Objectively no less. 
It’s humorous that in the tangled up bag of barbed wire and bullshit that passes for your ideology, that amounts to a ‘dis’.
Silly.
First you set your objectives and then you try to make them into a reality.
Obviously, people who are nationalistic have to work to form and maintain a nation.
Are White people being bullied and silenced? - Yes.
And after they realise it, the next step is deciding whether or not they are fine with this and if not how to combat this.
Here they could use victim-thinking tactics and to some degree they might work although I think they have many negative side-effects in the long run for themselves. And that’s why I think it’s not a good tactic and others are better.
It’s whining when you expect other people to pacify you by giving you stuff or helping you or granting you higher social status.
I for my part don’t expect such things from non-Whites or anti-Whites.
If it wasn’t for their animosity then there would be no emerging White identity.
It’s a good thing.
If someone comes across and hits you in your head, would it be whining if your brain made an observation that someone hit you in your head?
That you are a victim is the reality of that particular situation.
It would be strange, and most importantly delusional, if you saw yourself as something else.
It would make at least some sense if you said that you were defeated long before you were hit in the head. For then you would be arguing that you are too weak to stand a random hit in your head. Though it makes very little sense to level such a criticism against anyone for no person ever possessed such a level of strength where he could afford others to hit him in the head without worrying about it.
There is no strength to be found in seeing yourself as something other than what you really are.
But you take pride in it and recommend it to and against everyone.
You are telling us “don’t be weak, be strong by pretending you are not weak”.
Perhaps, but all you basically do is to call my argument a “tangled up bag of barbed wire and bullshit”.
You won’t actually expose one of your own value judgments to the points I raise.
For example, what is the flaw in my thinking here:
Or here:
I’m just trying to engage you and other objectivists here in a discussion more or less along the lines of this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026&start=175
No huffing and puffing, no name calling, no retorts. Just a straight up exchange of ideas.
Is that something you are willing to do?
No, no. All sorts of interactions are available if someone actually believed what you claim to believe. All sorts of social types of interactions are available, for example. What should, necessarily, be less interesting is repeatedly placing yourself on higher moral ground than objectivists and especially conservative ones. Given the absolute necessity of concluding that your one might as well roll the dice when it comes to values, to act in the world against those who have different values makes no sense. Yet, you do. You seem to think that if on occasion you state that you are not an objectivist, then you are not one. How one acts in the world, in this case what one attacks and what one does not, for example, creates an objectivist position, especially when one implies moral superiority and inferiority on a regular basis. Much as the person who says they are not sexist and often makes anti-sexist statements, can be sexist in the way they treat men and women differently and the latter negatively. We are not our words. We often do not have the beliefs we think we have. But beyond the hypocisy it is the solipsism demonstrated by you in interaction with other people here. You have repeatedly argued that your only option is to shrivel up somewhere in a world of your own until the day you die. In part this had to do with health problems. As if the only possible way to interact with people was to have a meta-discussion about objectivism, given the state of your health and beliefs. But in fact there are still, even taking into account your particular situation, a wide range of ways an actual non-objectivist could interact with others, either mediated of directly in person. But the rage at objectivists - at least I think this is it - drives you to rely on this single contact point with others. Think of all the possible life affirming activities - even via the internet - that could be engaged in. Even with objectivists. Where values overlap for example.
It is not that you should shrivel up in your own world, but rather that you have. You live in a meta-position, outside the world of those you denigrate as objectivists and also outside the worlds of nihilists and postmoderns and others who also hold that there are no objective values. Many of them actually living that, that is getting on with life and what they want along not moral value criteria.
You think that you are merely presenting and epistemological objection to objectivism. But your posts reek of moral judgment. The tool you have chosen is epistemological, but the rage is moral and is sees through.
You have repeatedly argued that the problems in the world are caused by or made worse by objectists, never once acknowledging that this is an objectivist stance. In the moment such an outburst need not contradict your position, but to do it for years means that you have not even convinced yourself. You still think they are bad.
You can’t then say ‘OH, I know my values are…dasein.’ No, if you knew that you wouldn’t engage in that way. What would be the point since for all you know the objectivists may be making the world better even if their epistemology is fucked.
Now the chances that the slightest a ha experience will happen here for you upon reading these points again I consider so small as to
actually just be wanting to set the record straight. Your sense of the more of less of my position is just another example of the solipsistic way you respond to input from people who actually understand your position better than you do.
Moreno is back? Cool beans.
I’m sensing those individuals in that photo are of the Ashkenazi origin…
Awesome choice of animation. 
The usual leftist or Marxist rhetoric implies that Europeans (white people) have no race, culture, history, identity, or heritage where they are best to remain as silent ‘good’ tax paying (for the welfare state) work horses of non-people.
White people are racist devils, everybody else (nonwhite) is A-Ok. (Free pass unless you’re white.)
Nothing of course changes the decline of western societies until feminism is completely challenged. (Enjoy the population demographic decline, clash, crash, and catastrophe.)
