The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Printable Version

+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread (/thread-59469.html)

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Il Bersagliere - 12-01-2016

Just gonna leave this here -

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - aeroektar - 12-01-2016

This thread is shit.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - wi30 - 12-01-2016

Quote: (12-01-2016 07:44 PM)Kona Wrote:  

We have both done that.

Now, I'd like to hear some stories about how white guys have been discriminated against just for being white.

Let's hear some personal accounts of this vilification.

Aloha!

I once walked into a White Castle in Detroit and everyone kind of looked at me funny.

#WhitePeopleProbz

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Repo - 12-01-2016

I find it interesting that people who either support or understand the want for white nationalism can't fathom the idea that many white business owners would rather hire white workers to maintain their companies culture in the same manner. Anyone who has ever managed people or owned a business knows that culture is a huge part of an organized team, sometimes moreso than technical skills.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Roosh - 12-01-2016

Media is trying to get the IRS after Spencer:

Quote:Quote:

Richard Spencer, the face of a white-nationalist group that gained notoriety and momentum after Donald Trump’s election, has been allowed by the federal government to operate his nonprofit organization in financial secrecy for the past three years.

Spencer’s think tank, the National Policy Institute, has not filed financial returns with the federal government since 2013, according to a database of nonprofit records. That has allowed the institute to avoid public scrutiny at a time when the alt-right — the term Spencer coined to describe a movement seeking a whites-only state — has garnered international attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the...ge%2Fstory

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - weambulance - 12-01-2016

Quote: (12-01-2016 08:59 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

As to the post directly above mine, I would classify myself as an American nationalist. I believe that most Americans of every color want to be considered Americans, and to better America as a country--with the possible exception of some illegal immigra. I think that the rhetoric of white nationalists is extremely harmful to this goal, which I believe is a noble one. For that reason we should strongly disassociate ourselves from these types--because enabling them will alienate the millions of other Americans who strongly agree with us.

While this sounds noble and good, the reality is even if white people don't play the identity politics game everyone else already is. White nationalism is a reaction to that.

The 2016 election divided more clearly along racial lines than any others. A majority of white people voted for Mr. Trump. Every minority group voted for Hillary, by large-to-enormous margins.

If you want America to become great again and stay great, you'd better hope white people stay a pretty decent majority of the population.

I see this post I made was completely ignored. So all you downtrodden masses, explain to me how America is going to stay great when minorities vote overwhelmingly for exactly the policies that are going to kill the golden goose?



I don't care about what happened 50+ years ago. I care about now. I have never oppressed any minorities so you can get fucked if you want to play that emotional game.

Also, anyone asking for stories of discrimination against white people (with the implication that it doesn't happen) while also pushing for affirmative action has serious tolerance for cognitive dissonance. Affirmative action is by definition discrimination against white people. If you can't see how, I can't help you, and you should take a 9th grade logic class to fix that hole in your education.

But here's one anyway. My mother used to work for a company that was on the early edge of diversity hiring practices. If you were a white man, you weren't gonna get hired. They would let positions sit empty rather than hire a white man. My father has plenty of stories like that from that particular era. I'm sure as a very successful engineer who retired at 55 he was just making it up though.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - weambulance - 12-01-2016

Quote: (12-01-2016 08:14 PM)Repo Wrote:  

I find it interesting that people who either support or understand the want for white nationalism can't fathom the idea that many white business owners would rather hire white workers to maintain their companies culture in the same manner. Anyone who has ever managed people or owned a business knows that culture is a huge part of an organized team, sometimes moreso than technical skills.

Is this what you meant to say? Do people who understand or support white nationalism generally oppose businesses being able to hire whomever they want without coercive policies set by the government? That might be true, I dunno. I'm not that wired into the white nationalism scene.

Or did you live out "don't" in your first sentence?

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Suits - 12-01-2016

Hey guys. Minorities are funny and smart.

Get over it.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Comte De St. Germain - 12-01-2016

Quote: (12-01-2016 09:11 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

I see this post I made was completely ignored. So all you downtrodden masses, explain to me how America is going to stay great when minorities vote overwhelmingly for exactly the policies that are going to kill the golden goose?

What was the minority vote compared to Mittens in 2012?

I believe it was generally higher than in that election.


