I like the victim complex literal Nazis have. Like your views aren't worth discussing, tolerating, or even considering.
There's no rational or reasonable basis to be a Nazi, it does not exist. If someone walks up to me and tells me "the lizard people are coming" I'm not going to consider them either, because they're either mentally ill or stupid, and that's true of Nazis as well.
There are no issues to respond to because there is no rational basis for his beliefs in the first place.
As somehow who holds similar views to Spencer, I completely disagree. I'm not sure how productive discussing this with you could possible be given what you're saying, however. You can't simply presuppose your position is correct without any argument. Despite what you may think, there are no philosophical or historical defaults that are simply 'correct'.
My position is correct because of Nazism, irrefutably, has nothing to offer to society and fascism, which is exactly what Spencer is, has no place in society.
It isn't just that the things you believe are factually incorrect on every level possible, it's that they're irrational and provably retarded.
Right, but I think you're wrong. Good talk! I'm not sure you even know what any of my beliefs are, but none of them are irrational or provably retarded.
Well, Nazis were members of a German political party in the 20th century. I'm definitely not one of them (this isn't semantics either, the Nazi party does not line up with my individual politics in a number of ways, though I'm assuming your only conception of Nazi politics is something like "they were racist"). As for white nationalism, it's a simple matter of whether you think that people deserve a homeland based on a solid foundation of culture and tradition. I think all people do, and I'd prefer not to see whites become minorities in Europe and North American by 2100, or even 2050. If you have a problem with that, I'd like you to answer if you also have a problem with Japan being 98% Japanese, India being almost exclusively Indian, the entire Middle East being relatively monocultural (within nations, obviously there are big divides within the Muslim world), Israel being a Jewish state with the "right of return" based entirely on ethnicity, and practically every country on Earth outside of Europe and North America being largely monocultural with homogeneous populations.
I think there's value in German, British, Irish, American, Swedish, Norwegian, French, Dutch, etc, culture that deserves to be preserved and carry on. There's no benefit to replacing it. Do you think that what happened to the Native Americans when they were replaced by Europeans was a good thing? Would you like to see that replicated today?
Well, nazis were members of a German political party in the 20th century. I'm definitely not one of them.
Nice try. Nazism is a form of fascism, specifically. And Spencer himself subscribes to pretty much every plank of the "Nazi agenda." You, yourself, said you agree with most of his views.
As for white nationalism, it's a simple matter of whether you think that people deserve a homeland based on a solid foundation of culture and tradition.
And the united states never had a foundation of "culture and tradition." The country has always been split, with people from all over Europe, completely different cultures.
and I'd prefer not to see whites become minorities in Europe and North American by 2100, or even 2050.
Then it's a good thing your mathematically illiterate delusions aren't reality and that isn't going to happen, it's not even close to happening.
If you have a problem with that, I'd like you to answer if you also have a problem with Japan being 98% Japanese, India being almost exclusively Indian, the entire Middle East being relatively monocultural (within nations, obviously there are big divides within the Muslim world), and practically every country on Earth outside of Europe and North America being largely monocultural.
I don't give a shit what other countries do. What other countries do isn't relevant to my country, and fascism, irrefutably, is a cancer on society. It has no value, it offers no solutions, it has no program.
It's a set of emotional traits that uneducated people can cling to. People with so little to offer the world they base their identity on skin color, or nationality, or religion.
And Spencer himself subscribes to pretty much every plank of the "Nazi agenda."
News to me. What exactly is the "Nazi agenda", and where does Spencer subscribe to it? I'd be happy to point out areas where I disagree with Spencer, and Hitler, for that matter.
And the united states never had a foundation of "culture and tradition." The country has always been split, with people from all over Europe, completely different cultures.
You'll have to read your own history for this one, but you're entirely wrong. I can't provide you with enough information via a reddit post, but the founding father's intentions for the Nation should be on Jefferson's wikipedia page or something. It's a start at least.
Then it's a good think your mathematically illiterate delusions aren't reality and that isn't going to happen, it's not even close to happening.