White men are hoodwinked because their women remain under total control by leftism, Marxism, and fascist transhumanist progressivism. What is fascist progressivism? Transhumanism, globalism, and a technocratic ideology all combined together. Control the women you control the majority of the men. That includes you cupcake.
Most women are useful political and social pawns of the establishment where the annoying thing about it is that a majority of them are unaware in being pawned to begin with. Well, both annoying and amusing simultaneously at times…
Pandora is a globalist one-worlder. I suspected as much in the past.
It’s true that if someone else fights for your freedom and you don’t, then such is so that freedom is lost on many of the free who then go right back to enslaving themselves and others. Patrick Henry said, give me liberty or give me death. To give fair credit, reality gave him both.
Jesus had a much better fight plan that gave him perfect revenge on his enemies. He said, I’m not gonna do what you all think im gonna do and, freak out, all I wanna know is, who’s going with Me?
When people expect to be hated and come to love it, to be shown mercy and forgiveness for their unforgivable crimes against nature is worse punishment than any hell envisioned. His revenge is neatly wrapped up in being a good person. Bliss.
Again and again and again: What “on earth” is this supposed to mean, my friend?
Let’s focus the discussion on a context in which your own value judgment is challenge by another.
What [pertaining to an issue like abortion] is your own rendition of this:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
Instead, as per usual, you yammer on and on and on, the serial abstactionist. You make speculative assertions about human interaction [and my own understanding of it] without actually bringing any of this down out of its scholastic orbit.
We have been over and over and over this of course. If you do choose to interact with others, you are necessarily inviting existential contexts in which your lived values will come into conflict. All I do here is to ask others to examine the manner in which my understanding of these conflicts – embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy – is at odds with their own.
Something I have brought up with you over and again. And where has that gotten us? You just go back up into the clouds – as you do here – by and large.
No, I argue that an objectivist here – as I understand it – is someone who argues this: that that which he believes to be true in his head relating to particular moral and political values is that which all other rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn. Sometimes this is predicated on God, other times on Reason; or on that which they insist is in sync with Nature – a “natural” understanding of human interaction.
Whereas I flat out acknowledge that my own argument here is just…
1] another existential contraption that I believe [here and now] “in my head”
2] a frame of mind that contradicts much of what I once believed in my past
3] that, in world awash in contingency chance and change a new experience, relationship, source of knowledge/information etc., might precipitate yet another change of mind.
Now, if you wish to argue that in believing this I am an objectivist, fine. But then folks like Wittgenstein might have something to tell us about the limitations of language with respect to relationships like this.
Okay, with respect to making statements that are said to be either sexist or non-sexist, how would we pin that down relating to a particular context? For example, was Donald Trump being a sexist when he spoke of accosting women and grabbing their pussies? Is there a way for philosophers to determine if this sort of behavior is in fact either moral or immoral?
And how would your own answer to this question succeed in transcending the manner in which I construe these conflicts as embedded/embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
And what of the narcissistic sociopath who argues that grabbing the vaginas of women is moral because in his world morality revolves entirely around that which gratifies him. How would philosophers demonstrate that this is necessarily an obtuse point of view?
Yes, I have shriveled up. In part because of health considerations “beyond my control” and in part because I genuinely am entangled in this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
But when are you going to finally get around to noting how this is not applicable to you when your own value judgments come into conflict with others?
Three possible explanations…
1] I am a polemicist. I love to argue. Indeed, as I have noted noted previously…
[b]What does it mean to be a polemicist? It means that I enjoy provocative exchanges. A provocative exchange is one in which folks take opposite sides on an issue and aggressively pursue their own point of view. A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, pokes and prods, satire.
But it’s almost never meant to be personal. It’s just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating.
When the best minds are goaded they are often driven in turn to make their point all the more forcefully. It’s like both of you are down in the arena using words for swords.
From my experience these are almost always the most interesting exchanges. [/b]
2] I acknowledge that my political persona here is generally from the left. Mentally, emotionally and psychologically this is the “I” that I have become over the years. It is deeply embedded in my “identity” now subjectively and subjunctively. But that doesn’t make my dilemma go away.
3] Many objectivists react to this with antagonism. Why? Because [I suspect] they are perturbed by the thought that if my frame of mind is a reasonable one, then it might be applicable to them in turn. And you know what that means, right? Indeed, I suspect your own reaction to me here is a part of that.
On the contrary, over and again I flat out acknowledge that most of the pain and suffering inflicted around the globe today is as a result of the moral nihilism embedded in one or another rendition of those intent on sustaining a world [and a global economy] where their own social, political and economic interests are the chief concern. If not the only concern.
And I know that I have brought this up with you. But [here and now] I don’t argue that this is necessarily either good or bad.
And, again, to call my argument here “an objectivist stance” is to argue that I believe that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to share it.
And I don’t.
Ah, but you know better, right?
What’s happening now is a re-framing of the ‘Jewish question’ into the ‘white question’.
The western political left and Marxists resemble Russian Bolsheviks.
Bingo…
Many people are hurt. Let’s not blame each other.
say no to the tyrant
go freedom!