It's not a black-white thing(get it?) at this point, but a simple fact that the Democrat party has a monopoly on minority vote that is slowly changing in many ways. The hope with Trump precisely is that more minorities get turned on to voting Conservative.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Repo - 12-01-2016

@weambulance

I said what I meant. Those people would generally want no government intervention, and hence be opposed to Affirmative Action. My point was that black people are at some amount of a disadvantage, because in the US many people would still rather hire white workers to maintain the current culture. A common argument, though I did not see it stated by anyome here, is that managers or owners actually would prefer to have the worker most qualified. Though this is true for some managers, it is still extremely common for owners or managers to favor people who they think would fit into the culture, even if that workers is somewhat less qualified than another candidate. Which in many cases results in more white hires, giving whites an advantage. However, I do acknowledge the importance of maintaining a strong culture to be effective, but recognize that this hurts many people unfairly, since judgements can be made without actually knowing the person.

I did not state what I think should be done about this, because I think this is a very complex topic if you consider all viewpoints.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Leonard D Neubache - 12-01-2016

Sadly what we're staring down the barrel of (here in Australia too, but less so) is that you can perceive the existence of racism in many ways.

The most fundamental racial issues that have cropped up in the last few decades have occurred because powerful left wing lobby groups successfully pushed for the idea that you could measure racism by Disparate Impact.

This meant (for example) that if more black men per capita were being arrested then racism was a foregone conclusion. It rested on the principle, which was not up for debate, that everyone is inherently the same regardless of their race and culture, and therefore any measurable difference in the statistical outcomes of those groups was attributable only to racism.

This in turn left the door open to the marxist collectivists to "fix" the outcomes by handing out jobs or money or reduced sentencing in order to supposedly balance the scales.

Decades later we have a very tangled web of grievances and entitlements that have utterly destroyed any genuine sense of equality, brought about arguably by bad actors bringing down the west, supported and enabled by idealistic useful idiots.

The bottom line? The current arrangement is tapped out. Believe it. We no longer live high on the hog the way we did prior to 2008. There's not enough government hush-money sloshing around to smooth things over. To buy everyone off.

Our chickens are coming home to roost.

Any minority who wants to be taken seriously as a part of their society in the years to come will have little choice but to be as vocal as possible about how much they despise the assholes that ruin things for their race/religion, and they also need to disavow themselves of the retarded members of the majority races/religions that treat them like domesticated animals in need of special care.

Observe.






This video has done more for race relations than 30 years of Democrat "equality".

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - weambulance - 12-01-2016

Quote: (12-01-2016 09:36 PM)Repo Wrote:  

@weambulance

I said what I meant. Those people would generally want no government intervention, and hence be opposed to Affirmative Action. My point was that black people are at some amount of a disadvantage, because in the US many people would still rather hire white workers to maintain the current culture. A common argument, though I did not see it stated by anyome here, is that managers or owners actually would prefer to have the worker most qualified. Though this is true for some managers, it is still extremely common for owners or managers to favor people who they think would fit into the culture, even if that workers is somewhat less qualified than another candidate. Which in many cases results in more white hires, giving whites an advantage. However, I do acknowledge the importance of maintaining a strong culture to be effective, but recognize that this hurts many people unfairly, since judgements can be made without actually knowing the person.

I did not state what I think should be done about this, because I think this is a very complex topic if you consider all viewpoints.

Okay, so... I'm pretty sure white nationalists can fathom that. They just don't think it's a problem. And any intellectually honest person who took that position would say if it's okay for white businesses to preferentially hire white people, consciously or not, then it's just as okay for black, hispanic, or asian businesses to do the same.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Silver_Tube - 12-01-2016

I think the battle of our time is more red vs blue pill, common man against elitist depopulation agenda than it is about race. but I still feel the racial tension everywhere.

I wish whites were allowed to defend their group and share pride in their heritage the way all other races can. They way things seem to be changing, maybe they will finally seize that right against all resistance from the other groups.

I don't feel like it's time for that yet though. This excessive blue pill mental poison needs to be stamped out first.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - weambulance - 12-01-2016

Quote: (12-01-2016 09:26 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

What was the minority vote compared to Mittens in 2012?

I believe it was generally higher than in that election.

