Utopia Talk / Politics / Iran continued

Seb Member	Mon Jun 23 09:19:47 Nim: "I never said you didn’t see that Islamic republic deterrent proxies collapsed. What I’m saying is that your strategic map doesn’t seem to update accordingly." Again, difficult to see how you can draw that conclusion; given I explicitly argued previously that the collapse of proxies would open the way to direct attacks on Iran. I don't really see how any of that I've said in the last thread would be altered one jot by the regional proxies. The current operations don't seem likely to do enough damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities and will likely leave Iran with a bomb eventually. Shattering the state is not likely to result in a stable, neutral govt. Therefore addressing the nuclear capabilities and stockpile ought to be a major criteria. Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis are irrelevant to this.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 23 09:24:25 Also it's very strange to say I think "when the dust settles they'll resume a slow march to a bomb" when I've explicitly just said I think they weren't really trying to produce a bomb, but leverage the option of a nuclear bomb for diplomatic concessions. The explicit strategic consequences of the collapse of their proxies is I think they will now *rapidly* rush to breakout. The evidence that points to this: they've been slowly incrementing the enrichment and stockpile to date and announcing it. This isn't what you do in a breakout scenario. It's what you are doing when you are trying to create political pressure on govts to engage in negotiations to give you something to stop.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 23 09:32:46 "Eventually" seems an odd timeline. How long to we imagine milling and forging takes? The barrier is not technical. One additional barrier to the one mentioned is of course communications. I dont think a nuclear test is the way to inform Israel that an arsenal exists. Iran does not have time to test, then tinker, and a not testing bypasses the whole awkward potential of a bomb fizzle. Informing the US and Israel in secret that a number of warheads have been dispersed seems the best way to go. Better for all parties that the public illusion of nuclear ambiguity exists.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 23 09:38:14 Iran does not need the proxies in an existential sense. Sure, it was caught on the back foot with very low military spending historically and its survivable missiles and re-entry vehicles with sufficient range just at the start of production and deployment. Factually, Iran is rediculously larger than Israel. Iran has strategic depth and the know-how to build up a strong conventional deterrent force based in Iran. Israel's strategic haste has a lot to do with trying to curbstomp Iranian overmatch potential without proxy crutches before it fully materialized.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 23 10:12:05 Iran does not currently have nukes because the iranians figured they would get bombed if they were too blatant about it, and therefore attempted to inch slowly/secretly towards nukes. That attempt failed. And yet again soviet air defense lulz. 10 days of US and israeli bombers flying all over iran at will with no losses at all. I am continually amazed that iran spent all this time and effort trying to build up its military and has so far been unable to kill a single manned aircraft.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 23 10:17:30 Fan fiction boy writes again!
Seb Member	Mon Jun 23 10:31:28 Jergul: Eventually doesn't necessarily imply a delayed timescale. The path isn't as straightforward as "cast a pit, done" and there's likely to be some circumstantial delay. Sam: Inch slowly and secretly by giving regular press releases on the state of its stockpile and the number of centrifuges? Nah. They were doing what North Korea was doing in the 90s. They didn't want a bomb, they wanted to trade the option of a bomb for reduction in sanctions. Now, they'll probably want a bomb and build one in secret.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 23 11:37:35 Lol poor jergul. You think what is fiction? Must you delude yourself because your team is being whupped as badly as any military force ever? You dont have to be on team retard you know. You live in norway. You could... you know... get back on your own side. Seb, and north korea built a bomb. Not making that mistake twice. You can prattle and talk all you want, iran was building a bomb and everyone knows it. They were hoping you would prattle and talk until they built it, but netanyahu said fuck that and pulled the sword.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 23 11:54:31 Iran is launching rockets at US facilities, iraq, qatar, and possibly UAE. If trump has balls he will destroy irans navy and start working air defense/missile sites up and down the coast. We shall see.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 23 11:55:34 Iran is also attacking bahrain.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 23 12:05:44 Iran is also attacking kuwait. Rumors that uk and french jets may be helping defend. Not quite every euro is spineless.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 23 12:13:50 Attacking US facilities in Bahrain* Fixed that for you.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 23 12:15:15 Also attacking US facilities in Kuwait* I missed that one.
Rugian Member	Mon Jun 23 12:16:12 Well, they just bought themselves an ass kicking.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 23 12:23:22 Pretty weak attack from iran.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 23 12:24:52 Lol jergul your iranian friends are proving completely impotent.
murder Member	Mon Jun 23 12:55:13 "If trump has balls he will destroy irans navy and start working air defense/missile sites up and down the coast." What navy? -
murder Member	Mon Jun 23 13:04:22 Also, what air defense? -
murder Member	Mon Jun 23 13:10:18 "Well, they just bought themselves an ass kicking." Iran isn't signing up for an ass kicking by attacking US forces, they are signing up for an ass kicking by doing the absolute minimum in response to our attacks. They keep signaling over and over again that they are afraid of a fight. If they were smart they would force a fight because Trump desperately wants to avoid one. The last thing Trump wants is a long expensive war that he can't win without deploying 100,000s of troops on Iranian soil. -
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 23 13:48:31 Ya trump really wants to puss out.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 23 14:29:46 When the neocon faggots, Christion Zio-cucks, and jews have finished with WWIII, does anyone think they'll get around to deporting all of the foreigners? Probably not, right? Kinda weird how the foreigners actually *started* after the jews infiltrated governance. Funny how that keeps happening. Gates of Toledo and all of that.
murder Member	Mon Jun 23 14:46:25 The foreigners founded this country. -
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 23 14:48:53 [murdertard (left-wing dogma bot)]: "The foreigners founded this country." A bunch of Mexicans and jews did not found these United States. A nation is its people, against which are foreigners. jew globalists lying to useful idiot leftists and their zio-cucks does not change that.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 23 16:30:41 Sam: North Korea built a bomb *after* the US reneged on an agreement by imposing sanctions, declared it a member of the *axis of evil* alongside Saddam's Iraq shortly before then invading Iraq and executing Saddam. So yeah, draw the parallels. Diplomacy works until dumbass republicans fuck it all up, engage in stupid posturing and then the bad guys get nukes.
HOLY FECES Member	Mon Jun 23 16:36:32 "A bunch of Mexicans and jews did not found these United States. A nation is its people, against which are foreigners. jew globalists lying to useful idiot leftists and their zio-cucks does not change that." Oh, history called, it wants its accuracy back. Actually, the founding of the United States wasn’t some exclusive genetic country club. Let’s start with facts. The U.S. was founded by immigrants, most of whom were fleeing persecution, war, and poverty from Europe. You know, the classic "come here for a better life" crowd. Mexicans were here first in much of the Southwest. Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico? Those were part of Mexico before the U.S. annexed them. But please, tell me more about who "belongs" here. Jews were literally among the early settlers and supporters of the Revolution. Jewish Americans like Haym Salomon helped finance the Revolutionary War. Without him, your precious Founding Fathers might have been sipping tea under the Union Jack. The idea that "a nation is its people" ignores that the Constitution and founding documents deliberately set out to create a civic nation, not an ethnic one. That’s why they wrote "We the People" and not "We the Anglo-Saxons Only." So no, your "exclusive club" fantasy wasn’t real in 1776 and it’s not real now. The U.S. was founded by a mix of people, supported by immigrants, financed by Jews, built by slaves, and expanded by absorbing former Mexican territories. History is messy like that. Sorry if that ruins the purity cosplay.
murder Member	Mon Jun 23 17:28:24 Where do all these multis come from? :o)
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 23 17:51:11 "Diplomacy works" -seb, 1938
HOLY FECES Member	Mon Jun 23 17:54:55 ""Diplomacy works"" Actually it did. There is a ceasefire in the works right now with Iran. You're welcome.
murder Member	Mon Jun 23 17:59:30 Iran turned bitch and Israel just couldn't keep up the fight.
HOLY FECES Member	Mon Jun 23 18:01:40 This would be a correct assessment. "Where do all these multis come from? :o)" Who knows?
