Dest

he always does shit like this. Has his fans mess with people who embarrass him in some way which intrudes on their personal business (at best they are just an annoying e-presence), doxes, uses personal info to smear critics. And he does direct fans this way https://web.archive.org/web/20180201042151/https://clips.twitch.tv/SpikyYummyWolfOptimizePrime

It is called culty for a reason


It is basic bitch really. "My ideal future versus how I see the reality of your's"
every debate is idyllic outcomes for his ideas versus what he sees as the realistic outcome of your's
Made famous by socialists. Really you can imagine this in response to any Leftie

Take the idyllic out of his position, question the moral presuppositions. He is advocating an irreversible change after all, so he holds the burden of proof. He very much pretends the status quo or current projections are natural and inevitable, or at least cant think things would have been different, so why not use that against him by asking him to justify the changes which he takes for granted? If his future demands Blacks be more or less equal to whites, say that is unlikely to happen based on the past 50 years (his argument against white racialism returning as per his interactions with Ryan on Warski) so he needs to suggest what could change it.

>you don't have a right to dictate your descendants' culture. and you can't. you'll die. you don't get to make decisions for the future of the world. and if they want to blend in with some other culture like hispanic or black culture then they can do that. even if your children's race becomes a minority, you can still pass on your culture. "more immigrants" won't in itself change your culture. also culture always changes. it's not static. whites and non-whites will always incorporate each other's cultures. your culture will inevitably change. your desire to keep your culture fixed and unchanging is nonsensical.

Neglects the fact that you are deciding the future culture for my descendants and the change will be irreversible, because immigrants arent becoming clones of white americans. One can accept culture will change without equating that to supplanting it. And cultures can comingle, especially in our connected world, without mass immigration.

>you don't get to make decisions for the future of the world
Is also weird, you're doing that by changing the culture and makeup of its most significant nations irreversibly. And mass immigration brings in a small fraction of the third world, so it's hyperbolic anyway.

>there's no example of a white majority becoming a minority and then being attacked, at least not without some irrelevant factor like revolution instigating things, and not when the white majority voluntarily became a minority through peaceful immigration. your imaginary hypothetical where a majority of browns oppress whites is absurd. i can counter with my own absurd hypotheticals. what if america economically collapses because we didn't let in enough immigrants? what if some sort of revolution randomly makes minorities overthrow the majority? these are just strange hypotheticals to base something as monumental as an ethnostate on.

We still have reason to think the New Westerners will mismanage their new nations, as they do their old ones and based on their life outcomes now. In terms of education and crime, white americans are on par with white europeans after all, but America isnt due to the other 40% of the population. Your change is irreversible, so it's on you.

Moreover, there are many examples of market dominant minorities facing suspicion and discrimination actually. We already even have the meme: white privilege, which puts whitey on the hook for inequality. Why take the risk? Humans actually don't like feeling outcompeted, and certainly dislike it when the outgroup does it. To see everyone like them not do well is seen as an injustice in of itself. This is why we see these tensions in diverse societies.
And I know you don't buy the conservative platitude that people are fine with equal opportunity even if they lose

Rhodesia and South Africa of course come to mind, even if you dont buy the more salacious stories, whites do have economic barricades designed to favor blacks. In fact, South Africa is an example of immigration since most of the Blacks there don't descend from tribes native to the area

And you can of course say there were historical priors to both cases, but we arent going to have a perfect historical example. A transition like this will always be fraught with tension, especially with race involved, that's why race is so important. People do care about it a lot even if you wish they wouldn't


>an ethnostate would force people who were born and raised there, where all their memories were formed, where all their family lived, where their identity lies, to move somewhere else. if you're an american with swedish ancestry and someone told you to leave america and go back to sweden, would you be OK with that? you're fundamentally changing these peoples' lives and it's an affront to their freedoms. and that's assuming your native country even wants you. what if sweden rejected you? what if mexico rejects 3rd generation immigrants? would you threaten legal citizens at the point of a gun? there is no humane way to kick out non-whites.

Mexico already does have draconian immigration laws. And an ethnostate merely preserves the demographic hegemony of a group, hence why we call Israel an ethnostate. And they have a worse situation than we do but maintain it.

>even if we kicked non-whites out of america, then whites would turn on themselves. we might start excluding the irish or italians. your division is arbitrary. instead, we can either try to promote diversity, inclusion, and tolerance, or we can try to force separation and breed hostility.