It's not a black-white thing(get it?) at this point, but a simple fact that the Democrat party has a monopoly on minority vote that is slowly changing in many ways. The hope with Trump precisely is that more minorities get turned on to voting Conservative.

Yes, the minority vote for the R ticket was slightly higher this year than in 2012. But it was much lower than 2004. Gosh, I wonder what shifted the minority votes so bigly in 2008?

I suppose we could all sit around, sing kumbaya, and wish for racial unity. Hey, I hope we do come together. Contrary to claims of about half the thread, I am not a white supremacist and I don't hate minorities.

But I'm also not going to support importing them by the boatload when I know they're just going to go on welfare at extremely high rates and vote democrat, which will implement the exact policies that will kill the golden goose.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Repo - 12-01-2016

Whether its ok or not for businesses to do that, it is happening, and with whites owning or managing more businesses than other groups in the US, it does negatively effect other minorities, especially blacks. And yet many people here are denying that they are at a disadvantage, which I disagree with. Thats all, I fear I am off topic so I'm done.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Comte De St. Germain - 12-01-2016

Quote: (12-01-2016 09:50 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Quote: (12-01-2016 09:26 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

What was the minority vote compared to Mittens in 2012?

I believe it was generally higher than in that election.

It's not a black-white thing(get it?) at this point, but a simple fact that the Democrat party has a monopoly on minority vote that is slowly changing in many ways. The hope with Trump precisely is that more minorities get turned on to voting Conservative.

Yes, the minority vote for the R ticket was slightly higher this year than in 2012. But it was much lower than 2004. Gosh, I wonder what shifted the minority votes so bigly in 2008?

I suppose we could all sit around, sing kumbaya, and wish for racial unity. Hey, I hope we do come together. Contrary to claims of about half the thread, I am not a white supremacist and I don't hate minorities.

But I'm also not going to support importing them by the boatload when I know they're just going to go on welfare at extremely high rates and vote democrat, which will implement the exact policies that will kill the golden goose.

2004 was another climate and much less racially charged. Race became a big thing under Obama more than anything(started after Katrina in 06' though). So yes with Trump the change should be there. He himself consistently brags about how he'll help get minorities off welfare and into the workplace while helping their communities. This is the hope that we have in him. Just tonight he was arguing about UNIFYING the country. Because we're Americans. And that the media and the people in D.C. are the ones dividing us by race, occupation, place of birth, etc.

And if anything we're pro-LEGAL immigration here on the forum and no one here has EVER argued for importing them by the boatload. Enforcing the current laws on the books with a more stringent screening process from certain high-terrorist areas(to be determined what kind of process) will do just fine to limit immigration that we don't want.

It took myself 14 years to get citizenship in the States. Couple that with the idea of deportation in case a someone who gets passed all that screening commits a crime past a certain severity while not yet a citizen and you'll be just fine with the quality of immigrant.

What I and many others are arguing against though is the creation of a in some strange notion that a "White" United States at this point and if race should be even stressed as some kind of unifier. I think other posters wanted Christianity to be that unifier which is much more debatable(personally I think ideals[key ideals of the Constitution enshrined in the purpose/spirit of the Constitution], principles, and sense of ethics are much better unifier so the socialist cucks can BTFO).

Arguing about race is like arguing against gay marriage. You're not going to get either done in today's climate so why bother right now with it. What you can do is control the quality of immigrant/limit the number of immigrant and talk about that or get those horrid, degenerate gay pride parades off the streets as that's public indecency.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - weambulance - 12-01-2016

^

Which countries will these legal immigrants be coming from?

I've already said I think we need to stop immigration period for quite awhile. We do not need more people in this country. But if we're going to allow immigration, where are they going to come from?

Are we going to keep up this scheme?



And I will repeat myself: for all you might find it distasteful to use race as a unifier, every other group already is. Every. Other. Group. When someone is punching you in the face, you can espouse your pacifism all you want. You're still getting your ass kicked.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Comte De St. Germain - 12-01-2016

Quote: (12-01-2016 11:07 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

^

Which countries will these legal immigrants be coming from?

I've already said I think we need to stop immigration period for quite awhile. We do not need more people in this country. But if we're going to allow immigration, where are they going to come from?

Are we going to keep up this scheme?

Realize enforcement of the current laws on the books make it hard for those who can and realize most immigration stop usually in the home country. It's pretty damned hard to get even a Visa to the United States.