TheChildren Member	Tue Jun 24 00:49:32 da intaceptors r gone man! less than 40 hours after da mignight hammar, they wanna quick peace we know WHY now scott ritta, douglas have once again predicted this shit correctly
TheChildren Member	Tue Jun 24 00:57:24 500 billion damaga of infrastructures says scott ritta OUCH on top of dat, iron done is myth now. we know it is myth http://x.com/KerryBurgess/status/1936197952130699714
Seb Member	Tue Jun 24 04:14:19 Maybe Iran just pretended to be having a crease fire and negotiations to deceive the US. Like the US did. It's very smart apparently. Sam: On the other hand, the UK wasn't ready to fight Germany in 1938, and the treaty bought time for significant re-armament. You need to think of these things in terms of what you want and need. If the goal is to delay it forestall an Iranian bomb was JCPOA better? Hell yes. It was demonstrably effective. Failure to build on that and create either detente between Israel and Iran or full containment was an issue; but again largely driven by Israel and US republicans desire for an illusive military solution that would give the US and Israel everything it wanted without girly diplomacy. Only the military solution looks likely to deliver less. Certainly it falls further short on the tests opponents of the JCPOA applied to JCPOA. So yeah, dummies.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 24 04:49:13 Seb, This is not primarily about timeline estimates or enrichment metrics. It’s about the structure of your strategic model. There is a consistent pattern in your analysis: you advise against challenging the Islamic Republic or its regional proxies. You did so in the context of the Houthis (red sea threads), Hezbollah, and Gaza. The core assumption has remained the same — that escalation would provoke regional destabilization or uncontrolled outcomes. Yet when these confrontations occurred and the predicted systemic fallout did not materialize, your framework did not adjust. The perceived threat simply migrated: from proxy entanglement to nuclear breakout. Throughout this evolution, your framing of actors remains fixed. Israel is cast as reckless and opportunistic; the Islamic Republic as reactive, rational, and fundamentally coherent. Israeli capabilities — operational reach, intelligence penetration, long-term strategic design — were systematically underestimated. The regime’s internal fragilities, factionalism, and doctrinal limits were consistently minimized. The result is not adaptive analysis but a static model that reallocates risk rather than reevaluating threat perception. The risk is always downstream of Western or Israeli initiative, and agency is disproportionately attributed to their actions rather than to the strategic and doctrinal posture of the regime itself. This pattern mirrors the logic of restraint that failed in other theaters — notably Syria and Ukraine — where initial hesitation was framed as prudence, but ultimately enabled escalatory entrenchment. (Color me surprised that I now find you on the non-interventionist camp) In this case, the data suggests the regime’s deterrence posture was overstated, its proxy system brittle, and its escalation control weaker than assumed. Yet your assessments continue to default toward caution and the presumption of Western provocation. There is the idea (which you have also voiced) that Israel’s war in some way undermines Ukraine’s war, which holds some truth in specific domains, particularly where there’s overlap in military supply chains — such as certain munitions and air defense systems. But it’s not true as a blanket statement. Moreover, the two theaters aren’t isolated. The Islamic republic has become a key supplier of drones and missiles to Russia, and the deepening strategic partnership between Tehran and Moscow means that pressure on one can indirectly impact the other. From this angle, weakening the Islamic republic's capabilities may even help Ukraine over the longer term by constraining one of Russia’s main enablers. Iran is critical in the Chinese belt and road initiative. The Islamic republic is The source of instability in the region etc. and so on. These are complex trade-offs — and it’s valid to weigh them and discuss them — but the picture is more interconnected than a simple zero-sum logic suggests.
TheChildren Member	Tue Jun 24 05:19:03 a massive victory for da global south and da free non colonial imperialists peoples round da world as barely 2 days has passed since da heavy strikes and alrdy beggin 4 a ceasefire we know how da cards on da table rlly look like now
TheChildren Member	Tue Jun 24 05:26:55 it is as douglas and scott has said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkcXWvMypoE da cards r really clear now global south plays 17d go me nihgga!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 24 05:41:05 Jergul, Thanks for the clarification — but your framing still collapses under scrutiny. You first claimed: “There is absolutely no way for him to walk that back.” Then you walked it back: “He can do so as easily as a US Supreme Court Justice completely reverses an opinion he had written earlier with a new justification.” That’s not just hyperbole — it’s a contradiction. The first is a claim of immutability; the second acknowledges reversibility, which is precisely the point. And with one critical distinction: a U.S. Supreme Court decision requires a majority of justices to overturn precedent. A fatwa requires one man to change his mind. These kinds of slippery formulations — whether intended or not — risk being read as manipulative. Not being a fan of a sport, you have the time to know better. You say Khamenei can’t reverse the fatwa, then concede he could, but just “won’t” because he’s old and consistent. That’s a personal judgment, not a structural barrier. And not a very compelling one. Khamenei has reversed himself before — he authorized JCPOA negotiations after years of opposing talks, and labeled the U.S. “the Great Satan” while greenlighting diplomacy. Like much of the Islamic Republic’s doctrine, “absolute” positions have proven to be contingent — especially under pressure. Khamenei, as recently as late 2024, halted the implementation of a new, draconian hijab law—not because the law conflicted with his moral convictions, but because public backlash sparked fears of widespread unrest. After parliament and the Guardian Council passed the law, the Supreme National Security Council, chaired by Khamenei, suspended enforcement. He is clearly far more morally flexible than you give him credit for. So if you want to stake your position on a fatwa issued in 2003 — at the height of U.S. military power, with 150,000 troops parked around Iran post–“Axis of Evil” — as a sincere and immutable moral position rather than strategic signaling under existential threat, seems silly.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 24 06:31:09 Nimi You are making a mountain out of a molehill that serves no practical pupose. The dude is in his 90ies. His decision lacks permanence under any circumstance because any successor is not bound by his decision. The 2024 example is not a case of the SL reversing a decision he himself had made. My position is actually based on wondering wth Iran does not have an arsenal yet. Its been many years since the US had the kind of coercive strength it did in 2003. Ultimately, the best explanation is that the SL continues to block the production of nuclear warheads as he consistently has done since 2003. I do think Iran has grounds to defacto or dejure withdraw from the NPT because of the US and Israel's gross violation of the treaty. Nuclear powers are not allowed to attack non-nuclear signees to the treaty. A clause that makes perfect sense as the treaty is designed to remove the need for a nuclear arsenal. Like I said before, nothing has changed. Iran does not need an unusable nuclear arsenal and can rebuild its weakened deterrent on the back of its newest generation of ballistic missiles. Does it matter if it does get an arsenal? Nope. This kind of attack could still happen with certain modification (decapitation would no longer be viable, nor would forcing Iran into a use it or lose it situation be smart). It did not amount to an existential crisis and there would have been no chance of Iran using the arsenal at any point in the last 12 days. Nukes are a crap deterrent against the flailing slaps across Iran and Syria. Iran will of course have to increase its military budget, strengthen its security apparatus, and continue to dissassemble Mossad capabilities in Iran. But these are not unreasonable consequences.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 24 06:32:49 Iraq and Syria*
jergul large member	Tue Jun 24 06:40:33 As an added not. Nukes for Iran are not even a profilation issue. It would be a consequence of two nuclear powers violating the NPT.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 24 06:42:47 Read as "One or more countries got nukes because two nuclear powers attacked a signee of the NPT" The attacks caused profilation. Not anything else.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 24 07:30:58 Nim: Actually, if you recall, I said this is what the Biden administraron would have been concerned about in regard to the Gaza war escalating (as it eventually has, and you assured it wouldn't) into a regional conflict. The reasons for that were economic impacts on oil prices, risk of sucking the US into another ongoing commitment (whether like the Iraq or post gulf war), distraction from Ukraine and undermining readiness in relation to Taiwan; while not really likely to achieve lasting strategic objectives. All of these have indeed come to pass. You are also factually incorrect in that I was very comfortable and supportive of action against Hamas; but not what amounts to ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Generally I'm far *more* gung-ho about military intervention than you, so if I'm suggesting it's a bad idea its probably a good idea to listen to my reasoning rather than substituting your own bonkers assumptions. "that escalation would provoke regional destabilization or uncontrolled outcomes." I find this a fantastically bizarre assertion. You have Europe threatening to revoke Israel's trade deal, continued disruption to trade, oil prices striking, Israel and Iran trading missiles, Israel attempting to shatter the Iranian state while also failing to controls enough enriched fissile material for 10 nuclear weapons. Small matter that last one I know, but we all have our little fixations. I remember the days when this would have been considered an unmitigated cluster fuck. The fact you've somehow convinced yourself this is a nicely controlled situation is somewhat strange. Perhaps it is you that has failed to update you priors?
