Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Dear Autsider,

Modern conservatives and liberals (Marxists) share one main thing in common, the ideal of a post-racial society.

Who wrote the history books that told you so? Do you actually know that, or are you trusting a handful of scholars (or things you overheard from other people who were trusting them) that have a vendetta against religion? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you simply can’t cite an example of what people were doing centuries ago as a reason why tradition is bad- in the absence of tradition, you haven’t an actual clue what was going on in the past. If you want to know what happened in the past unvarnished, you need to read something that was written then, not a progressive retelling by some gender studies professor. Same with usury, same with private property.

And my point is that this cuts both ways. Consider Holocaust denial. As the last person who was actually there finally dies, do you think it’s going to become more common or less common? Do you think this will make fascism less likely or more likely? Do you think the left twisting the definition of “facist” to mean "anybody to the right of Noam Chomsky helps or hinders future generations trying to sort this out?

For who? A person who is raised to think there are 15 genders and race isn’t real and sex is assigned to you by your doctor doesn’t have more information, they have less. They are in exactly the same state as a person who is taught that disease is caused by witches. Sure, they can break free of the influence of the left and find out how sex and gender actually works, assuming free speech still exists in their country enough to make it possible, but when they break free, what they are going to find is all that information that has been branded as misogyny, hate speech, regressive, and so on. And some of it actually is, and not everybody is going to be able to tell the difference.

It is when ‘being informed’ means being indoctrinated to a bunch of embrassasing left wing nonsense. From my perspective, the idea that race doesn’t exist is an example of a leftward slide into ignorance. If a person wants to break free of that ignorance, they have no choice but look up the traditional views of what you call ‘uninformed people’. Whether your right or wrong, my point is, if a person wants to find a book that treats race as a real thing, it’s going to be on a shelf right next to The Turner Diaries, because the left put it there.

Virtually nothing that I’m talking about here has anything to do with science. Every issue I raised in my opening post is either an ethical question or a matter of political science. Are you diverting this conversation to questions of hard science because it’s where you can show society has progressed? I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written above, I’m just not seeing the relevance to what I’m saying.

Your second question answers the first. An application of rational, principled method makes it obvious that scoffing at people for using the term ‘islamophobia’ while completely embracing the usage of the term ‘homophobia’ are behaving inconsistently, since both terms were created by the same ideology for the same purpose and have the same relationship to reality. A rational, principled approach is how I happened to notice there seems to be an age corrolation among people who do this.

Well of course it is; the only reason anybody could oppose gay marriage for example is if they’re a backwoods retard that’s never talked to anybody who lives in a different way from them. Hell, a person who even stops to consider the legitimacy of the gay lifestyle should feel guilty just for hesitating. I mean, that’s the conclusion of our rational, principled methods.

Yeah, that’s how I remember it! People accepted the gay lifestyle because we were all free to think about the issue and explore both sides of it, and we all just sort of came to the logical conclusion that it seemed right. It was nothing at all like the terms ‘transphobia’ or ‘islamophobia’ which are just used to make people who dissent from left wing orthodoxy look deranged and feel bad about speaking their mind. You should write a history book. Probably best to wait till after I’m dead to publish it, though.

I think because young vs. old isn’t a hard break. It’s not like precisely at age 22 you become a hard ass and stop listening to people. It’s gradual, and different for different people. We don’t all graduate from college en masse as a generation, either. Every year students graduate, and every year new professors are hired. Social media and mass communication speed things up because the ability of a progressive to shame somebody for badthink is much faster and further-reaching now. You never know when your picture might go up on Twitter for eating Chinese food with a fork or mis-appropriating black culture with your sneakers.

Eh? How would a greater influence of the young on society undermine the role of the professors teaching the classes those young people are still attending? If anything, all those young authors are megaphones for their professors.

Maybe. I tend to think that one of the consequences of social media is that people who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about are heard from more, and those are the people who are more likely to have a mixture of left and right views. Not saying that it’s impossible for a wise, well read person to divert from ideological orthodoxy, but it seems to me that the collection of stereotypically ‘leftist’ ideas and ‘rightist’ ideas are in the category they are because they are consequences of the same fundamental principles, and not happenstance.

Similarly, I don’t know that knowing even a significant part of a person’s constellation of beliefs and political positions will allow you to reliably place them left or right. I’m sure that many would describe me as on the right, and I imagine in some circles you could be mistaken for being on the left.
[/quote]

Damn, nobody is responding to my posts, why is that?

Well, that’s exactly my point though. To you, Nazism, racism, border security and patriotism are all things the left condemns with the same buzzwords, and your in rebellion to those lessons, so now all those things are on equal footing. To me, some of these things are clearly different from the others, and it’s a shame the left started muttering “facist” every time somebody waves an American flag or calls illegal immigrants illegal immigrants. The left told you that there’s no fundamental difference between a Nazi and a Republican, and by all indications you still believe it, you’re just taking the implication in a different direction.

Right, that’s a function of education as well. The far right is associated with Hitler, where as the far left is associated with, I dunno, John Lennon. The idea that Mao and Stalin and so on were leftist regimes has been scrubbed from history- Communism has never been tried, as they are fond of telling us. It’s horribly unfair to call Stalin a socialist, but Hitler? Why him and Jeff Sessions are practically the same person. So there’s a phenomenon where conservatives, who want to be respected by academics (Re: leftists) have to repeatedly disavow ‘the far right’ to prove they are reasonable. This tend among conservatives to disavow themselves so liberals will respect them is of late called ‘being a cuckservative’.

You’ll find yourself back on the left in no time then, most likely. That’s precisely how leftist ‘morality’ works: they identify some material end as the goal of society, then cook up civic planning and organization in the name of that goal: say, economic equality or what have you. Any actual moral principle in itself like liberty, charity, mercy, piety is tossed aside in the name of what the Lefty has decided is The One True Thing That Matters.

Yeah, that’s one of the problems. The other problem is that we’re actually not that good at predicting what the ends of complex systems will be, so saying “A thing is good if it makes us succeed” means that you’ve made the goodness of a thing impossible to determine for generations, or possibly ever. That’s why you have socialists witnessing the mass starvation they cause and saying “Well, it would have worked if we did it slightly differently” or “It would have worked if we gave it more time”- you can never conclusively prove that some method leads to success or not. Meanwhile, notions like “Maybe you just shouldn’t strip away everything a person owns and force them into a work camp irrespective of the economic benefits” doesn’t enter into it for them.

