If we didn’t have the Second Amendment, the epidemic of black on White violence and rape would be so much worse in the US. It’s bad now, but it could be a million times worse.

I know that in my state, a lot of White women carry a handgun.

Universalism, individualism, and egalitarianism are not Christian imports. They are endogenous to white people and predate the advent of Christianity. Our inner character, built on reason and empathy, is what allowed us to build the best civilizations—not a religion rooted in Judaism. https://radicaldose.com/universalism-individualism-and-egalitarianism-what-are-they-and-where-do-they-come-from/

I didn’t write this post, but I don’t think it should be offensive to any pro-White Christians. The author is actually taking blame away from Christianity when it comes to the egalitarianism and individualistic nature of Whites. He writes about how these characteristics are ultimately racial and thus pre-Christian.

It’s not an anti-Christian or a pro-Christian post. It’s more about race realism.

I still see the McMichael’s case from 2020 being brought up as some sort of proof that “Whites can’t legally defend themselves against negroes!” And it’s also absurdly used to suggest that the 2A is therefore useless — it’s all black pilled brain slop coming from people that refuse to read the basic details of the case.

You have to know the basic details of the McMichaels case — how the crime transpired, what laws were broken — before you can make any credible claims about the legal ramifications.

To make a long story short, the McMichaels facilitated a deadly encounter by pursuing and cornering a fleeing thief that was not initially threatening anyone — I’m not trying to defend Arbery here, but Arbery wasn’t technically a threat. Put this in contrast to other cases where a White guy used lethal force to defend himself (or someone else) from a negro, like Ian Cranston, who recently had his conviction overturned. We also have the popular case of Daniel Penny on the NYC subway.

The point here: the McMichaels were not simply screwed by an anti-White judicial system, they legitimately fucked up by being the aggressors and assuming the responsibilities of law enforcement.

It’s also important to know the laws in your area, and that self-defense is a legal claim that only has merit when you are not the aggressor. The McMichaels were not defending themselves or anyone else, which is why they are in prison for killing a negro, regardless of additional hate crime charges.

The First Amendment has been used to destroy pronoun policies at schools — schools in Ohio (and soon throughout the US) can no longer force students to use preferred pronouns for trannies. This is a big win.

https://youtu.be/KTnZF51eAI4?

Spritz is not a trendy import but a living Venetian tradition — a daily ritual rooted in the Habsburg and Adriatic cultural space of Lombardy-Venetia. Long before global mixology discovered it, Spritz united ordinary Europeans in taverns, cafés, and bacari as a refreshment for conversation and community. From its origins as watered wine to the distinct Select, Aperol, and Campari variants, Spritz reflects the enduring identity of the Veneto and its people — a heritage now diffused worldwide through Prosecco and Venetian food culture. https://radicaldose.com/spritz/

There’s so much about human history that we just don’t know, especially pre-Younger Dryas. I already believe that there’s a greater conspiracy by the archeology establishment to cover it up, because the truth has racial undertones and political implications that completely undermine the current dogma regarding which groups get the “indigenous” card. I bet the establishment already has physical evidence that ancient White-Nordic-Caucasoid phenotypes built megaliths and burial mounds in a pre-Younger-Dryas North America, but of course it will stay hidden; because that would really call into question all the current mongoloid “first nations” groups claiming to be indigenous. And while we’re on this topic, you can just imagine how the establishment would treat any evidence regarding who actually built the pyramids, because the truth is probably too White. Why else would the archaeology establishment go to such absurd lengths to block and criticize all attempts to excavate further?

If someone like Dr. Zahi Hawass found evidence that the Egyptians didn’t build the pyramids (he most likely has this evidence) and are thus not even indigenous to Egypt, you think he’s going to share that with the public? Hell no.

That would explain why he hates alternative-archaeologists like Graham Hancock. It’s the only reason that makes any sense.

A lot of the reason why guntubers seem so cringey and engage in machismo-gun-guy posturing is because that’s what it takes to actually evangelize gun culture and the 2nd Amendment to the majority, especially the male youth. It’s all done for a very practical reason.

I am old enough to remember a time before the prevalence of the internet and memes, when all promotion of the Second Amendment amounted to huge walls of texts and academic lectures, which only appealed to a smaller fraction of the population — mostly older men that enjoyed reading history books. It was a smaller niche back then, which really hurt 2A advocacy.

Later in time, sometime around the early to mid 2010s, the gun community figured out that in order to win the legal/political struggle for the Second Amendment, they had to win in the arena of culture first, which meant focusing on making the Second Amendment look bad ass and hyper masculine — and this approach fucking worked! Now more people than ever own guns and support further advancing gun rights.

The pro-White movement shouldn’t resent the gun community, they should be taking notes. Marketing is often more important than pure “intellectual substance.”

A movement that doesn’t appeal to people’s egos and doesn’t look cool, fun and “bad ass” just won’t be successful.

I understand that a lot of the modern guntubers — their memes and antics — can cheapen the Second Amendment; which is tragic, because the right to keep and bear arms is a very important and serious issue. But I also believe all of these guntubers are smart people that understand this: they understand that they have to balance serious discussion with lowbrow marketing to reach the masses.