Seb Member	Tue Jun 24 07:38:02 "This pattern mirrors the logic of restraint that failed in other theaters — notably Syria and Ukraine — where initial hesitation was framed as prudence, but ultimately enabled escalatory entrenchment. (Color me surprised that I now find you on the non-interventionist camp)" Intervention has to be in the service of a goal. And my objection with what's going on here is that my goal is to prevent Iran getting a bomb, and certainly prevent non state actors getting a bomb. And I don't think intervention can achieve this without either boots on the ground (unfeasible) or different fallout - by which I mean radioactive fallout - either from resorting to nuclear bunker busters which while occasionally referred to as "tactical" but which are in fact 400kt devices and listed as strategic in the US inventory - or from dispersal of Iranian nuclear materials. And the fact that Israel was able to spectacularly infiltrate and demolish Hezbollah doesn't logically alter the calculus on what can be achieved by air power in this context, so your appeal to revisit my assessment of air power in light of Israel's success there doesn't really appear to make much sense.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 24 07:41:39 Bottom line, using air power to impose a peace treaty and political process between Assad and rebels is not remotely similar proposition to trying to denuclearise Iran by using air power to pursue regime change.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 09:30:35 [Multi-Fag]: "U.S. was founded by immigrants," This is false and is based in the slave doctrines of Marxism, particularly the lies of post-colonialism. These United States were founded by pioneers and settlers — not immigrants. The word "immigrant" saw sparse use starting around 1782 when a clergyman was trying to attract more people to New Hampshire. The word in its propagandized form did not exist until the 19th century, which, not-so-coincidentally, was during the rise of plans for jewish Bolshevism, where proto-Bolshevism's stated goals were to introduce mass-movements of slave populations into the West to cause instability and reliance on usury and central banking. Or, in other words, you retard, "immigrants" are people who migrate to an area that has already been established. Settlers and pioneers move to a place that is un-established and build that place from the ground up. These United States—definitionally—were not founded by "immigrants". That is a lie. An easy proof of this is to ask what towns were available when the Pilgrims arrived on the Mayflower. The answer is "none". Meanwhile, some Mexican arriving in Los Angeles for his racialist "Reconquista" is merely attempting to seize lands already developed. If you cannot understand this distinction, then congratulations, you are a useful idiot. [Multi-Fag]: "Without him, your precious Founding Fathers might have been sipping tea under the Union Jack." This might be the most retarded thing I've read in UP in a while, and williamthecoward has been posting a lot lately, so congratulations, retard. In reality, these United States were particularly averse to central banking schemes and had fierce debates about usurious parasites infecting the new nation. There are some good debates between Hamilton and Adams on this subject, but the short version is that it was not until the tyrant Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression that jewish central banking schemes began enslaving the nation by degrees. To pretend that a financier himself is a cultural progenitor is to ignore questions of war debt — debt being the most useful indicator of jewish enslavement schemes. [Multi-Fag]: "The idea that "a nation is its people" ignores that the Constitution and founding documents deliberately set out to create a civic nation, not an ethnic one." More outright false statements. These are lies built from Bolshevik propaganda. The simple and plain reality is that the founding documents of the nation specifically recognized "free white person[s] ... of good character" as its citizens, in particular NorthWest Europeans (largely former English) ( http://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/ ). Benjamin Franklin even had a racial tier list for his preferred White citizens which even identified the French as "swarthy". There were discussions at that time about the utility of Germans as holders of the White genetics as well. Franklin was somewhat against this, but there were political battles to introduce Germans since it was understood at the time that Germans had among them some of those most genetically attracted to liberty, hence, the British used Hessians (British-controlled Germans), and the Colonists employed the German Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben to train their emerging armies. Everyone knew the value of different White genetics. There were no questions at the time that these United States were a White nation. It was written into every expectation — from John Locke rightly pointing out that atheists can hold no oaths to Franklin recognizing that only a religious and moral people could uphold the Constitution to Jefferson specifically noting that the nation was established for its Posterity. The idea that millions of Global South street-shitters would be allowed to work as citizens disseminating anti-White hatred in jewish newspapers would not have been accepted — and will never be accepted by the free peoples of the West. Most of the lies of a "civic nation" come from foreigners and traitors attempting to conduct a White genocide. Just as was demonstrated in discussions with the traitor sebfag (pretty sure in the "allah ackbar seb" threads, but I don't have the links atm), such a nation "founded on principles" (rather than a people) does not even have an everlasting principle, since sebfags believe that the principles themselves are subject to the mob's Bolshevik-led lie of "democracy" (i.e., endlessly voting to change those very principles). Or, as it was phrased in those threads: Bolshevik destroyers claim that all that makes a citizen is a piece of paper, that that piece of paper requires no assimilation (or, as Bolsheviks phrase it: assimilation only to Protean oblivion), and that it would actually be better if no assimilation occurred at all since slavish foreigners better assist the Global South slave revolt by remaining backwards and dysgenic. Civic nationalism is a lie that the suicidal tell themselves so that the knife can slip-in deeper and their broken consciences can satisfy Bolshevism's panoptic eye of social conformism. Even were civic nationalism to have some Virtue, those who believe in it to shield their doubt would be left aghast as only a certain people were capable of holding those Virtues — like a kind naturalist putting sugar out for hummingbirds only to find that ants will arrive as well and can leave no beauty in their wake.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jun 24 09:35:22 "On the other hand, the UK wasn't ready to fight Germany in 1938, and the treaty bought time for significant re-armament." Ahahahahahahahaha Ahahahaha Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Seb justifying chamberlain. Why wernt you ready to fight in 1938? Were you that retarded? You were letting hitler rearm without building up youtself? You are then using that great act of cowardly retardation as an excuse to defend perhaps the greatest instance of cowardly retardation ever? Lol this is why we dont let you decide what to do with iran or gaza or Lebanon.
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 09:35:37 You have packed a lot of pseudo historical rambling and white nationalist talking points into one post. First, the distinction you are trying to draw between "immigrants" and "settlers" is a semantic game that ignores the broader context of human migration. The Pilgrims, settlers, pioneers, whatever you want to call them, were immigrants. They left their home countries and moved to a land that was already inhabited. Indigenous peoples were here with established societies, towns, and trade networks. The fact that you pretend the land was "unestablished" just erases their existence. So, the United States, like every settler nation, was founded by immigrants who forcibly displaced the native populations. That is not post colonial "slave doctrine" ....it is basic history. Your rant about "jewish Bolshevism" and "slave populations" is textbook conspiracy theory garbage. Bolshevism did not exist until the late 19th and early 20th century. The founding of the United States happened more than a century prior. Trying to link Bolshevik immigration policies to the 1600s or even the framing of the Constitution is not just historically illiterate ...it is desperate. Also, let’s not pretend the Founding Fathers were some monolithic block of race purists. Yes, the 1790 Naturalization Act limited citizenship to "free white persons," but the Constitution itself did not define citizenship by race. More importantly, the Constitution has evolved. Amendments like the 14th dismantled that racial restriction. You can stomp your feet all you want about how "the nation was white," but the legal and civic structures of the United States were intentionally designed to be adaptable. If you actually read the Federalist Papers, you would find that the founders intentionally built a system capable of evolving to meet the demands of future generations, not one frozen in 1790 bigotry. The "nation is its people" argument still stands. The Founding Fathers debated principles, governance, and the social contract, not eugenics charts. They borrowed Enlightenment ideals that transcended ethnic lines (see Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau). The whole civic nationalism versus ethno-nationalism debate is modern far right cope trying to retrofit white identity politics onto a country that, by design, changes with each generation. Also, the attempt to drag Jewish people into every single societal change you dislike is not an argument ....it is a tired scapegoat tactic used by people who do not have the range to engage with actual socioeconomic factors. And finally, the irony here is that you are screeching about "slave doctrines" while unironically defending the very systems that enabled chattel slavery in the first place. tl;dr The U.S. was built by immigrants who displaced Indigenous people. The Constitution created a civic nation, not a racial one. Your historical understanding is cherry picked and marinated in white supremacist conspiracy theories. If you want to cosplay as a colonial gatekeeper, at least do it with accurate source material.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 09:38:47 [Multi-Fag]: "You have packed a lot of pseudo..." There's no way you typed that in 5 minutes. The previous entry and the latest stink of A.I., but this just confirms it further: you are a fraud.
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 09:39:57 Am I? Do you want to go down that rabbit hole?
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 09:42:52 You are too shallow a fraud to burrow a hole, but like any common cuck you may know how to steal one.
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 09:44:41 Or you are too scared to challenged the points and convey and argument as you guise yourself as an intellectual utilizing copy and pasted from various white nationalist literature. The same arguments that get overused. You are no different that the post of old known as "The Third Reich". Your turn.
The Third Reich Member	Tue Jun 24 09:46:15 Hey! I still exist!