Huh? It's happening as we speak. Americans have gone from over 90% white to just over 60% white since about 1960. You should actually do some research before dismissing well-understood demographic projections. Nothing I said there was remotely controversial.
What other countries do isn't relevant to my country, and fascism, irrefutably, is a cancer on society. It has no value, it offers no solutions, it has no program.
Well I'm not a fascist, and nor, to my knowledge, is Richard Spencer, so this isn't particularly relevant. I can see you're not capable of discussing this without getting emotional, but you really don't seem to know anything about the subject. Some education would really help you out.
You'll have to read your own history for this one, but you're entirely wrong. I can't provide you with enough information via a reddit post, but the founding father's intentions for the Nation should be on Jefferson's wikipedia page or something. It's a start at least.
Your historical illiteracy is not a replacement for scholarship. Why do you think the US has no official language, and why do you think many parts of the united states are so vastly different today?
Germans, Japanese, Hispanics, blacks, Irish, British, French? All of those demographics have been in this country since the very start.
Why do you think the Irish were considered sub-human by other Europeans, and why do you think European conflicts were so common for so long?
Why do you think eastern Europeans were often considered subhuman and in conflict with western Europeans?
Why do you think the civil war happened? The idea that there's ever been "one American culture" is fiction.
Huh? It's happening as we speak. Americans have gone from over 90% white to just over 60% white since about 1960. You should actually do some research before dismissing well-understood demographic projections. Nothing I said there was remotely controversial.
These aren't "well understood demographic projections" they're projections retards throw out, retards often following the "one drop rule" and claiming white Hispanics with white parents aren't "white."
There are no credible projections supporting the argument you're making.
Well I'm not a fascist, and nor, to my knowledge, is Richard Spencer, so this isn't particularly relevant.
Spencer is absolutely a fascist. Word for word, the things he repeats are out of the Nazi playbook.
Germans, Japanese, Hispanics, blacks, Irish, British, French? All of those demographics have been in this country since the very start.
Totally untrue (U.S.A, the country, and the North American landmass circa 1550-1775 are very different... U.S.A did not exist at the time). But you've done no research, so I can only reiterate that you need to learn.
Why do you think eastern Europeans were often considered subhuman and in conflict with western Europeans?
Great example of an area where I, and Richard Spencer, totally disagree with the Nazi policies of Adolf Hitler. I completely agree with you about European conflicts being bad. As a pan-European white nationalist I totally disagree with the designation of the Irish as 'subhuman', and with Hitlers classification of Eastern Europeans, and Slavs in specific. I also fully abhor any European wars (Hitler started a big one, not something I'm a fan of).
There are no credible projections supporting the argument you're making.
A simple google search would prove you completely wrong about this, just like a simple Wikipedia browse for maybe 30 minutes would prove you wrong as to the origins of your country.
Spencer is absolutely a fascist. Word for word, the things he repeats are out of the Nazi playbook.
Some of the things he says are consistent with Nazi ideology, and many of the things he says are not. You wouldn't call someone a communist because they happen to align with Marxist theory on a few topics would you? Spencer is not a fascist, neither am I, and I'm waiting for you to clarify your position here. How is he a fascist? Do you know what a fascist is?
Totally untrue. But you've done no research, so I can only reiterate that you need to learn.
How in the shit is that untrue?
Blacks have been here since the start? Is this true or false?
Japnese? True or false?
Hispanics? True or false?
Irish? True or false?
British? True or false?
French? True or false.
You can't just change reality to fit your delusion.
Great example of an area where I, and Richard Spencer, totally disagree with the Nazi policies of Adolf Hitler. I completely agree with you about European conflicts being bad. As a pan-European white nationalist I totally disagree with the designation of the Irish as 'subhuman', and with Hitlers classification of Eastern Europeans, and Slavs in specific.
Saying you disagree with it doesn't change the fact all of these people have different cultures, and all of these people have been in the US since the start.
