/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

You think I’m going to listen to the nigger who ruined Star Wars, No thanks Jew

>>109300
I know all blacks look similar, but he is not the actor from Starwars.

>>109300
He's a fashy AnCap you dumbass

>>109285
Blacks aren't human, therefore hating niggers isn't racism.

>>109352
It's really sick, but I find racial dehumanization hot af.

>>109356
Into the oven you go

>>109356
Lucky little zigger

>>109327
a nigger is just a nigger anon, niggers and women can have political ideologies in the same way that parrots can speak english

>>109373
Retards like you are why most try to silence and delegitimize scientific racism; more specifically, the reason for the social suppression is the retarded but inevitable interpretation of race realism by those such as yourself to the conclusion of wholesale dehumanization and intellectual dismissal of every single person of a race with a low average IQ. That Guy T is a fantastic freethinker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvD5q2Z9l-w

>>109383
>literally promoting black e-celeb
>criticizes other people
niggers are a sub-species anon, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>109389
I never said that Africans aren't a subspecies; the genetic statistical topology is clear on that. I am less promoting him than I am affirming the stupidity of citing their status as a different subspecies as grounds for prejudiced dismissal of every single member thereof.

>>109398
why not someone actually worthwhile like Thomas Sowell? why some e-celeb? besides which rather than me, isn't it more important that other niggers start listening to the exceptional niggers as it were?

TL;DL
>I think a black barber is better for me, which is, semantically, racism
>Therefore racism isn't nazism, guys!

He's trying to distinguish "utilitarian" racism from "hateful" racism, which is fine, but what would it achieve? At best you'll end up with something like pillarisation if you don't want to go back to africa.

And it won't work for either of us. If you pillarise on race instead of ideology, you will get tensions between your pillar trying to play to its strengths and the shared legislature presiding over all pillars. To properly play your strengths against your weaknesses, you will desire specific legislation, but awarding a pillar specific legislation leads to breaking up legislature, in which case you should just be upfront about it and become an independent country from the get-go.

Power imbalances between pillars put you at risk of recreating the class/caste system. Which most of you have been fighting against for a several hundred years now.

Prosperity imbalances between pillars put you at risk of reviving the egalitarian movement that you somehow quelshed to enact pillarisation, who will then proceed to bring back the racial tensions, which will bring back the "hateful" racism.

Just giving back racism its utility won't get you anywhere. The left has been trying to erase racial tensions by pretending they don't exist, it's not working. Still, merely acknowledging racial tensions isn't enough either. You need a final solution.

>>109356
>>109383
Wat

>>109383
>vid: more arguing semantics
The real reason egalitarianism is troublesome is because people have different needs and qualities. Saying it's troublesome because you can take the name out of context is a strawman.

>>109285
>A level-headed and rational african-american
Sadly, he'll be denounced by the left as internalising racism. Can't have blacks that are able to utilise critical thinking, that would make them valuable members of society.

>>109565
Racially homogeneous societies are the solution, giving racism back its utility and the rise of pillarisation is a step along this path. The problem is presented when you try to discern who needs to go back where. Ergo, if the Africans go back to Africa, why don't the white Americans go back to Europe and other such arguments. It's sad to think that this, as in homogeneity, is the way the world used to work and the implementation of multiculturalism has ruined that fine balance.

>>109587
Racially homogeneous, yes, but I don't think this global repatriation is the final solution… Why would Americans need to go anywhere? They/the Brits conquered the place and the Indians failed to defend it.
And even then, most Indians do have their own sovereign land.

Similarly, the boers fought a war and won the right to the land, then lost it in another war. Regardless of whether or not I think they should, in the current climate they would unquestionably be better off leaving Africa.

People like the aboriginals should unironically be kept in enclosed zoos or national parks.
Not sure what to think about the Emus…

Anyway, parents might order their children to give back stuff that they took from others, but this weak form of "fairness" is not something you should concern yourself with when dealing with adults. Making children return their spoils of war is beneficial to parents because the parents are responsible for defending their child from retaliation. You're probably at the age you have to fend for yourself, and most other players on your field aren't playing "fair", so you too literally have to take what you can get and defend it. To provide an analogy to geopolitics.

>the rise of pillarisation is a step along this path
Why do you see pillarisation as a step towards repatriation? If they do manage to become a pillar, wouldn't that make them less likely to leave or declare independence, since they're becoming entrenched?

>>109654
It simply lends more credit to the idea of repatriation, I believe.

He is an exception to a rule, a statistical anomaly. This is why, although I am not anti-racist, I do not consider myself "racist." To me, the definition of racism is considering one race better than another in every respect, or every member of one race better than every member of another race. These concepts are patently absurd. "Race-realism," on the other hand, is acknowledging physiological, cultural, and statistical differences among the races.

Men like That Guy T, Thomas Sowell, and Walter White are people we should admire for their contributions to society; they are leagues ahead of the vast majority of the black race and they are even smarter than most whites and Asians.

The existence of such smart folks actually lends credence to the formation of ethno-states. Blacks can cease to be "white man's burden" if they restructure their tribalistic societies to accept rule from an enlightened few. They can approach something akin to a Western lifestyle, if not actually match our accomplishments.

>>113612
I remember this being controversial in China. Almost everyone there is very racist. Often English schools will hire white Russians to teach English versus African Americans.

It's part of the reason I love China.

Black people are scientifically less intelligent than white people. Intelligence is white humanity's gimmick, it's what built the nukes and the guns. Asian humanity's gimmick? They're a bunch of mindless worker drones happy to work for the rare actually-sentient 10%. But that 10% can't truly innovate, only take other ideas and do them "Better".

Black humanity's gimmick? They're lying thieving amoral rats who can only succeed when propped up by white people and their low expectations for black people.

People want to feel egalitarian, so they pretend the 5% of decent black people, usually brownish and usually having been raised in white lands for a generation or four, is proof that all black people are worth just as much as white people. But look at Africa, Uganda, Nigeria, any nigger shithole country. They chose to laze about and reject evolution in their all-natural paradises, and they paid the price for it with their current absolute irrelevance. Name one achievement from these countries, one memorable thing besides AIDS or Ebola.