My own family thankfully came from money(relative to the rest of the country as "rich" there means middle class here) so we were hurried through compared to everyone else and their mother that buys the American dream abroad(this mentality is still very much alive American branding as the country of opportunity has stuck).

And in my humble opinion there's a lot of land to settle as it is. There are backwater towns that are dying with less than a 100 people in them at times. If anything immigration should be allowed from a high tier group of immigrants so they can help to a degree colonize these areas that need development. And once jobs start coming back those factories and that industry will need space. What better than those ready to accept those values that made this country great?

Quote:Quote:

And I will repeat myself: for all you might find it distasteful to use race as a unifier, every other group already is. Every. Other. Group. When someone is punching you in the face, you can espouse your pacifism all you want. You're still getting your ass kicked.

Why do you think the left is failing hard? It's precisely because the left has annoyed the hell out of everyone(including even the average college liberal) with identity politics. You see people visibly gagging at the BLM losers chanting and reposting about how ineffectual and retarded they are(going into libraries and going off about oppression). Only on sheltered Ivy League campuses(excepting Dartmouth and a few others) are people really backing the narrative en masse.

Most Americans could give less of a shit about race. Everyone is tired of it. Fuck this forum is even tired of it which is why we're airing it all out here.

And you know what else? Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean we should. Do you really want to emulate the SJWs and BLM losers with identity politics? Are you going to approve the anti-masculinity narrative because everyone else is doing it(or bash on the very concept of women rather than the culture that surrounds them with those ideas and toxic programming)?

We're not doing it because we know we are better than them. Because we're damned exceptional. That our ideas are enough to push us through. That's why we won. We had the better message. All they had was an aging old crone. That was "female".

It's not pacifism they're coming with hand guns of "YOU'RE A WHITE MALE!!!!111" and we have the tanks of actual ideals and values. And that is not synonymous with white. Christianity, constitution, philosophy, history, and action maybe, but being a certain skin tone no. It's because "White" people developed the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals that we live here today. It wasn't simply because they were white.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Comte De St. Germain - 12-01-2016

And fuck I hate the term white. Shared European heritage my ass. French, German, English, Russian, Serbian, Croatian, Romanian, etc. There's so many and each had their own view on life and own culture.

All these white nationalists harp on about some kind of great white monolith, but that's the farthest thing from the truth. Even today there's small bits of animosity between Sweden and Denmark over a few bits of land.

I remember Hemingway writing in The Sun Also Rises about how only the Spanish could understand the concept of afficion when it came to bullfighting. That's not synonymous with white. It's synonymous with being Spanish. It's an ideal and a mantra to live by.

Much in the same way as the Slavic soul(read some Pushkin or Tolstoy) or the German work ethic. America developed a similar culture too, and it accepted all whom were willing to adapt to this new American ideal of hard work and perseverance. That everyone could make it that built it's own little set of ideas that were to a degree enshrined in the Constitution.

It's an acceptance of culture and values more than it is something as completely inane/boring as skin color.

Edit: It's like whitey automatically knows how to blend in from abroad, but everyone else can't. And for the record this wasn't directed at you weambulance since you were talking about stopping all immigration all together hence why I made it a separate post.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - weambulance - 12-02-2016

Quote: (12-01-2016 11:43 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

Quote: (12-01-2016 11:07 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

^

Which countries will these legal immigrants be coming from?

I've already said I think we need to stop immigration period for quite awhile. We do not need more people in this country. But if we're going to allow immigration, where are they going to come from?

Are we going to keep up this scheme?

Realize enforcement of the current laws on the books make it hard for those who can and realize most immigration stop usually in the home country. It's pretty damned hard to get even a Visa to the United States.

My own family thankfully came from money(relative to the rest of the country as "rich" there means middle class here) so we were hurried through compared to everyone else and their mother that buys the American dream abroad(this mentality is still very much alive American branding as the country of opportunity has stuck).

And in my humble opinion there's a lot of land to settle as it is. There are backwater towns that are dying with less than a 100 people in them at times. If anything immigration should be allowed from a high tier group of immigrants so they can help to a degree colonize these areas that need development. And once jobs start coming back those factories and that industry will need space. What better than those ready to accept those values that made this country great?