Kick-out is hyperbolic, persuade to leave and otherwise promote a European demography is fine.

The problem is that we cant tell whites from whites really. And we have no reason to think whites will turn on one another while we do have reason to see racial resentment as worsening. This is important because the reason race is such a battleground is because it is unconcealable. We currently have no reason to think whites will start fighting, when they do it is out of national competition with one another (less of an issue today thanks to things like free trade, and back then the Others were not a threat), or due to massive political divides like the North and South USA.
And really this is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good

Also, currently whites are on the hook for attaining this egalitarian future of diversity, inclusion, and tolerance. So again, you're deciding my descendants' fate. Failures are blamed or at least directed at whites now with concepts like white privilege.

>multiculturalism and free trade is what has made white countries so rich today. shutting yourself off from the rest of the world isn't going to help you progress. and you're going to stop economic progress in the west by shutting off non-whites and immigrants. globalization has hugely positive economic impacts on the world. economic prosperity makes people happier. you say we could sacrifice economic growth for certain values like environmentalism, but i can weigh the costs and benefits of environmentalism. i can make arguments for protecting the environment and making people happy. nobody wants to breathe in smog when they step outside their house. but you've failed to provide any benefits for this supposed culture you want to protect. i don't care about your culture. i care about law. i care about basic moral truths that we as a society decide on, like murder being bad or randomly catching houses on fire being bad.

Multiculturalism? I thought the culture was being preserved? Actually, if you look at just whites, White Americans score on par with White Europeans in terms of crime and education. I grant that immigration reduces cost of goods, but these are the long term costs. And are more likely to drastically harm the economy in the long term than the cost of goods rising, and the greater inequality will be an unstable situation. Moreover, mass immigration and multiculturalism especially are relatively new concepts or issues on the public consciousness. Multiculturalism is a creation of the 2000s, or at least it went mainstream then. Mass Immigration began in the 60s but also increased in the 2000s. Crediting them with the wealth, when a great reason for them was the pre-existing wealth of the West making it an attractive target for immigration, seems indulgent.

Moreover, mass immigration is bringing in a fraction of the third world to crowd the first world. It's not connecting us as much as you'd think

>you should care about your family most of all. and the people directly around you. but outside that you should look out for the future for the entirety of mankind. if you've made the decision to deport non-whites, you can't go on to claim that you agree with me that we should care for all of mankind. if your population hated mexicans so much that they voted to kick them out, then how could you convince your population to empathize with mexicans enough to send them foreign aid and cooperate with them? you have to choose one.  if you kick out mexicans and then they develop killer robots in 100 years and mexico decides to invade and kill off white americans to protect their own culture, then that's perfectly OK because of what you did to them.

I should care about all of mankind? My Family? But nothing in between those two like my nation or race?
Your solution to all of this is to just be nicer to the Other, which again is putting whitey on the hook. I am saying be a good samaritan but the good samaritan did not house the man he helped in his own home and say he gets some measure of authority within the house.

Moreover, again, mass immigration brings in a fraction of the third world. Framing it as 'caring about the world' is misplaced

And, Mexico creating killer robots? I can see why race realism troubles you

Or he will try to flippantly not answer the issue, he doesnt want to play defense


"Teacher, I want to talk about my grade on this final."
"What's up, @EuropeanDefense?"
"You gave me an F..."
"That's the grade you earned, yes."
"Okay, but my great great grandfather got a 90 on this final."
"Yes?"
"I want to have the same grade as him."
"..."

This sort of neglects the fact you're advocating an irreversible change.

It's more akin to a decent legacy student being turned down for admission, for a student who is totally unqualified but they claim will be just as good sometime in the future. You can say arguing via ancestry is irrational, but arguing the newcomer's descendants will be fine is even more irrational. You can more reasonably expect things based on pedigree after all than no information. Saying someone's ancestors built something great so they will be able to maintain it is less wrong than pointing to someone whose ancestor's did not build anything great so they will also maintain what someone else's ancestor's built. The safe bet is both groups will make some permutation of the society the they have made across time and geography
And there's no reason to think the descendants will work everything out, especially if your solution is that we should not upset the peace by talk ingabout race too harshly

>Have you heard about blood transfusions? Do you think people with different blood types should be classified as different races?

Do people form real life communities around blood type? Do they vote based on it? In any significant numbers?