As well all know, sex sells, and depicting gun rights as this hyper-masculine “bad ass” pursuit is far sexier than academic lectures and power points about why gun rights are important.

Selling ideas is exactly like selling cars. Rather than inundating someone’s pre-frontal cortex with all the details on why your car is better, It’s far more effective to appeal to egos and convince people that if they buy your car it will make them a superior and sexier.

So don’t let this cheapened image of the 2A — the right to keep and bear arms — make you throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s just a marketing ploy. In other words, just because the advertising is cheesy doesn’t mean the product is junk.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/hapaperspective/18062

This incredible project shows that crime stats are much worse than you think

A large-scale analysis of 1.5 million U.S. mugshots shows that roughly 30% of people who look and are named Hispanic are officially classified as "White" in crime statistics, leading to a systematic undercount of Hispanic crime rates by 20–31% and a corresponding overstatement of White rates.
https://x.com/uncorrelated_/status/1991295113344225596

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1991295113344225596.html

https://www.uncorrelated.xyz/p/white-by-default-systematic-bias
----------------------------------------------------
#crime #race #USA

This just isn’t true, but even if we assume that it is, is it still worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater? This is the typical gotcha I’ve seen from people like Endeavour: they try to delegitimize gun rights by pointing out that most gun rights activists aren’t ideologically aligned with White Nationalism — as if they were supposed to be.

It’s dumb as hell, because most of the policies that Nationalists care about are not exclusively owned by White Nationalists.

For example, the majority of people advocating for limiting third-world immigration are not White Nationalists, they’re mostly centrists (mostly anti-racists) that realized that unlimited third-world immigration has had an entirely negative effect on our country.

Or how about the majority of advocates for Freedom of Speech via the First Amendment? Most First Amendment advocates are not White Nationalists, but WNs benefit from the 1A more than anyone else.

Last but not least, what about Ukraine? Many of you here support Ukraine, but what if I told you that most of the Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not specifically pro-White and would probably be happy to have a negro as a friend? Most of them are just normies that want to defend their country against a hostile military invasion. Would you cease your support for Ukraine upon realizing that the majority of Ukrainians are just normies that don’t care about race?

Whether it’s the 2nd Amendment or any other policy, the important thing is that Whites benefit from it, not the ideological position of the activists pushing the policy.

In other words, if a policy greatly benefits White people, it doesn’t matter if the activists pushing for that policy are anti-racists or anti-White. The result is beneficial for White people regardless of the ideological nature of the activists.

I’ll explain it this way: Most all of the policies that would be VERY important to a future White nationalist government, policies like affordable homes for families, fair wages, economic protections against cheap third world labor, strong border security, clean water, clean energy, healthy food, free health care, limits to capitalism, plus gun rights and etc…

The majority of advocates and activists for these specific policies are not remotely White nationalists, and most of them are anti-racists. So does that make these policies bad or unworthy?

Another example: the overwhelming majority of anti-Zionist activists and their organizations are anti-racist. So does that mean we now have to change our position and support Zionism to own these anti-racists that are otherwise working towards something beneficial?

That would obviously be retarded. We should support all anti-Zionist efforts, even if some of the organizations and activists are anti-racist, because Zionism is a huge tumor siphoning resources from our country, from mostly White money.

Likewise, being against gun rights because gun rights organizations aren’t explicitly pro-White is also retarded. Their single goal is to advance a single policy by all means necessary, but it’s a policy that always benefits White people, just like all anti-Zionism efforts.

Hopefully everyone understands now.

This reminds me of White Nationalists that wanted to learn MMA but struggled because every MMA gym had at least one negro or one brown guy training there. The end result? They didn’t learn to fight, they didn’t train, they just stayed home on Telegram.

Here’s a solution: you don’t need to be a total White Nationalist 24/7 in your everyday life in every single interaction with everyone, and most people don’t need to know your political views, so their political views don’t matter! Be a grayman. Just chill out, let other people be politically-retarded, get the training from them and then leave when you’re done.

Assuming most of you here leave your house once in awhile and/or have a job, at least half the people you’re going to interact with on a daily basis are going to be either non-White, anti-racist, Zionist, or just civnats cucks — regardless of where they stand on any issue, because they’re are normies.

So complaining about 2A activists being normies is just nuts and hyper autistic. They are just normies ffs. Most people are not White Nationalists!

A lot of dissident types (WN and non-WN) are just generally anti-social contrarians with limited social skills. They don't understand that attacking people/groups that aren't in the same lane (but are going in a similar direction to them) is counter productive and that often times the best option is to just not comment on those other people/groups at all.

You can see this now in Canada with permanently online "dissidents" needlessly deriding people/groups protesting against Federal Government overreach in regards to a British Columbia avian farm.

These dissidents don't understand that it's best just to shut the fuck up and not comment at all considering that all it does is alienate people that could have otherwise eventually come around to their way of thinking on some other topics.

I won't delve into Trump. He is piece of shit - this should be clear to every decent person by now.

But look how Mamdani is nodding along. Tells you everything you need to know about the "opposite side" of the political spectrum. The anti-Trump Third Worldist Left represented by the likes of Mamdani is no better than the populist Right - if anything, it is far worse.