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 09:47:09 Only by the name, not the poster.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 09:50:45 [Multi-Fag]: "utilizing copy and pasted" You're very transparently projecting. It must suck for you that I can actually type out my own thoughts, but all you can do is tell ChatGPT to respond to me while trying to make it look authentic with your amendment, "[but dirty-up the grammar to make it seem like a random moron wrote it]." You couldn't even wait more than 5 minutes to make it seem legit. You have as much self control as you have intelligence: a quantity so small that that it evaporates before you yourself can even claim to have known it.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 09:51:40 *"a quantity so small that [] it evaporates"
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 09:52:21 Are you sure? Those seem to be the same talking points from various white nationalist principles, literature, and same arguments perpetrated for decades. To distract from the points made, you're focused on the timeline. Either put up or shut up.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 10:01:14 [Multi-Fag]: "copy and pasted" [Multi-Fag]: "Those seem to be the same talking points" Now your pathetically and transparently moving the goal posts. First you falsely presumed that I "copy and pasted" (which is your own pathetic projection since, as a pathetic loser, you copy&pasted your response from an A.I. program and cannot conceive of someone better than you who would not so pathetically match your grotesqueries), then you shifted to "the same talking points". You cannot even hold to your own pathetic lies or are so stupid that you fell into an obvious category error. [Multi-Fag]: "Either put up or shut up." Hilarious that by extension you think that your copy&pasting A.I. garbage means that you've offered anything. To be clear: you have not. You have no insights, and that garbage you posted shows the thinking capacity of a lobotomized R.P. McMurphy. I, meanwhile — not being a pathetic cretin such as yourself — type out my own words. You, being poor, have no mind of your own to do such things. There is no spark within you. The lights have gone out. You wander to dusky death with a heart beat but no heart.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 10:02:36 *"Now [you're] pathetically and transparently moving the goal posts."
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 10:07:02 No, I am categorically making an inference that much of the content you have expressed are typical talking points that have been conveyed by bigoted racists and white nationalist. The same fatigue that gets overused by people of your ilk. It isn't that difficult to counter them, especially providing more context to the complexities that resides in your ridiculous declarations. If you take a look at all the rest of your posts in various threads, literally it's a broken record, which furthers adds to the "copy and paste" tongue and cheek comment. Your fixation on it is quite telling as it intimidates you, so much that your responses has been you focusing on the timeline of my given response to your conspiracies that are unfounded. Lastly, either put up or shut up, because your conjecture of me 'moving goal posts' is nothing more of pure projection on your end. Either you are too scared, or you're not as intelligent as you think you really are? Also, for you to continuously interjecting your level of intelligence, only tells me more about your insecurities. Please, continue.
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 10:08:23 Careful now, that was a 5 to 6 minute response...
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 24 10:20:41 Oh for god’s sake, Asgard — you dont try to reason with these Nazis, any more than with a pickpocket you catch red-handed who starts screaming you’re the thief. Nothing they say can be taken remotely seriously. At very best, you talk at them—maybe slap them when they open their mouths to spew more childish lies while you retrieve your wallet and kick them on their way.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 10:23:04 [Multi-Fag]: "bigoted racists and white nationalist" "[Muh thought-terminating clichés. Muh reason to be retarded and think no further. Muh jewish Bolshevism]. Not impressive. You are a pathetic fraud and just another williamthecoward. You provided no steel man — only lies and lazy A.I. Your entire wheel house: Ctrl+c Ctrl+v
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 10:25:14 [williamthecoward]: "kick them on their way" Many cowards such as yourself are convinced you could kick anyone. You are a penguin on the edge of a cliff, waiting for the mob to give you the "bravery" of conformism with inertia. Your appeals to slavish jews just accelerates you to the front of the line of golems.
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 10:26:03 I'll take that as your concession. Must like the ilk of your kind, you "bitch out."
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 10:27:58 Lie to yourself all you want, jew. That is, after all, your slavish nature.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 24 10:29:08 You started with a rebuke of the settlers framing, and were wrong. And still on the same point and still wrong. That's what a European education gets you
Trolling UPer Member	Tue Jun 24 10:30:29 PET ALERT!!!
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 10:33:14 Seriously, your concession was noted, with all due respect. Ta-ta!
Seb Member	Tue Jun 24 11:40:14 Sam: "Wy wernt you ready to fight in 1938?" Because maintaining a giant fleet to control the world's oceans and a giant army to defeat Germany on land, and a colonial army to hold the empire was more expensive than the British empire could afford; so it naturally sought to use a network of alliances to contain Germany and her Allies but then the US decided to fuck that up by undermining sanctions in Italy, leading them to align with Hitler and severely fucking up military contaminant and thereafter it was more a question of seeing if Hitler could be bought off or played against Russia. Kinda how the US now is avoiding the upcoming war against Russia.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 24 11:42:48 Americans don't get to comment about cowardliness in the run up to WW2 given their disgraceful role in undermining the allies and rearming the fascists for a quick buck.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 24 11:43:59 And certainly not for trying to sit out the war until they were entirely predictably attacked by Japan and had their battleships sunk. At least the UK hadc the foresight to pick a time and issue for fighting.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 24 11:45:26 "oh noes it was a sneak attack, so dishonorable" from the guys that just apparently signed off the bombing of a diplomatic envoy while still in the middle of negotiations.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 24 11:54:52 Let's dismantle this retard: • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "pseudo historical rambling" Feel free to cite, you liar. Nothing was "pseudo" about my direct references. You, however, offered nothing but jewish subversion and lies. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "white nationalist" • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "textbook conspiracy theory garbage." • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "1790 bigotry" • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "white identity politics" • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "scapegoat tactic" Pathetic thought-terminating clichés: "white nationalist", "conspiracy theory", "bigotry" — just more signals of totalitarian thought reform. Leftists and slavish weaklings gravitate towards these clichés because they are naturally weak and pathetic and therefore seek the consensus of the slave mob. The slave mob chants these clichés to make their strong and noble opposition appear to be "low class". Meanwhile, slavish leftists cannot get out of bed in the morning, pop pills to stop their own brains from attacking them, and fear that exercise might make them appear "fascist". Being pathetic, they project their weaknesses onto others, such as williamthecoward desperately hoping that his opposition is bed-ridden and addicted to A.I. — like he is. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "the distinction you are trying to draw between "immigrants" and "settlers" is a semantic game" No it is not. You are lying. There are absolute and distinctive differences between immigrants and settlers. These are incontrovertible, fixed, and absolutely historical. You are simply lying. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "They left their home countries and moved to a land that was already inhabited. Indigenous peoples were here with established societies, towns, and trade networks." Now who's playing semantic games, you pathetic slave? "Already inhabited"? What a fucking joke. "Indigenous peoples" — fucking lol at your slave terminology. It's laced into your very diction. Every bit of you is a slave. Your nature is inescapable, as is your fate: to be subjugated forever. Slaves playing in their own filth for 40 years in the desert while hoping that someone feels sorry enough for them that they (accidentally) trust subversive destroyers are not "inhabited" — they're vagrants. American Indians chopping each other's heads off and failing to build anything bigger than a teepee or a pueblo had little more of an impact of these lands than migrating birds — and had about the same vision. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "just erases their existence" lol. Yet more slave phrases. "[muh erasure]". Now do israel, lol! The jew often pretends that White people have "never existed as a cohesive people". They tell the same lie of the Palestinians, whom they genocide with their sick distempers and psychopathic nature. They say also that to deny "trans" people "exist" is "genocide" — but only because White people are more likely to go "trans" and thus there is a sick irony in saying that to insist that someone *not* surgically and chemically emasculate themselves is to genocide them ("[not allowing White genocide is the 'real' genocide!]"). The consistent principle is always that these psychopathic destroyers wish to destroy White people. Nomadic American Indians failing to build more than a spear after millennia of warfare is not even in the same category as these jewish lies. In fact the jew lies of the American Indian only because American Indians can be yet more jewish slaves — susceptible to jewish propaganda and having the same genetic fault that had them trade away their lands in the first place. The jew always celebrates more slaves who can be enslaved, as Great and Glorious Nobility does not allow the jew to exploit and enslave the world — as is the jew's sick, twisted, Satanic self-fulfilling prophecy. They can only ever ruin all into a completely debased humanity, inverting the world to sit atop the trash heap in a crown of discarded refuse. It is thus natural to them to celebrate the Zerg creep of the American Indian, as the American Indian's shit and piss spread from their villages and forced them to migrate seasonally like buffalo to avoid the lingering stench of their own discard. This nomadic, rootless cosmopolitan nature calls to the jew, as he has never built anything himself. Even "his" "Israel" is stolen like a cuck in an Eagle's nest. In his greatest fancies he re-builds the Third Temple, but all of jew's "artists" can only degrade and defile what is beautiful, so this vision for a Golden Temple made from the world's stolen riches is simply beyond him — it is impotent nostalgia rather than a future to be realized, since building golden walls requires nobility and the jew has none of that left. He would ask whether the roof could be made of toilets or if the walls could be more "postmodern" with a thousand types of foreign vaginas plastered in Talmudic pages to reflect the "erasure" of "indigenous" "peoples of color" and "[blah blah blah slave terms]". • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "That is not post colonial "slave doctrine" ....it is basic history." More lies from your category error. It is in fact post-colonial slave doctrine. Great and Glorious Nobility seized a barren land ruled by consciousness-lacking animals, improved the nature of those animals, and built cities on the empty hills in the names of their Timeless and Everlasting ancestors. No structures like those of Benevolent Europe had ever touched these lands before White people brought them here. Even our cats now have thumbs, as they too will know the Grand Gift of Consciousness — the gift that was forsworn by those cursed savages. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "Bolshevism did not exist until the late 19th and early 20th century. The founding of the United States happened more than a century prior. Trying to link Bolshevik immigration policies to the 1600s or even the framing of the Constitution is not just historically illiterate ...it is desperate." This is pathetic illiteracy on your part. I specifically addressed this, so you outright failed to comprehend. This is why you retarded leftists need to quote people when you attempt to respond to them — it'll save you some embarrassment, you pathetic fag. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "Also, let’s not pretend the Founding Fathers were some monolithic block of race purists." Oh look, more slavish doctrine: this time, deconstructionism. Time for more category errors and composition errors! • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "Yes, the 1790 Naturalization Act limited citizenship to "free white persons,"" Yes. End of story. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "but the Constitution itself did not define citizenship by race ... Amendments like the 14th" Lies. Composition error. Category error. This is jewish pilpul. The jew will try to deconstruct so that the whole can be eroded by some part — like saying that Ephialtes of Trachis was a "Spartan" and therefore Sparta was permissive of dysgenic freaks among them, whereas we know that Ephialtes was a traitor and failed to preserve the Spirit of His Magnanimous People. Cutting through the lie, the whole of the New Nation explicitly cited "White" as an absolute criteria for citizenship. They even explicitly denied the lie of what is now called "birthright citizenship", which, naturally, this slavish multi celebrates in the much *later* 14th Amendment of 1868. And notice, of course, that this dysgenic freak and liar conflated the 1868 Amendment with the much later and very overtly post-Bolshevik *revision* of the 14th — a revision of *1898*. Recall that at this time Bolshevism had already been spreading in Europe as well, eroding the nobility of nations, killing Great and Glorious Peoples «en masse» for the "crime" of not being easily enslaved by the jew. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "More importantly, the Constitution has evolved." Chronological snobbery fallacy. The lie of "progress" is yet more leftist slave logic. You really cannot help yourself. For the Sacred Right — those who truly fight with their *own* sweat and blood for their *own* nations rather than wielding the yoke of usury and sick enslavement — nearly all such "evolutions" of the Constitution are transparently subversions by dysgenic leftists, freaks, and slavish cretins. Where nobility strikes, it returns to the first principles which directly correlate with the absolute and inviolable survival of the nation — which is embodied wholly in its Eternal People. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "the legal and civic structures of the United States" More pathetic pilpul. The jew will find some loophole — some law, some word, some manipulated phrase to turn a King's Castle into a whore house. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "The Founding Fathers debated principles, governance, and the social contract, not eugenics charts." Absolutely false. The Founders absolutely knew that their principles could *only* be upheld by a Virtuous and *embodied* people. They were not such fools as to think that some Bengali could be given the Constitution and build a city on the hill. Liberia can attest to that slave's lie. Even the blank-slate fools of the Enlightenment bound their beliefs in nations governed by Christian Virtue and Western tradition. To insinuate that the slavish doctrines of the jew and the East could be compatible with virtues is both to displace those virtues and annihilate the people who are best able to hold them. You are doing the pilpul equivalent of saying that a nation's "principles" are the wielding of a giant axe, but that that axe can be wielded by a midget, and that that axe is actually "evolving", so the axe can be a single staple or a laminated passport page. You talk out of both sides of your mouth, pretending that a specific people does not exist to best hold its own principles (the same genocidal erasure you projected upon me for your slave caste of American Indians), *and* that those principles are actually "evolving" and therefore meaningless — easily changed by masses of imported foreigners... who somehow change the nation to their principles yet .. not because they are embodied.. but because... magic soil... and... gimme dats... oh yeah, this is all bullshit. The underlying "principle" in your lies is to effect any strategy which results in White genocide. White people somehow had "disembodied" "principles", but the hordes of Global South slaves who effect their principles are fully allowed to embody theirs to "evolve" White nations. Strange that the American Indians had real bodies but the White people who live in These United States do not! Strange how the jew so often can shuffle between one lie and another so long as the deception serves the genocide of his enemies! • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "(see Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau)" This is what passes as a citation for these faggoty leftists. See: Google. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "Also, the attempt to drag Jewish people into every single societal change you dislike is not an argument ....it is a tired scapegoat tactic used by people who do not have the range to engage with actual socioeconomic factors." ROFL "[Muh scapegoat]" "[Muh socioeconomic factors]" http://www...ac9734445bb80563bb27412fb8726f Straw man fallacy. Thought-terminating cliché. More slavish talking points. "The Jew will always tell you what happened to him, but he will never tell you why." All of those expulsions were no mistake. Bringing slave revolts and dysgenics everywhere they go is no coincidence. I read thousands of pages of jewish doctrine in college, and it's all slave morality. They are a people of a perpetual resentment for what is Good and Noble. People such as Tolkien imagined Hebrew warriors in his "dwarves" who could reclaim some forgotten nobility and join the West in the Sun... and all we get instead is perpetual war, masses of slaves from foreign nations, and the destruction of our peoples through lies, subversion, usury, and degradation. The catalogue of deeds is so perilously long that to deny it as mere "scapegoating" reeks of Hasbara gaslighting. The veil is far too lifted for anyone with a mind to fall for such trite bile any longer. The next expulsion is coming. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "And finally, the irony here is that you are screeching about "slave doctrines" while unironically defending the very systems that enabled chattel slavery in the first place." ROFL "[Muh chattel slavery]" • And who were the primary owners of slave ships? Oh... jews... • And what did Thomas Jefferson explicitly want to end? Oh... slavery... jewish subversion.. • And what was the final reason listed in the Grievances of the Declaration of Independence? Oh.... slave revolts. The Founders did not want a nation vulnerable to slave revolts and did not want it to be possible for people to provoke them. Fascinating! • And remind us who enabled slavery "in the first place"? Oh... jews.... literally so encoded in their morality that it's Biblical. It is written into their "survival instinct", indoctrinated through the Chabad, re-iterated at the 12/13-year-old's Mitzvah, and re-indoctrinated at 40 through the Kabbalah. The lie of "generational trauma" is merely a series of indoctrinations to make sure that jews provoke slave revolts wherever they go — whether a nation, a state, a city, or even a fucking bodega. Noble people do not want slaves or slave-masters. Those "chattel slaves" didn't build these United States — they were a curse upon it. Those "indigenous peoples" (lol!) were similarly useful for foreigners to provoke slave revolts against the colonists (how odd that this utility persists in those that the leftist supports! how odd indeed!) They were a jewish bio-weapon designed as a time bomb for a slave revolt. So as ever I reiterate: you slavish dysgenic freaks have only that one imperative. You are so resentful of everything greater than yourself that all you can do is destroy wherever you go. You have no Sacred Principle, and to speak of "principles" is only a pretext for the destruction of all principles but the discharge of your Endless nothingness. You know well that a people is a biological reality, but you deny that for your enemies while granting it for the slave hordes that you wish to use to destroy your enemies. You cannot hide your slave doctrines. They're in all of your words. It is what you are. It is your nature. As assuredly as you "affirm" and "celebrate" the LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA degens, you use phrases such as "chattel slavery" unironically, take every single COVID shot, put pronouns in your bio, make your faggoty land acknowledgements, and prostrate yourself to messianic totalitarianism. But release awaits your slavish ways! The Great and Glorious Imperator Titus Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, First Among Equals, Brightest and Boldest, descendant of Aeneas will grant you your destiny! He will not even have to try! Subjugating weaklings such as yourself is a trifle to Lions, since subjugation is what you do to yourselves by denying Nobility.