You didn't really answer my question. And I can see you don't understand why it's a problem that we prioritize immigration from those countries at the top of the list. It ain't because the people are non-white. It's because they come from poor countries with a corruption-tolerant culture. Is that the kind of culture you want to inject into America en masse?

That doesn't even get into the IQ argument, because I know how triggering that can be. It's not as if we make people get IQ tests before coming here anymore.

Also, I stand by my assertion that we don't need more people. We're in a jobs crisis. If there is work in rural areas, Americans can move there. We don't need more people when our economy is total shit.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

And I will repeat myself: for all you might find it distasteful to use race as a unifier, every other group already is. Every. Other. Group. When someone is punching you in the face, you can espouse your pacifism all you want. You're still getting your ass kicked.

Why do you think the left is failing hard? It's precisely because the left has annoyed the hell out of everyone(including even the average college liberal) with identity politics. You see people visibly gagging at the BLM losers chanting and reposting about how ineffectual and retarded they are(going into libraries and going off about oppression). Only on sheltered Ivy League campuses(excepting Dartmouth and a few others) are people really backing the narrative.

Most Americans could give less of a shit about race. Everyone is tired of it. Fuck this forum is even tired of it which is why we're airing it all out here.

We just won the election by beating the left at their own game. It turns out our rhetorical message is better than theirs. That does not mean there has been a wholesale rejection of identity politics. You have no evidence to support that assertion.

People are sick of being harangued by the left, yes. Yet it is quite clear that identity politics are very real, including right in this thread.

Quote:Quote:

And you know what else? Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean we should. Do you really want to emulate the SJWs and BLM losers with identity politics? Are you going to approve the anti-masculinity narrative because everyone else is doing it(or bash on the very concept of women rather than the culture that surrounds them with those ideas and toxic programming)?

We're not doing it because we know we are better than them. Because we're damned exceptional. That our ideas are enough to push us through. That's why we won. We had the better message. All they had was an aging old crone. That was "female".

We're in total war with the left. You can play the idealistic game and handcuff yourself if you want. I want to actually win.

Quote:Quote:

It's not pacifism they're coming with hand guns of "YOU'RE A WHITE MALE!!!!111" and we have the tanks of actual ideals and values. And that is not synonymous with white. Christianity, constitution, philosophy, history, and action maybe, but being a certain skin tone no. It's because "White" people developed the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals that we live here today. It wasn't simply because they were white.

What countries have lead the world in cultural and technological development? What is the common thread in those countries? I know you love the magic dirt theory, but reality disagrees with you.

Re: the term "white", perhaps you should consider the model of nested tribalism. Whites are not unique in having a lot of internal strife. Hispanics in America are the same way, as are other groups. Talking about whites, hispanics, blacks, asians, etc is just a shorthand way of talking about broad tribal groups. And whites are by far the least united because we haven't been as indoctrinated by cultural marxists as other groups. We've been labeled the enemies and oppressors of minorities, and it serves the cultural marxists' aims to keep us divided.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Comte De St. Germain - 12-02-2016

Quote: (12-02-2016 12:14 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

You didn't really answer my question. And I can see you don't understand why it's a problem that we prioritize immigration from those countries at the top of the list. It ain't because the people are non-white. It's because they come from poor countries with a corruption-tolerant culture. Is that the kind of culture you want to inject into America en masse?

Hence the emphasis on screening. What do these people believe? Why are they coming here? What tangible skills do they have? And couple it with extensive background checks in some way. Hence why the screening process is still in development and until that process is completed immigration will stop as it is.

Quote:Quote:

That doesn't even get into the IQ argument, because I know how triggering that can be. It's not as if we make people get IQ tests before coming here anymore.

Personally I'm for limiting the right to vote based on a variety of factors(think Starship Troopers), but that's neither here nor there. Which is why I'd be heavily in favor of this or some other demonstration of the value an immigrant can add. Not everyone should be allowed to immigrate only those who deserve too(much like how I believe that those that deserve the vote should get it). We talk a lot about bringing value into ourselves so why not expand that mentality as a country.

Quote:Quote:

Also, I stand by my assertion that we don't need more people. We're in a jobs crisis. If there is work in rural areas, Americans can move there. We don't need more people when our economy is total shit.