A simple google search would prove you completely wrong about this, just like a simple Wikipedia browse for maybe 30 minutes would prove you wrong as to the origins of your country.
No, it won't, and the fact you think that displays a deep ignorance of population projections or how absurdly fucking stupid the ones you're citing are.
Some of the things he says are consistent with Nazi ideology, and many of the things he says are not. You wouldn't call someone a communist because they happen to align with Marxist theory on a few topics would you? Spencer is not a fascist, neither am I, and I'm waiting for you to clarify your position here. How is he a fascist?
How is he NOT a fascist? Do you even know what fascism is? Fascism is not a doctrine, it's a set of emotional traits. The things Spencer says line up with other fascists said.
Your claim that he's not a fascist needs to be clarified here, what does Spencer say that doesn't fit the fascist mould?
Fascism is not a doctrine, it's a set of emotional traits.
It's nothing close to this... You really need to stop arguing with me, and start spending a bit of time actually learning about the topics you want to debate.
No, that's not how this works. You've made the claim, now you need to elaborate. He is not a fascist, he has never claimed to be a fascist. That is your claim. Defend it. This will be hard for you to do since you've demonstrated that you have no idea what fascism actually is.
There was no significant Japanese presence in the U.S.A in 1776, and there was no substantive body of Hispanics or Irish either, at the time. There also was no sizeable transplant of Germans; they arrived later as a result of immigration, which the majority (of British protestants) found very unsettling. There were definitely black people in the U.S by 1776, many even fought in the revolutionary war. "British" as a demographic is a bit of a misnomer, because the American settlers were nearly all former Brits. You might as well just call them Americans. At any rate, the founding fathers had an express demographic design for the country, and you could easily find this out if you just bothered to read some of their writings. Check out Jefferson, he was a cool dude.
No, it won't, and the fact you think that displays a deep ignorance of population projections or how absurdly fucking stupid the ones you're citing are.
In 1960 whites made up about 90% of the U.S.A. Today, whites make up about 65% of the U.S.A. Just... google it man. We can't keep doing this he said, she said thing. You're hilariously wrong.
It's nothing close to this... you really need to stop arguing with me, and start spending a bit of time actually learning about the topics you want to debate.
That's ironic. I'm well educated on this subject and have read every credible academic work on fascism. You don't seem to understand fascism. Don't mistake your ignorance for mine.
From the anatomy of fascism:
assumption that fascism was an “ism” like the other great political systems of the modern world: conservatism, liberalism, socialism. Usually taken for granted, that assumption is worth scrutinizing.
The other “isms” were created in an era when politics was a gentleman’s business, conducted through protracted and learned parliamentary debate among educated men who appealed to each other’s reasons as well as their sentiments. The classical “isms” rested upon coherent philosophical systems laid out in the works of systematic thinkers. It seems only natural to explain them by examining their programs and the philosophy that underpinned them.
Fascism, by contrast, was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. The role programs and doctrine play in it is, on closer inspection, fundamentally unlike the role they play in conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. It has not been given intellectual underpinnings by any system builder, like Marx, or by any major critical intelligence, like Mill, Burke, or Tocqueville.69
In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms,” the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name. Fascism is “true” insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other peoples in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason. The first fascists were entirely frank about this.
We [Fascists] don’t think ideology is a problem that is resolved in such a way that truth is seated on a throne. But, in that case, does fighting for an ideology mean fighting for mere appearances? No doubt, unless one considers it according to its unique and efficacious psychological-historical value. The truth of an ideology lies in its capacity to set in motion our capacity for ideals and action. Its truth is absolute insofar as, living within us, it suffices to exhaust those capacities
The truth was whatever permitted the new fascist man (and woman) to dominate others, and whatever made the chosen people triumph.
Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related to romanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’s exaltation of unfettered personal creativity.71 The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experience sensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a vast collective enterprise; the gratification of submerging oneself in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination. Fascism’s deliberate replacement of reasoned debate with immediate sensual experience transformed politics, as the exiled German cultural critic Walter Benjamin was the first to point out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate fascist aesthetic experience, Benjamin warned in 1936, was war.
