That's all part of the pys-op.Can somebody please correct the spelling in this thread's title? It's "Psy-op" not "Pys-op" and it's driving me up the wall![]()
Yes, it does contradict it, Whites are no more or less likely for ethnic conflict than other races, except maybe East Asians, and even that is a complete guess. They have a longer history of it due to the reasons I listed (advanced infrastructure, smaller land mass per population, the breakup of the roman empire which forced them to live together).
I’m not sure what predictions I have gotten wrong, much less 90% of them. I am only witnessing White racial consciousness rising across the globe. I make 0 predictions as to how it will conclude.
I think they are dumb enough to try this. I don't think they truly realize how unpopular Israel is with people under 40. This will be a massive backfire.
Samseau are you white?
I thought your point was that Whites are more likely to commit ethnic conflict. If that is your point, then I strongly disagree. If it is not your point, then I apologize and ask, what is your point? That Whites are just as likely to commit ethnic conflict as others and also make a lot of mistakes and do brutally evil things? With that, I will agree, though Sub-Saharan Africans are in a league of there own verse all other people of the world. But Whites v. MENA v. East Asians v Indians v. Nomadic Tribes, I would assume all have the same temperament in these regards.The history isn't that important, the results are. Hence why the European political map is a mess while others are just big blobs of countries. Places like Africa barely even have a recorded history. They have bigger problems to worry about than pride.
But Whites always destroy one another, always seek advantages to the detriment of one another, and hold grudges over past acts that continue for centuries, even thousands of years. The Irish still refuse to be part of England for example.
So nothing you've said contradicts the main thrust of my argument.
We could make an entire thread dedicated to all of your false predictions and claims, that's how reliably wrong you are. Just the other day:
"They" didn't try anything nor did anything backfire. Just another empty claim of yours that goes nowhere.
There is a reason so many have you on ignore.
Samseau are you white?
Yes or no ? it is a simple question Do you want whites to have ethnically homogenous countries
That America and/or the US dollar is going to collapse in our lifetime, that because you are mentoring young white men they will soon rise up against blacks and browns in America and create a white American ethno state, that there are no good women in America to marry, that the women in Eastern Europe are far superior to American women because they are more loyal and less likely to be whores, that living in Russia or EE as an expat outsider provides a better life than living in America, that rural America has been destroyed and that there are no places left to hide from black and brown people, that Patriot Front is a non-fed infiltrated organization who's ranks will continue to grow because young white men have "had it" and will therefore soon be putting blacks in their place by starting a race based civil war (without weapons), that Shilou Hendrix is not a tatted up attention whore who doxxed herself but a living white legend that whites will rally behind because they've "had it," that you will soon be a multi-millionaire who can then move to EE and buy a teenage virgin bride, and that Nick Fuentes is not a faggot.As for my predictions I have gotten wrong, would you let me know one, or even a few of them? I can't think of any off the top of my head.
I can see both the USA and the USD dollar collapsing in my lifetime. I hope I am wrong, but I certainly can see this happening. I don't know that it will happen, but it is certainly a possibility.That America and/or the US dollar is going to collapse in our lifetime, that because you are mentoring young white men they will soon rise up against blacks and browns in America and create a white American ethno state, that there are no good women in America to marry, that the women in Eastern Europe are far superior to American women because they are more loyal and less likely to be whores, that living in Russia or EE as an expat outsider provides a better life than living in America, that rural America has been destroyed and that there are no places left to hide from black and brown people, that Patriot Front is a non-fed infiltrated organization who's ranks will continue to grow because young white men have "had it" and will therefore soon be putting blacks in their place by starting a race based civil war (without weapons), that Shilou Hendrix is not a tatted up attention whore who doxxed herself but a living white legend that whites will rally behind because they've "had it," that you will soon be a multi-millionaire who can then move to EE and buy a teenage virgin bride, and that Nick Fuentes is not a faggot.
I know, you've also never said that China will invade America and make Americans their slaves or that America will soon be getting into a war with Iran which Iran will win.I've never said that..
I did say these two things. I stand by them, well, I never said China would make us their slaves, I said they would eliminate most non-Chinese.I know, you've also never said that China will invade America and make Americans their slaves or that America will soon be getting into a war with Iran which Iran will win.