That's because companies are moving out. Once the business climate in America gets better in 8 years time I'd imagine there will be backwoods areas that will get developed. But let's put that aside as we can discuss that when the time comes. I'm not the biggest fan of what ifs when the Don isn't even in office for atleast 3 years.

Quote:Quote:

We just won the election by beating the left at their own game. It turns out our rhetorical message is better than theirs. That does not mean there has been a wholesale rejection of identity politics. You have no evidence to support that assertion.

People are sick of being harangued by the left, yes. Yet it is quite clear that identity politics are very real, including right in this thread.

There is among the common populace hence why the Don focuses so much on it in his speeches. He rejects that narrative and consistently brags about how much more of the minority vote he pulled in and all the women that voted for him. Not to mention everything the Don did was very much intentional and anyone with a semblance of intelligence could read between the lines.

Not to mention we're on an online board that's a microcosm of a microcosm. The silent majority won the White House for the Don. And there's a damned good reason they're silent if you're out in the field. And it isn't because they're white.

The thing about the Internet and the media is that they amplify all ideologies to an equivalent level. You can hear them all with their loud speakers. It's much harder to do than on a one to one level.

Quote:Quote:

We're in total war with the left. You can play the idealistic game and handcuff yourself if you want. I want to actually win.

It's not idealism it's to not want to start a damned race war because we now say it's darky's fault for the globalist agenda that's afoot, and that whites should stick together because tribalism. I want to win and not start a Civil War, and instead embarrass the left like here:






They're now saying blacks are too stupid to get ID because they're underprivileged. Rhetoric for identity should purely be used to show how the left has made it a key part of their narrative and how patronizing it is that they can't be treated as having a semblance of intelligence.

Quote:Quote:

What countries have lead the world in cultural and technological development? What is the common thread in those countries? I know you love the magic dirt theory, but reality disagrees with you.

Cultural and economic principles/ideals. Greece, certain parts of Spain, Italy's economy, and Sweden are shit for more reasons than one and they're certainly white as the WNs like to put it.

It's because whites developed those ideals and they spread. And the places that embraced the beneficial ones are successful now. See Singapore, Hong Kong, and the other small(thereby more susceptible to change in values) countries that have benefited.

Not to mention it was the small and recovering European countries after The Black Death that managed to enter the Renaissance. Ideas spread faster as the population was smaller and more susceptible to them. The Internet has made that same kind of diffusion possible on a mass scale. Hence why I'm much more optimistic that ideology will diffuse faster and why there should be heavy screening on ideals and principles.

I would also like to bring up the scourges known as Nazism and Communism created by "whites" that killed 6 million and 10-20 million people a piece. It was certainly an ideal and principle that killed those people. Not white people for developing them. Just like how Islamism is a cultural and ethical phenomena. Muslim isn't a race it's a foreign ideology that spreads like wildfire that many from certain areas of the world come to escape from, but then are followed in the door with refugees and Wahhabi clerics.

You should see how much the Arab, Turk, Persian, or socially capable Indian cares for Islam when they have booze and a hot piece of slutty ass.

Quote:Quote:

Re: the term "white", perhaps you should consider the model of nested tribalism. Whites are not unique in having a lot of internal strife. Hispanics in America are the same way, as are other groups. Talking about whites, hispanics, blacks, asians, etc is just a shorthand way of talking about broad tribal groups. And whites are by far the least united because we haven't been as indoctrinated by cultural marxists as other groups. We've been labeled the enemies and oppressors of minorities, and it serves the cultural marxists' aims to keep us divided.

And they're all divided by national lines, which is why there's so much difference. You know what you've actually made me change my mind on allowing immigration to continue even immediately after a screening process has been found. Better to let this area of the world diffuse completely and homogenize ideologically before more people are let in for citizenship. 4 or even 8 years is simply not enough time. Needs a good 20-30 years.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Leonard D Neubache - 12-02-2016

With the necessity for new warm bodies dropping off at a massive rate everywhere in the world due to advances in industrialisation, can someone explain to me why any nation would want any immigration whatsoever? It's so nonsensical that even decades of propaganda havn't been able to turn up into down and convince people that more immigrants will not lead to less opportunity for native citizens.

Why do some people seem to think all nations are inherently obligated to have some form of immigration? Again, more cultural marxist indoctrination.

