I disagree that “any race wishes [that] for their own race”. I don’t think most people have any particular allegiance to their own race, and I don’t think people should. Moreover, it seems racist to say that white people should only marry white people (anti-miscegenation usually being part of white nationalism). It seems racist to say that we should prioritize white culture over the many other cultural heritages of the US. It seems racist to say that we should have monuments to people whose sole fame was in betraying the US in order to protect the obviously racist institution of chattel slavery.
All of that seems pretty damned racist. And that’s all entailed by the normal understanding of white nationalism (and that’s leaving alone the common white nationalist position that people that aren’t white should leave the US, which is super duper damned racist).
K: the problem with your post is simply this… there is not such thing as pure race…just
about every human being alive is a mix of everything… I am a mix of English and Irish
and welsh and French and even some African… I cannot claim to be “pure” and virtually
no one else on planet earth can claim to be “pure”… race is a mixed thing and
so to enjoy “race”, which race would you suggest we enjoy? the so called “White” race
really doesn’t exists as we are a mix of all kinds of races…
white power is really about mix race power… which mix race do you wish to enjoy
and create new little mix race children?
No, your points are so easily detected that even the dumbest of four year olds can comprehend them but comparing your views to four year olds is a insult to four year olds everywhere.
Entering the next epoch of centralized neofeudalism (under the control of international banks and corporations) is one that is controlled by corporations, let us call it corporate neofeudalism.
So what you are saying is that you are ashamed of white people and don’t believe that white people have the right to exist without harassment by folks like you, folks who are racists against whites?
So are you white or some other more acceptable race? You can’t be white, you are not allowed to identify as such or you are a racist white nationalist terrorist?
Quote me where I said that white people SHOULD ONLY marry white people. I did say that I would like to see whites in America fifty years from now, I did say something along those lines. Stop projecting what you want me to have said rather than what I actually said.
What cultural heritages are being overlooked? The Native Americans? The left needs to disassemble all of the monuments and history to those praised for their leadership while they committed genocide against the many Native American tribes. None of the Presidents should be memorialized without being condemned equally for their parts in genocides across this country, same goes for the military commanders. While we are on the subject of condemnation, we need to prosecute all living political figures who took part in condoning strikes which killed civilian populations of countries all over the globe. They all need to be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity. Doesn’t any of that matter because people are dying now due to it, killing other civilians, other races indiscriminately?
Carleas, I’m a white European separatist not a national socialist, supremacist, or any other kind of affiliation. I would debate you if you accepted to debate me on this whole issue as I find your overall views or beliefs skewed.
Add PayPal to the list. There are a few things to separate.
Companies should be able to pursue their values & interests, within the law. To that end, every business has the duty to notify its clients/users of their terms of service (e.g. acceptable use policy) and the freedom to act on it.
Like people, companies should be consistent and keep their end of a bargain, but they must also have the freedom update their policies and terms.
Protections against censorship are not absolute, perhaps cannot be. We would like to see bad ideas defeated by good ideas, not censored. But ideas often alight far too quickly, and at scale, for the war of ideas to play itself out.
Governments most of all should endeavor to preserve (or to enable people to preserve) the delicate balance between sufficient freedom to and sufficient freedom from, for all citizens. Freedom isn’t free, not only because it must sometimes be fought for but also because to preserve it is to steward and rein it. It is backbreaking toil, labor, and commitment to cultivate civilization; it demands vision for the future and self-law to ensure that that future isn’t sacrificed for lesser, fleeting passions.
Yep. The problem is that people too often idealize freedom while having little respect for the autonomy of others to speak and act. Companies should have those powers, and those powers should be bounded by limits and checks.
Some things I wonder about - Is net neutrality an anti-corporate position? What is the extent to which companies can control their participation in unacceptable speech?
It stemmed from Carleas’ phrasing “arbiters of acceptable speech.” To rephrase the question I would say “…speech they don’t agree with” or something similar.
But it’s not just speech that they don’t agree with, it’s past history, it’s the right to assembly, its any oppositional ideology. It is a new form of discrimination which we must address, the discrimination of ideology.
Companies are individual citizens (given those rights through governmental laws) and act independent of the populace of individual citizens when it suits them, thus companies are playing both sides of the fence by unjustly discriminating against their customers based on their both personal and corporate preferences. This is actually a good example of a way to reverse the egregious powers given to today’s corporations.
Are the terms of service law abiding, particularly non-disciminatory?
We’re basically looking at the privatization of the internet by corporations. The internet is becoming less of a global public venue each year.
If you have views that a corporation doesn’t like you either get censored or moved into an internet ghetto where there is very little internet traffic and publicity.
Fuse, you make a number of good points. I agree that consistency is important, as is having a clear policy presented up front on which these kinds of decisions are made. I found GoDaddy’s rationale a little troubling because of how they twisted their policy and what the website was doing to justify their actions. It would have been one thing for GoDaddy to have a “no hate speech” policy, but they instead relied on their “no terrorism or violence” policy, and I think that’s a stretch (they reacted to the site mocking a victim of terrorism, which is crass and hateful but only incidentally furthers terrorism itself).
