Emma writes: Another bystander brings up Hitler. First, he dismisses the question as being historical and therefore irrelevant, he says he’s looking to the future instead. So, I ask, seven times before getting a straight answer, if he condemns the attempt of Adolf Hitler to create a purely “Aryan” country.
After saying “I think Hitler is misunderstood” and telling me he does condemn violence, he finally answers whether or not he condemns Hitler, saying, “No, I don’t. The idea that someone would want a country of their own, that someone would want a country that’s defined by their ancestors and their people, I do not condemn that.” He is so skillful at making white supremacy sound like a nice fairy tale that he can almost make Hitler sound like someone who just wanted a quaint little Germany with his extended family – almost.
On this note, and after a digression about the likelihood of Trump interning muslims, which Spencer does not think is likely, I ask him, what’s the end game? He gives me the “medium term” and the long term. First, he “want[s] European Americans to have a sense of themselves. I think at this point they, we, don’t. We have a sense of ourselves as individuals, we might even have a negative sense of ourselves.” The long term?
“I think we should have a new Roman empire. My ultimate dream, and this is probably not something that’s going to happen in my lifetime, it’s very similar to leftist dreaming of communism or Jews dreaming of Zionism, would be yes, a grand ethno-state for all Europeans to come together.”
COMMENTS:
* “I’ll be honest, when I went looking for Trump supporters, and they were all Trump supporters, I thought I would find buck toothed hill billies. I was wrong”
This sentence summarises the last few decades of politics in the US. The left, because of its cultural and political hegemony, has not had a serious opposition since the 60s. The alt-right represents the emergence of a serious opposition to the left. “Buck toothed hill billies” will not be the face of “racism” and “sexism” in the 21st century. The face of racism and sexism in the 21st century will be well educated white men who can with total seriousness and rigour defend the position that “there is nothing wrong with racism and sexism”. The time of dismissing such ideas as those of “buck toothed hill billies” is over. The future of “hate” in the US will be well-educated shit lords calmly and methodically quoting IQ studies, crime statistics, admixture studies and whatnot.
Basically you’re fucked. When you can download a PDF from the DOJ that plainly states black people committed 56% of fatal gun crimes from 1980 to 2008 — and then some NET turns it into a meme — the entire mainstream narrative collapses.
*
The author is completely oblivious to how her assumption that Trump supporters would be “bucktoothed hillbillies” underscores the need for what people like Spencer are doing. She’s unaware of the vicious and disastrous racial and class prejudice on which her whole worldview is built and the outrageous hypocrisy of it.
The narrative that comes out of her worldview doesn’t allow for the reality of a working class white population that is being destroyed socially, culturally, and economically while it is coerced into funding its own dispossession. That doesn’t compute for bourgeois white women on college campuses who think they’re oppressed. The “bucktoothed hillbillies” whose neighborhoods and culture are destroyed by “cultural enrichment” are supposed to be the oppressors somehow. Maybe one day the left can explain how, but they certainly haven’t been able to yet.
* What you regard as “racism” is really just the social trust that comes from a cohesive society where people have a relatively common experience, identity, and way of life. It’s the natural preference that people have for others with whom they can identify. Social trust is the mark of a healthy society, one in which people often understand their community as an extended family. This is something which will forever be denied to us while we destroy ourselves force fitting your lunatic multicultural utopia which will never exist anyway.
And if you doubt this, ask yourself why it hasn’t materialized already. Maybe someday, huh?
The sad truth of it is that “diverse” societies are not stronger for it, but far weaker. They are characterized by high crime and low trust, fractured societies that are easily divided and conquered by the capitalists or wealthy I’m sure you love to complain about. Diversity isn’t strength. Unity is. A multicultural society isn’t a society at all.
The future we’re heading into isn’t going to resemble the late 20th century affluent society of atomized, individual consumers. As the bottom drops out economically, people are going to have to revert to clans, tribes, extended families, and communities because they will need to rely on one another. We don’t confront our environment directly, but indirectly through a division of labor, through a culture and society on which we depend to survive. All of that requires cultural homogeneity and the social trust it makes possible. You’re simply operating on an article of faith if you think race isn’t connected to culture. But ok, I’m sure on some magical far-off day, whites will be able to establish that necessary social cohesion with blacks who are 12% of the population and committing over half the homicides.
You realize that ancient people weren’t stuck in one place. They migrated great distances, moved here and there, came into contact with each other repeatedly. And yet, after thousands of years of this, what we inherited were largely racially homogeneous societies. Is it possible there’s a reason for this?
You better hope there isn’t.
* The reporter asked a full grown man what gender he was? Does this make any sense?
* Look at the reality of your own state, Emma. 72% White to less than a plurality in 40 years, and the “Scottish” Hispanic kid wants to act like dispossession isn’t occurring? California has absolutely changed, and for Whites that means lower wages, crowded public schools, gangs, drug cartels, strain on public resources, etc. We’re not the boogeymen you’re cultural Marxist professors or media make us out to be. You wanted a legitimate source for biological studies on racial differences? A good introduction to genetics and race would “A Troublesome Inheritance” by Nicholas Wade. He’s a liberal like you — he even writes for the NYT — yet he’s also a geneticist, and an honest one at that. In his words, human evolution has been “recent, copious, and regional.”