It might be beneficial to white people until the precedent was set, and somebody got the idea that what’s good for the blacks is good enough for the Irish, or the Protestants, or the consveratives, or the socialists, or whatever. Then some white people would be exterminated as well. It certainly wouldn’t be good for white people in South Africa. Nazi Germany would be a great example of this. OK, so they gassed the Jews for the benefit of others. But they also gassed the fags, the gypsies, Pollacks, the disabled, communists, various Christian sects, and basically anybody who expressed any disagreement with any of the above, and all of them were Aryans.

You could also try to promote what’s good for Americans, or men, or straight people, or Christians, or any other group. That’s the problem with grouping, like you were saying before. It’s easy to say that we should enact extreme policies so that the group we belong to benefits, but of course, you belong to all kinds of groups. You may do well if the powers that be decide to wipe out all the blacks. But if they decide to wipe out all the blacks and all the atheists, then you’re fucked. Problems like that are one theory for where “Maybe let’s not exterminate anybody” rules come from.

You’re just parsing numbers. Actually advocating killing a bunch of people would be evil, taking measures to see it happen would be worse.

Well, I didn’t say one has a moral obligation towards their own. I said the generals and politicians making the decision had a moral obligation to the people they are tasked with protecting. It’s not about 'They’re Japs, we’re whites/Americans, so fuck ‘em". It’s about "I was hired/elected to protect the American people, so I’'m going to end this war in a way that minimizes American casualties". Zinnat had put it to me that an American general should prefer a situation where 500 Japanese die and 500 American die to a situation in which 2000 Japanese die and no Americans die, and I said that was ridiculous.

And of course that’s all in the context of a war that’s already on, because the other side started it, too.

I think you’re taking my example of two groups at war, and applying it to society at large because, to you, every group is in perpetual warfare whether they admit it or not.

Uccisore

Key words here being “fundamental difference”, I’m not sure what you would consider as qualifying for a fundamental difference as opposed to a more superficial, regular difference. But I’m not well versed in American politics so I couldn’t comment much on Republicanism.

And I’m also not sure what you mean by equal footing when speaking of “Nazism, racism, border security and patriotism”. Are you speaking morally, perhaps?

Material end? As opposed to what kind of end, spiritual? So left-wing = materialism, right-wing = spiritualism? Well fuck, I guess I don’t exist then. Not saying you necessarily meant that, but that kinda looked like a subtle jab at me for being a right-wing atheist/non-spiritual.

You cannot hold liberty, charity, mercy etc. all to be equally valuable as moral principles, something must give. Seems to me like you’re speaking from a very specific point of view when calling something leftist or not.

It is a problem if you cannot perceive the most fundamental principles which lay underneath the complexity of any system, or if you are too frightened to accept them as they are when you see them so you resort back to delusions and/or superficiality. That is just a lame excuse made to avoid having to admit that some things which might make you uncomfortable emotionally can be very effective. I was speaking of “succeed” as in “reproductive success”, aka survival, because ultimately the future belongs to those who reproduce as they pass on the traits that made them reproduce to the next generation, for reproduction is just long-term survival. I think there’s also an expression of this same principle in economics, ‘if you subsidize something you get more of it’ or something like that, used to argue against giving people welfare and stuff like that.

There certainly would be infighting between whites, or at least less unity. I do not deny that. People tend to group with those of their kind. If whites exterminated all blacks, then they would either turn on each other, or most likely, on other races. If they exterminated other races too, there would be infighting betwen subgroups of whites either based on genes (latinos vs northern European f.e.) or memes (Catholic vs Protestant), etc. etc. I don’t deny any of this. In fact, I am fully aware of it and that is one of the reasons why I am a racist and white nationalist, for now. Because for now, infighting would mean becoming weaker and surrendering the future to the Chinese, or even worse, negroes. If whites are to lose it would be better that it is to another group of whites, to a worthy enemy.

But we do not belong to all groups equally. I may be a mammal and a human, but this does not mean I would identify equally with another mammal as I would with another human, or that I would equally identify with all subgroups of the group human equally, for that matter.

“Maybe let’s not exterminate anybody” cute, but extermination happens as we speak as certain organisms are selected over others for survival, in particular when it comes to race, whites are being exterminated. Whether it be by mass murder in death camps or not, extermination occurs anyway, and yes, there is ALWAYS violence involved in extermination, as violence is involved in all matters concerning life.

Not only group, but any living organism is necessarily in perpetual warfare by very fact that it is a living organism. To be alive is to occupy a portion of space and not permit anybody or anything else to be there, which makes life INHERENTLY violent. All life needs energy to maintain and propagate itself, and to obtain this energy it competes with other organisms, which is another thing that makes it violent. I mean, the very fact that in order to have any society at all you must threaten people with VIOLENCE should tell you how fundamental violence is to life.

iF that’s what you found key in what I wrote, I’m not sure I can help you. I will say though, that what you’re saying in this thread mirrors what you’re saying in the other thread, the abortion one I think. You’ve identified correctly that the left is the enemy of western civilization, and you’re rejecting all their tactics and terminology. In this thread, you’re reacting to the fact that they call everything they don’t like ‘racist’ by embracing all these things as if they are as equivalent as they’d like you to believe. In that other thread, you’re reacting to the fact that they call everything they like “a fundamental human right” by insisting talk of rights are just a word game people play to maintain order.

To me, the fundamental lie of the left is the equivocation, which you seem to be buying: If everything is racist, nothing is. If everything is a right, nothing is. Don’t reject rights, don’t reject the existence of immoral racism; reject the political manipulations of the left that created the equivocation in the first place.

The issue is, I can’t convince you to do this, because if I try to explain to you why, I don’t know, Nazis are bad or free speech is good or whatever, I’m going to be using the same terminology the left poisoned, and you’ll reject me as a cuckservative or whatever. So your only solution is to ‘go back in time’, i.e., read works that were written before the left started playing this game. See what racism was before the left called border security racist. See what rights were before the left called internet access a fundamental right. The problem with that, is that the left also tries to control your access to your own history. In order for you to get this information, you have to pass through a screen of progressive opinion telling you that you’re an immoral person, and the things you’re about to read are immoral, and that you better keep it a secret or you’ll be punished. That keeps most people from even bothering to try, but it does mean that the few people who DO try are willing to be moral rebels, which means they’re going to be open to things that should rightly be condemned.

