The Forward: Richard Spencer Might Be The Worst Person In America. But He’s Right About Israel

[fallable]

Funny how white flight is natural yet people went out of their way to jail people for miscegenation.

People dont flee black areas because they are black, they avoid black areas because of inner city culture made them shitholes.

What's you point? That not all people want to flee diversity and yet those who wanted to stay white and homogeneous had the upper hand or awhile and tried to enforce their view on everybody. Show me where I have ever contradicted that.

Also, in my first response to you did I not reply that segregation was top down and imposed on people by the government?

I understand english isn't your first language Rod, and I respect not only your ability to converse in multiple languages, but also you grasp of the politics of a foreign nation. I can barely have a simple conversation in Spanish and don't know a whole lot about Mexican policy or politics. So I give you props.

But I'm pretty much done conversing with you. You always quote me, pose a bunch of questions regarding my posts, yet you either ignore or disregard the points I make and fail to answer the questions I pose back to you.

This is a perfect example. What do miscegenation laws have anything to do with what I said? I already said that segregation was top down from the Southern government. I never said there was a popular uprising of white Americans to ban race mixing. Yet "it's funny how people go out of their way to jail people for miscegenation" Which doesn't contradict any point I made nor does it invalidate the fact that whites do in fact flee diversity. Even left wing multicultural integrationists concede that point. They use it to brow beat and guilt whites into capitulation. Hell, I've even read you post that some of your family members are prejudiced against darker skinned Mexicans and in favor of lighter skinned Mexicans. I have met people, and not just whites, that have fled diversity. This has been going on since before black urban culture came to dominate the cities.

Good day.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I agree, that's what I've been arguing all throughout this thread.

The issue always winds up being 'culture' -or what people want to pawn off as their culture, in my experience anyway.

 

[snakedafunky]

I understand there are different concepts of identity between Europeans and Americans of European descent. I'm sure, as a person living in a country in Europe, you have a much better handle on this than me. But in my wanderings around the internet I perceive this is starting to change a little? That Europeans faced with a diversifying continent are starting to shift in their self realization from European from such and such nation to white from such and such nation (it's how it happened in America too). And they start to realize they can much easier co-exist with whites of other nations than with non-whites of their nation. Not in the household of Snakedafunky of course.

I think the younger generations consider themselves more European. That sort of applies to all political opionen which also include the "white Europeans".
It's just that German nationalists would never consider themselves and Polish, Russian or Slavs the same. They maybe would with Britsh or French but not with eastern Europeans or Greeks for example.
The issue is also that Polish and other eastern Europeans commit a lot of crimes in Germany. Not because they are worse people it comes down to the economic difference from Germany and eastern Europe. But if anything German nationalist think of eastern Europeans like nationalist Americans think of South Americans.

How about Scotland and Wales? Scotland and Wales make up most of my ancestry, those people have inhabited Britain since time immemorial, the Welsh for instance are supposedly descended from the original hunter gatherers that inhabited Britain, and both Scotland and Wales are still vast majority white. Are you telling me if whites from the Anglosphere migrated to Scotland and Wales, and established the original American system there of a White nationalist type system with free markets, they would inevitability wage war due to the fact they were a homogeneous white nation that pursued the the national interest?

No, not necessarily but this is somehow just a thought experiment.

By the way, Germany is only part Aryan. I've seen you refer to Germany as Aryan and deny other Europeans as being Aryan. Like all other Europeans Germans consist of some Neolithic Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, some Middle Eastern Farmer ancestry, and some Indo-Aryan ancestry. The difference between different whites is due to the amount of each of those ancestries a particular person has and whether or not they also have some other admixture as well.

I am just mostly joking about that (poorly).
And for the record snakedafunky households will only be Aryan/Asian or Aryan/black.

 

[Rod1]

What's you point? That not all people want to flee diversity and yet those who wanted to stay white and homogeneous had the upper hand or awhile and tried to enforce their view on everybody. Show me where I have ever contradicted that.