I thought your point was that Whites are more likely to commit ethnic conflict. If that is your point, then I strongly disagree. If it is not your point, then I apologize and ask, what is your point?
As for the nature of Whites being treacherous, disagreeable people, you don't need to be a professional historian to figure this one out.
Ah, I apologize then.I never mentioned ethnic conflict once:
The point is what Whites are naturally treacherous, rebellious, disagreeable people, and that this reality is reflected in a political map of Europe, which has more political lines than any other place on the planet per sq mile.
Very simple point, but it can be tough for ideologues such as yourself to understand.
Whether or not Whites are killing each other over ethnicity is beside the point and irrelevant to their nature. They can just as easily start wars or rebellions over money, religion, but also, political and ideological differences as well.
This is unlike other races that will submit to powerful rulers for longer periods of time. Additionally, when these rulers fall, other races generally do not hold grudges over what happened in the past and use it as a motivation for future political action. Whites do, and that's why Wales is distinct from England (because they never submitted to Guillaume the Conqueror, for example), because Whites are motivated by pride more so than any other race.
Whether or not this makes Whites inferior or superior is irrelevant, the point is very simple, and it is that Whites are their own worst enemy, and always have been. This is why "White Nationalism" is for fools, completely blind to their own nature as Whites, and literally dead on arrival.
Hitler tried the whole "White pride" thing and all he got for it was even more wars with everyone around him, which is exactly what you'd expect from a race that has a history of backstabbing, grudges, and rebellion.
How progressive, except we still do.#1) as humans are advancing and don't treat each other this way
On this point, in my current mixed state of education and ignorance on Hitler's theoretical basis, I suspect he focused on German consolidation. This particular white subgroup has had a wide geographic spread through Eastern Europe and Russia (and, incidentally but perhaps less importantly to Hitler, in the USA) of ethnically conscious members, and with such a distribution comes the concern over ethnic conflict. Whatever you think of putting the Volk first, I wouldn't consider it an historically unusual impulse.Hitler tried the whole "White pride" thing
Hitler tried the whole "White pride" thing
There's a big difference. Christ was a Jew and the King of Jews, why should modern blashpeming Jews be considered the same? They are followers of the Talmud (man-made) and not the Gospel (God made).
How can one be considered a Jew if they do not follow the King of Jews? Hence the title of this forum.
Talmudic Jew is a perfect descriptor because it's not about the race, it's about the spirit. Read more:
The most politically divided landmass in the world. None of these lines actually exist except in the minds of the Whites who made them, which occurred over thousands of years after the collapse of the Roman Empire. There are more countries per sq meter than anywhere else in the world strictly because of the tendency of Whites to betray, rebel, and kill one another for power.
On this point, in my current mixed state of education and ignorance on Hitler's theoretical basis, I suspect he focused on German consolidation. This particular white subgroup has had a wide geographic spread through Eastern Europe and Russia (and, incidentally but perhaps less importantly to Hitler, in the USA) of ethnically conscious members, and with such a distribution comes the concern over ethnic conflict. Whatever you think of putting the Volk first, I wouldn't consider it an historically unusual impulse.
![]()
Godwin's law - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
![]()
Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Let me take a wild guess, you also believe eugenics is bad and evil?
Sounds a lot like splitting hairs. Jews consider everyone of Jewish descent to be Jewish, with one exception - if they confess to follow non-Jewish religion (usually Christianity or Islam) in public. That includes Reform, Conservative, Beta Yisrael, converts who are married to Jewish partners (like Ivanka Trump), even atheists (atheist ideology is Jewish). Are you angling for existence of some mythical good Jews? If they indeed exist, their moral conviction should incentivize them to stop being Jewish as soon as possible. Because being good while being Jewish is like being good while being a drug-dealing member of a mafia syndicate.
A person who wrote this trite has no business calling others out for arguing in bad faith. On top of that, the statement is double factually wrong - borders in Europe are often across natural boundaries (were you European, you'd know that Europe is a land of rivers, including great ones, like Rhine or Danube, and mountains, like Pyrenees, Alps and Carpathians), and if not, they separate two distinct ethnic groups. Arbitrary borders like Russia-Ukraine or France-Switzerland are an exception, not a norm. Furthermore, Middle East is far more divided with arbitrary borders that don't respect local customs, ethnicity or language.