As I've said before, the West is coming to the point that most jobs are government or corporate make-work positions and the tax burdens on the truly productive industries are enormous.

We no longer need millions of low skilled nobodies to dig mines and plant potatoes. We don't even need high skilled somebodies to develop software and robotics. We just need to invest in our own people that are already here.

Seriously. Why would we take the risk? What's the reward? What's the payday?

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Comte De St. Germain - 12-02-2016

Quote: (12-02-2016 01:19 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

With the necessity for new warm bodies dropping off at a massive rate everywhere in the world due to advances in industrialisation, can someone explain to me why any nation would want any immigration whatsoever? It's so nonsensical that even decades of propaganda havn't been able to turn up into down and convince people that more immigrants will not lead to less opportunity for native citizens.

Why do some people seem to think all nations are inherently obligated to have some form of immigration? Again, more cultural marxist indoctrination.

It's funny because thinking about the thread so far. I realized I came to that conclusion before subconsciously. I've always had rationalizations for it in other forms, but I made the exact case when people wanted to save the refugees in Syria a long time back and I pointed out that there's already people in dire straits here. Why are we importing more people that "need help" when we can't help those here.

Quote:Quote:

As I've said before, the West is coming to the point that most jobs are government or corporate make-work positions and the tax burden on the truly productive industries are enormous.

We no longer need millions of low skilled nobodies to dig mines and plant potatoes. We don't even need high skilled somebodies to develop software and robotics. We just need to invest in our own people that are already here.

Bingo! It's not about race, but about investing in AMERICANS. All the people that are here and want to be here. Socialists and Islamists should be deported out or atleast be deported to California which is already drifting away by itself as it is because of the tectonic plates.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Leonard D Neubache - 12-02-2016

And another thing, claims that white identity politics is akin to starting a race war is nonsense.

More and more I'm starting to think that a failure to recognise and defend our identity is precisely what drives interracial conflict, like a dog showing weakness to other dogs and is attacked by those dogs precisly because it shows that weakness.

Nature (of which we are most definitely a part) abhors a vacuum. Life is the will to power. Failure to defend your right to exist is a weakness that nature does not tolerate.

It's entirely possible that defending white identity (while not prosecuting non-white identity) will restore a sort of natural balance and order.

---

The Richard Spencer and alt-right thread - Comte De St. Germain - 12-02-2016

Quote: (12-02-2016 01:27 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

And another thing, claims that white identity politics is akin to starting a race war is nonsense.

Identity politics divides. It will start a race war if given long enough to simmer. American identity is the focus.

Quote:Quote:

More and more I'm starting to think that a failure to recognise and defend our identity is precisely what drives interracial conflict, like a dog showing weakness to other dogs and is attacked by those dogs precisly because it shows that weakness.

And that identity is based on skin tone or principle?

Quote:Quote:

Nature (of which we are most definitely a part) abhors a vacuum. Life is the will to power. Failure to defend your right to exist is a weakness that nature does not tolerate.

No one cares about your life or anothers as a group. #NoLivesMatter. You have to stand up for yourself. Your fellow white man will not necessarily defend it as well if his principles are different. Granted that's what the WNs want to do so I have no argument on that level.

I just put the principle before the tribe.

Quote:Quote:

It's entirely possible that defending white identity (while not prosecuting non-white identity) will restore a sort of natural balance and order.

And what does protecting white identity entail? Is it defending the principles of the white identity or protecting the race itself? Every WN puts as I've said earlier here the cart before the horse.

Try to survive under Communism or more specifically its tribalistic, warmonger equivalent Fascism as a group. You'll be culled and even if you succeed you'll start culling your own. Nothing is more disgusting than animal that eats itself alive over its own supposed imperfection(or racial impurity). The Soviets did this with class. Even when everyone was a "worker" they continued to talk about the Kulak, reactionary threat and used it as a mechanism to get rid of undesirables from masses of people with no power to threats in governmental bureaucracy.

Edit: I use the term Fascism more specifically for Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Italy and Dollfuss' Austria were interesting experiments that didn't reach their natural conclusion and Francoist Spain was much more religious so who knows where that lies. They actually didn't want war hence why Dollfuss was assassinated by Nazi agents and Mussolini succumbed to an alliance with Hitler then followed his lead.

---