Those who banned miscegenation were those who didnt mingled with other races, they were the elite who looked down on everyone.

Also, in my first response to you did I not reply that segregation was top down and imposed on people by the government?

I understand english isn't your first language Rod, and I respect not only your ability to converse in multiple languages, but also you grasp of the politics of a foreign nation. I can barely have a simple conversation in Spanish and don't know a whole lot about Mexican policy or politics. So I give you props.

You claimed that segregation is natural, there is nothing natural about it, it is imposed by cultural standards and barriers.

But I'm pretty much done conversing with you. You always quote me, pose a bunch of questions regarding my posts, yet you either ignore or disregard the points I make and fail to answer the questions I pose back to you.

This is a perfect example. What do miscegenation laws have anything to do with what I said? I already said that segregation was top down from the Southern government. I never said there was a popular uprising of white Americans to ban race mixing. Yet "it's funny how people go out of their way to jail people for miscegenation" Which doesn't contradict any point I made nor does it invalidate the fact that whites do in fact flee diversity. Even left wing multicultural integrationists concede that point. They use it to brow beat and guilt whites into capitulation. Hell, I've even read you post that some of your family members are prejudiced against darker skinned Mexicans and in favor of lighter skinned Mexicans. I have met people, and not just whites, that have fled diversity. This has been going on since before black urban culture came to dominate the cities.

Good day.

I merely pointed out that white flight is not a phenomena rooted in genetic aversion towards people that tend to look different, is merely the byproduct of cultural barriers imposed upon people.

 

[goldennirvana]

Pretty dumb article.

The writer is redefining Zionism to mean Jewish supremacy. That is not accurate.

The writer is right that Israel should do more to try to stop the far right assholes in Israel.

Zionism is Jewish supremacy.

 

[goldennirvana]

Same thing. Why would you be in favor of a white nation if you don't think a white nation will be superior

Humans are tribal by nature and white nationalists are simply saying they want to live with people they have most in common with, as a tribe. It has nothing to do with believing you're superior.

 

[snakedafunky]

Humans are tribal by nature and white nationalists are simply saying they want to live with people they have most in common with, as a tribe. It has nothing to do with believing you're superior.

But you don't have most in common with other white people.
If you are a middle class white from a large city you have more in common with a middle-class black, Latino or Asians from a large city compared to a lower class white guy from rural Tennessee.
It has shifted away from your racial background to more of a social class thing that determents what you have in common with other people.

 

[goldennirvana]

A rebuttal in the forward.

I would have changed some things but she gets the first point right.

http://forward.com/opinion/380485/5-reasons-richard-spencer-is-wrong-about-israel/

The first point is nonsense. 'White people' are suddenly not 'a people' when they want to do something for the betterment of themselves, but suddenly turn into 'a people' when they're being bashed.

It's made all the more comical that a black person (woman) wrote that article. Black people are not liked in Israel.

 

[IDL]

Yep. Integrate continents, the EU, AU, NAU, SAU etc, then integrate the continental unions into one union. Once you get the idea it is actually pretty blatant and almost obvious.

That's where some of the other things we've talked about before come into play, cultural marxism, diversification, divide and conquer, the Imperial Culture etc. Keep enough people distracted, divided, and oblivious, to what's going on. Or work to take away their skepticism and opposition. When you control the education system, the media, and finance, you can convince people it's the best course of action.

I think, they think if they can get the West, all the other pieces will fall into place. At the same time the West, rather than protecting its sovereignty, is the leading enforcer with regard to bullying other parts of the world into compliance. Or buying them off. Whatever the situation calls for.

I know you think about this stuff a lot IDL, as do I. I would love to get your opinion. I believe you are Canadian? I think I read you alluding to that in a thread about Trudeau once. Do you think a Canadian guy like you and an American guy like me get thrown under the bus in the end? Are our Elites completely outside of our interests? Are they playing ball or capitulating, whatever the case is, to get our populations the sweet deal in the end? Or is it literally that they have no loyalty to us and concern themselves only with furthering the interests of themselves?

Yeah I generally agree.

Yup I am Canadian. It depends on what you mean by 'thrown under the bus'. At least over the short term, the cultural Marxist ideology has to be endured (and minimized as much as possible) and there are certainly groups that are specifically targeted as part of that. But, on the other hand it is a means to an ends and it is hard to predict how things will change if 'the ends' can be achieved. So the final form of society is in large part hard to know, although it appears as though sovereignty is supposed to be wiped away, and society will be more and more centrally managed and decisions will be made by people who's interests do not align with the average people. Also, It is quite possible that history will be rewritten and/or erased in large part, amongst the mainstream.

I think that both the US and Canada will remain advanced economies though.

 

[goldennirvana]

But you don't have most in common with other white people.

According to who?

If you are a middle class white from a large city you have more in common with a middle-class black, Latino or Asians from a large city compared to a lower class white guy from rural Tennessee.

Again, according to who?

The vast majority of whites wish to live with other whites. Although it's politically incorrect for them to come out and say that, it doesn't change the fact it's true. Same with the vast majority of blacks wanting to live with other blacks, Mexicans with Mexicans, Chinese with Chinese etc etc.

It has shifted away from your racial background to more of a social class thing that determents what you have in common with other people.

Nope, it hasn't.

 

[snakedafunky]

According to who?

Common sense.
What does a middle-class white person from LA, NY or Chicago have in common with a lower class white person from rural Tennessee?
Not much except the color of his skin.
While he has the same hobbies, job environment, living arrangement and daily routine as a middle-class black person from LA, NY or Chicago.

 

[goldennirvana]

Common sense.

Translation: no one.

What does a middle-class white person from LA, NY or Chicago have in common with a lower class white person from rural Tennessee?

The fact they're both of the same tribe and will be safer living with them than living amongst blacks or hispanics.

While he has the same hobbies, job environment, living arrangement and daily routine as a middle-class black person from LA, NY or Chicago.

How do you know? Your argument is absolutely absurd and is based purely on some fantasy you have about the lives of working & middle class people lead.

 

[fallable]

Those who banned miscegenation were those who didnt mingled with other races, they were the elite who looked down on everyone.



You claimed that segregation is natural, there is nothing natural about it, it is imposed by cultural standards and barriers.



I merely pointed out that white flight is not a phenomena rooted in genetic aversion towards people that tend to look different, is merely the byproduct of cultural barriers imposed upon people.

You say segregation isn't natural. That's not my experience and I don't think American history supports that. Yes, I agree segregation was imposed by various means. Not everyone wants racial separation, some do.

I think what you may not be willing to concede is that integration is also enforced by cultural standards and imposed culturally in a manufactured process through media, hollywood, education etc. You may disagree but I very much can perceive this and have experienced it.

 

[snakedafunky]

The fact they're both of the same tribe and will be safer living with them than living amongst blacks or hispanics.

But white people aren't a tribe. White people don't mean anything. It is just a term in the US to describe a certain segment of the population.
Like Hispanics but they aren't a tribe. Some people just like to pretend all white people are the same race or tribe.
But that is just in the US because they only have American culture which would include black and other minorities, which they don't like, so they try to claim like "white people" is a real thing.

If you live the same big city lifestyle you have far more in common with the blacks or Hispanic living the same big city life style.
I mean that's not even a controversial opinion. You have more in common with people with the same lifestyle compared to a guy living a completely different lifestyle you just share skin color with.

How do you know? Your argument is absolutely absurd and is based purely on some fantasy you have about the lives of working & middle class people lead.

I have lived in 3 countries grew up in small town Germany went to Univerity in a big city. Lived in small town Australia and later Brisbane always had the same experience.
You always have most in common with people you share the same lifestyle with.

 

[lecter]

True but that's also because tribal conflicts don't spiral into international crises that affect millions of people.

