over the years but I don't think I've ever seen him say something like this. So... Source?

Just because you don't doesn't mean that those wanting to wipe out whites don't believe in the idea of whiteness. Strangers are people from outside our country who unite along ethnic lines.

The US was unique for awhile in that we set aside the tribal mentality. Unfortunately, and thanks largely to minority humping leftists, we are going back to the idea of groupthink tribalism. Because of that, the whites will need to unite together eventually, just to survive.

it is possible when the people are spread out properly, but ghettoization is a result of current immigration systems and prevents this from becoming a reality. imagine having multiple distinct tribes governed by one body (or just look at the places in history and in the present world where this has happened), the tribe who holds the most power in the governing body will govern to the needs of their tribe, and not to the needs of the minority. this leads to disillusionment and in many cases oppression.

But, muh uppressed blacks!
Stop bitching about slavery, you nigger cock sucker. It ended, blacks problems today are their own making, get over it.

Reminder that jews have always been the biggest slavers.

I don't see how they're relevant at all, actually.

>and so it splits groups down to the level of individuals.
In other words it slowly corrodes and destroys all human bonds and meaning. Individualism is a cancerous evil.

Look m8 i just wanted some Nubian pussy

>Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime. The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour.

>Thus religion was in honour with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.

>Thus every form of iniquity took root in the Hellenic countries by reason of the troubles. The ancient simplicity into which honour so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow.

NSDAP Germany disproves this

he's right

Socialism has worked in Scandinavia up until now because those countries have hitherto been racially homogeneous

Not really. It fits it the description quite well.
>Tyrants and despots divide and rule, they want the City divided by ethnic rivalries.

But, Hitler expelled the Jews and Slavs for like a decade, united his nation and then subjugated his own ethnic group like chattel and through them into the techno-military machine. It disproves it in every way. Despotism in china and russia right now is based on homogenous xenophobic thought, in north korea based on schizophrenic omnicide. the despots don’t derive their power from a divided people, they consolidate and then isolate their homogenous native population from the world. ethnic heterogeneity seems to encourage democracy and civil war simultaneously. idk why we’re even talking about this its such a fucking stupid way of delineating how despotism functions. a totally useless metric. homogenity predicts economic stability and likelihood of civil warfare, not the stratification of power or wealth in a nation. America was as democratic in the early 1800’s as it was in the 1960’s.

>China in contrast which is predominantly Han Chinese has never in its entire history had a Democratic period.
Somebody get this brainlet outta here.

>I'm speaking relative to India and Brazil obviously
>I'm speaking relative
>I'm speaking
Found the problem.

>subjugated
For the majority of his time in charge they weren’t being subjugated though. In fact shit was going quite well.

You sure they weren't talking to sheep?

I also read this in a book about Catholic church/monasteries, which got razed and sacked a LOT, saying that the Catholic Monk & Co. referred to the invaders as "barbar-ians" because all they could make out of their speech was the repetitive chants of "BAR, BAR, BAR, BAR, BAR, BAR!"

Seems reasonable. Just note that "ethnicity" largely has nothing to do with appearance. You can't consider it with the same autism that modern privileged westerners do.

This, democracy was just useful to take our rights and give it to the oppressed people who deserve it more.

>India
>the country where untouchables are left to die in the street
>is an exemplar of democracy

What people don't realize is that even though PoC's raided us for centuries and changed the demographics of some countries completely, we shouldn't have fought. Even though our treatment was better and more humane, we should have never done anything like that, and because of it now are going to be completely destroyed, its our fault.

The United States for most of its history was not multicultural UNLESS we count diversity within white-groups from Europe as multicultural.

This "melting pot" is a meme.
Besides even IF all of THAT was TRUE you are still using exception/statistical anomaly as an example arguing for average multicultural country being well off.

Infact I am talking about the post WW2 period where the multi-ethnic factor and the capacity to attract skilled immigrants becomes one of America's prime strengths, brainlet. And multi-cultural and multi-ethnic are different, moron. And yes, if somebody says that X is inherently Y then an exception is enough to disprove them, you drooling retard.

>Exception is enough to debunk average results.
Alright then, I can see why you are in Veeky Forums and not in STEM

>to attract skilled immigrants
Yes those Europeans were truly ruining americans """"""""whiteness""""""""

I said inherently. Can you even read?