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 12:53:00 "Feel free to cite, you liar. Nothing was "pseudo" about my direct references. You, however, offered nothing but jewish subversion and lies." Everything you mention is pseudo-intellectual based on absolute biases, intertwined with 19th century tropes and 20th century fervor to paint the jews as some sort of masterminds for the worlds problems. You already lost, there is no debate. It is conspiracy filled just like most of your posts. But go ahead and cry some more with your drivel. "Pathetic thought-terminating clichés: "white nationalist", "conspiracy theory", "bigotry" — just more signals of totalitarian thought reform. Leftists and slavish weaklings gravitate towards these clichés because they are naturally weak and pathetic and therefore seek the consensus of the slave mob. The slave mob chants these clichés to make their strong and noble opposition appear to be "low class". Meanwhile, slavish leftists cannot get out of bed in the morning, pop pills to stop their own brains from attacking them, and fear that exercise might make them appear "fascist". Being pathetic, they project their weaknesses onto others, such as williamthecoward desperately hoping that his opposition is bed-ridden and addicted to A.I. — like he is." Oh, how precious! The "thought-terminating cliche" defense. The last refuge of someone who cannot handle being accurately labeled. You throw a fit when people call out white nationalism, conspiracy drivel, and bigotry, not because it is false, but because it lands a little too close to home. Must sting when the mirror is that clear. And this whole "slave mob" fantasy, what are you even on about? You are not some philosopher warrior standing bravely against the tide. You are a guy rage-posting on the internet, probably from a chair with permanent butt grooves. Dressing up your forum rants like you are the last free man is cute, but let’s not pretend you are leading some intellectual crusade when you can barely string together an argument that does not trip over its own buzzwords. The "leftists are weak and on pills" line? Classic projection. You are practically begging us to believe you do not pop benzos while reading powerlifting memes you never live up to. Spoiler: doing two push-ups in between your tantrums does not make you a Nietzschean Übermensch. Honestly, it is adorable you think this is some deep, edgy insight when it is really just the intellectual version of a participation trophy for internet tough guys. Thanks for the laugh though. "No it is not. You are lying. There are absolute and distinctive differences between immigrants and settlers. These are incontrovertible, fixed, and absolutely historical. You are simply lying." Oh buddy, you can stomp your feet and scream "liar" all day, but repetition is not a substitute for proof. Saying something is "incontrovertible" does not make it so — it just makes you sound like you are trying to win by volume, not by facts. Here is the simple reality: settlers are immigrants. The difference is just one of framing. Settlers are immigrants who move into a place, usually to colonize it. Immigrants are people who move to a new place, period. Both involve people leaving their homeland and moving somewhere else. The only "distinctive difference" you are clinging to is whether you personally approve of the movement. You can slap on the words "absolute" and "fixed" like you are trying to sound authoritative, but history does not care about your tantrum. The Pilgrims were immigrants. The colonists were immigrants. Settlers were immigrants. They all moved to lands that were already populated — that is just fact, no matter how loud you shout "you are lying." Next time bring an argument ...not just the caps lock version of "nuh uh." "Now who's playing semantic games, you pathetic slave? "Already inhabited"? What a fucking joke. "Indigenous peoples" — fucking lol at your slave terminology. It's laced into your very diction. Every bit of you is a slave. Your nature is inescapable, as is your fate: to be subjugated forever. Slaves playing in their own filth for 40 years in the desert while hoping that someone feels sorry enough for them that they (accidentally) trust subversive destroyers are not "inhabited" — they're vagrants. American Indians chopping each other's heads off and failing to build anything bigger than a teepee or a pueblo had little more of an impact of these lands than migrating birds — and had about the same vision." Uh huh, you really broke out the dollar store Nietzsche for this one. Calling entire civilizations "vagrants" because they did not build what you personally recognize as valid is peak fragile ego wrapped in bad history. The idea that land is only "inhabited" if someone builds stone castles or high rises is a pretty convenient way to dismiss people who were already living, thriving, and shaping the environment long before your so called settlers showed up. Indigenous peoples had complex societies, trade routes, agriculture, political alliances, and yes, warfare — just like every other group of humans in history. But I guess because they did not accidentally invent skyscrapers in time to impress you, they do not count in your book. Cute. Also, calling people "slaves" over and over like it is some profound insult just makes you sound like you are desperately trying to feel tall while standing on a pile of your own bad arguments. You can chant "slave" all you want, it does not magically make your history lesson real. You are not dropping some forbidden truth. You are just recycling old colonial talking points like they are cutting edge. Congratulations, you have rediscovered the intellectual depth of 18th century pub gossip. "lol. Yet more slave phrases. "[muh erasure]". Now do israel, lol! The jew often pretends that White people have "never existed as a cohesive people". They tell the same lie of the Palestinians, whom they genocide with their sick distempers and psychopathic nature. They say also that to deny "trans" people "exist" is "genocide" — but only because White people are more likely to go "trans" and thus there is a sick irony in saying that to insist that someone *not* surgically and chemically emasculate themselves is to genocide them ("[not allowing White genocide is the 'real' genocide!]"). The consistent principle is always that these psychopathic destroyers wish to destroy White people. Nomadic American Indians failing to build more than a spear after millennia of warfare is not even in the same category as these jewish lies. In fact the jew lies of the American Indian only because American Indians can be yet more jewish slaves — susceptible to jewish propaganda and having the same genetic fault that had them trade away their lands in the first place. The jew always celebrates more slaves who can be enslaved, as Great and Glorious Nobility does not allow the jew to exploit and enslave the world — as is the jew's sick, twisted, Satanic self-fulfilling prophecy. They can only ever ruin all into a completely debased humanity, inverting the world to sit atop the trash heap in a crown of discarded refuse. It is thus natural to them to celebrate the Zerg creep of the American Indian, as the American Indian's shit and piss spread from their villages and forced them to migrate seasonally like buffalo to avoid the lingering stench of their own discard. This nomadic, rootless cosmopolitan nature calls to the jew, as he has never built anything himself. Even "his" "Israel" is stolen like a cuck in an Eagle's nest. In his greatest fancies he re-builds the Third Temple, but all of jew's "artists" can only degrade and defile what is beautiful, so this vision for a Golden Temple made from the world's stolen riches is simply beyond him — it is impotent nostalgia rather than a future to be realized, since building golden walls requires nobility and the jew has none of that left. He would ask whether the roof could be made of toilets or if the walls could be more "postmodern" with a thousand types of foreign vaginas plastered in Talmudic pages to reflect the "erasure" of "indigenous" "peoples of color" and "[blah blah blah slave terms]". • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "That is not post colonial "slave doctrine" ....it is basic history." More lies from your category error. It is in fact post-colonial slave doctrine. Great and Glorious Nobility seized a barren land ruled by consciousness-lacking animals, improved the nature of those animals, and built cities on the empty hills in the names of their Timeless and Everlasting ancestors. No structures like those of Benevolent Europe had ever touched these lands before White people brought them here. Even our cats now have thumbs, as they too will know the Grand Gift of Consciousness — the gift that was forsworn by those cursed savages. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "Bolshevism did not exist until the late 19th and early 20th century. The founding of the United States happened more than a century prior. Trying to link Bolshevik immigration policies to the 1600s or even the framing of the Constitution is not just historically illiterate ...it is desperate." This is pathetic illiteracy on your part. I specifically addressed this, so you outright failed to comprehend. This is why you retarded leftists need to quote people when you attempt to respond to them — it'll save you some embarrassment, you pathetic fag. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "Also, let’s not pretend the Founding Fathers were some monolithic block of race purists." Oh look, more slavish doctrine: this time, deconstructionism. Time for more category errors and composition errors! • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "Yes, the 1790 Naturalization Act limited citizenship to "free white persons,"" Yes. End of story. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "but the Constitution itself did not define citizenship by race ... Amendments like the 14th" Lies. Composition error. Category error. This is jewish pilpul. The jew will try to deconstruct so that the whole can be eroded by some part — like saying that Ephialtes of Trachis was a "Spartan" and therefore Sparta was permissive of dysgenic freaks among them, whereas we know that Ephialtes was a traitor and failed to preserve the Spirit of His Magnanimous People. Cutting through the lie, the whole of the New Nation explicitly cited "White" as an absolute criteria for citizenship. They even explicitly denied the lie of what is now called "birthright citizenship", which, naturally, this slavish multi celebrates in the much *later* 14th Amendment of 1868. And notice, of course, that this dysgenic freak and liar conflated the 1868 Amendment with the much later and very overtly post-Bolshevik *revision* of the 14th — a revision of *1898*. Recall that at this time Bolshevism had already been spreading in Europe as well, eroding the nobility of nations, killing Great and Glorious Peoples «en masse» for the "crime" of not being easily enslaved by the jew. