Thread by @stateworship

Whenever you see shitlibs countersignaling white advocates talking about white replacement I'm usually way more offended by their retarded (liberal) theories of land ownership than their anti-whiteness.

It does seem they think only whites can actually steal land, though.

The metaphysic behind land ownership based on original appropriation is essentially ethno-racial nationalism of a really extreme kind.

It also inadvertedly makes whites making the same claims look even stupider.

tl;dr stop making any claim based on "land ownership" as if a race so apathetic towards its own decline as the white race has any kind of inherent right to the lands they inhabit.

You control a piece of land because you can defend it against competing claims, either by yourself or through a 3rd party (the state) interested in protecting it for you.

So if a white country would be overrun by hordes of brown people, a bunch of fat neckbeard nationalists saying their land was 'stolen' is the same thing as the abos or spearchuckers saying the same about their land.

It's anti-colonial psychosis and it's gay.

I'm not some kind of anti-white apologist. But making these wishful claims doesn't get anybody anywhere.

Like, imagine thinking any virile group with the Power to show for it should resort to metaphysical claims of land ownership instead of just conquering it and steamrolling anyone who tries to take it from them.

It's largely because Rightist whites are fairly disarmed. But these claims bleed into the same liberal delusion and Ron Paul-ism that prevents the Right from ever getting into serious logistics and theory.

Nah guys, just a few more echoes and happy merchant memes and the US military will pull right out of the ME and we'll all have our own sovereign countries.

And if you think this is bad, remember that there are an inordinate amount of alt-rightists who somehow believe that peoples/races are unequal on a group level, AND that every group has an equal right to its sovereignty, AND that inter-state influence is axiomatically bad.

If you can hold these positions at the same time you're experiencing cognitive dissonance on a really deep level.

Obviously, if you believe peoples are unequal on a group level, it's really hard to explain how you could *also* believe every group knows best how to govern themselves/be governed.

If you reject this idea, you've left nationalism and you're virtually arguing for colonialism.

Does anybody think people from Ethiopia (avg. IQ 63) could govern themselves better than say, a few white supremacist Europeans or Americans?

And Ethiopia isn't exactly a blip on the map either. It has 102 million people living there.