Spiritual, or ideological, or social, or moral. Sure, obedience to God would be a non-material end, but so is liberty. So the alternative to the left might be spiritual but need not be. What I’m referring to is one of the key facets of socialism; that a society is measured by who has what. That’s what socialism exists; because a few people having a lot of wealth and many people having no wealth is a failure-situation regardless of other circumstances, and they try to rectify it to a ‘everybody has about the same amount of stuff’ which is a victory condition for them, regardless of other circumstances. In other words, if you are evaluating civilization by the criteria of who has the most shit, then you’ve already ceded a lot of ground to the socialist…and it’s not the only place you do so in your ideas.

Your first clause doesn’t entail the second. A conservative probably does hold liberty, charity, mercy and other things to be equally valuable, and yet acknowledges that some of them have to be sacrificied for the others from time to time anyway. This is known as the tragic view of life, it’s key to conservatism. It’s just a recognition that society isn’t perfectable. Safety is valuable, Freedom is valuable. You can’t get enough of one without sacrificing some of the other. Whichever way you go, the sacrifice is still lamentable. Too bad. Recognition of this destroys the idea of society getting better and better to some ultimate utopian point, put forward first I think by Kant.

A socialist (or a libertarian or facist for that matter) will try to pick one of these values, declare that it is THE value, and argue for why the others should always be sacrificed in the name of the one, until the one is maximized at all costs.

The fundamental principles aren’t the problem, and don’t reveal the success or failure of a system, though. Communism is fucking wonderful according to it’s fundamental principles: it fails in the limitations of human implementation, and on the meta-level of how people react to finding themselves in a communist state with communist rules to follow and exploit.

There is a similar argument for why free markets are a good thing: because people deciding what they want and how much they are willing to pay for it will always be a more accurate representation of reality than a few big brains deciding how everything ought to be according to a handful of ‘fundamental principles’.

That’s a handy defense mechanism, isn’t it? “Most people consider my ideas odious, therefore anybody who disagrees me with me must be reacting to how odious they think my ideas are.” You see the same thing out of pedophiles and such. They look for any opportunity to dismiss what you say as a mere reaction to the revolting nature of what they advocate, no matter how salient your points are.

Reproductive success is certainly very important: there’s not much point in a political schema that makes everybody happy, but wipes them all out in a generation. On the other hand, there’s no much point in a political schema that results in a huge population of miserable, ignorant degenerates that hate their lives and never create or discover anything. “Yeah but at least that horrible society will last and last” I suppose is a point in it’s favor, but it’s hardly sufficient to give it a thumbs-up.

People tend to create groups around their traits and interests. Race and sex are real things, but people also define ‘their kind’ according to ephemeral things or just plain made up things, too. This is another way in which you are accepting a basic tenet of socialism: the idea that history and society is defined by a series of demographic groups or ‘classes’ perpetually in some sort of conflict with each other. Original marxists did it with economic ‘classes’, today’s SJW variety does it with race and gender.

Why a white nationalist, and not just a nationalist? Or, why not an atheist nationalist or a whatever-else-you-are nationalist? Of all the demographics you belong to, to pick your ancestry as the one that needs to be promoted and preserved at all costs isn’t a purely objective or clear-cut decision as far as I can tell, so it seems there should be more to it than that. Sure, the easy answer is “I’m a white nationalist because I’m white and so white people’s interests are my interests”, but you could replace the word ‘white’ in that sentence with any number of things. Like for example the Real IRA could be described as Catholic Nationalists. Were they wrong to focus on a thing other than race, or is it just a matter of preference?

Yeah, people are absolutely seeking out the end of the white race, they broadcast their intentions on television and the news for all to see. I actually disagree with them, though. I don’t merely think they’re wiping out the wrong people, I think that seeking to wipe out a race is immoral regardless.
eath camps or not, extermination occurs anyway, and yes, there is ALWAYS violence involved in extermination, as violence is involved in all matters concerning life.

Sure, life is inherently violent, but it is not only violent. Just like equality (or reproduction or safety or whatever) may be good, but it’s not the only thing that is good.

I don’t consider myself a "White Nationalist"­® but I have studied it extensively over a number of years as part of my own search.

How do you know that there are people trying to exterminate Whites, but not understand where White Nationalism comes from?

From what I understand about white nationalism, the “White” part doesn’t denote political system as much as “nationalism”, “republic”, “communism” does. And of course, what we are talking about is ethno-nationalism. “White” is emphasized because in those circles it is universally understood that whites and white culture and civilization (see: western civilization) are being targeted for extinction/genocide/oppression etc. It is simultaneously understood that without whites, that white culture(s)/western civilization cannot continue as it is universally understood that culture comes from race… If all whites just disappeared and put X race in their place, western civilization would cease to exist sooner or later. The reason why race is emphasized is because previously white nations (whether implicit or explicitly defined) are being forced to go along with their own extinction. No other race’s countries are subject to the same ideology. It is a matter of survival. At current levels of immigration, the ONLY possible outcome is the extinction of whiteness. The exact form the government structure that a white nationalist nation would take isn’t defined in the label “white nationalism”, and in fact there is HUGE variation and certainly no consensus for what political system should govern a “white nationalist” state. It is as much a social description as a political one (which are sometimes the same thing).

White is emphasized because they believe it is the most important part, RIGHT NOW (and overall, because today’s reality is the threat of extinction, so it is the most important part). RIGHT NOW whites are targeted for extinction, RIGHT NOW the agenda is in play, RIGHT NOW white birth rates are horrifically low, RIGHT NOW the Marxists are manipulating the world. They are not as concerned for subgroups or subcultures, as it all means sweet dick all if there are no whites left to be concerned about them. It’s not to say atheism or catholicism or “whatever-else-you-are” is not important, it’s instead to say “wake the fuck up your very existence is threatened and it should be the most important thing to focus on”. The focus on the ancestry is because they are proud, and feel the need to carry the banner so to speak. Also because of leftist agenda. Because of the beliefs about civilization and culture, ancestry becomes extremely important because they are the roots of such. History was not a set of random/unguided/unintentional occurrences that determine where we are today, but they are very direct, very intentional events that shaped the ONLY history that COULD have happened. Ifs, ands and buts don’t mean anything. You are not privileged to be white, because if everything didn’t happen exactly as it did, then it wouldn’t be our history. There was no black “western civilization” or asian “western civilization” because there wasn’t. End of discussion. You are white because your white parents procreated, and theirs before that and so on. Unless someone wants to make an argument that luck or chance has anything to do with who is born what.