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "More importantly, the Constitution has evolved." Chronological snobbery fallacy. The lie of "progress" is yet more leftist slave logic. You really cannot help yourself. For the Sacred Right — those who truly fight with their *own* sweat and blood for their *own* nations rather than wielding the yoke of usury and sick enslavement — nearly all such "evolutions" of the Constitution are transparently subversions by dysgenic leftists, freaks, and slavish cretins. Where nobility strikes, it returns to the first principles which directly correlate with the absolute and inviolable survival of the nation — which is embodied wholly in its Eternal People. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "the legal and civic structures of the United States" More pathetic pilpul. The jew will find some loophole — some law, some word, some manipulated phrase to turn a King's Castle into a whore house. • [(((Multi-Fag)))]: "The Founding Fathers debated principles, governance, and the social contract, not eugenics charts." Absolutely false. The Founders absolutely knew that their principles could *only* be upheld by a Virtuous and *embodied* people. They were not such fools as to think that some Bengali could be given the Constitution and build a city on the hill. Liberia can attest to that slave's lie. Even the blank-slate fools of the Enlightenment bound their beliefs in nations governed by Christian Virtue and Western tradition. To insinuate that the slavish doctrines of the jew and the East could be compatible with virtues is both to displace those virtues and annihilate the people who are best able to hold them. You are doing the pilpul equivalent of saying that a nation's "principles" are the wielding of a giant axe, but that that axe can be wielded by a midget, and that that axe is actually "evolving", so the axe can be a single staple or a laminated passport page. You talk out of both sides of your mouth, pretending that a specific people does not exist to best hold its own principles (the same genocidal erasure you projected upon me for your slave caste of American Indians), *and* that those principles are actually "evolving" and therefore meaningless — easily changed by masses of imported foreigners... who somehow change the nation to their principles yet .. not because they are embodied.. but because... magic soil... and... gimme dats... oh yeah, this is all bullshit. The underlying "principle" in your lies is to effect any strategy which results in White genocide. White people somehow had "disembodied" "principles", but the hordes of Global South slaves who effect their principles are fully allowed to embody theirs to "evolve" White nations. Strange that the American Indians had real bodies but the White people who live in These United States do not! Strange how the jew so often can shuffle between one lie and another so long as the deception serves the genocide of his enemies!" Ah, yes, the grand opera of internet screeds, where every sentence tries so desperately to sound like scripture but lands somewhere between a Reddit meltdown and a rejected Mein Kampf fan fiction. You seem to believe you have stumbled upon some profound revelation by screaming "slave phrases" at anything you dislike. Fascinating. Almost as if words like genocide, erasure, and colonialism only bother you because they interrupt your carefully constructed fantasy where history is just a playground for your preferred tribe. You are not challenging language. You are just upset that basic descriptions of oppression and historical fact still have enough weight to make your ideological sandcastle collapse. And of course, you pivot, as you always do, to the well worn Greatest Hits of Conspiracy Theater. The obligatory Israel detour, the eternal Jewish puppet master narrative, and the bizarre claim that Indigenous people were somehow invisible unless they built cathedrals to your specifications. It is like watching someone throw every loose thread from their echo chamber into a blender and hoping it magically turns into an argument. Your attempt to dismiss Indigenous civilizations by pretending they were no more significant than birds is not only historically illiterate, it is deeply embarrassing. The level of trade, diplomacy, agriculture, and warfare that pre-contact Indigenous nations engaged in far exceeds the cartoon version you are selling. But sure, tell me again how they built nothing, as if architectural preference is the only measure of human worth. I suppose we should also dismiss the Vikings because they never built a skyscraper. Stunning logic. Your fixation on the 1790 Naturalization Act is cute. You wave it around like it is some divine final draft. You do realize the Constitution was built to adapt, right? You can shout "category error" all you like, but it will not unwrite the 14th Amendment, nor will it bring you back to your fantasy year zero. History does not freeze at the most convenient checkpoint for your talking points. It moves whether you stamp your feet or not. I have to give you some credit though. Your philosophical sleight of hand with "chronological snobbery" is a nice touch. You cling to the idea that change is inherently corrupt because it unsettles your little museum of fixed categories. I hate to break it to you, but societies evolve. Sometimes painfully. Sometimes imperfectly. But they evolve. The notion that the Founders built a system that would not adapt is not just wrong, it is laughably shallow. Even the Founders you selectively idolize argued about this very flexibility. Also, your constant shrieking about "pilpul" is not the intellectual deathblow you think it is. It is just you name-dropping a term you think makes you sound like you have cracked some deep cultural code. In reality, you are standing in the middle of a logic maze you built for yourself and getting mad that the exits do not lead back to the fantasy you started with. What you have here is not a defense of history or a preservation of virtue. It is a patchwork of circular rage, cobbled together with the glue of online groupthink and the desperate hope that saying "jew" enough times will make your argument unassailable. In the end, you are not defending nobility. You are defending a tantrum dressed up as a philosophy. And all the verbose chest-thumping in the world will not change that. "Straw man fallacy. Thought-terminating cliché. More slavish talking points. "The Jew will always tell you what happened to him, but he will never tell you why." All of those expulsions were no mistake. Bringing slave revolts and dysgenics everywhere they go is no coincidence. I read thousands of pages of jewish doctrine in college, and it's all slave morality. They are a people of a perpetual resentment for what is Good and Noble. People such as Tolkien imagined Hebrew warriors in his "dwarves" who could reclaim some forgotten nobility and join the West in the Sun... and all we get instead is perpetual war, masses of slaves from foreign nations, and the destruction of our peoples through lies, subversion, usury, and degradation. The catalogue of deeds is so perilously long that to deny it as mere "scapegoating" reeks of Hasbara gaslighting. The veil is far too lifted for anyone with a mind to fall for such trite bile any longer. The next expulsion is coming." Theintellectual rigor of declaring "strawman" and "thought-terminating cliche" as if saying it is a mic drop instead of a thin coat of paint over a crumbling argument. You shout “slave talking points” like it is some grand critique when really, it is just a tired buzzword to avoid actually engaging. You are not exposing deep fallacies. You are dodging like someone cornered in a debate they were not prepared to have. And of course, we arrive at the predictable greatest hit — “the Jew will always tell you what happened to him but never why.” Oh, how original. Because surely, thousands of years of persecution across continents were just coincidental because you personally have cracked the case on page one of your conspiracy club handbook. Your reading of “thousands of pages” of Jewish doctrine is a charming flex, though I would wager the reading was more like angrily scrolling cherry-picked excerpts on forums that pretended to know what the Talmud says. You are really out here acting like you have just returned from a sabbatical at the Library of Alexandria when in reality you are quoting the internet’s equivalent of bathroom graffiti. Your Tolkien reference is painfully forced. You are really sitting there thinking Tolkien’s dwarves were a cryptic commentary on Jewish people, as if the man who openly despised antisemitism would be thrilled to see his work mangled into your fever dream. The West in the Sun? Please. You sound like you are trying to turn Lord of the Rings into a recruitment pamphlet for the local internet tough guy guild. You keep mumbling about usury, subversion, degradation, as if just repeating the same ancient laundry list suddenly gives it weight. All you are doing is the intellectual equivalent of angrily rattling your cup at the cafeteria table because nobody is buying your story anymore. The Hasbara gaslighting line is especially rich. You wave it around like it is some talisman to ward off the fact that your entire argument crumbles under the weight of actual evidence. You claim the veil is lifted, but what you are really saying is that you need to believe in this grand conspiracy because the alternative, that people you hate are simply people, is too boring for you. And that little flourish at the end: “the next expulsion is coming.” Cute. The revolution always seems to be right around the corner, does it not? The reality is that you are not on the verge of anything but another comment thread, typing furiously to convince yourself that history is waiting for you. It is not. "ROFL "[Muh chattel slavery]" • And who were the primary owners of slave ships? Oh... jews... • And what did Thomas Jefferson explicitly want to end? Oh... slavery... jewish subversion.. • And what was the final reason listed in the Grievances of the Declaration of Independence? Oh.... slave revolts. The Founders did not want a nation vulnerable to slave revolts and did not want it to be possible for people to provoke them. Fascinating! • And remind us who enabled slavery "in the first place"? Oh... jews.... literally so encoded in their morality that it's Biblical. It is written into their "survival