I'm not sure but I think we might talk past each other. My point was that it's difficult to assess to what degree the tribalist mindset and loyalty to the own social, ethnic or religious group of single, influential individuals have influenced some of the most important historic events (as opposed to their loyalty to their nation state). Whether a nation is organized as a liberal Democracy, or as a nationalist Empire, at the end of the day, only a few individuals make important decisions or control what information and narratives should be fed to the public (pre-Internet times).

I try to carefully source most claims before a certain mod uses this as an excuse to ban me for "anti-Semitism". This is not about a conspiracy but about tribalism and influences on decision-making.

President Roosevelt had Jewish advisers/administration members like Felix Frankfurter [1], Henry Morgenthau [2], or Samuel Rosenman [3].
They were outspoken advocates of Jewish interests and worried about their people in Europe in particular. It's not exactly surprising that they also were pushing for more aggressive anti-German policies. Henry Morgenthau, for example, was an advocate for Jewish refugees and welfare programs and later proposed extremely harsh treatment of ze Germans, he also wrote and signed the Morgenthau-plan[4], a proposal to wreck the German industry + mines in order to prevent a recovery after the end of WWII. A modern-day version of salting the earth of Carthago after the third Punic war, so to speak.
He and Frankfurter both were outspoken supporters of a US involvement in a European war. Frankfurter later also convinced Roosevelt [5] that Henry L. Stimson, who was already an outspoken interventionist since the beginning of WWII [6] should be secretary of war. Stimson then recommended nuclear strikes against Japan btw.
Would they have held the exact same positions if they were born into Christian or Atheist families? Was the fact that they identified as Jews while Jews suffered in Europe completely irrelevant and not related to their remarkably aggressive anti-German and pro interventionist positions? Was it a coincidence that they pushed so aggressively for a war against Germany?

William Leonard Langer, historian and chairman of the history department at Harvard University [7] noted during one of his lectures at the US War College:

"You have to face the fact that some of our most important American newspapers are Jewish-controlled, and I suppose if I were a Jew I would feel about Nazi Germany as most Jews feel and it would be most inevitable that the coloring of the news takes on that tinge. As I read the NYT, for example, it is perfectly clear that every little upset that occurs is given a great deal of prominence. The other part of it is soft-pedaled or put off with a sneer. So that in a rather subtle way, the picture you get is that there just is no good in the Germans whatever" [8] [9]

The New York Times was more or less the most influential newspaper back then and owned by the Jewish Sulzberger family [10]. Other influential media outlets owned or run by Jewish people included The Washington Post, owned by Jewish Eugene Meyers [11] (also picked up best-known columnist Drew Pearson who was a strong advocate for a military intervention), the New York Post, owned/published by Jewish Dorothy Schiff and Jewish George Backer [12] [13], The Philadelphia Inquirer owned by Jewish Moses Annenberg[14][15], The Philadelphia Record owned by Jewish David Stern [16], RCA & NBC "ruled" by Jewish David 'the General' Sarnoff [17], large parts of Hollywood and more.

There was a shitton of movies and articles about the cruelty and barbarism of Germany's national socialists, the suffering of the Jews in Europe etc., interventionism was promoted and columnists who advocated isolationism were fired. Now, of course, there's a massive hindsight bias. Now we know exactly how bad it really was in Germany, we already know how WWII ended, that the mission was a success etc. So, a first thought could be "Well, so what? Nazis are evil, we were victorious, Hitler was stopped. It makes sense that they wrote about it while it happened and interventionism was the right policy!". But the question here is how reasonable their reporting and one-sided presentation of options for the US, there attacks against people with different views, and the pressure they put on politicians was back then, with the information America had in the years leading up to 1941, not when the actual decision was made. And how willing to enter the war with a weakened military the American, non-Jewish public would have been because they fight over there in Europe and Jews suffer. There definitely were people in the military and in politics who had very different opinions and advocated a more isolationist approach or even negotiations with Hitler. Of course, now, today, all Generals, politicians, and columnists who were worried about a one-sided promotion of war and a possible bias of Jews in America are retroactively accused of anti-Semitism.