Whether a white nationalist thinks that a “white nationalist nation” should allow any immigration at all or immigration only from certain ethnicities or other qualifiers etc. is actually a matter of debate. Of course, you will find almost a false consensus because the vocal portions of the communities tend to be very aggressive and unyielding (although, it is pretty much agreed that if there is only one “white nation” it should be white in the sense that most african nations are black, and most asian nations are asian). Dissent for commonly held dogma is harshly criticized, often results in ostracization. However, I suspect that a large portion of people who flirt with white nationalism are more moderate and tend to stay on the fringe or are ultimately are turned off by the almost leftist level of herd mentality that can take place sometimes, I know I was.

The anger and the hyper aggressive, in-your-face, and boisterous personalities in white nationalism come from two areas. Angry people who have found a focus for their anger, and thus act like leftists when confronted with competing ideas. Many of them are dregs and damaged people. Others are fanatics. It also comes from frustration of seeing everything unfold in front of ones eyes, and is also a result of the confusion that is sewn into leftist education systems and anger when one has the blinders removed and start to see things for what they are. There are also various areas of large agreement for example, various bits of history that reinforce the idea that the US was founded as a “white nation”. The reason why these type of ideas are popular is because people are SO angry about things that are happening that things enough is enough, and that is that. Full stop. No negotiations.

Also, despite there of course being a segment of supremacists of varying levels of uh… enthusiasm, that commonly are considered under the umbrella of white nationalism, they are not synonymous. Again this is one of those things where I believe the vocal elements dominate the visible narrative, where a majority of people are of the “separate but ‘equal’” flavor at least from a practical standpoint.

The unreasonable portions of the communities are REALLY unreasonable, even if you were to agree with them in principle, they are just too hardcore, too extreme to represent any kind of a viable system, like any other extreme ideology. Your oversimplification of the issue quoted above and your remarks about some other subjects make me wonder though.

Well, I started this thread and in my first post I explain why I think this present culture is causing the rise of White Nationalism, so actually think I have a pretty good handle on it. White Nationalism has been emboldened by the fact that the left has destroyed the negative association of the term ‘racist’ for an entire generation of conservatives, and because, as you said, there’s a lot of hatred against white people to react to.

If white nationalism just means resisting efforts to bring about the end of Western Civilization, than every good person should be a white nationalist, even non-white people. However, in a case like that, I would think that Christian Nationalism would be even more accurate and better, since many of the things undermining western civilization right now (sexual degeneracy, radical feminism, political correctness) are not anti-white, but they are all anti Christian. I can imagine a Western Civilization that preserves our cultural traditions and history without white people a lot easier than I can imagine such a place without Christianity.

The last time I checked, this most certainly is not universally understood. It seems like what’s happening here is that the interest is in preserving western civilization, and that is taken to mean ‘obviously white people need to run everything or it all goes to shit’. It’s that second premise that is the racist one, and certainly not obvious, and needs some sort of really good evidence or argument.

Well, no. The reason why race is emphasized is because you believe only white people can ‘do western civilization’ correctly.

Sure, but Marxism is an almost purely white phenomenon. China dabbled in it for a while, but other than that you’re looking at Slavs, Germans, Swedes, and Americans. Oh, and Cuba I suppose. I agree with you that white people are being targetted, but that doesn’t mean the reasons why are racial. If you’re right that race gives rise to culture, and Hispanics were running everything, this would be a conservative, religious, stable, traditional, capitalist society. Ditto with Orthodox Jews. Blacks, I don’t know- they were sort of drug kicking and screaming out of the stone age, so it’s hard to say what ‘black culture’ looks like on its own.

No, I don’t agree. I would feel more like ‘my very existence’ was threatened if Christianity was being wiped out, as opposed to race. To be clear, I don’t want either of those things to happen and I would fight to prevent them, but just because I am white doesn’t mean I am obligated to take threats to whiteness as my #1 concern: for I am many other things as well. I am more concerned about threats to masculinity these days than I am whiteness.

Could be. You people change your fucking names every week, I’ve honestly lost track of who the hell most of you are.

I don’t think it has as much to do with the left destroying the term ‘racist’ as you do. That is a much more recent development. It plays a part for sure but it is not the most important part. People are being taught to think or are breaking the brainwashing themselves. I think the left destroying the credibility of crying racist only affects those who were otherwise part of the herd, not the aforementioned. It affected those affected by the “pop-culture” if you will.

Sure, why not? White nationalism does not have to mean you ONLY believe whites are blah blah blah. I don’t think you have a good a grasp on it as you think you do, because you are only speaking of stereotyped caricatures. Many white nationalists are perfectly supportive of brown people living in brown nations raising up their own brown “western civilizations”, and asians the same and blacks the same and so on and so forth. There is also no reason why some cultures cannot agree on certain things, exchange ideas and culture and technology etc. You are absolutely conflating white nationalism and white supremacy and xenophobia. There doesn’t HAVE to be any hate about it. Hate is a symptom.

Fine, maybe you are right, perhaps you should start up a Christian Nationalism effort. You could be just like Israel…

However, you are then completely ignoring the efforts to exterminate whites. That is the key item of importance to white nationalists, probably not christian nationalists because they would be universalists so… non-sequitur.

This is nothing but either really poor research on your behalf or you’re being willfully obtuse or disingenuous. You are also making assertions yourself about racism now. Sorry man, no dice.

Why are you saying “you believe”?

Do you deny that western civilization is “white” in origin or evolution? Refer to the above. Let all the other races have their own western civilizations if they want and are capable of it. But where were most of them when western civilization came around? And does it matter? From what I can tell by and large white nationalists don’t give a flying fuck what another race has or doesn’t have. That’s the point. Let them fly in rocket cars and eat food pills and work at the sprocket factory.

