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

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.

#1: I agree. I've not been arguing against that.

#2: Integration is natural to an extent. To say all people will naturally integrate over time is the inverse of saying no one will ever integrate. These aren't universal issues. Some will, some won't. Some just like to be different, some just like to rebel, some just have a different perspective. I think history and the American experience bares this out.

I know you probably disagree, but my belief is that certain people are wired differently, within groups and between groups. I'm probably more similar in my brain wiring and psychology to a White Brit in Wales than I am to an African-American in the U.S. Not universally, but on average. There also Welshman who couldn't have a more different perspective and psychology to me and probably some African-Americans who are more similar. It's about averages. And when it comes to situations like millions of different people integrating into a common culture and world view, averages matter.

Things like economic interests, opportunity, and civil rights are more universal. Culture and world view, in my opinion, have more of an in group genetic influence. I have a different ancestral history than African-American but a more similar ancestral history to Brits. We have more common ancestors and thus we have more inherited common traits. Thus we are more likely to "get on with each other" as a Brit would say.

I think another major factor is that some people want children that look like them. So in situations where people of different races are inter-marrying, this can bring race to the forefront of people's minds. When you see children that don't embody the way you see yourself, it can potentially drive you to securing a mate that can provide that, and seeking to raise your children in a place where they will also have that opportunity.
 
imo you are taking the "tribe" aspect of tribalism far too literally. That isn't most people's accepted definition.
True. It isn't. Most people use it rather metaphorically, as you undoubtedly were, to refer to group dynamics in a much broader way. But in a thread about actual nationalism as a political phenomenon a more technical definition is called for.
 
Evidence needed.

Let's say for example you are a working class white Republican that voted for Trump from a small US rural town.
Wouldnt you have more in common with your black or Hispanic neighbor that also is a republican and voted for Trump?
Has the same daily lifestyle you have. Might even share the same job or friends and hobbies.

Compared to a white software developer in NY or LA with far left political views that voted for the Green Party?
That doesn't understand the rural lifestyle. Doesn't have the same hobbies etc.

Why would the white person have more in commen with you even if everything is different except the skin color.
You are still most likely a different race unless you are both German or both Slavs etc.
But the chance of you two being racily pure are slim. Because of the US white people "race mixing".

I would have far more in common with the person from a different race I would consider him my people.
Compared to a person that lives on the other end of the country and lives a completely different lifestyle.
 
I think the metrics for Asians speak for themselves.

It would be tough for a white nationalist to claim market superiority over a race that appears like it's being intentionally limited in Ivy League admission percentages in order to protect lower-achieving white applicants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6ebd6a-7bb1-11e7-a669-b400c5c7e1cc_story.html

That has nothing to do with what I said.

What I said is that it never comes up as a stand alone point, it's only brought up when juxtaposed against african-americans. It's possible that I haven't seen it but is there any time that you can think of where white nationalists brought up Asian superiority without also bringing up things related to black America?

Even the Harvard lawsuit is predicated on dismantling affirmative action as unfairly helping blacks. Anyway, direct me to a standalone argument about Asian superiority raised by white nationalists. This isn't me asking you to prove Asian superiority, btw. Just evidence of the market argument presented solely by itself.
 
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.

Good post, and I think about the same things in similar ways to how you approach it. It does start to seem a tad obvious after awhile, but there are always unknowns.

Yeah we are the kulaks 2.0. It's hard to avoid such a conclusion. It isn't the same this time around (The Marxist revolution 2.0) though obviously so I don't think it is going to get so messy as the 1.0 version. It becomes a matter of weathering the storm I think, and keeping in mind that it is a means to and ends and that it can in be stopped when the time is right. It is, after-all, an orchestrated thing.

As to how it is sold, yeah it always smelled fishy to me well before I had any understanding of what it was really about. Just never sat right. Now I just find it annoying being showered in lies all the time. I can live with that though because it can be tuned out, or laughed at.

Good idea about a book collection. It may not even come to that though, in terms of everything becoming controlled. People will probably just stop caring or be so inundated with fluff they just wouldn't find anything. Needle in a haystack. A collection would be valuable in that time would not have to be wasted in a search for such things.
 
I remember he said he cringed when he heard conservatives who brag about their disregard for the environment. And he supports a universal system of healthcare.
If only he could drop the white fetish and stop being such a provocative douchebag.

I don't think you realize how cold and nihilistic it is for you to call the existence of a people a "fetish". You wouldn't make the same comment if he were of any other racial background. You would likely admire his social awareness.
 
Let's say for example you are a working class white Republican that voted for Trump from a small US rural town.
Wouldnt you have more in common with your black or Hispanic neighbor that also is a republican and voted for Trump?
Has the same daily lifestyle you have. Might even share the same job or friends and hobbies.

Compared to a white software developer in NY or LA with far left political views that voted for the Green Party?
That doesn't understand the rural lifestyle. Doesn't have the same hobbies etc.

Why would the white person have more in commen with you even if everything is different except the skin color.
You are still most likely a different race unless you are both German or both Slavs etc.
But the chance of you two being racily pure are slim. Because of the US white people "race mixing".

I would have far more in common with the person from a different race I would consider him my people.
Compared to a person that lives on the other end of the country and lives a completely different lifestyle.

And most of US politics is urban (blue) vs rural (red). Whenever I see someone proposing a national law that wouldn't work for one of those groups, I tend to see them as either an idealogue, having blinders for the location they live in, dumb or not caring cause it not their voting base. $15 national minimum wage is a good example from the left (surprisingly enough for how much she's hated, Hillary at least understood this) and Environmental regulation or building permits is something from the right. A lot of politics just comes down to where a person lives and how that makes them see what government does and doesn't need involved in.
 
Good post, and I think about the same things in similar ways to how you approach it. It does start to seem a tad obvious after awhile, but there are always unknowns.

Yeah we are the kulaks 2.0. It's hard to avoid such a conclusion. It isn't the same this time around (The Marxist revolution 2.0) though obviously so I don't think it is going to get so messy as the 1.0 version. It becomes a matter of weathering the storm I think, and keeping in mind that it is a means to and ends and that it can in be stopped when the time is right. It is, after-all, an orchestrated thing.

As to how it is sold, yeah it always smelled fishy to me well before I had any understanding of what it was really about. Just never sat right. Now I just find it annoying being showered in lies all the time. I can live with that though because it can be tuned out, or laughed at.

Good idea about a book collection. It may not even come to that though, in terms of everything becoming controlled. People will probably just stop caring or be so inundated with fluff they just wouldn't find anything. Needle in a haystack. A collection would be valuable in that time would not have to be wasted in a search for such things.

Yeah, that's a good point about people in the future may stop caring or find it hard to sift through the cacophony of information.

I think Obama alluded to that once when he was in office. He said something like there was so much information out there that people are bombarded with they can't discern whats relevant. I think there was a slight inference on his part that people should seek out the "correct" news sources. But still the logic holds true.

I understood the sort of 1984 totalitarianism since high school. I only more recently developed a better understanding of the more "Brave New World" style system of control. Just like various forms of tyranny are a form of control, radical openness and libertinism is also a form of control.

It's like a candle burning at both ends. As people abuse the temptations of the the open society and relinquish personal responsibility on one end, the totalitarian apparatus ratchets up on the other end.

Weather the storm. I think about that a lot too. I thought of all the empires and civilizations I could think of that have collapsed or been conquered over the years one time. Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, China, Carthage, Rome, Israelites, Mongolians, Moors, Mayans, Aztecs, Inca, Spain, Portugal, Ottomans, Brits, Soviets etc etc etc. Many more jurisdictions through the ages. I guess it's inevitable for collapse to occur. I heard an Astronomer say that the nature of the universe is decay, and it probably holds true for human governance as well. If you find yourself in that burdensome situation, weather the storm and find the light at the end of the tunnel.
 
Last edited:
the one constant of recent history is the anti-semitism of the far left and the far right. The far left despises the state of Israel and the far right despises the diaspora.
 
#2: Integration is natural to an extent. To say all people will naturally integrate over time is the inverse of saying no one will ever integrate. These aren't universal issues. Some will, some won't. Some just like to be different, some just like to rebel, some just have a different perspective. I think history and the American experience bares this out.

I think the experiences of the first europeans who sailed the world is different, the early pilgrims all over the world intermarried.

Spanish conquistadores, Portuguese sailors, early Dutch colonists, Arabs and North Africans mixing with blacks etc, etc.

I know you probably disagree, but my belief is that certain people are wired differently, within groups and between groups. I'm probably more similar in my brain wiring and psychology to a White Brit in Wales than I am to an African-American in the U.S. Not universally, but on average. There also Welshman who couldn't have a more different perspective and psychology to me and probably some African-Americans who are more similar. It's about averages. And when it comes to situations like millions of different people integrating into a common culture and world view, averages matter.

Men are men and women are women, early mixing will have some friction with one culture overlapping the other, but as mixed people become larger in numbers they become a bridge which normalizes the process.

Things like economic interests, opportunity, and civil rights are more universal. Culture and world view, in my opinion, have more of an in group genetic influence. I have a different ancestral history than African-American but a more similar ancestral history to Brits. We have more common ancestors and thus we have more inherited common traits. Thus we are more likely to "get on with each other" as a Brit would say.

You have more likely to get on with each other because blacks were historically segregated and thus created a subculture of their own this isnt ancient history its recent one.

I think another major factor is that some people want children that look like them. So in situations where people of different races are inter-marrying, this can bring race to the forefront of people's minds. When you see children that don't embody the way you see yourself, it can potentially drive you to securing a mate that can provide that, and seeking to raise your children in a place where they will also have that opportunity.

You are overthinking that, people just like to get their dicks wet.

If Homo sapiens mixed with Homo neardentalensis which wasnt even the same species, it wont have any issue mixing within its same species.

Just look at how common white-latino and white-asian couples are in California which is a minority majority state.
 
I don't think you realize how cold and nihilistic it is for you to call the existence of a people a "fetish". You wouldn't make the same comment if he were of any other racial background. You would likely admire his social awareness.

There are few to none pure blacks or Amerindians in this continent.

Wanting the world to be pure white is indeed a fetish, just let people marry whoever they want.
 
It's based on the genetic line of your mother, primarily. So, an ethnic Jew is born from an ethnic Jewish mother. There are exceptions where people can undergo a conversion process to become a religious Jew, but not an ethnic one. , but it is primarily based on ethnic ties. I think this allows for a heavier in-group bias within 'the tribe' so to speak.

You seem to be conflating ethno-nationalism with racism also. Those aren't the same thing.

But the fact that people can convert through all races and not be discriminated against via written stuff in their holy books proves my point I think. Ethnic groups are basically always members of the same race and background.
 
The Dalai Lama is a tibetan supremacist.

The Dalai Lama claimed yesterday that Beijing was planning the mass settlement of 1 million ethnic Chinese people in Tibet with the aim of diluting Tibetan culture and identity.

"There is every danger Tibet becomes a truly Han Chinese land and Tibetans become an insignificant minority. Then the very basis of the idea of autonomy becomes meaningless."

For sure the worst person in greater China.
 
Well the thing about Rwanda, and an awful lot of other African states, is that they aren't experiments in nationalism. There was no attempt to organize those states on a national level. They drew borders around the former external colonial boundaries that didn't correspond well at all to actual boundaries between national groups.
There was an attempt to impose nationalism on states like Rwanda within the framework of the arbitrary borders you're talking about. Often this was done through things like expanded public education(which produces nationalist propaganda) and conscription by post colonial authoritarian leaders. And as I said earlier what is and isn't a national group changes over time since nations themselves are just imagined communities based on the perception and belief of a shared culture. So the actual boundaries between national groups is what they say it is and its something that changes over time and can lead to irredentist claims on the territory of other counters as we see in places like the Horn of Africa.

And the argument you're using sounds a little like the no true Scotsman arguments used by communists who claim the USSR didn't have real communism. Even if some of these states don't fit the dictionary definition of nation, nationalism as a set of organizing principles was still imposed upon them and has contributed to systemic dysfunction in parts of the world
 
There was an attempt to impose nationalism on states like Rwanda within the framework of the arbitrary borders you're talking about. Often this was done through things like expanded public education(which produces nationalist propaganda) and conscription by post colonial authoritarian leaders. And as I said earlier what is and isn't a national group changes over time since nations themselves are just imagined communities based on the perception and belief of a shared culture. So the actual boundaries between national groups is what they say it is and its something that changes over time and can lead to irredentist claims on the territory of other counters as we see in places like the Horn of Africa.

And the argument you're using sounds a little like the no true Scotsman arguments used by communists who claim the USSR didn't have real communism. Even if some of these states don't fit the dictionary definition of nation, nationalism as a set of organizing principles was still imposed upon them and has contributed to systemic dysfunction in parts of the world
There was no attempt at all to impose a nationalist government on Rwanda, and this certainly aided in the mischief that occurred there. They simply slapped borders around a map that cut down the middle of two national groups. The creation of a multinational state cannot sensibly be construed as nationalism.

Imposing a national government would have been wiser and would have entailed giving the Hutus a state and the Tutsis a state.
 
That has nothing to do with what I said.

What I said is that it never comes up as a stand alone point, it's only brought up when juxtaposed against african-americans. It's possible that I haven't seen it but is there any time that you can think of where white nationalists brought up Asian superiority without also bringing up things related to black America?

Even the Harvard lawsuit is predicated on dismantling affirmative action as unfairly helping blacks. Anyway, direct me to a standalone argument about Asian superiority raised by white nationalists. This isn't me asking you to prove Asian superiority, btw. Just evidence of the market argument presented solely by itself.

Have you ever seen one of the race or geography based IQ graphs on a white nationalist/supremacist/segregationist website?

Or are you saying that white nationalists only openly promote the higher average IQ's of Jews and Asians because it allows them to take shots at blacks and Latinos?

(By comparison, a guy like Hitler believed that Aryans were superior, in both intellect and athleticism, to all other races. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary.)
 
So basically this Richard Spencer fellow has not said anything that has not already been repeated many times over on this forum, and other kinds of forums.

Thanks Captain Obvious. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
Let's say for example you are a working class white Republican that voted for Trump from a small US rural town.
Wouldnt you have more in common with your black or Hispanic neighbor that also is a republican and voted for Trump?
Has the same daily lifestyle you have. Might even share the same job or friends and hobbies.

Compared to a white software developer in NY or LA with far left political views that voted for the Green Party?
That doesn't understand the rural lifestyle. Doesn't have the same hobbies etc.

Why would the white person have more in commen with you even if everything is different except the skin color.
You are still most likely a different race unless you are both German or both Slavs etc.
But the chance of you two being racily pure are slim. Because of the US white people "race mixing".

I would have far more in common with the person from a different race I would consider him my people.
Compared to a person that lives on the other end of the country and lives a completely different lifestyle.

Babble. The vast majority of whites want to live amongst other whites, the same as the vast majority of blacks want to live amongst other blacks.
 
Back
Top