My argument is not that there was a Jewish conspiracy. I also don't want to discuss if the USA should have entered the war and if it would have happened with different advisors or media narratives anyway. All of this is equaly true when we look at the early years of WWII. But completely independent of that: When you're looking at an armed conflict and a minority that suffers and some of the closest advisors to the leader of a nation state and the majority of people who publish news and movies in the pre-Internet time belong to the exact same minority, and when such a minority is well-known for their strong tribalism and loyalty to each other, how likely is it that it doesn't influence their decisions at all? I think in addition to the usual lists we see in high school "reason for war XY", questions like this should at very least complement our understanding of history.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Frankfurter
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau_Jr.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Irving_Rosenman
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan
5. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Felix-Frankfurter
6. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-L-Stimson
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_L._Langerp
8. Olson, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight Over World War II, p. 380
9. J. Bendersky, The Jewish Thread: Anti-semitic politics of the US Army, p. 273
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Ownership
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Meyer_(financier)#Purchase_of_the_Washington_Post
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Schiff
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Inquirer#Annenberg_years
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Annenberg
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Record
17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sarnoff

 

[esotamoc]

Zionism is ethno-nationalism. It is a parallel to white nationalism. Just a different group.

thats all that needed to be said really.

 

[goldennirvana]

But white people aren't a tribe. White people don't mean anything.

It means plenty when they're being bashed all the time, by leftists. But then suddenly there's no such thing as 'white people' when white people start talking about doing things for the betterment of white people.

It is just a term in the US to describe a certain segment of the population.

... yes, a certain segment of the population... who are of European descent.

Some people just like to pretend all white people are the same race or tribe.

They are of the same race. And race is tribe.

But that is just in the US because they only have American culture which would include black and other minorities, which they don't like, so they try to claim like "white people" is a real thing.

Incoherent babble.

If you live the same big city lifestyle you have far more in common with the blacks or Hispanic living the same big city life style.

Evidence needed.

I have lived in 3 countries grew up in small town Germany went to Univerity in a big city. Lived in small town Australia and later Brisbane always had the same experience.
You always have most in common with people you share the same lifestyle with.

This is irrelevant to what we're discussing. The 'white race' encompasses all ethnic groups of European descent: Irish, French, Scottish, English, German, Italian, Ukrainian, Polish etc etc. A country that is made up of 90% French, with some minority European ethnic groups will function just fine. But a country that has the demographic make up France will have in 50 years time, will not function just fine - it will be destroyed.

 

[Rod1]

You say segregation isn't natural. That's not my experience and I don't think American history supports that. Yes, I agree segregation was imposed by various means. Not everyone wants racial separation, some do.

I think what you may not be willing to concede is that integration is also enforced by cultural standards and imposed culturally in a manufactured process through media, hollywood, education etc. You may disagree but I very much can perceive this and have experienced it.

1.- American history is ripe with de jure segregation and cultural barriers which stem from said segregation are very much present to this day.


2.- Integration can certainly be accelerated and enforced, that wasnt my point, my point was that integration is the natural course of things when there arent any cultural barriers being enforced against it.

 

[fallable]

Yeah I generally agree.

Yup I am Canadian. It depends on what you mean by 'thrown under the bus'. At least over the short term, the cultural Marxist ideology has to be endured (and minimized as much as possible) and there are certainly groups that are specifically targeted as part of that. But, on the other hand it is a means to an ends and it is hard to predict how things will change if 'the ends' can be achieved. So the final form of society is in large part hard to know, although it appears as though sovereignty is supposed to be wiped away, and society will be more and more centrally managed and decisions will be made by people who's interests do not align with the average people. Also, It is quite possible that history will be rewritten and/or erased in large part, amongst the mainstream.

I think that both the US and Canada will remain advanced economies though.

Sorry for the long response, pithiness isn't a strong suit and I like to be as clear as possible.