We could all interact and trade and share with each other without the problems that forced integration has caused. The overarching belief is that we must remain distinct. Haven’t you heard their mantra? ‘Asia for asians…’ blah blah

That is the belief. You are again conflating nationalism with supremacy. You may have had a good grasp on it at one point, but clearly you do not now. Come on, I know better, what’s your excuse?

If you mean those affected by, murdered by, and all that, yeah you’re right. That’s only half of the equation. And what difference does that make if you’re faced with extinction? You just deflected the whole argument for something that wasn’t a reply to what I said by saying “sure, but”.

Nobody is obligating you to do so. You are not a white nationalist, where’s the argument? You said “if” as though it wasn’t happening, so how can I argue? You say you would fight to prevent them, but obviously it isn’t your #1 concern. It is for others. Seeing as you don’t really understand it to begin with, it doesn’t surprise me that it’s not your #1 concern.

Erm, ok…? :-k

It’s not just the pop culture though, it’s the education system. The left is even more influential there.

Well, considering you just declared that culture rises from race and if black people are in charge western civilization will collapse, I think I do have a handle on it. That’s the part I disagree with- the racist part- and it’s not like I made you say it. You can’t tell me non-white people are incapable of preserving western civiliization in post one, then tell me white nationalism isn’t about white supremacy in post 2, and not expect me to see a conflict there.

Well, I don’t think there’s any need to start anything like that; I think that’s the soul of American conservatism and most people on the right already live according to something like that, even if they wouldn’t use such self-incriminating terms to describe it.

I understand that white nationalists are interested in preserving whiteness. My point is that you can’t say ‘what it’s really about is preserving western civilization’ because that’s not what whiteness is, and whiteness doesn’t ensure it. If we end up in some future situation in which we’re all a bunch of degenerate heathens estranged from our traditions, our God, and our morals- but hey, at least we’re all white- that’s not ‘preserving western civilization’, that’s preserving the white race. If you think it’s impossible for our culture to backslide into dengeracy if only most of us stay white, then you are a white supremacist.

So are you backing off the claim that non-white people can’t maintain western civilization, or are you keeping the claim but expressing your lack of interest in defending it?

I guess that would depend on if you’re calling Jews white. But yes, since commercial air travel has existed for less than a century, virtually any phenomenon associated with a location will also be associated with a race.

White nationalists having the grace to accept what they cannot change has little to do with what they advocate.

Depends on when exactly you mean. If you mean the birth of Christianity, Chinese, Indian, Arabic and some African cultures were just as advanced as we were. If you mean the birth of Greek philosophy, the same thing was true, though the list would change a bit.

You keep dropping hints that it should be obvious to me that non-white races are inferior, ‘where were they then’, ‘let them do it if they are able’, and then you tell me I’m the one doing the conflating. I’m listening to you, and reacting to what you say, and what you say is that non-white people can’t maintain western civilization.

I mean it’s origins too. It was cooked up by white people, promoted by white people, and experimented with by white people. Unless slavs don’t count as white; I am unclear on this.

Well, sure; if white nationalism is only about preserving a degree of pigmentation, than your right: I don’t care about it so much, and people who do are free to and I don’t really get it. But you made it sounds like Western Civilization was at stake or something.

Yes I agree, but that’s not what I meant. I mean the only people that would be successfully persuaded by the left either positively or negatively solely by the overuse and false accusations and changing definition of the word racist or language manipulation are the weak minded.

No sorry, you misunderstood, or I mis-explained. You would not have the SAME western civilization that we developed. And we haven’t even addressed that the integration was forced to begin with. Any adaptation to our western civilization is a result of exposure to that civilization. You said it yourself with (paraphrasing) “blacks being drug out of the stone age”. I am not really making the assertion that requires evidence, you want to speak of ideas from the left becoming part of people without them knowing it, you seem to have swallowed the racism thing without realizing just how embedded it is. See the left has this thing, where they invert a default position or common sense and then call the position the assertion and demand evidence for it.

There is no reason other races cannot have their own versions of western civilization but that is would not be the same western civilization. There is no evidence for your argument that it is racist, it is obvious on it’s face. You need to provide evidence that culture does not stem from race.

It is NOT their culture, how can you even propose such nonsense? How can you assert that western culture would remain the same? YOU need to provide the evidence. Nothing racist about it.

Prove your assertions. You are making religious level statements here lol, and I don’t mean about your God statement, I mean your leftist race theory.

And nobody said anything about a culture backsliding one way or another, you are just making shit up now. Being white doesn’t ensure anything but our own creations and merit. You again show that you do NOT understand the beliefs behind ancestry.

You clearly don’t understand the difference between white nationalism and white supremacy, you’ve all but said so yourself. Stop trying to claim you do. What sustained effort have you ever put into understanding it?

You don’t get it. Thats what I’m saying. You don’t fucking get it. That goes for most of this post.

Again, here you are just parroting leftist race theory bullshit. Nobody said inferior, they can do it if they want to do it and they are capable of doing it. If I just said they could do it if they wanted to, that would leave our their ability, their fucking merit Ucci. Why does pointing out anything to do with actual ability mean RACIST? You are guilty of the same thing you are trying to point out to others. You automatically conflated things with supremacy and inferiority in your head because that is what you believe. You have been conditioned for it.

This IS one of those things, where you have hit an emotional, intellectual or religious barrier that you cannot allow yourself to transcend certain paradigms. But you appear to be a christian universalist which partly explains why you don’t care about race in the same way and also why you’d be susceptible to leftist race theory.

Oh I know the name of this game Ucci. It’s the one where in one statement you extol a people for the good things they’ve done, and then in another statement call them white when they’ve done something bad.

#-o

Uccisore

False, I just don’t let leftists of any time or place to dictate my morality. I do not deny the existence of racism, racism if understood as 1) the belief in existence of races and relevant differences between races going beyond skin color and 2) the belief that different races should be treated differently based on those differences and preference for my own race. Then yes, I am a racist by all accounts, just like I am a speciesist and I believe there are relevant differences between humans and slugs and that humans and slugs should be treated differently and I prefer humans to slugs.

If you agree with 1 but disagree with 2 then you’re letting leftists dictate your morality more than I am. This isn’t about doing what leftists want me to do, or not doing what leftists want me to do. This is about ignoring them altogether. If leftists say “these racist white folk will just continue to breed with whites and disregard poor oppressed negro women” then I’m not gonna impregnate a negro woman just to prove how wrong they are, nor would I refuse to impregnate a white woman because it would make leftists right, whatever I did I would do without giving a single shit whether it proves leftists right or wrong, get it?