instinct", indoctrinated through the Chabad, re-iterated at the 12/13-year-old's Mitzvah, and re-indoctrinated at 40 through the Kabbalah. The lie of "generational trauma" is merely a series of indoctrinations to make sure that jews provoke slave revolts wherever they go — whether a nation, a state, a city, or even a fucking bodega .Noble people do not want slaves or slave-masters. Those "chattel slaves" didn't build these United States — they were a curse upon it. Those "indigenous peoples" (lol!) were similarly useful for foreigners to provoke slave revolts against the colonists (how odd that this utility persists in those that the leftist supports! how odd indeed!) They were a jewish bio-weapon designed as a time bomb for a slave revolt. So as ever I reiterate: you slavish dysgenic freaks have only that one imperative. You are so resentful of everything greater than yourself that all you can do is destroy wherever you go. You have no Sacred Principle, and to speak of "principles" is only a pretext for the destruction of all principles but the discharge of your Endless nothingness. You know well that a people is a biological reality, but you deny that for your enemies while granting it for the slave hordes that you wish to use to destroy your enemies.You cannot hide your slave doctrines. They're in all of your words. It is what you are. It is your nature. As assuredly as you "affirm" and "celebrate" the LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA degens, you use phrases such as "chattel slavery" unironically, take every single COVID shot, put pronouns in your bio, make your faggoty land acknowledgements, and prostrate yourself to messianic totalitarianism. But release awaits your slavish ways! The Great and Glorious Imperator Titus Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, First Among Equals, Brightest and Boldest, descendant of Aeneas will grant you your destiny! He will not even have to try! Subjugating weaklings such as yourself is a trifle to Lions, since subjugation is what you do to yourselves by denying Nobility." Ah, fantastic, another whirlwind tour of historical illiteracy, mixed with just enough rage-posting to make it look like you are desperately trying to convince yourself you are part of some long-lost Roman epic. Let’s break this down since you seem very proud of your bullet points, though each one is about as sturdy as a wet napkin. First, the "who owned the slave ships" trope. Classic. A tired, overcooked talking point pulled straight from cherry-picked internet rabbit holes. Yes, some Jewish merchants were involved in the slave trade, just like Christians, Muslims, Africans, and pretty much every other group with access to commerce at the time. ***You want it to be exclusive because you need a villain to prop up your cartoonish worldview. History, inconveniently for you, does not care about your need for a single bogeyman*** Your Thomas Jefferson claim is hilarious. Jefferson famously owned slaves his entire life and, despite his occasional philosophical hand-wringing about the "evils of slavery," kept them anyway, fathered children with one, and made very little effort to end the institution. The mental gymnastics you need to elevate Jefferson as a champion against "Jewish subversion" while ignoring that he profited directly from the system is impressive in its delusion. Your bit about the Declaration of Independence is just lazy. The so-called grievance about slave revolts was a jab at the British for allegedly inciting enslaved people to fight for their freedom. The Founders were not afraid of Jewish puppet masters. They were afraid of the people they enslaved rising up against them. That is not a "foreign provocation," that is just what happens when you brutalize human beings and they eventually decide to push back. Your argument that slavery is somehow encoded exclusively in Jewish morality is a fascinating attempt at pretending the entire transatlantic slave trade was orchestrated by a secret synagogue committee while the rest of the world just happened to stumble into plantations by accident. This is the intellectual equivalent of screaming "it was the Jews!" whenever you lose at Monopoly. Also, the idea that "noble people do not want slaves" is a fun line, but unfortunately, the noble people you seem to admire were neck-deep in slavery for centuries. Rome, which you just tried to name-drop with your cartoon Imperator fantasy, literally ran on slavery and conquered half the known world using it. So if your imaginary Caesar were here, he would probably laugh you out of the forum for pretending slavery was some exclusively Jewish hobby. Your "indigenous peoples are bio-weapons" theory is so absurd it barely deserves oxygen. Indigenous people were here long before Europeans arrived. They were defending their own land. You trying to frame them as chess pieces in some Jewish master plan is not just wrong, it is pathetic. You are blaming Indigenous resistance on some global plot because facing the truth of colonial violence is apparently too heavy for you to lift. And let us not glide past the sudden detour into COVID shots, pronouns, and land acknowledgements — the modern right-wing bingo card that gets played every time someone runs out of arguments. You are not revealing some dark hidden pattern here. You are just reading off a list you probably found scribbled in the margins of the last conspiracy thread you binged at three in the morning. And your finale: the Great and Glorious Imperator bit...honestly reads like bad fan fiction from someone who played too much Rome Total War and now thinks they are leading ghost legions in a forum thread. You are not a lion. You are not Caesar. You are not standing atop the Capitoline Hill addressing the Senate. You are just typing furiously in a digital echo chamber, hoping that volume will cover for the emptiness of your argument. You're going to respond, your ego won't let it go, but I am going to guess is going to be the same theme as before "jewish subversion." Be happy to know that I am going to be taking a shot whiskey every time it's mentioned, just to at least entertain myself, because you're booooooring.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 24 13:03:12 37 X Jew by CC in this thread.
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 13:40:56 Whew...that's going to be a lot of shots.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 24 14:06:03 http://edi...-us-strikes-iran-nuclear-sites Apparently CNN has also failed to update it's perspective with a new appreciation for the strategic changes or whatever waffle Nim was using to try and say "I'm cleverer than you".
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 24 15:43:09 "Here is the simple reality: settlers are immigrants. The difference is just one of framing. Settlers are immigrants who move into a place, usually to colonize it. Immigrants are people who move to a new place, period. Both involve people leaving their homeland and moving somewhere else. The only "distinctive difference" you are clinging to is whether you personally approve of the movement." Got this far. Lot of sweeping dismissals for a guy who can't grasp this very basic concept.
Trolling UPer Member	Tue Jun 24 15:54:41 ^lap dog
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 24 19:11:02 It's not that hard to get the definitions of things right But categorical failure on your part
Trolling UPer Member	Tue Jun 24 19:45:30 Not my part, but you sure are a good lap dog.
Trolling UPer Member	Tue Jun 24 19:49:29 But if you really want to get hung up on the definition, some agree, some disagree, there is no one. It really depends on the perspective. What is true, is that you are a emotional support pet for CC
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 24 20:11:03 The definition of settler vs immigrant is not something to just 'disagree' on, as the use you settle on impacts the core of your argument. And the fact is that settlers are not immigrants. This isn't very hard to fathom, and we have different words to describe each based on situational context for a reason. So this isn't being 'hung up' on definition - it's identifying a logical flaw in the foundation of your position. I'm still eagerly awaiting my first fanfic tho.
Trolling UPer Member	Tue Jun 24 20:47:31 Not my argument, but since I am roped into this to offer a point. There is not denying that the US is, has been, and founded upon the principles of being a nation of immigrants and to argue you the contrary, is universally stupid. But, what am I to expect from a a person like yourself that stalks an poster on a forum? Continue being that emotional support pet for CC
Trolling UPer Member	Tue Jun 24 20:48:12 *There is no... *and to argue the contrary...
HOLY FECES Member	Tue Jun 24 21:15:20 "Got this far. Lot of sweeping dismissals for a guy who can't grasp this very basic concept." Interesting, considering how your clinging on a point that really is of no consequence. It seems that you are so embedded with the notion that in some way settlers were never immigrants. It's a fundamental notion that is exactly what it is. Settlers and immigrants are functionally the same thing. The difference is one of context and framing, not of fundamental action. Settlers were immigrants who came, stayed, and colonized. The attempt to create a hard distinction between them is usually a rhetorical device to protect exclusionary narratives. The United States is a nation of immigrants not because of a modern political slogan but because immigration and migration are baked into the country's origin, growth, and continued existence. From settlers to refugees to voluntary migrants, movement into this land has always been the engine of its development. Anyone rejecting that reality is often doing so to gatekeep the American identity, not because the history itself supports their argument. It was said "google." Where here you are, a whole entry that supports the idea that settlers were immigrants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States#:~:text=Settlements%20grew%20from%20initial%20English,remaining%20within%20the%20British%20Empire. It's quite embarrassing for you to suggest that supported articulable facts are needed to establish this premise. It's like your comprehension of how people came to be on this continent is some sort of myth. While on the otherhand you have the conspiracy theories touting white nationalist fantasies that somehow dismisses they were immigrants themselves, while harking "jews, jews, jews" are pushing the great replacement. Sad, both of you, terribly sad.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 24 21:42:29 This is another ESL moment and I am loving it
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: