Africa is over 90% black and you call that 'diverse' because there's 1-10% of Asians, whites, arabs, etc.., yet a white-majority country that's only 60% white, you're screaming that's not diverse enough? See the problem with your reasoning? Your standard for 'diverse' seems to raise significantly when talking about white countries.

By the same standard you hold Africa, USA was plenty 'diverse' in the 1950s when it was 90% white. So we could've closed the borders and still been considered a multicultural society under your paradigm.

A nation doesn't have to be 100% of an ethnicity to be 'their own', but it does have to be a heavy majority where they promote their own ethnic interests, which is allowed in every country except white majority ones. That's my point.

If Africa is for blacks, then perhaps whites deserve to be mistreated in Rhodesia and South Africa?

There is no Africa for Africans or America for Americans. Might is right. People who want to stake out a claim on your land will do it if they can. What's messed up is so many Europeans are welcoming them with open arms. The Anglos and Danes had to take England by force, whites took America and Africa by force, Russians took Siberia by force, etc.

No race is entitled to their own homeland, but they are entitled to fight for it. The idea that we have to accept mass immigration out of some obligation is the pinnacle of cuck to me.

Quote: (12-07-2016 01:28 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Africa is over 90% black and you call that 'diverse' because there's 1-10% of Asians, whites, arabs, etc.., yet a white-majority country that's only 60% white, you're screaming that's not diverse enough? See the problem with your reasoning? Your standard for 'diverse' seems to raise significantly when talking about white countries. Hmmmm

A nation doesn't have to be 100% of an ethnicity to be 'their own', but it does have to be a heavy majority where they promote their own ethnic interests, which is allowed in every country except white majority ones. That's my point.

All of the New Hampshire is 98% White. Virtually all of the Northern MidWest is White.

The same laws that apply to immigration in the MidWest apply to virtually any country in Africa or Asia. They don't discriminate citizenship based on race in any of these countries.

At most, you can argue against Mass Immigration, which 95% of this forum is opposed to. Mass Immigration is indeed toxic and fatal for a country. But with limited, controlled immigration - what is the big deal? The majority race will absorb newcomers over successive generations.

Quote: (12-07-2016 02:07 PM)Grodin Wrote:  

If Africa is for blacks, then perhaps whites deserve to be mistreated in Rhodesia and South Africa?

There is no Africa for Africans or America for Americans. Might is right. People who want to stake out a claim on your land will do it if they can. What's messed up is so many Europeans are welcoming them with open arms. The Anglos and Danes had to take England by force, whites took America and Africa by force, Russians took Siberia by force, etc.

No race is entitled to their own homeland, but if you're saying their entitled to fight for it I agree.

This is also completely 100% true. All of the "deserves" talk is just talk. Unless you have force to back it up, you've got nothing.

http://www.returnofkings.com/10535/the-s...-they-must

Quote: (12-07-2016 07:24 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

The clock is ticking on his 15 minutes.

Disagree. Right now the media needs him to represent the big bad Nazi angle for counter signaling. As long as he keeps doing speeches and granting interviews, you will keep hearing about him. The only way he goes away is if he just quits.

100%.

The media loves him because he's more popular than David Duke, and just as easy to lampoon and use as controllable opposition.

Spencer isn't smart enough to avoid the media's attacks or win in debates, so the media loves him as the dumb opposition. He will be given plenty of airtime just like David Duke gets, despite the fact Duke being a mediocre mind.

I think MikeCF is turning out to be correct in denouncing Spencer. Spencer is turning out to be a terrible ally to have.

Quote: (12-07-2016 02:07 PM)Grodin Wrote:  

No race is entitled to their own homeland, but they are entitled to fight for it.

That's the point- It wouldn't even be a fight, whites would easily take it all (except China). Which is precisely why globalists want whites gone, bred out of existence, identity removed, etc...

The only way they can succeed is a mass brainwashing of whites that they shouldn't fight. Right now you're telling every race / group they should fight for it except whites.

Quote: (12-07-2016 02:07 PM)Grodin Wrote:  

If Africa is for blacks, then perhaps whites deserve to be mistreated in Rhodesia and South Africa?

There is no Africa for Africans or America for Americans. Might is right. People who want to stake out a claim on your land will do it if they can. What's messed up is so many Europeans are welcoming them with open arms. The Anglos and Danes had to take England by force, whites took America and Africa by force, Russians took Siberia by force, etc.

No race is entitled to their own homeland, but they are entitled to fight for it. The idea that we have to accept mass immigration out of some obligation is the pinnacle of cuck to me.

I liked this comment not because I agree with it in it's entirety but because he flipped the entire discussion on it's head and made a valid point in the process. Richard Spencer is incapable of this level of mastery in debate and for that reason he is not ready for prime time. Bravo Grodin.

Quote: (12-07-2016 02:35 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

I liked this comment not because I agree with it in it's entirety but because he flipped the entire discussion on it's head and made a valid point in the process. Richard Spencer is incapable of this level of mastery in debate and for that reason he is not ready for prime time. Bravo Grodin.

My views are a lot more complex than this, but I kept it simple to drive home the point. This idea of continental races and homelands is a myth

I don't like to get involved in these race "discussions" because they usually just become a show-room for ignorance, stupidity, personal neuroses, obsessions, and insecurities.

But sometimes it's necessary. We should never let racism or ethnic bigotry infect our minds, no matter what form it takes. Sometimes it comes across as silky smooth "realism"; other times it camouflages itself with different coloring.

Racists, bigots, and other douchebags need to be called out. Sp5 has been doing it recently, and quite eloquently. Anonymous Bosch has done it with his own trademark psychoanalytic brilliance. And now Atlanta Man is carrying on the tradition. And he's doing it with logic, dignity, and a hell of a lot of patience. He's not hiding out somewhere; he's confronting the bullshit, the pseudo-science, and the chickenshit directly.

Much respect, AM.

I like the example set by Ernst Junger. He was a conservative guy who liked to fight. He was a brave man, but he hated racist bigots. He refused to allow his books to be used as propaganda by Nazism. He wanted nothing whatsoever to do with Nazism, racism or anti-Semitism.

What great man have you ever heard of who was a racist or a bigot? None. It's all about greatness of soul. Small, petty, venomous little chickenshits who are failures at life or love are bigots or racists. Like this guy Spencer.

This Richard Spencer character looks to me like a chickenshit little punk. That's my impression. A rich boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I don't see him as very educated or intelligent. Who the fuck is he to say what ethnic group the US is for?

The history of the world is the history of population movements. Organisms are born, grow, move around, and die. No race or ethnicity has any claim to be more "legitimate" or "wonderful" than any other. America was not "made" for any race or group. Neither was any other country, including Israel (I don't give them a pass, either). No one has any sacred claim to anything. You only have what you are willing to fight for. Period.

Countries belong to their inhabitants. You don't like what's going on? Then stop whining, get in there, and compete.

All of this racial shit disgusts me. I see it as a cloak that chickenshits hide behind to avoid doing the brutally hard work it takes to become a better man. They don't want to study, work out, mix with other people, and challenge themselves. These people want to hide behind venom and malice. Our focus--my focus--is about developing greatness of soul (magnitudo animi). Character is what matters, not "racial identity."

I want nothing to do with any of these corrupt, immoral people. Because that's what they are: debased and immoral.

.

Quote: (12-07-2016 01:28 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Africa is over 90% black and you call that 'diverse' because there's 1-10% of Asians, whites, arabs, etc.., yet a white-majority country that's only 60% white, you're screaming that's not diverse enough?

Nobody is arguing that, let alone "screaming" it. Quit acting like a woman.

Quote: (12-07-2016 02:14 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Quote: (12-07-2016 02:07 PM)Grodin Wrote:  

No race is entitled to their own homeland, but they are entitled to fight for it.

That's the point- It wouldn't even be a fight, whites would easily take it all (except China). Which is precisely why globalists want whites gone, bred out of existence, identity removed, etc...

The only way they can succeed is a mass brainwashing of whites that they shouldn't fight. Right now you're telling every race / group they should fight for it except whites.

Stop twisting his words, that's not what he said. I'm starting to get tired of this white nationalist victimhood complex. It's so incredibly embarrassing. The same SJWs you will end up deriding are are the ones whose ideology you have just co-opted.

And I do not think you understand what globalism is or what their true end goal is. Globalism has nothing to do with whites. They are actually a rather convenient pawn. Take the US and Germany for example.

Industrialization = cultural marxism = low birth rates = 3rd world male immigration = fears of white extinction

So what does that mean? It means that Anglo countries will be the prime targets; reactionary elements are sitting ducks and are being drawn out on purpose based on fear tactics. Globalism is more about overall economic and military power changing hands and a stronger figurehead at the helm of loosely organized countries. It's about countries bending at the will of one power, tacitly--through legislation and sanctions.

If you want a white enclave or live in a white country, move to Russia/Eastern Europe. But again, I'm raising eyeborws at that because that is incredibly intellectually lazy on the part of a lot 1488 crew, it's almost a meme at this point. It wasn't until recently that ethnic Caucasians (i.e. slavs) were added to the contingent of 'whites' to strengthen their coalition. Earlier, only Anglo-Germanic (England, France, Germany, Dutch, Scandi) were considered 'real whites'. Everyone else (including Celts) were known by their ethnic group. But as of late, they've been feeling the heat and running with their tails in between their legs to these so-called sanctuaries.

I linked a video earlier of Afrikaners building their own city, for their own people, closed to outsiders. I haven't seen or heard any tangible solutions to these guys' problem who lament the existence of a continental homeland. I hear a lot of whining and moaning. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if they really even care about it at all. These guys would rather wail, but all I'm seeing is abject laziness on their part. They don't wanna pay the cost to be the boss.

Quote: (12-07-2016 11:44 AM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Whites having their own homeland like every other race is a separate issue from whether you think whites are superior or not.

Aborigines, Somalis deserve their own ethnic lands with their people. Maybe they are lower IQ and primitive but that's not relevant to a people having their own community. No one questions that they get their own territories. Somalia is bigger than Germany, no one complains that it lacks diversity.

So why can't whites have our own territories? That's what this is about, the quality / IQ arguments are secondary to that core concept. The only conclusion is they want to genocide whites.

Wow. Even stupid people get countries, but not white folks!

You do realize there are countries in Europe where white people are free to maintain their bloodlines and identify with. Germany, got the Germans, Sweden has the swedes and so on.

I met a white guy once. His name was Mr. Dobalina, Mr. Bob Dobalina. I asked him "Bob, where are you from?" And he said "Well my moms family is Irish and Italian, and my dads is German and Norwayish."

So can't that guy go back to any of those four countries and just live an proud and happy life?

As I've said earlier in this thread, black people in America are required to just be black because prior to 1880 the records of where they are from are a little rough.

But why do white people just gotta be "white" and feel they need a white only country where your origin doesn't matter as long as you are Caucasian?

It just makes no sense to me. Guys like Richard Spencer and some on the forum want to be able to celebrate their Heritage and be proud of their identity, but they don't want it to go further than white. Are they embarassed of their Germaneness or Britishness?

The only reason I see for it is because they don't like other people, and want to be a much bigger majority. Its as though they are saying "well black has black, so we should get white!"

And then you read something like my Caucasian homeboy Disco Volare wrote above where it compares Somalia to Germany. Just a reminder, in Germany, live a whole lot of Germans.

Aloha!

Quote: (12-07-2016 03:10 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

What great man have you ever heard of who was a racist or a bigot? None. It's all about greatness of soul. Small, petty, venomous little chickenshits who are failures at life or love are bigots or racists. Like this guy Spencer.

Lots throughout history.

Good lord do you love to virtue signal....

Del the Funky Homosapian!!! Uh one two , uh one two, I like it!

Quote: (12-06-2016 09:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I love Spencer's cop out. Black girl asks, "Do you believe Whites are superior?"

Spencer: "There is no objective standard to judge the races."

Then why did Spencer end his NPI speech with "They need us, we don't need them"?

He's not so tough when the room isn't 100% White.

By the way - I'm no White nationalist. I think Whites are superior, on average, to the other races. Why can't Mr. Roman Salute man say the same thing to a Black girl?

Where is the testicular fortitude?

Of course you´re not a white nationalist; you´re Asian. Have some pride in who you are, there´s no way you can be doing well in life if you carry this inferiority complex.

^ Posts: 1.

Well played mate. Well played.

Quote: (12-07-2016 05:03 PM)Andre3k Wrote:  

Of course you´re not a white nationalist; you´re Asian. Have some pride in who you are, there´s no way you can be doing well in life if you carry this inferiority complex.

10/10 Strong First Post and Imminent Ban Pending


I don't care what race Sam is, he's a pillar of this forum.

Quote: (12-07-2016 05:03 PM)Andre3k Wrote:  

Quote: (12-06-2016 09:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

By the way - I'm no White nationalist. I think Whites are superior, on average, to the other races.

Of course you´re not a white nationalist; you´re Asian. Have some pride in who you are, there´s no way you can be doing well in life if you carry this inferiority complex.

Quote: (12-07-2016 05:03 PM)Andre3k Wrote:  

Of course you´re not a white nationalist; you´re Asian. Have some pride in who you are, there´s no way you can be doing well in life if you carry this inferiority complex.

Can we just rename this thread "schism in the RVF"?

He gets points for naming himself after one of the best rappers of the last 20 years though.

Quote: (12-07-2016 05:41 PM)the high Wrote:  

He gets points for naming himself after one of the best rappers of the last 20 years though.

And got banned after 1 post, as predicted.

ATLiens is one of my favorite albums !

Quote: (12-07-2016 04:20 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Quote: (12-07-2016 03:10 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

What great man have you ever heard of who was a racist or a bigot? None. It's all about greatness of soul. Small, petty, venomous little chickenshits who are failures at life or love are bigots or racists. Like this guy Spencer.

Lots throughout history.

Good lord do you love to virtue signal....

Quintus doesn't virtue signal, nor has he ever bothered with it. Read his blog, follow his twitter, and you will understand where he is coming from.

His understanding of history is outstanding. There are few on this forum that even compare.

He is absolutely correct when it comes to actual examples of bigoted men who failed throughout history - they couldn't see beyond it.

If you can't see the bigger picture, you will fail. While race does matter, it's a reality that changes with almost every major war.

Colonization completely changed the racial composition of south and central America. Same thing with North America.

Look at Asia and the Middleast. The mongol invasion greatly changed the demographics. So did the Germanic tribes, the Visigoths, and Ostrogoths, and those that conquered Rome after.

They created a kind of new culture while adapting some of the Roman that they conquered. The spread of Christianity which was adopted throughout Europe by the "barbarians" created a new order. Spencer deliberately ignores and dismisses it because of the implications it has.

White European culture is rotten. The foundations have been carved away. A new better culture will take its place. This doesn't mean that its going to be the immigrants from Africa who do it. It just means that a new culture and kind of people will arise from the ashes and hardship.

Quote: (12-07-2016 01:28 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Africa is over 90% black and you call that 'diverse' because there's 1-10% of Asians, whites, arabs, etc.., yet a white-majority country that's only 60% white, you're screaming that's not diverse enough? See the problem with your reasoning? Your standard for 'diverse' seems to raise significantly when talking about white countries.

By the same standard you hold Africa, USA was plenty 'diverse' in the 1950s when it was 90% white. So we could've closed the borders and still been considered a multicultural society under your paradigm.

A nation doesn't have to be 100% of an ethnicity to be 'their own', but it does have to be a heavy majority where they promote their own ethnic interests, which is allowed in every country except white majority ones. That's my point.

This idea that all non-white nations are ethnic monoliths is a little ridiculous. Sure, societies like South Korea and Japan might be extremely homogenous, but almost every North African, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Central Asian country is fairly ethnically and culturally diverse. And even if they aren't (smaller nations like Tunisia or Jordan, for example), the phenotypes of their populations are extremely heterogenous.

I'm currently living in Morocco. On the morning bus I see some people who could pass for Spaniards or Frenchmen, some who look like your stereotypical brown Arab, some who are a little darker, some who are straight up black, and then others who fit in somewhere between this spectrum. Then there are plenty of French and West African expats, along with a refugee population from the Congo and from Syria. Obviously Morocco isn't free from racial problems, but it nevertheless is a diverse place. Similar stories in literally every country between Morocco and Bangladesh. These demographics make sense given that these regions have been run through by all kinds of people since the beginning of time (Akkadians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Mongols, depending on the region).

Quote: (12-07-2016 05:51 PM)armenia4ever Wrote:  

Quote: (12-07-2016 04:20 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Quote: (12-07-2016 03:10 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

What great man have you ever heard of who was a racist or a bigot? None. It's all about greatness of soul. Small, petty, venomous little chickenshits who are failures at life or love are bigots or racists. Like this guy Spencer.

Lots throughout history.

Good lord do you love to virtue signal....

Quintus doesn't virtue signal, nor has he ever bothered with it. Read his blog, follow his twitter, and you will understand where he is coming from.

His understanding of history is outstanding. There are few on this forum that even compare.

He is absolutely correct when it comes to actual examples of bigoted men who failed throughout history - they couldn't see beyond it.

If you can't see the bigger picture, you will fail. While race does matter, it's a reality that changes with almost every major war.

Colonization completely changed the racial composition of south and central America. Same thing with North America.

Look at Asia and the Middleast. The mongol invasion greatly changed the demographics. So did the Germanic tribes, the Visigoths, and Ostrogoths, and those that conquered Rome after.

They created a kind of new culture while adapting some of the Roman that they conquered. The spread of Christianity which was adopted throughout Europe by the "barbarians" created a new order. Spencer deliberately ignores and dismisses it because of the implications it has.

White European culture is rotten. The foundations have been carved away. A new better culture will take its place. This doesn't mean that its going to be the immigrants from Africa who do it. It just means that a new culture and kind of people will arise from the ashes and hardship.

I really gotta second your statements about QC especially his blog and Twitter. He is like the Manosphere's personal historian even though he is a Lawyer by trade. He is like our own personal Dan Carlin (Hardcore History) and he really takes the time to thoroughly research his Blog posts and gives great historical perspectives. I am impressed with his historical knowledge because it is all around historical knowledge not just confined to one particular era of history. I find his analysis of great battles, weapons and strategies particularly insightful.

Now back on thread- Does anyone here think Spencer is aware how poorly he comes off? Does anyone think he will improve his public appearances and not keep screwing the pooch? Roosh did not do well on Dr Oz, but he was ambushed and unfairly edited- Since then every time he has been put on the hot seat he has performed well and that deconstruction of the press after the meet up hoopla ("Do you even lift?" fucking classic!) was an undeniable win for him. Roosh has steadily improved every time. I have only seen Spencer show regression and even resort to having his sympathizers get aggressive(the Q and A at Texas A and M- one of them snatched the mic from a black girl when Spencer could not give a straight answer). Roosh would never get aggressive, Milo never gets aggressive and both of them have faced far worse. They went after Roosh's family, and he held frame.