The social science narrative of “race as a social construct” doesn’t actually pan out — its why genetic testing companies like 23andme can definitively map you or I’s DNA to specific regions, and races. All they need is a bit of spit and they can tell whether your European or East Asian or sub-Saharan African at a percentage level basis; and even chromosomally. That’s why D’migo laughed when the obviously brown, black haired Hispanic kid tried to say he was “Scottish” — most Hispanics are a mix of European and Amerindian and African blood. It’s why Mexico isn’t considered “Scottish” or European because biologically they’re not. Whereas in North America, whether in Canada or the US, our nations were settled by Northern Europeans who mixed with Amerindians as an exception. It’s why my families been here for 400 years and I’m still as Northern European as my Welsh and Scots-Irish ancestors. Advocating for our own interests isn’t “supremacy” Emma, and it’s because you’re brainwashed to think it is that you find it acceptable to begin this piece mocking poor Southern whites as “toothless” hillbillies. Disgusting. Wake the fuck up, La Raza doesn’t care that your a liberal or that you profess you’re not “racist”. Take a trip down to Mexico or better yet South Central that was ethnically cleansed by MS-13 of blacks. See how long you last around those “people of color”.
* What I can’t understand is if the mud people are so oppressed then why do they risk everything to get into a white country where they will apparently be lynched in the streets?
* How many times did she call him “alpha” in this article? She’s clearly infatuated.
* Chicks dig it. They just don’t wanna admit it.
* She’s so brave not voting for Trump. She’s like one of those Vietnamese monks that really did set themselves on fire.
* I watched the video too, “Last Tommy” and I noticed her furrowed brow valiantly going into convulsions in its attempt to prevent oxygen from getting to her brain in order to stop her thinking bad-thoughts. She’s nothing but a sick, anti-white traitor.
* Why can’t Europeans have what Jews have — an ethnically homogeneous state with a nice big wall around it? A member of the alt right is nothing more than a white who applies the principles of Zionism to whites.
* Look at what naturally happens in school cafeterias, prison, housing patterns, etc. People who are more alike tend to flock together, and work together better, and don’t have intra-ethnic conflicts. Look at the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1918 (you can’t, you’re historically ignorant of actual examples rather than propaganda), it was as clear-cut an example of the problems of diversity as a person could find, just like the problems of diversity in the Balkans played a significant role in the outbreak of World War I.
Some people don’t think that artificially injecting low iq Somalis, from a country rife with corruption and crime, into lily-white Minnesota actually benefits Minnesotans. The gigantic jump on the welfare roster, increase of corruption and crime, just like back home, vindicates them. Simply believing that “diversity” is progress because some short-haired Jewish Marxist lesbian told you so doesn’t actually make it so, dummy, it only proves that you’re a lout who uncritically accepts subversion strategies.
* That “buck-toothed hillbillies” line says it all really. Nothing but conformity and status signalling and emoting against facts and statistics.
* Emma said she was majoring in cognitive science and beating lots of males grade wise, and doubts Richard’s assertion that men tend to be better at science than women. I can’t speak for Richard, but from what I’ve read, in terms of mathematical or spatial reasoning, women do as well as men, generally, but at the extreme right tail of the bell-curve, from which come the most gifted and highly accomplished scientists, there are more men than women.
There is also the matter of inclination and desire. Few women, including highly intelligent ones, have a strong determination to become scientists or engineers. Feminists claim this is because of the patriarchal culture, which somehow, even in 2016, is still keeping women out of STEM. I believe in the more obvious answer, that women don’t become scientists and engineers in greater numbers, because it’s not in their nature to do so; it’s more in their nature to become wives and mothers, or teachers or social workers or nurses or pediatricians…even in 2016, and even against the insane pressure they are put under by popular culture to do what does not come naturally.
* Practically every woman I have known in a long life have exhibited mechanical inaptitude, by male standards. The few that were like men, usually tomboys or lesbians, where just regular examples of what passes for mechanical aptitude amongst men. None of them were outstanding. Male and female brains are objectively different.
* It’s funny how she tries to emphasize the power dynamic at work; her, a poor widdle short woman surrounded by tall sinister white men! We all know she’d be safer among outright National Socialists than in the brown future she wants for this country, where whites have no societies of their own. Her and her dildo politics will be the first to go when hispanics gain cultural hegemony.
The point of feminism is to destroy white patriarchy. It has nothing to say about brown patriarchy. Which is why new forms of patriarchy come in and fill the void of white patriarchy left by feminism.
* Pretty good article. Not as hysterical as I would’ve expected coming out of the Cultural Marxist epicenter of Berkeley. Just to clarify though: “It sounds like it makes sense because it is said intelligently, that is, until you examine what he is really saying.” This actually spells out the disingenuous and, frankly, ridiculous rhetoric coming out of Leftist/Cultural Marxist post-modern drivel with all their -isms and mental gymnastics that tries to pass itself off at once as “proletariat” and “elite” at the same time. Until Leftist rhetoric figures this out, they are a doomed ideology. Applying postmodern mind games to real world situations is unsustainable and, frankly, elitist. But, that’s Cultural Marxism for you: appealing to the masses for ever greater state power over them, and using convoluted language to kowtow people into thinking they are “in the know”. It’s bogus.
* Every time the author refutes one of Richards arguments it’s done from an emotional standpoint. To be quite frank I’d be embarrassed to publish an article like this…even under my pen name.