Fascist leaders made no secret of having no program. Mussolini exulted in that absence. “The Fasci di Combattimento,” Mussolini wrote in the “Postulates of the Fascist Program” of May 1920, “. . . do not feel tied to any particular doctrinal form.”73 A few months before he became prime minister of Italy, he replied truculently to a critic who demanded to know what his program was: “The democrats of Il Mondo want to know our program? It is to break the bones of the democrats of Il Mondo. And the sooner the better.”74 “The fist,” asserted a Fascist militant in 1920, “is the synthesis of our theory.”75 Mussolini liked to declare that he himself was the definition of Fascism. The will and leadership of a Duce was what a modern people needed, not a doctrine. Only in 1932, after he had been in power for ten years, and when he wanted to “normalize” his regime, did Mussolini expound Fascist doctrine, in an article (partly ghostwritten by the philosopher Giovanni Gentile) for the new Enciclopedia italiana.
1
No, that's not how this works. You've made the claim, now you need to elaborate. He is not a fascist, he has never claimed to be a fascist.
That's exactly how this works. You're claiming he doesn't line up with fascism, how does he not line up with fascism? What seperates him from fascism? That's the argument here, and the fact you can't come up with something that removes him from the fascist label is very telling.
What he "claims" to be isn't relevant, as seen above.
That is your claim. Defend it. This will be hard for you to do since you've demonstrated that you have no idea what fascism actually is.
Right.
There were no Japanese people in the U.S.A in 1776
You're right, but they and Chinese people were here as early as the 1820s though, which means they've been here for most of the countries history.
The first confirmed landing in the continental US was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de León, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida. Within three decades of Ponce de León's landing, the Spanish became the first Europeans to reach the Appalachian Mountains, the Mississippi River, the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains. Spanish ships sailed along the East Coast, penetrating to present-day Bangor, Maine, and up the Pacific Coast as far as Oregon.
Large numbers of Germans migrated from the 1680s to 1760s, with Pennsylvania the favored destination. They migrated to America for a variety of reasons.[23] Push factors involved worsening opportunities for farm ownership in central Europe, persecution of some religious groups, and military conscription; pull factors were better economic conditions, especially the opportunity to own land, and religious freedom. Often immigrants paid for their passage by selling their labor for a period of years as indentured servants.[24]
1
In 1960 whites made up about 90% of the U.S.A. Today, whites make up about 65% of the U.S.A. Just... google it man. We can't keep doing this he said, she said thing. You're hilariously wrong.
There's a difference between "the percentage of the white population is smaller today than it was in the 1960s" and "white people will be a minority in x amount of years.
You're a really uneducated person.
But what makes it worse is you have no idea that you're uneducated.
There's a difference between "the percentage of the white population is smaller today than it was in the 1960s" and "white people will be a minority in x amount of years.
Re. Fascism. Paxton is the one source you've read on this, I take it, as he's the only citation from Wikipedia which even remotely agrees with your categorization of fascism. Read the Wiki article; it will take you 15 minutes. The vast majority of historians and researches are defining fascism as a specific political structure. You have not read "every credible academic work on fascism"... that's such a ludicrous statement. There have been hundreds of thousands of pages published on the subject. The world's foremost researcher on fascism has most definitely not read "every credible academic work on fascism".
No substantive population until the 1800's, and it was a big social problem at the time. Because the original conception of America (or British North America, for that matter) expressly did not include Catholics (nor the Irish as a supposed racial group).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Americans#Colonial_era
Large numbers of Germans migrated from the 1680s to 1760s, with Pennsylvania the favored destination. They migrated to America for a variety of reasons.[23] Push factors involved worsening opportunities for farm ownership in central Europe, persecution of some religious groups, and military conscription; pull factors were better economic conditions, especially the opportunity to own land, and religious freedom. Often immigrants paid for their passage by selling their labor for a period of years as indentured servants.