As long as you actually give a shit what leftists think, YOU are the one who is letting them define YOU in relation to them.

As for human rights, I just said they don’t exist outside of human societies, but that they obviously do exist and apply to people within a society.

Anybody can use liberty to promote virtually any system, because it is always a question of liberty of whom to do what, where and when, and then whose liberties we have to restrict for that to be possible. It’s just a nonsensical term in and of itself, used for its emotional appeal more than anything else, because everybody can imagine their personal ideal of what liberty means. Kind of like God.

The difference between a value I proposed - the survival of a society, and all the others you listed, is that no other value can exist (not in the long term at least) unless a society survives first and foremost.

Communism is far from wonderful according to its fundamental principles. And free market is far from free.

Am I not right though? I am all about cutting things in their root instead of snipping away at tiny little branches. F.e. if there was some button that you could push which would make all negroes in America disappear, America and the white race would be much better off, even though the idea might make you emotionally uncomfortable.

I see your point, but I also fail to see how it’s relevant to our discussion. Also, if a peoples EARN their reproduction I don’t even think misery and degeneracy as general traits in a society are possible - misery, ignorance, degeneracy, lack of creativity all seem to be things plaguing societies which reproduce BELOW replacement rates, and to an extent, societies which reproduce above replacement rates but don’t actually deserve their reproduction (African negroes who reproduce due to white man’s charity and technology imports).

I explained why already. Because infighting would be damaging to the white race currently, and if we fight amongst each other we may be too weak to fight off another race. And if we are going to lose to somebody, better to lose to another white race than to the Chinese, or negroes, or whatever

But you yourself said that there is a difference between real things (sex and race) and made up, ephemeral things. It’s not objective, just a natural tendency for people to do so. Since we know other races will do it then we will do it too.

Not really the same. The more specific the category the bigger the overlap in interest. Yes, I could replace it with “I’m a mammal nationalist (rofl) because I’m a mammal so mammal interests are my interests”, but you can see how it’s not exactly the same as white, so it DOES matter which category you put there and not all categories (mammal and white) are the same. And the more specific you get the more you are right with regards to overlap in interest.

Perhaps, but unless you find a way to keep the populations of all races frozen so that no race begins to outnumber the other, some races will be wiped out anyway. So the question then becomes - do we just blindly let it happen to OUR race because it would, for some perverse reason, be immoral to do something about it, or do we try to prevent it?

I think I asked you this before already, but are you prepared to accept the costs for your morality? Are you prepared to accept that the white race may become a minority and ultimately go extinct as a result of policies you implicitly supported, by not fighting them?

EDIT: Also, the bottom 2 isn’t something I’d argue about, just curious

Do you believe that Negroes or aborigins or other races with average IQs of 80-85 and below can maintain western civilization?

Why? What is it that you think Christianity can do that some non-Christian ideology or some other religion cannot?

A tradition which stops at preservation and does not move beyond it is slowly breaking apart.
We look into the past not merely for looking into the past, for a feeling of nostalgia, an escape from the now and the looming future.
We must look into the past to understand who we are and to apply this and project forward where we want to go.

A conservative loses to a progressive if he has no vision for the future himself. This puts him into a defensive position.
The reality is that culture and values are not separated from a people.

Sure, you can force a minority to move along with your values if you have the vitality and will to do so but they will never become the source of that culture or values themselves. They would be the source of their own culture and values if it were up to themselves.

Most educated Republican voters are classical liberals.
Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome and all that jazz.
The thing is that equality of opportunity is not in favour of Whites, it’s still their downfall. It’s better than equality of outcome, but it’s not good enough.
Equality of opportunity proposes a view which reduces the society down to individuals and treats them as universal cog material.
This also applies within a race.

Without this individualism philosophy, the growth of the Western Empire (British/American) would never have succeeded. It would have fallen apart.
It’s a way of postponing the breaking apart at the cost of man’s qualities.
A let’s smoothen the edges and become more feminised to huddle together and keep it all together a little longer.

How do you know that? The mechanism I’m describe is something the left has done for several generations: they make up a lie, then the next generation believes the lie, and makes up their own lie.

So for example, Baby Boomers make up the lie that McCarthy perscuted actors and artists for being communists. Gen X believes this, and then they make up lies about gay genes and how sexual orientation works. Millennials sincerely believe all of the above, and they start making up lies about how gender and race work. It’s of course more complex than that, but as the years roll on you can start to pick out the difference between somebody saying something because they believe it, and somebody saying something because it’s the current lie that advances an agenda.

So, for example, if you thought McCarthy persecuted actors and artists for being communists, you’re believing a leftist lie, and that may be influencing your morality. So the question I’m raising here is, what methods does a person have at their disposal to dig back and expose lies that were taken as truth before they were born? I’m saying those methods are what’s opening up people to the far right, racism, and so on.

Right, and that definition is brand new. Racism USED to mean beliefs that people who aren’t your race ought to be persecuted, denied political influence, and violently driven out of polite society because they had a corruptive influence if left to their own devices. Blacks and Jews aren’t just distinct and different, they are bound to ruin everything if we don’t take measures to stop them, says the racist. What you describe above was not ‘being racist’ prior to 1980 or so, it was just being a human being. Every single person everywhere believed that races existed and there were differences between them going beyond skin color. The idea that noticing differences is ‘racism’ is a new thing- Gen X’s lie to the millennials about how race works, in exactly the method I describe above. So now, if you have common sense or the presence of mind to notice reality, you’re a racist. So it’s small wonder that people who have told common sense = racism are primed to accept racism under it’s older definitions too.

Right. In order to embrace common sense you have to allow yourself to be called a racist, and thus be an outsider like your namesake. That’s the mechanism I’m talking about in this thread; in order for a reasonable person to get at the truth after generations of progressive bullshit, that person has to be willing to say “So be it; I guess I’m a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/whatever”, then. Progressives are forcing people to embrace those terms if they want to be reasonable people, and so it should be surprise if old school racism of the Nazi variety or the KKK variety sees a resurgence.

