G

People don't think in these terms, they have their own good and bad. This is relativistic. You're trying to make a universal, but it's your conception of what is universal. Which is relativistic. Human minds can't achieve an understanding of the objective good because our brains are about justifying what we want and guided by a mostly genetic framework. Even environmental factors are influenced by our genetics since we have control over our environment and how we react to it.
http://archive.is/isfpS
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118661666.ch15/summary
https://plus.google.com/101046916407340625977/posts/MuoTsXAkEhz

You can't ask people to operate under an objective good you haven't even divined but are merely trying to.

And this is ultimately a digression to then argue for values based nationalism. Which you've conceded would be de facto white nationalism, but due to its greater complexity would be more open to subversion and failure

Firstly, you do what a lot of people do when arguing this case: that us saying European People are worth preserving is a statement that they're all valued rather than generally valued. You do this especially when you use my word "race essentialism", which was about people who only value the race without even knowing why they should.

You use this to argue for values over ancestry, however that has issues too which I don't think you addressed.

I don't disagree with you Ape. But I also understand why people don't think grappling with such a rarefied question that you yourself don't have an answer for and basically nobody has an answer for is a good use of time and energy. I don't think you mean to do this but it does come across as infinite deconstruction, since every metric that people actually care about was rejected as not the objective truth. Which is a lot like moving the goalposts. You need to explain the eternal ideal. Otherwise it's sort of annoying to expect people to accept it.

And I think you underestimate the value of this group identification, just as you say the altright doesnt take what you say seriously. You can call this concern low-brow, but there is such a thing as being too rarefied. And when you can't explain your eternal ideal... it's rich to call others emotional because there's no of knowing what meat there is to this demand. So I am asking you to rationally justify it to me

Burden of Proof on You. White Nationalism is proven. You need to prove you can divine and distill these white values, or this objective truth. And that you can even test for these values. Until then, preserving the white people who want preservation is the way and it has legs because whites do act with in-group preference even if it remains unrealized. And Pascal's Racist Wager goes away

Moreover, your argument is that what is important about European Civilization is the triumph of values rather than whiteness that anyone can reach. Maybe if you have dictatorial powers over the world you could set everyone on this trajectory, but you don't. And ultimately, this is just the race blind proposition nation.

Which has issues: namely the difference between individual values and how those manifest in group politics, the fact that diversity of values is good, and that we'd be hoovering the people who could make the rest of the world more like Western Civilization from their societies

1. What clay will you mold this right wing movement with? The alt-lite? The skeptics?

2. Social Darwinism does not inspire. Same issue libertarians have: no one will fight hard to compete on the free market

3. It's easy to mock personal idiosyncrasies when nobody knows who you are

4. It's also kind of silly to demand an eternal ideal when faced with the current issue of our time. Which will also change the ideals anyway, by introducing people with more communistic slants. Or any of the other examples you gave such as being rapists or murderers

5. Nobody else justifies anything, they act on their interests or what inspires them. As such it's weird to demand it of one side when these are the rules. And those who win this game we all play decide what the world of tomorrow will be. So their values live on, whatever they are.

Every group has done all the things one can lay on whitey but none of the good things one can lay on whitey. So it is rich to demand whitey to justify himself. Moreover, most people in the world take more strongly to the destructive ideologies that whitey did invent. If whitey disappeared, the world would descend into fascistic blood feuds and endless revolutions since pretty much everyone else is more clannish and collectivist. They aren't universalists in any way.

The peace we see now is only because whitey's commitment to liberalism and human rights, especially after having done great harm to himself following the world wars.

Moreover, why can't that be the justification? That everyone else swims in whitey's wake and would destroy one another's self determination (a European concept) once whitey leaves? That whitey is the only one who even thinks this question needs to be answered, because only he cares about this abstract good enough?

6. deciding on what values count is also arbitrary

7. The altright has talked about how the nations whites make are good, but then you circle away from that, and then back to it later.

8. How do you test these values? And still prevent bloc voting? Nonwhites vote tribally regardless of values, there is no debate with them. There is a debate amongst whites, the pathological altruists versus the chauvinists. Most whites side with the chauvinists but still think their elites will fix it without being too mean, which is the issue. So a race-blind society needs to address this

9. The difference between nonwhite and white identity politics is the former is antagonistic and parasitical toward whites. Same with class consciousness. Also based on an inherent antagonism.

10. Ideologies manifest differently amongst groups than individuals. So the test has to take that into account

11. Values diversity is good. Do you think the whites who become soldiers have the same high-minded values as the whites who become scientists or engineers? Or farmers? Or attorneys and financiers? All needed jobs

12. The gene-culture feedback loop is not well understood.

13. positive vision for white values -> a positive vision for white people is how I would put it. White Values are impossible to distill because they're just the values whites hold

14. Many would argue universalism itself is flawed when practically applied. So they still question why they need to care about a universal moral, even if they agree they need a positivist one Sargon makes this mistaken when think liberal values, which only one group holds in any high level, is universal,

15. Absolute depravity for divining the truth. Humans are incapable

16. There's a difference between having an organic loyalty to your in-group by default, and unconditional loyalty to every member. One if needed and natural to survive in the tribalist paradigm http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Ape

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg5kL7PMpO8