Okay you're right. I was thinking of German Catholics, which were considered the problem group, and only arrived in large numbers in the early 1800's.
Do you even know what Hispanics are?
Today, hispanic largely refers to latin-Americans. I'd just say Spaniards... and there wasn't a large number of them at any rate.
You're claiming he doesn't line up with fascism, how does he not line up with fascism?
He doesn't express any support for the fascist system of government, and he does not refer to himself as a fascist. If you want to find any reason whatsoever, feel free to do so, and I'd be happy to argue with you. During a discussion it's not considered appropriate to level an accusation with no supporting argument and then demand your opponent disprove it.
One more time you illiterate. The white population is only in rapid decline if you subscribe to the 1 drop rule, and believe that white kids, raised in white families, by at least 1 white parent aren't actually white because they're also hispanic.
That's the ONLY way any of those projections work.
But what if these different reactions are based on a false premise—actually two false premises? The first stems from the Census Bureau’s way of classifying people by ethnicity and race, which produces the smallest possible estimate of the size of the non-Hispanic white population. Whenever there is ambiguity about ethno-racial identity, the statistics publicized by the bureau count an individual as minority. This statistical choice is particularly important for population projections because of the growing number of children from mixed families, most of whom have one white parent and one from a minority group. In the Census Bureau’s projections, children with one Hispanic, Asian, or black parent are counted as minority (that is, as Hispanic or nonwhite). The United States has historically followed a “one-drop” rule in classifying people with any black ancestry as black. The census projections, in effect, extend the one-drop rule to the descendants of other mixed families. A great deal of evidence shows, however, that many children growing up today in mixed families are integrating into a still largely white mainstream society and likely to think of themselves as part of that mainstream, rather than as minorities excluded from it.
Here you go dude.
Re. Fascism. Paxton is the one source you've read on this, I take it, as he's the only citation from Wikipedia which even remotely agrees with your categorization of fascism.
And Richard Evans.
And Neil Gregor.
And Hannah Arendt.
And every other credible academic that studies/studied fascism. You will not find a single expert on fascism claiming fascism operates on doctrine, because it doesn't. The only 2 successful fascist movements in history had no "doctrine."
You should quit thinking wikipedia is a valid source, or a replacement for historical scholarship.
No substantive population until the 1800's, and it was a big social problem at the time. Because the original conception of America (or British North America, for that matter) expressly did not include Catholics (nor the Irish as a supposed racial group).
Define "substantive" you clown. You can't just change reality to fit your delusions.
He doesn't express any support for the fascist system of government,
But that IS what he expresses support for. What are you smoking? How is a right-wing authoritarian nationalist government not a fascist system of government?
Better yet, because fascism has no doctrine and fascists say whatever they need to say to seize power, how can you possibly know what he intends?
and he does not refer to himself as a fascist.
Not relevant. What he calls himself doesn't matter, because again, fascism is no doctrine, they say whatever they need to say.
25 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-01-05
The people involved here probably don't even respect bussy all that much.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Think_Once 2018-01-05
4:38:15
I would rather watch Logan Paul.
1 WarSanchez 2018-01-05
Hey mom, just gonna go hang in the forest with Logan Paul.
1 TheEquimanthorn 2018-01-05
I think a video of a group of retards trying to fuck a doorknob would be more intelligent viewing than this.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-05
Watch this instead
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
I like the victim complex literal Nazis have. Like your views aren't worth discussing, tolerating, or even considering.
There's no rational or reasonable basis to be a Nazi, it does not exist. If someone walks up to me and tells me "the lizard people are coming" I'm not going to consider them either, because they're either mentally ill or stupid, and that's true of Nazis as well.
1 reflectbeforeyouban 2018-01-05
The comparison is false because nazis, aka national socialism is a proposed way to run a country, its a political ideology.
"The lizard people are coming" is an absurd statement because lizard people doesn't exist and have never existed and won't ever come.
One gives out an absurd fact/statement, while the other proposes an idea.