Again, a reaction to liberal rhetoric. I hate to tell you this, but ALL TERMS are nonsense rhetoric used to create an emotional appeal when the person you’re talking to is an SJW. Liberty, God, rights, equality, wealth, poverty, race, gender, it’s all bullshit, because of Critical Theory which at it’s heart is the idea that the purpose of communication is to make people do what you want, not to express truths.

No house can exist without a foundation, but that doesn’t make the foundation the only or most important thing to consider when buying a house. A mansion on an adequate foundation is not inferior to a tar-paper shack on an amazing foundation. And anyway, it’s not as rock solid as that because people aren’t going to agree what is meant by ‘society’. If in 100 years, there is a place called the United States of America that largely has the same values, flag, geography, holidays, and religion as we have now, but 90% of the population is hispanic, did our society survive, or didn’t it? Alternatively, if in 100 years this geographic region is called something different, has different values, holidays, morals, but everybody here is still white, did our society survive, or didn’t it? If you took a typical person from the 1920’s and transported them to modern day U.S.A., showed them what we believe and how we live, would that person say his society has survived, or wouldn’t not, do you think?

Not much I can do with bald assertions and catch phrases.

You could make the exact same argument about the homeless, the poor, the mentally disabled, the elderly, the unemployed, the Muslims, the atheists, the conservatives, the liberals, or just about any other group at odds with or drawing resources from some other group. If you could push a button and ‘dissappear’ everybody in America except for me, my immediate family, a couple dozen young women of my selection and a few farmers/soldiers, we happy few would certainly be much better off. It’s not about my emotional reactions to your words; that’s not really my bag. It’s about your principles being arbitrary statements of self interest, and not actually principles.

I’m saying it’s not 12,000 BC: A society’s primary concern need not be whether or not it will go extinct. Basic survival is covered.

I look at Israel, and I look at Muslim nations, and I have to disagree.

That doesn’t answer the question; you’re still operating from the assumption that race should be a person’s primary consideration. What I’m asking is, “Why not be a nationalist who is concerned with the U.S.A. continuing to thrive and maintain it’s values regardless of what color it’s citizens are”?

And you say you aren’t driven by the left! What is this by a reaction to 200 years of progressives insisting that a person is obligated to vote a certain way because of their race? The DNC does it now- presumes that all black people must vote for them or they are some kind of traitor, but the same thing has been happening in one form or another for generations, and it always comes out of the same camp of people who are trying to perfect society by identifing and eliminating the demographic that can be blamed for everything.

Unless there’s a huge political upset in the Western world, we probably will reach a point where white nationalism is the only tenable position: on the present course, the left is going to push and push and push until being a white person is like being a Jew in 1940’s Germany. But in such a situation, it will be a self-defense reaction, not a justified ideology. It’s still possible to, instead of that deny the premise that one’s color needs to define their politics altogether, and reject the progressive strategy of setting demographics at war with each other for their own profit.

I don’t think you prevent it by endorsing the underlying principle that it’s them or us. I think you prevent it by embracing an ideology where black people can be black people and do black things, white people can be white people and do white things, and the people who try to call everything racist are kicked to the curb. For example, immigration is a much, MUCH bigger threat to whiteness going away in America than inter-breeding is; people tend to prefer their own kind if you just leave them alone and don’t put social pressure on them to mix, and a strong border makes sense irrespective of racial concerns.

Of course, I’m conservative: I’m largely convinced we’re all fucked no matter what we do. White people going extinct would be a shitty thing to have happen, but there’s a million and one shitty possible futures ahead of us. These days I am more concerned about the extinction of masculinity than I am whiteness.

I don’t believe their IQ’s really are that low; I don’t think we’ve had sufficient IQ testing in native black countries to determine that. African Americans seem to have low IQ’s, but that’s what you get after three generations of nobody knowing who their daddy is, and therefore not knowing if their wife is their half sister. You put white people in a situation like that where they aren’t raised by two parents and don’t know if they’re inbreeding or not, and we’ll get dumb as hell too pretty quick.

See above. Our values are what allowed us to conquer the western world and what allows us to sustain our conquest of it.

I tend to agree with this. Only I link this frame of mind to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. As this in turn is rooted in the distinction I make between encompassing an objective reality able to be demonstrated as true for all of us and in expressing a reality that exists more “in my head”.

So, with respect to race, as this relates to a particular political conflict – busing, voter rights, miscegenation etc. – please note a distinction between those who embrace the meaning of “race” only in order to further a political agenda and those who are in fact expressing truths.

Sure. In the former case you have people who deny that race exists because they think that denial will further a political end they have. Or people who try to re-write or re-present history to make certain racial groups seem more impactful or more villainous than they really were. In the latter case you have a detective team trying to solve a crime by indentifying the race of human remains and tissue samples. Or people developing nutritional programs or menus with the knowledge that non-whites are almost all lactose intolerant in adulthood.

Will modern conservatives ever figure out that a post-racial society they’ve been cucked into believing in will eventually erode the cultural values they hold dear? Doubtful …

Will communist leftists ever admit that they have nothing but contempt for genuine diversity? Probably not…

cosmic law of dualism gobbling up the world alive… keep fighting ???

right and left are both LETHAL perceptions

‘Regime of tolerance’: Radical left on the rise around world, RT story
youtube.com/watch?v=KIT1ulLCa2w

What I am trying to discern though is the manner in which you or AutSider construe the meaning of “race” as this relates to an issue that resonates more among us as a political conflict.

Busing, for example.

Given the historical reality of very separate and very unequal educational opportunities among blacks and whites [here in America] how would the factor of race be applicable in making a distinction between a political narrative and a frame of mind that encompasses the objective truth.

Uccisore

You mean it shouldn’t be a surprise? The problem you describe seems to be not that progressives are manipualting morality so much, but that they try to do so using language, which ultimately backfires on them.

Kind of reminds me of what feminists are doing. They take terms which signifies something generally regarded as extremely bad from a certain viewpoint (racism/rape and accusations of being racist/rapist) and which evokes strong emotional disapproval in many people. Racism here means, as you said, to literally believe that some/all other races should be completely killed, and rape being a person having sexual intercourse with another person without consent. Then under these terms (racism/rape, racist/rapist accusations) they try to include many other things which can be regarded either as a little bit bad or not bad at all, such as simply recognizing the existence of races or catcalling, and they try to get people to have the same response of automatic emotional disapproval to these things too by using the same accusatory term (racist/rapist) for these minor things as they would for extreme things (actual rape and racism). What they end up achieving is the opposite and instead of being able to push little offenses as being big offenses by using the term used to denote big offenses to also include little offenses, now they’ve completely corrupted the term for big offenses by including little offenses in it too, effectively reducing the strength of emotional disapproval previously connected to the term for big offenses, which yes, paves the way for the resurgence of real big offenses.

