Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

Counter-Semitism is opposing Semitic intrusion into White homelands via physical invasion, and attempts to influence our governments by organizations like the Jewish Lobby.
"White homelands"? Do you mean America? Sorry, not a "white homeland" at all, but a land taken away, violently, from its original inhabitants.

While I think that, nowadays, whites (as well as Latin Americans, blacks and Asians) do have a right to call this land their home (since it actually is), and have a right to remain there, they have no moral right to claim an exclusive ownership of it (to call it so). They must share this land with its other inhabitants, with mutual respect and cooperation between all races and ethnicities (especially Native Americans, who do have a much better reason to call these land "theirs" than anyone else).
 
the 'white man' shouldn't have to suffer 'white guilt' for the actions of past generations, but you think Semites should.
Please point out where I said any such thing.

Jewish ethnic cohesion and willingness to work for the benefit of the group is inspirational to the Alt-Right.

We very much respect your Jewish Identity and want you to fully enjoy it in your Ethno-State.
 
"White homelands"? Do you mean America? Sorry, not a "white homeland" at all, but a land taken away, violently, from its original inhabitants.
You don't even realize how silly your "here first" game is.

White European Solutreans were invaded and genocided by your "Native Americans".



During the Age of Empires White People had grown better at it than even the brutal Chinese or genocidal Incas.

Those days are past. Your little game is tedious and pointless. Grow up.
 
You don't even realize how silly your "here first" game is.

White European Solutreans were invaded and genocided by your "Native Americans".



During the Age of Empires White People had grown better at it than even the brutal Chinese or genocidal Incas.

Those days are past. Your little game is tedious and pointless. Grow up.
Some actual science and scholarship to prove this heterodox historical claim, maybe? I'd like to see some links to the relevant research! :eek:
 
Do your own research. I honestly don't care if you believe me because your little "here first" grievance game is tedious and pointless.

Those days are gone. Grow up.
Eh... I suppose, if one translates this long, deep and detailed reply to my request for the actual evidence from Alt-Right's Newspeak to the old, classic English, it would sound something like "No evidence to support our claims, but we should believe it anyway since it is so convenient for our cause". :eek:

Is my translation correct, Charlie? I very strongly suspect it is. If it is not, please provide the links to the relevant sources containing the evidence and prove me wrong. Can you?
 
I hear this talk of "counter-semitism". To blame the jews for the political climate in the english speaking world is like blaming the sorcerers apprentice for what the sorcerer has done. If you wish to analyze the political climate presently in the english speaking world you have to analyze the history of the english speaking people and the way that relates to the psychology of english speakers.

In 1066 the Normans conquered England behaving in a very tribalistic manner dispossessing the anglo saxon nobles and then the normans displayed nepotism in appointing each other to positions of nobility. America was founded by puritans, the same puritans who had one of the English kings executed during Cromwell. A number of the founding fathers described the American revolution as a rebellion against the norman yoke of England, they considered the nobility to be of Norman heritage. EVERYTHING happening politically and socially in the english speaking world is based upon ANGLO SAXON RESENTMENT OF NORMANS. It all grew out of that.

Think about the almost instinctive aversion to "strong men" leaders you find historically among Americans, this hysteria aout Putin, Gaddafi, etc. Strong men leaders remind the Anglo Saxons of William the conqueror, the Norman conqueror who took over England. They are basically chasing phantoms that remind them of William, many of them don't even know who William is or the Normans. This is all genetic stuff.

As far as the issue of the survival of European genetics is concerned European genetics survive whether or not whites marry inside or outside their race. Some will marry outside some will marry inside. The main issue that would be bad for european americans would be increased tensions and polarization between whites and non-whites. European genetics are here. It doesn't matter what percentages of whites marry inside or outside the race. Even if whites intermarry you will still have instances of people who look physically white being born from mixed race parents due to the phenomena of selective genetic expression.

Multiculturalism or multiracialism is not a threat. Racial hostility between whites and non-whites isn't good though. The alt right plays into the hands of the leftists by promoting this hard white/non-white dichotomy.

Racism is a false tribalism. Your tribe is more your friends and family. The American establishment hates racism because it reminds them of Norman ethnic nepotism(Norman tribalism). However I don't see racism as being a true expression of tribalism, at least generally speaking. True tribalism seems to be more about loyalty to friends and family then an across the board loyalty to race which really is too broad a classification to be meaningful.

The universal siblinghood of humanity is the best way forward for the survival of european genetics. I would actually like that universal siblinghood eventually extended to all life forms and eventually I would like to see other animals tolerated to live in human society as they are in India. And just to be clear when I speak of Anglo Saxon resentment I am only refering to a particular class of anglo saxons. The seeds of this resentment metastasized into a cultural political virus that transcends ethnicity.

On the issue of immigration it does seem like the immigration is a bit excessive, I think it should be reduced but I do think we can assimilate immigrants into our culture. Whether every western nation will do that successfully who knows. Even with this excessive immigration we can find a way to make things work though.
 
