|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 17, 2015 19:29:12 GMT
What brought degeneracy to the Western world isn't the color of the skin of these people, but their system of belief and their values, which aren't inherited at birth.
Talmudism in the israelic faith for example, is all about dominating the goy, using him for the advancement of the so called "Chosen People".
Arabs without religion of peace would be as decent as any one if we "reboot" them.
Dindus wouldn't be dindus if it wasn't all about welfare checks and foodstamps.
Put anyone, anyone, into a complete different environment cut from the rest of the world and its sociocultural clashes, and he could be made a new man, for which his past beliefs and laws are as relevant as the Londonian subway map to a martian colony.
That's why I think it's crucial to get rid of any text that are known to have brought the behaviours we are trying to escape from (Talmud, Torah, Quran, Socialist laws), erase them into oblivion so that any trace of them can never reach the next generations of our new society.
It's not about the skin, it's about the brain.
But again, just my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsage on Dec 18, 2015 20:37:23 GMT
Nope. No non-whites. If we allow people of other races into our nation, that only risks falling into the same boat America did. It wont be a problem until much later when after a few years, he rules will get more and more lenient, our society will become degenerate and the very thing we are trying to escape. To be successful, this needs to be STRICT and without risk of compromise. It's not about being white, it's about being a decent, useful human being. Im sorry but I sorrily disagree heart-idly. Ruining our genepool which is biologically intellect-wise superior is one way to destroy heritage and the development of our country. Yes, black people genetically are stronger and far more athletic - but when it comes down to logic and the development of the brain, allowing non whites to breed and live with us would only compromise ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by chipsandhaterade on Dec 19, 2015 22:42:11 GMT
Lol seeing how Religion already devolved the thread... Probably a good idea to not have ANY religion. What the fuck are we creating here? Some SJW haven? Or a legitmate MicroNation that lives by its own rebel rules?
Religion has no rhyme or reason in the Nation. Were trying to create something thats.. better. Somewhere people can come and live a life free of the ball and chains modern society has implanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by chipsandhaterade on Dec 19, 2015 22:42:43 GMT
What brought degeneracy to the Western world isn't the color of the skin of these people, but their system of belief and their values, which aren't inherited at birth. Talmudism in the israelic faith for example, is all about dominating the goy, using him for the advancement of the so called "Chosen People". Arabs without religion of peace would be as decent as any one if we "reboot" them. Dindus wouldn't be dindus if it wasn't all about welfare checks and foodstamps. Put anyone, anyone, into a complete different environment cut from the rest of the world and its sociocultural clashes, and he could be made a new man, for which his past beliefs and laws are as relevant as the Londonian subway map to a martian colony. That's why I think it's crucial to get rid of any text that are known to have brought the behaviours we are trying to escape from (Talmud, Torah, Quran, Socialist laws), erase them into oblivion so that any trace of them can never reach the next generations of our new society. It's not about the skin, it's about the brain. But again, just my humble opinion. Here! Here! |
|
|
|
Post by blokdilly on Dec 27, 2015 23:26:12 GMT
The only way to do this would be not to discriminatr. Perhaps some of you brainwashed by /pol/ will not agree, however a new nation would never work if we exclude people based on creed or color. What we should do is set out a concrete list of conditions (based on ideology) that everyone can agree with. From the looks of this thread people are already at each other's throats. This would require much more insight and thought, but this thread is a start.
|
|
|
|
Post by kittens on Dec 27, 2015 23:35:36 GMT
Hi everyone. Firstly, I don't think it is viable to have a portion of text on the manifesto saying: " Only white Christians may be a part of this colony". That narrative goes against the principles that I think many people here stand for, such as freedom of thought) Multiculturalism as most countries in the world practices it, stifles every culture it touches instead of allowing them the space to evolve. The one exception to the world is Switzerland. Which happens to have three languages(French, German and Italian) and 2 religions (Catholics and Protestants), all of which have had wars between each other, yet very little conflict happens within the Federation. The reason for this is they are all separated by geographic or political barriers. Yet they are united under a Federation that happens to be a dominant force of economic and social power in the world. Read: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095660If you want to know more about how this occurred. So with that in mind this is what I would include in the manifesto: Rights granted to all citizens a) Right to life b) Right to property c) Right of expression (freedom of speech) d) Right to human dignity e) Right to group independence under the Federation These rights are hierarchical in nature, for example, your life is more important than your property. Rights a),b),c),d) are pretty common, so no need to re-hash them. What I want to discuss is right e), which allows groups of people to form their own societies with their own laws under the blanket of the Federation, so long as each group implements the rights. In beginning there will obviously only be one group as numbers will be too small for any separate group to guarantee the rights. In this thread I can see two groups already, the people who want a white only society and the people who want a more white-culture society. Once each group has the numbers to sustain their rights, they can split off and form their own societies, both working together on a macro level to fulfil their obligations to their citizens. I feel this needs some serious discussion, so I am open to ideas about this |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 23:46:47 GMT
