Frame

All non-dialogical arguments must either become counter-accusations or roped onto a subject you want to talk about

The issue of our time is White People being dispossessed by the third world and demonized for achievement gaps. The actual partition of an ethnostate is the stumbling block for the discussion. Naturally suggesting a partition in isolation sounds crazy. But it isn't in isolation. It is in a situation of shifting demographics, ever increasing diversity, political polarization, and racial tensions going along with it. A national divorce seems rational to me at that point.
Now Reese didn't really disagree with this. But he suggested a third way, I support that but I am skeptical of colorblind ideologies now so while I wouldn't try to stop it, I will be preparing my fallout shelter as it were. Prepare for the possibility these mounting tensions can't be resolved politically.

Honestly, if your whole argument is bitching about differences in a priori assumptions about reality, then whoever's are more accurate to the human condition wins. Ie acknowledging collectivism > hyperindividualism

And this I assuming a dichotomy between individualism and collectivism I don't think is really valid.
Other groups will judge you as part of a collective, your own people will judge you as an individual. That's the best summary of the altright position on this. Moral arguments dont undo tribalism

And crying collectivst is just crying racist really, it's crying about a view of the world you find objectionable

Bloc voting as a proxy for racial interests

>collectivism
A fancy way of crying racist. Like "racist" it's just a way of signalling moral disapproval and is without content. The debate is over whether collectivism is appropriate. And in the face of a hungering third world maw which will expunge any notions of radical individualism anyway, it seems silly to argue it isn't. Unless an efficient way to reprogram New Westerners into Western ways of thinking is found, then one's precious individualism will be crushed by two forces simultaneously. The clannish nature of the newcomers, and the fractured society diversity produces. Even if some kind of sustained conflict never breaks out, individualism will be at a disadvantage with competing interests and a lack of social trust. It will be too risky.

>SJW thing

It's true in a specific context, otherwise it's usually just a term which does little to describe or clarify. But that's the point. Makes something easier to dismiss.

If you want to collapse all distinctiveness to the one thing you think you have a plausible case against, by all means. But that's rather trite and a bit of a strawman.
There is this comic, called the Children of the Enlightenment. Fascism, Socialism, and Liberalism all announcing that the other two are really the same. After all, Socialism and Liberalism announce themselves as liberating but really preach a coddling philosophy. One tells the individual nothing is up to him and society will care for him while the other tells the individual that he is the unit of society and therefore his self interest is a justification unto itself regardless of the common good. And both end in a bureaucratic managerial class over everyone else

Are these strawmen? Yes. So is assuming there's a harsh dichotomy between individualism and loyalty to something greater than yourself. Particularly since you rely on that broader society every day to be a truly actualized individual, and trends within it will affect you.

Collectivism is upon you. Whether you want it or not. And individualism is at a competitive disadvantage, and will die with diversity anyway. Not only do the New Westerners not hold these values, the fractured society diversity creates will be unable to produce many happy and self-actualized individuals. You worldview is clearly not accurate to the human condition. Which is the entire reason collectivism persists, even if it ebbs and flows.

Yes, the altright argues the aspirations of hyperindividualism are maladaptive, that humans thrive and are most content as part of something greater and can be without sacrificing their individuality. After all, Western society is good at serving the common good while valuing the individual. But the addition of clannish groups or even groups with divergent interests does harm to that.

More specifically, the altright contends that the common wisdom on race (that it is wholly arbitrary and meaningless, especially for whites) is wrong. That race is something society has to come to grips with constructively, and that the way Western nations accomplished that in the past was de facto white nationalism. By not allowing great numbers of outsiders who grant dubious benefits, the common good was preserved for the most people and factional interests were at a minimum. There is no reason to not return to a eurocentric society, except by conjuring ridiculous philospphical objections or imagining disaster scenarios. The fact of the matter is either one temporarily cedes these or diversity will permanently crater said values in addition to any other attempts to create a cohesive and prosperous society. This having happened in Brazil, Africa, parts of the US and no alternative solutions exist. Moreover, it could be worse in America because a powerful anti-white current already runs through society, including elite society, in a way it didnt in those other places.

Just a narrative with which to dismiss, stupidly
http://archive.is/cuPic
How is "collectivist" different from "racist"? It's just crying about how you find another worldview mean and immoral. How is collectivist the only dimension which matters?

Also, I notice we clearly watch more of your OC than you investigate our's. Even people who claim to be familiar in my opinion seem woefully unfamiliar with what we say or why. I think it's a feint. But we disdain your OC criticizing us and can criticize your criticisms

Moreover, on the subject of race, you guys repeat the same social constructivist talking points and obfuscations as SJWs. Making the same arguments Teal Deer decried in the video "TLDR - The Social Construction Fallacy" regarding the continuum and social construct fallacy. Culture itself is what Rushton called the environmental determinist position after all. And many of the cultural arguments you guys bother to elucidate are just proxies of the same SES arguments used by the Left to deny these differences, and the not elucidated points are as substantive as explanations like patriarchy and social norms used by feminists to explain sex differences. And in no case...do you actually argue that these account for every IQ point of difference, just that you claim they could in your mind.

I notice Alt Righters often fall to the hole of trying ot argue non Whites are inherently left wing

be it true or not, it's a bad way to frame it

I think a better way is to 1.) simply point out the trends and 2.) explain that it's not because of ideology, but because left wing parties in the West promise to take from Whites and give to them

simple, I know, but it's easy to get drawn into an unending discussion and then it's hard to get out because it looks like conceding

Point is, the other side needs an answer for these divergent interests. Their worldview depends on it, even at a philosophical level it's existence spires them


If you want to argue categorizations are arbitrary, that's fine. But it's just a way of deconstructing the debate to avoid the debate. Really all that matters in terms of truth claims is if these groups can be identified as different somethings for genetic reasoms and these genetic differences extend above the neck resulting in different averages across various traits.

To be super pedantic: It shouldn't even matter, the truth claims of race realism just depend on human differences extending above the neck and resulting in different amounts of what we think IQ measures in these identifiable clusters of humanity who developed across the earth's geography. And nobody is actually befuddled by what race means so using that makes sense.

In essence, the core argument is that it would be an evolutionary impossibility for these far flung clusters of humanity to have the same averages in a trait which isn't always fitness increasing