HapaPerspective 🇺🇸

I think everyone should watch this debate the Frojax brothers had with this civnat PF Jung. It reminds me of the debates the Alt Right used to have back in the 2010s. But I think our people should be having more of these sort of debates again, because this is how you bring more high IQ centrists, civnats and libertarians over to our position. These debates force them to think about and try to defend their weak positions against race realism, and they always end up losing in the eyes of the audience—a big win.

I also think it’s important for everyone to watch these sort of debates with civnat types, because people like PF Jung represent the types of people that need to understand White Nationalism on a deeper level, beyond the memes; otherwise they get to continue promoting the idea that race is just skin color or a “social construct” without facing intellectual opposition.

It takes intellectuals debates to win over other intellectuals.

https://youtu.be/qV26aDHpMkY?

LOL

https://t.me/Andy_Ngo/8942

People within the "dissident right" often speak of America as an unusually young nation compared with the supposedly ancient nations of Europe, but that comparison is misleading. The United States is 250 years old as an independent country, but a distinct American identity had already been developing for roughly 150 years before the Revolution. By the mid-18th century, a recognizable American identity was already established that was increasingly distinct from British identity—even though many Americans at that time also still saw themselves as Englishmen.

Meanwhile, many European national identities in their modern political form are actually younger than the American one. Germany did not unify until 1871, and modern German nationalism became a major political force largely in the 19th century. Italy unified in 1861 after centuries in which people primarily belonged politically to states such as Piedmont, Venice, Tuscany, Naples, or the Papal States. Belgium became independent in 1830, while modern Finnish, Romanian, Czech, Slovak, Latvian, and Estonian national movements also developed principally during the 19th century.

Of course, this does not mean Germans, Italians, Greeks, or other European peoples did not exist culturally before then. Many had very old linguistic, religious, regional, or historical identities. But an old people is not necessarily the same thing as a modern national identity. Medieval and early modern Europeans often identified strongly with their dynasty, province, city, kingdom, religion, or local community rather than with the modern idea of a unified sovereign nation of all people sharing a language or ethnicity.

Some European national identities, particularly the English, Portuguese, and to a degree the French, do have strong medieval roots and are clearly older than American identity. But much of modern European nationalism arose between the late 18th and 19th centuries, during the same period in which the United States was already an established republic.

So America is not quite as historically “young” as it is often portrayed. Its formal national existence dates to 1776, its distinct cultural foundations reach back into the early 1600s, and its national identity is at least as old as—and in some cases older than—the modern national identities of a significant number of European countries.

This is critically important to understand when we discuss the future of American nationalism and why it is necessary to preserve and carry forward the American identity into future. Identities cannot be reinvented from scratch, but rather grow and evolve from their existing roots, even if the nation renames itself.

I also think that reinventing a national identity is a Herculean task.

Take Britain as an example. For hundreds of years, “Rule Britannia” was their national vibe. It wasn’t until the end of WW2 that the reality began to sink in that they weren’t the power that they used to be, and even then they couldn’t accept it and still can’t really accept it today. I mean, even during the Falklands War (1982), which they won, the attitude was, “Well, shit, we’re Great Britain, we can’t lose to fucking Argentina.”

This is the problem that nationalist parties in Britain (like perhaps Alek Yerbury’s National Rebirth Party?) will inevitably face as they try to grow: Only a part of British identity has been of the “cozy” stay-at-home variety. Another — and more significant — part of British identity has been to go out and conquer the world. And so a Britain that doesn’t go out there and fight monsters is arguably a totally different Britain that a lot of British people can’t fathom.

J.R.R. Tolkien captured this dual spirit beautifully in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. On the one hand, there’s the cozy Shire that you’d never want to leave. But then there’s the call of adventure that no true British person can easily ignore.

Right now, I feel that the British will also have to reinvent their national identity, and that’s after they successfully deal with their brown problem.

I’m talking about the British right now, but I could also be talking about Americans. We can’t just “decide” to have a new national identity. It’s so deeply rooted in the spirit of the people that just “making another one” would feel so fake and gay that no one would ever accept it. We may have to literally fight a war before it could ever feel real, which is exactly what happened from 1775-1783.

The ultimate flex you could have as a “Chud” over modern millennial women—the typical over-30 educated, liberal variety—is to have many White children of your own, because most of them are childless and feel empty inside. It doesn’t matter if they’re financially further ahead of you and “happily married”; they know in their hindbrain that there’s something very critical missing from their existence as a female; something that deep down is more important for them to have, but you have it and they don’t.

It’s more than a flex, it’s a brutal reckoning for how anti-male and anti-White our culture has been. When they see what appears to be a “right wing Chud incel” suddenly with a happy wife and healthy White children, it tortures them on a spiritual level. Suddenly, their whole liberal, educated, sex-and-the-city superiority complex gets obliterated on the spot, because they know they’re actually inferior.

Even with the most ordinary, sub-100 IQ White normie, I can expect to have a basic, non-academic conversation about politics, economics, philosophy, psychology and culture; and often with a dash of humor. They can talk about Trump, they can talk about cuisine, they can talk about anything on at least a basic level and contribute to the conversation.

With negroes, the conversation is often just entertaining buffoonery and amusing bullshit, but at least that’s something. A low IQ fool is at least entertaining!

With brown people it’s often just a blank stare and literal vapidness. They barely have an ego. There is just nothing.

Most brown people can’t have a lengthy or deep conversation about anything. Go ahead and try to talk to a few of them, if it even gets to the conversation stage, it’ll be some trivial shit about how they got drunk last weekend or like watching soccer. It never gets deeper than that.

https://t.me/gramscianradio/8985

Selective outrage with the #elbowsup crowd

It would be funny if somehow, someone was able to replace the Rocky statue in Philadelphia with GypsyCrusader.

Foid explains foids and why they should be in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant

This is the most punchable face I’ve seen in a long time.

https://t.me/gramscianradio/8965

Also, I’m sick of hearing some dissident righters act like it’s “based” that Russia is enlisting foreign non-White men to participate in their unwarranted invasion of Ukraine. In what fucking world is that based? Would it be “based” if that non-White invader destroys Ukrainian property or kills a Ukrainian soldier? Is it also “based” if he can then go back to Russia—now as a new Russian citizen—to then rape, kill, fuck and replace ethnic Russians too?

The war in Ukraine is a meat grinder for sure, especially for the Russian side, but that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly based if hordes of Africans and Indians are invaders on behalf of the Russian system. Many of them will survive and become Russian citizens.

The Russian government is as anti-ethnic-Russian as it is anti-Ukrainian, because it is supremely anti-White.

I see people sharing this picture, and it accurately depicts the Russian government’s overall position, but I think people should include more context and the full translation.

Maria Zakharova is a senior Russian diplomat and the principal spokesperson for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She has held the spokesperson role since 2015 and is also the director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Information and Press.

The full translation of the quote:

“Don’t you see what we are fighting for? Don’t you see that our guys are giving their lives? … With their lives they are defending the right not only of the African continent, but of all people on our planet to be free.”

The Russian government is pro-African, partially for resources, but also because they’re opening up their country to African (and Indian) men to fill their manpower shortages.

✍️ The Anti-Defamation League and a host of major Jewish groups are lobbying California to pass a bill to classify Jews as a race/ethnicity and "not just a faith."

These groups for decades have been insisting that race doesn't exist and is just a social construct, but now they're leading the charge for Jews to be classified as a race to secure "the right amount of resources" for their people.
https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=65130

The right to keep and bear arms is a real “tragedy” for leftists and their precious dindus.