Post: #76

(09-01-2016 01:07 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  262,

The alt-right perspective is as follows: culture is created by race, and mediated by environment. Nearly everyone would be happier if they lived close to their ancestral homes: dark-skinned people near the equator, light skinned people in the 30-50 latitudes.

There are numerous environmental cues that explain cultural differences, and predict that cultural assimilation is impossible. (My favorite is the recent discovery about the difference between wheat and root vegetables. Wheat spoils and must be stored. Root vegetables don't.)

You are correct on assimilation. Assimilation does not exist. But that also applies within races, not just between races.

The Slavic, Irish and Italian immigrants who came to the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century did not assimilate, they changed the country forever. In my area of the country, for example, there's a Catholic church in every borough. The founders did not have particularly positive views of Catholicism. If they had been alive during the 1950s (the "glory days" that the alt-right seeks to replicate, which is impossible for multiple reasons), they would have been disgusted at how the country had been changed, even though these various groups are considered "white" today. Simply put, even when the demographics were 90% "white," it was still no longer the country the founders had created.

Post: #77

rw95,

Agreed.

The current consensus among the Alt-right is that we first must limit immigration from black and brown people, and then see what to do next.

Some call for outright elimination of Irish, Catholics, and Jews. Others call for limiting their political power. Others are completely unconcerned.

But we all agree about the blacks and browns first.

Post: #78

(09-01-2016 01:36 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  rw95,

Agreed.

The current consensus among the Alt-right is that we first must limit immigration from black and brown people, and then see what to do next.

Some call for outright elimination of Irish, Catholics, and Jews. Others call for limiting their political power. Others are completely unconcerned.

But we all agree about the blacks and browns first.

I can see quite clearly where you stand in terms of race and ethnicity MMX.

It's time to limit ALL immigration. Mass immigration from anywhere is never a good thing, as has been shown throughout history.

But back to Vox Day and the ethnonationalist conundrum. According to Vox Day, nations belong 100% to their founding stock, and should therefore ONLY be populated by their founding stock. But Vox Day is a mongrel, and therefore has no place in an ethnonationalist America. What right, therefore, does he have to continue to live here? Should he not deport himself to some Indian reservation (if they will take him) or wherever he best believes a "tri-racial" person belongs?

Also, since the founding stock of the United States are decidedly north-western European protestants, does that mean that it's time for Roissy and other alt-right game figures to abandon their "Slavic goddesses," man up and marry those western sluts they hate so much? After, all, theirs are the wombs which will continue, undiluted, the genetic legacy of the west, not the Slavic women.

Post: #79

If you're going to cite Vox Day, cite him accurately.

He would never agree with, "Because nations belong to their founding stock, they should therefore ONLY be populated by their founding stock."

Post: #80

(09-01-2016 05:52 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  If you're going to cite Vox Day, cite him accurately.

He would never agree with, "Because nations belong to their founding stock, they should therefore ONLY be populated by their founding stock."

Sounds mighty accurate to me. I think Roissy would agree too. I am of course, open to any contrasting words from Vox Day, if you can find them.

Post: #81

Accurate would be either a video recording if him saying it, a link and a direct quote, or audio of him saying that.

Can you produce either?

-----

"I'm open to any contrasting words from Vox Day, if you can find them."

Check you out. First you attribute an idea directly to him, and then you ask other people to disprove your attribution.

Post: #82

(09-01-2016 06:01 PM)rw95 Wrote:  Sounds mighty accurate to me. I think Roissy would agree too. I am of course, open to any contrasting words from Vox Day, if you can find them.

You're the one making the claim, so that task is on you, right?

Post: #83

6 of Vox Day's 16 points of the alt-right:

5.The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
9.The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
10.The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
11.The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
12.The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
16.The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

Post: #84

And yet none of those points directly state, "Nations belong to their founding stock, and therefore should ONLY be populated by their founding stock."

Post: #85

(09-01-2016 06:13 PM)rw95 Wrote:  6 of Vox Day's 16 points of the alt-right:

5.The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
9.The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
Ditto.
10.The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
As we can clearly see in the United States, Catholics, Irish, Italians and Slavs exercise a non-trivial percentage of power in the United States, if not over the founding stock, certainly with the founding stock. This is to say nothing, of course, of the non-white ethnic minorities.
11.The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
12.The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
16.The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

It's called reading between the lines. I'm open to your interpretation, however. We very well could be seeing things differently.

Post: #86

"Because nations belong to their founding stock, they should therefore ONLY be populated by their founding stock.""
"Sounds mighty accurate to me. I think Roissy would agree too. I am of course, open to any contrasting words from Vox Day, if you can find them."

Wait a second. I called you out on telling these same stupid lies a day ago, and you complained it was off-topic and asked to take it to PM!
Now you're back, telling the same lies, less than 24 hours later?

It's not like Vox Day doesn't make enough controversial statements to begin with. Why do you have such a problem with telling the truth?

Post: #87

Attributing a direct statement to someone else isn't "reading between the lines". It's lying.

@SamuelBRoberts - It is somewhat funny that Lying RW95 is using blatant lies against Vox Day readers. That man has taught me so much about spotting lies and dealing with liars.