It’s what happens when people forget that language is a tool for communicating about reality, and that you cannot use language to manipulate reality because language is based on and dependent on reality.

Besides, one can then be almost thankful to progressives - they’ve successfully removed the stigma around the word “racist” with their desensitization and now people are more likely to explore the term fully.

My problem with your usage of the word is that you used the word “liberty” and I know you had in your mind a very particular, American kind of liberty, as if it was the liberty, the only type of liberty to exist, which it is not.

Except that analogy fails because survival here doesn’t mean the same as a foundation in a house, it means the same as EXISTENCE. So you aren’t comparing a mansion on an adequate foundation to X, you’re comparing a NON EXISTENT mansion, or a mansion which falls apart (ceases to exist) and kills everybody in it in the process. That is my point - some things get filtered out of existence by natural selection, and unless we want to fall prey to it, we better pay attention to the processes of natural selection to learn how to deal with them, to learn which things to avoid so that we can survive. Hippies, f.e. just cannot exist in the long-term - they can only exist until they run out of other people’s money/until other people stop providing for them. Their way of life is non-sustainable in and of itself.

A society is based on genes of a peoples and memes produced by these peoples interacting with a particular environment - blood and soil. Blood (genes) and soil (environment, territory) resulting in particular memes.

Since memes (culture) are produced by particular types of genes (peoples), it is impossible for the same memes to survive if genes are replaced - likewise, it is impossible that genes produce and accept any type of memes.

Your text is based on the (false) assumption that there is no connection between genes and memes so that

  1. any memes can survive with any genes
    [tab](If in 100 years, there is a place called the United States of America that largely has the same values, flag, geography, holidays, and religion as we have now, but 90% of the population is hispanic, did our society survive, or didn’t it?)[/tab]
    and
  2. that any genes can produce any memes [tab](Alternatively, if in 100 years this geographic region is called something different, has different values, holidays, morals, but everybody here is still white, did our society survive, or didn’t it?)[/tab],

Black people might become Christian and adopt memes produced by whites, but they do not preserve them as they are, instead they modify them to be more suited to their own genes (biology of their peoples) - look at black church service: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EaI0U1_IW4[/youtube]

Remind you of anything?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHd_0B_kQDo[/youtube]

You can take the negro out of Africa…

One of the fundamental principles of communism is the lack of social hierarchy, aka, non-existence of social classes. This is impossible because reality and nature are all about hierarchy. The destruction of hierarchies would necessitate the destruction of all life, which is far from wonderful I think.

As for free market, I’m not even gonna start there because that could be an entire separate conversation. The word “free” itself has so much bullshit attached to it, especially when used in such a context.

If you push it to the extreme, yes, but I am not advocating for that. It seems to me that to you it is a matter of absolute either/or - either I must advocate for principles which result in destruction of my own kind (liberalism/cuckservatism) or I must advocate for the other end of the extreme, where nobody but me and a select few can live. To me it is a matter of degree and seeking balance after setting certain boundaries. Just recently watched a video giving one (among many) reasons it wouldn’t benefit us to “make disappear” everybody but a few people: [tab]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rk2hPrEnk8[/tab]

All principles are based on self-interest, and all principles ultimately end up benefitting one side more than the other. Even the self-destructive principles of white liberals are based on self-interest, in that they hate themselves so much that they don’t mind to see themselves and everybody who is like them, extinct.

But hey, don’t listen to me. Whites used to be 90%+ majority in America. Now they are 60-70% and going down, slowly. Couple of decades more and true equality will be achieved. And then you’ll begin melting in the melting pot.

[tab][/tab]

NO. Basic survival is never covered. Life is perpetual war and struggle. One must ALWAYS remain vigilant. In your country our race is reducing in number as we speak, and you tell me basic survival is covered?

Because race is not only about skin color and because it is impossible for any country to thrive if it consists mainly of negroes, aborigines, and races of similar average IQ. Because race is a RELEVANT category which cannot be dismissed and ignored.

If one wants to survive one must adapt to the tactics of their enemy to an extent, pretending the enemy doesn’t exist and is no threat is useless.

Lol. So only after whites are, what, less than 10% of population (AKA, WHEN IT IS TOO LATE) they can begin to think about self-defense, and even then it is not a “justified ideology”, whatever the fuck that means?

And one of the things both black and white people do is wage war based on tribal identifications - this war was waged even between groups with very minute differences such as Serbs and Croatians, and the hostilities exist to this day (as a Croatian I can testify to this myself). Of course there will be conflict between groups such as whites and blacks where group differences are MUCH more pronounced, especially when one group (whites) doesn’t in any relevant way benefit from existing in the same society as the other group (blacks), and the blacks would benefit existing as parasites in a white society, so there is great risk they will be subversive and adopt a gibs-me-dat mindset, which is precisely what they do.

But you’re also a Christian, so don’t you think we all end up in paradise anyway so it doesn’t really matter if we are fucked in this life here of 50-100 years when we’ll enjoy paradise for an eternity? Well not we, obviously I as a filthy atheist will be sent to hell to burn for an eternity, I mean you and other proper Christians.

Masculinity cannot go extinct. If a society becomes too emasculated, it is usually just conquered by another, more masculine society, all other factors equal. So masculinity in general cannot go extinct, although particular types of masculinity of certain groups of course die with those groups.

In a situation like what? What caused that situation? What came first, biological organisms or human cultures? Did biological organisms precede human cultures, or was it the other way around? Are human cultures based on the biology of organisms constructing that culture, or does the culture exist first, somehow?

Note, I am not saying that culture doesn’t influence organisms at all, I think they both affect each other, but I also think that organisms construct cultures and so they determine culture more than culture determines them.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all that areas generally populated by blacks are shitty places to live, and I can’t lie to myself and pretend it is all about “culture”, which seems almost like a superstitious excuse.

Values such as what?

EDIT: added a video in tab and the paragraph about foundations.