That said, I think a “no terrorism or violence” policy is quite easy to justify when properly applied. I even think the government would be permitted under current First Amendment interpretation to prohibit that kind of speech. For example, if the site were trying to coordinate a riot, or to raise funds that would go towards buying guns with which to commit specific acts of violence, those would probably be allowed under ‘incitement’ doctrine and similar recognized exceptions.
Could you explicitly lay out the syllogism that leads to this conclusion? What specifically did I say that you see as the equivalent of saying “I’m ashamed of whites and don’t think they have a right to exist”?
You’ve described yourself as a white nationalist, and white nationalism is not a concept you invented or that you get to define however you want. White nationalism generally entails being anti-miscegenation.
But I also think it follows from things you have said, e.g. if you’re worried about white people going extinct (which is absurd just based on population statistics, even ignoring the social fact that most coupling is assortative by race), I would expect you to see mixed race couples as a threat. If you don’t, could you explain?
Saying that we should not prioritize culture X over culture Y is not equivalent to saying that we should prioritize culture Y over culture X.
There is a meaningful difference between commemorating someone for the good things they did, even though they happened to do bad things as well, and commemorating someone for the bad things they did. It doesn’t follow from the belief that we shouldn’t celebrate people whose only claim to fame was treason against the US in support of slavery, that we shouldn’t celebrate anyone who ever did anything bad (or specifically slavery related). Confederate monuments are monuments to people who are famous for being confederates, and the monuments celebrate their role as confederates. The monuments generally depict them in their confederate dress regalia, and identify them as confederate officers and war heroes. We should not honor that. And that says nothing about people who founded the US, who are celebrated for founding the US. If there’s a statue of Washington anywhere that glorifies him specifically for his ownership of slaves, we should absolutely tear it down. I doubt such a monument exists.
I have a lot to address. I have said that I am a white nationalist? No, you want to peg me as a white nationalist for you want to believe that I am against other races and racist as you said.
My explicitly laid out syllogism starts here…
So without stating that I am a white nationalist, you place a belief system on me as well as your belief system that my belief system is racist. To be a proponent of your white heritage is to be racist? I have more explicit syllogism details down to your cussing that follows my first quote.
This post is getting too long though. More to come Carleas…promise.
Another fundamental question for you, as you prepare your promised long-form response: What’s the minimum sufficient action or belief that makes a person or an ideology ‘racist’?
It would definitely be made up of actions rather than beliefs and would pertain to person’s rather than their ideologies. The long version of this answer is in the works too.
Let’s take a second to think about how insane all of this is. These companies are using technology invented by whites in a country made by whites in order to shut down a site which promotes something as basic as the existence of white people and the justification for all of this is that a supposed white supremacist (in reality, most probably a scared kid) killed a single useless, fat, white race traitor whore.
It needs to be understood that all of this that is happening in mainstream politics is completely insane, the inversion of basic healthy, reality-based principles like self-preservation of your own group.
It is nothing more than sick, traitorous subversion of white people and their countries by white liberals/cucks, Jews and non-whites. Literally all this equality, tolerance, diversity and other bullshit is nothing more than that.
Whites are completely mentally destroyed and any instinct of self-preservation (white nationalism) or self-expansion (white supremacy) is indoctrinated out of them and if not that, then threatened out of them by gunpoint of mostly traitorous whites, and some Jews and non-whites.
Our society has become so insane and unhealthy that basic stuff like preserving your own kind (white nationalism) and killing your enemies and conquering their territory and resources (white supremacy) is considered extreme and only advocated by a tiny minority of people.
A healthy white society wouldn’t even allow non-whites in in the first place
A healthy white society would SUPPORT sites like Daily Stormer, as they advocate for the interests of the white race and the destruction of its enemies
Yet such basic stuff is considered “extreme” in these insane and sick times we live in.
honestly, if whites are that mentally retarded they shouldnt be in power.
ive tried to praise whites, give them claps for their classical music, works of art and mechanics, and medieval culture.
but there really comes a time to say, to put down the old hat and stop investing in a failed cause, such as believing whites can save the planet, when most whites are either insane, hypocrits and/or grossly incompetent. Who are you fighting really? I think you are fighting your own whites, believing they can do better, when this is just whites being whites.
But right to assembly does not also grant the right to use any particular company’s service to facilitate that assembly. Shouldn’t companies be able to deny service on principle (as long as the principle isn’t illegal)?
There are certain protected classes against which it is illegal to discriminate - but discrimination per say isn’t illegal. There is also the power of the people to give their business to better, more consistent companies. This is why corporations are always saying what people want to hear and making nice PR statements to maintain a positive image to the widest net of potential customers. I don’t doubt that that’s what some of this is - but some corporate reactions are genuine. Either way, it’s all legal.