The only way to do this would be not to discriminatr. Perhaps some of you brainwashed by /pol/ will not agree, however a new nation would never work if we exclude people based on creed or color. What we should do is set out a concrete list of conditions (based on ideology) that everyone can agree with. From the looks of this thread people are already at each other's throats. This would require much more insight and thought, but this thread is a start. Hi everyone. Firstly, I don't think it is viable to have a portion of text on the manifesto saying: " Only white Christians may be a part of this colony". That narrative goes against the principles that I think many people here stand for, such as freedom of thought) Multiculturalism as most countries in the world practices it, stifles every culture it touches instead of allowing them the space to evolve. The one exception to the world is Switzerland. Which happens to have three languages(French, German and Italian) and 2 religions (Catholics and Protestants), all of which have had wars between each other, yet very little conflict happens within the Federation. The reason for this is they are all separated by geographic or political barriers. Yet they are united under a Federation that happens to be a dominant force of economic and social power in the world. Read: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095660If you want to know more about how this occurred. So with that in mind this is what I would include in the manifesto: Rights granted to all citizens a) Right to life b) Right to property c) Right of expression (freedom of speech) d) Right to human dignity e) Right to group independence under the Federation These rights are hierarchical in nature, for example, your life is more important than your property. Rights a),b),c),d) are pretty common, so no need to re-hash them. What I want to discuss is right e), which allows groups of people to form their own societies with their own laws under the blanket of the Federation, so long as each group implements the rights. In beginning there will obviously only be one group as numbers will be too small for any separate group to guarantee the rights. In this thread I can see two groups already, the people who want a white only society and the people who want a more white-culture society. Once each group has the numbers to sustain their rights, they can split off and form their own societies, both working together on a macro level to fulfil their obligations to their citizens. I feel this needs some serious discussion, so I am open to ideas about this I agree with both of you, however lets not get carried away and become too lenient, remember we are trying to get away from the very things that are destroying the western world. |
|
|
|
Post by britbong on Dec 27, 2015 23:58:22 GMT
NO JEWS.
|
|
|
|
Post by discolizard on Dec 28, 2015 0:14:12 GMT
You don't see something wrong here, m8? No, I don't. We aren't shoving diversity down everybody's throats, we're just giving people a room to pray in. Why should we devote resources to creating a building with the sole purpose being so people can put their hands together and scream internally at God? They can do this in their own abodes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 0:24:05 GMT
Unofficial policy; Jews and Muslim fundamentalists applications are turned down. Why should we devote resources to creating a building with the sole purpose being so people can put their hands together and scream internally at God? They can do this in their own abodes. We'll build a church or some shit if there is a demand for it, which there probably won't be. |
|
|
|
Post by kittens on Dec 28, 2015 0:32:47 GMT
I agree with both of you, however lets not get carried away and become too lenient, remember we are trying to get away from the very things that are destroying the western world. What things specifically? The spread of Islam for example is completely contained. Freedom of expression is protected, not religion, so whilst a Muslim can preach the wonders of Allah, there is nothing stopping someone from calling Allah a pedophile. Plus you can have laws that discriminate against Muslims if you really want. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 0:42:56 GMT
What things specifically? I think we should have as many freedoms as possible, but we need to make sure we don't let Islamists or Jewish intellectuals in. We cannot have another Frankfurt school being established inside our colony, the people who come to our country should be coming because they want to live in our society, not destroy it. |
|
|
|
Post by Nig nog on Dec 28, 2015 6:19:36 GMT
I suggest we maintain a white:other races ratio for immigration. We don't want to cuck ourselves into failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by legalfag on Dec 28, 2015 16:56:17 GMT
What brought degeneracy to the Western world isn't the color of the skin of these people, but their system of belief and their values, which aren't inherited at birth. Talmudism in the israelic faith for example, is all about dominating the goy, using him for the advancement of the so called "Chosen People". Arabs without religion of peace would be as decent as any one if we "reboot" them. Dindus wouldn't be dindus if it wasn't all about welfare checks and foodstamps. Put anyone, anyone, into a complete different environment cut from the rest of the world and its sociocultural clashes, and he could be made a new man, for which his past beliefs and laws are as relevant as the Londonian subway map to a martian colony. That's why I think it's crucial to get rid of any text that are known to have brought the behaviours we are trying to escape from (Talmud, Torah, Quran, Socialist laws), erase them into oblivion so that any trace of them can never reach the next generations of our new society. It's not about the skin, it's about the brain. But again, just my humble opinion. Funny how you're so against socialist laws, while opting to live on a small island with a small community of about 250 people at the start. Do you realise the government will have to be a large one? You cannot put food production, energy, and clean water into private hands, because in such a small community there is no back-up possible. The government will have to own these things, but because it's such a small community people will actually influence the government. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 17:01:33 GMT
small community of about 250 people at the start. There is no way we can support hundreds of people from the very start, 10 at the most. |
|