There are many developments that really cause me to take a pause. On their own, or in and of themselves, it's thought-provoking developments. When you view them through the lens of this discussion, a sinister dynamic arises. I guess what I mean is, are we the Kulaks? Are we the Neanderthals? Are we on the chopping block? It seems western males especially are considered a threat. Does that ever go away, will they try to reduce us to irrelevance? Will it even be safe to have such conversations?

Take the whole transgender issue. I originally chalked this up to an evolution of cultural marxism, a way to break down everything from traditional marriage, to birth rates, to traditional roles of men and women, on top of being a great wedge issue. I even contemplated that perhaps there is an oligarch or someone of influence who identifies as transgender. But when you start to realize all of the substances in our food and water supply that cause our bodies to produce or absorb estrogen, as well as lower sperm counts, and then consider developments in things like CRISPR, artificial wombs, and the continued development of sex robots, I wonder if they'll even let a guy like me reproduce in the future.

Once again, on their own you might even dismiss these things as random. Factor them together, in the context of global empire, central planning and the control of capital and resources and it potentially puts things in a more sinister light. Is the plan to completely do away with gender and natural reproduction? It's a less aggressive way to do away with undesirables. It's also indiscriminate so it essentially suggests we're all on the chopping block, and to an extent its self inflicted and voluntary.

As far as North America remaining prosperous and productive, I don't know that North Americans are necessarily factored into that plan. We recently had a couple comments back and forth with each other in regards to automation and the extent, scale, and speed of that process. I agree with you that the source I quoted saying half of all jobs being automated in 30 years is overstated. But that doesn't change the fact that with automation, computerization, robotics, and AI, the world eventually reaches a point where the elites, the controllers of capital, can remain productive and prosperous without us.

A lot of elites are pushing universal basic income. How long before they figure those on UBI are dead weight? Personally I'm ok with automation and such as a natural development of a technological society. But considering the way our planned economy operates, the centralization of power, and the utilization of technology as a means of power and control, in the wrong hands it becomes a threat to the average person.

Simply stating that there is a push for a global order or that cultural marxism is a thing can secure someone accusations of being conspiratorial. As I said in my previous post, to me it's fairly obvious, and not at all conspiratorial. It's a matter of interpretation to some extent, but that's mostly semantics. The history of these types of developments suggest what it is. The fact that it is sold as progress, prosperity, and overcoming past injustice actually makes me more skeptical of it all.

I don't really have an opportunity to talk about these things in real life, there are a few pundits, academics, and intellectuals I can follow, and a few members of this board that will broach these subjects. So I guess my self awareness on these topics is insufficient. When you get called conspiracy theorist and extremist, in regards to obvious truths, you don't necessarily know when you are drifting into unrealistic territory. I guess I take things to what I feel are the obvious conclusions, but at the end of the day is it just my perception or is there smoke there, you know? So I'm always interested in gauging what other people see as the end game.

I could go off on a lot more topics and how they cause me concern, but its a long post already, and I think you get the point. Thanks for the discussion.

Also, I always buy hard copies of books as opposed to ebooks. I plan on passing my book collection down to my family through the generations, so they will have an accurate history, and more than anything, can understand how things work in the world, have references that are denied to the general population, and have a blue print to operate in the world. Just in case history is re-written and the flow of information controlled. Think of things like the Library of Congress and the Vatican Archives. It's Important to have references, accurate depictions of events, and a stash of information that can give insight and context.

 

[Rod1]

It means plenty when they're being bashed all the time, by leftists. But then suddenly there's no such thing as 'white people' when white people start talking about doing things for the betterment of white people.



... yes, a certain segment of the population... who are of European descent.



They are of the same race. And race is tribe.



Incoherent babble.



Evidence needed.



This is irrelevant to what we're discussing. The 'white race' encompasses all ethnic groups of European descent: Irish, French, Scottish, English, German, Italian, Ukrainian, Polish etc etc. A country that is made up of 90% French, with some minority European ethnic groups will function just fine. But a country that has the demographic make up France will have in 50 years time, will not function just fine - it will be destroyed.

You need to travel more.