Last edited:
"White homelands"? Do you mean America?
Don't bother. He'll just say he answered you directly and simply while never doing any such thing. Charlie lives in an echo chamber of his own creation as best I can tell. Authoritative in tone, utterly devoid of evidence.
 
Don't bother. He'll just say he answered you directly and simply while never doing any such thing. Charlie lives in an echo chamber of his own creation as best I can tell. Authoritative in tone, utterly devoid of evidence.
Evidence is what I asked Charlie to show me (and everyone else here), but the result is the reiteration of the very same words he has said already. In fact, I find his tendency to repeat himself verbatim, again and again, quite hilarious. Maybe he thinks that if the words are repeated enough times, they become true.

Sorry, Charlie, magick does not work this way. ;)

And my challenge to you still stands, Charlie. Provide the sources for your unusual histrorical statements. Prove me wrong.
 
Think about the almost instinctive aversion to "strong men" leaders you find historically among Americans, this hysteria aout Putin, Gaddafi, etc. Strong men leaders remind the Anglo Saxons of William the conqueror, the Norman conqueror who took over England. They are basically chasing phantoms that remind them of William, many of them don't even know who William is or the Normans. This is all genetic stuff.
Why then do we frequently elect such strong male leaders? More likely I think it is merely a political tool to convince the masses to hate your economic rivals so that you may more easily invade their lands.
 
Is my translation correct, Charlie?
Let me be clear so you need no translation. White People took North America by force of arms from the Asians living here because we were better at conquest they they were during the Age of Empires.

We're not giving it back any more the Jews are giving back Palestine to the Palestinians and moving to Madagascar.

Your continued whining about it sounds as goofy and pointless as Chief Sitting Bull does in this video...

 
Let me be clear so you need no translation. White People took North America by force of arms from the Asians living here because we were better at conquest they they were during the Age of Empires.

We're not giving it back any more the Jews are giving back Palestine to the Palestinians and moving to Madagascar.

Your continued whining about it sounds as goofy and pointless as Chief Sitting Bull does in this video...

You have no evidence, no facts to support your historical claims. You made it clear as day yourself, by refusing to provide evidence and switching to the appeals to armed force. So, I'm bold enough to consider myself victorious in our little historical debate. :D

And you have no logic, no intellectual consistency either. You have just claimed that there were a pre-Native peaceful population of indigenous whites in America, that was supposedly slaughered by evil, bloodthirsty Native Americans. This claim is empty words without substance, as all can see now. But, when the vacuous nature of this claim became obvious, you, in direct contradiction to your previous condemnation of supposed slaughter of the innocent whites by malicious Natives, turned to the appeals to armed force: now, according to you, land should belong to the ones who had more strength to take it away from the previous inhabitants.

Sorry, but there is no way to reconcile the mutually exclusive condemnation of anti-white violence by non-whites and approbation of whites' own violence against non-whites. Well, as long as you are not engaging in utterly intellectually incoherent yet highly emotionally appealing "tribal morality" which justifies anything done by "our" tribe, no matter how ugly, yet decries the identical actions by "other" tribes against "ours".

I require such "tribalisation" of morality as a hypocrisy elevated to the level of a principle, and as moral regress and decline. Any moral progress and development in history had come from the recognition of the equal dignity and value of all human beings, whether they are of our tribe or not, and from ethical honesty resulting from such acceptance of the universal and equal value of any person. With such honesty, one morally demands the same from oneself and one's community that the one demands from other persons and communities.

And, for the movie episode you demonstrated... I do not perceive pre-colonisation Native Americans as somehow morally pure - they were not angels, they were human beings with all human weaknesses. They indeed were as capable of initiatory warfare and invasion as whites were. Yet it does not morally justify the mass-murder of them or violent robbing them of their land, by the people who came to their land without invitation. To claim otherwise is like to claim that the armed robbery and resulting murder by a gang of some passing-by man who did not even provoked the gang members in any way is justified if this man was himself imperfect - say, he has beaten his wife and children.
 
These words are one of the reasons for my respect for you, Laird, and the reason while I do not perceive you as the SJW in the negative sense of the term. You're not authoritarian, not censorious, not dogmatic - you are open to debate and critique and can handle serious disagreement.
Thanks for the kind words, Vortex!
 
I DON'T CARE WHO WAS IN AMERICA FIRST.
Let's say that you set up your White Homeland somewhere in the USA, and then a bunch of Jews came over and conquered your homeland, killed a bunch of you, enslaved others, and discriminated against the rest such that you were forced to live in poverty, and that they said to you, "WE DON'T CARE THAT YOU WERE HERE FIRST".

What would your response be?

"Fair enough, what's good for the goose is good for the gander"?
 
If there were caucasians in the Americas prior to pre-columbian asian migration into America then its possible that those caucasians were assimilated into the native tribes, especially considering sometimes it was remarked that certain members of native tribes had what appeared to be european features.

...I think it is merely a political tool to convince the masses to hate your economic rivals so that you...
Who would you say are the main players competing against each other economically right now?
 
Top