It's ten times funnier if he's either black or brown, for obvious reasons.

Post: #88

-Definition of homogeneous: of the same kind, alike,
or
consisting of parts all of the same kind

Unadulterated by foreign invasion or immigration.
Without taking racial minorities into account, what did large-scale immigration from southern, eastern and Catholic Europe do to the country. It changed the country. Adulterated the stock, and therefore the country. Destroyed the formerly homogeneous character of the country, which was northern and western European protestants. The alt-right is opposed to this adulteration along racial and ethnic lines.

Diversity+proxmity=war. As we have seen throughout history, this is true not only along racial lines, but along ethnic lines within races (the Irish and Italian gangs, for example). How do we avoid this? By not having these groups together, obviously.

The alt-right is [opposed to] genetic assimilation. Ergo against interracial mixing AND interethnic mixing. Whenever you have two populations sharing a common area, some mixing will inevitably take place, no matter how large or small the other group is. Laws can be put into place to prevent this, but even then, as we have seen in the past, these do not have a 100% effectiveness. Therefore, the only logical way to prevent genetic assimilation, along racial or ethnic grounds , is to have a 100% monoethnic, monoracial society.

And SamuelBRoberts, I messaged you and had hoped to carry on our conversation. You never responded.

Post: #89

rw95,

Is Japan ethnically homogenous? Google some statistics on Japanese demography, and then answer Yes or No.

Post: #90

Japan is 98.5% ethnically Japanese.

Is anything I have said technically incorrect or incompatible with the tenets I have cited as they currently stand?

Post: #91

rw95,

I know Japan is 98.5% ethnically Japanese, but what I asked you was, "Is Japan ethnically homogenous?"

When someone asks you a Yes/No question, you should reply with a Yes or a No.

Post: #92

And I have asked you a yes or no question as well.

If we want to get absolutely anal about it, technically no.

Post: #93

(09-02-2016 10:40 AM)rw95 Wrote:  If we want to get absolutely anal about it, technically no.

I'm going to ask you to pick one of the following options. Please pick one, without dodging.

Which of these is the more racist position?

(1) The fact that Japan is 98.5% ethnically Japanese, coupled with the fact that racial minorities in Japan have no political power, is good enough for the nation of Japan. So Japan is sufficiently racially homogenous, despite not being 100.0% Japanese.

(2) It doesn't matter than the 1.5% of non-ethnically Japanese people in Japan have no political power. Their very presence in Japan is offensive, and they should be removed. Only 100.0% racial homogeneity is real racial homogeneity!

Again, pick the one that's more racist.

Post: #94

Comparably speaking, position 1.

But do the tenets of the alt-right not leave position 2 to be a plausible option, depending on interpretation?

Still haven't answered my question I see.

Post: #95

The first position welcomes people who don't share the ethnicity of the founding stock. The second position permanently refuses to welcome people who don't share the ethnicity of the founding stock.

But you think the first position is more racist than the second?

Justify your answer.

Post: #96

(09-02-2016 11:18 AM)rw95 Wrote:  But do the tenets of the alt-right not leave position 2 to be a plausible option, depending on interpretation?

No, they don't.

The tenets of the Alt-Right are position one, which is clearly less racist than position two.

You were caught lying that, "according to Vox Day, (he believes in position two)". When you were caught lying, you didn't apologize. Instead, you said you were "reading between the lines".

When I asked you whether Japan was ethnically homogenous, you said "technically, no" - which is a perfect match to the highly racist second position.

Then you lied by saying that position one is more racist than position two. And this lie attempted to mask the facts that: (1) You adopted the racist position two in regard to Japan, and (2) When you attempted to "read between the lines", you accused Vox Day (who believes in position one) of believing in position two.

Since you believe in position two regarding Japan, then you injected position two into Vox's position one. To inject your item beliefs into someone else, while denying that they're your beliefs is called PROJECTION.

Vox wrote a wonderful book called "SJWs Always Lie". It's first law is that SJWs Always Lie. It's second law is that SJWs Always Project.

Let's see if you'll follow the third law.

Post: #97

Excuse me. For some reason, I misread your first question as choose the one which is less racist. I openly acknowledge my error.

Yes, option 2 is more racist than option 1. I will however, stand by my assertion that the tenets of the alt-right leave option 2 as a plausible course of action if a nation so desires.

Post: #98

Here's how I would establish that position 1 could lead to position 2: Sit quietly for six months, and track whether any position 1 individual has switched to position 2.

You're foregoing the research in order to state your opinion about other people's behavior. That's what a Liar or a Projector would do.

Post: #99

What research have I forgone? I am not saying that position 2 WILL happen. What I am saying is that position 2 could in theory happen, while not going against any of the alt-right's positions.

I no longer wish to take this thread any further off topic. If you so desire, my offer given to SamuelBRoberts is given freely to you as well, if you wish to continue this conversation via private message.

Post: #100

It's incredibly weak to say an extremely racist position COULD HAPPEN. Especially when you have no evidence that it HAS HAPPENED. And especially after you lied about Vox Day possessing that opinion.