1 RedLetterMediaFan111 2018-01-05
Then don't go on the show and agree to have a dialogue with them. If you do so, you have to step up and actually respond to the issues.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
There are no issues to respond to because there is no rational basis for his beliefs in the first place.
It's like saying "let's have a dialogue this guy that believes lizard jews run the government."
No shit he shouldn't have gone on the show, for the reasons stated above.
1 RedLetterMediaFan111 2018-01-05
As somehow who holds similar views to Spencer, I completely disagree. I'm not sure how productive discussing this with you could possible be given what you're saying, however. You can't simply presuppose your position is correct without any argument. Despite what you may think, there are no philosophical or historical defaults that are simply 'correct'.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
My position is correct because of Nazism, irrefutably, has nothing to offer to society and fascism, which is exactly what Spencer is, has no place in society.
It isn't just that the things you believe are factually incorrect on every level possible, it's that they're irrational and provably retarded.
1 RedLetterMediaFan111 2018-01-05
Right, but I think you're wrong. Good talk! I'm not sure you even know what any of my beliefs are, but none of them are irrational or provably retarded.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
You can think whatever you'd like. Reality isn't subjective.
1 RedLetterMediaFan111 2018-01-05
I know. You're wrong.
So, do we start saying "na na na na naaaah", now?
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
Do tell, what does nazism have to offer society?
1 RedLetterMediaFan111 2018-01-05
Well, Nazis were members of a German political party in the 20th century. I'm definitely not one of them (this isn't semantics either, the Nazi party does not line up with my individual politics in a number of ways, though I'm assuming your only conception of Nazi politics is something like "they were racist"). As for white nationalism, it's a simple matter of whether you think that people deserve a homeland based on a solid foundation of culture and tradition. I think all people do, and I'd prefer not to see whites become minorities in Europe and North American by 2100, or even 2050. If you have a problem with that, I'd like you to answer if you also have a problem with Japan being 98% Japanese, India being almost exclusively Indian, the entire Middle East being relatively monocultural (within nations, obviously there are big divides within the Muslim world), Israel being a Jewish state with the "right of return" based entirely on ethnicity, and practically every country on Earth outside of Europe and North America being largely monocultural with homogeneous populations.
I think there's value in German, British, Irish, American, Swedish, Norwegian, French, Dutch, etc, culture that deserves to be preserved and carry on. There's no benefit to replacing it. Do you think that what happened to the Native Americans when they were replaced by Europeans was a good thing? Would you like to see that replicated today?
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
Nice try. Nazism is a form of fascism, specifically. And Spencer himself subscribes to pretty much every plank of the "Nazi agenda." You, yourself, said you agree with most of his views.
And the united states never had a foundation of "culture and tradition." The country has always been split, with people from all over Europe, completely different cultures.
Then it's a good thing your mathematically illiterate delusions aren't reality and that isn't going to happen, it's not even close to happening.
I don't give a shit what other countries do. What other countries do isn't relevant to my country, and fascism, irrefutably, is a cancer on society. It has no value, it offers no solutions, it has no program.
It's a set of emotional traits that uneducated people can cling to. People with so little to offer the world they base their identity on skin color, or nationality, or religion.
1 RedLetterMediaFan111 2018-01-05
Ah well, there's not much I can do for you here.
News to me. What exactly is the "Nazi agenda", and where does Spencer subscribe to it? I'd be happy to point out areas where I disagree with Spencer, and Hitler, for that matter.
You'll have to read your own history for this one, but you're entirely wrong. I can't provide you with enough information via a reddit post, but the founding father's intentions for the Nation should be on Jefferson's wikipedia page or something. It's a start at least.
Huh? It's happening as we speak. Americans have gone from over 90% white to just over 60% white since about 1960. You should actually do some research before dismissing well-understood demographic projections. Nothing I said there was remotely controversial.
Well I'm not a fascist, and nor, to my knowledge, is Richard Spencer, so this isn't particularly relevant. I can see you're not capable of discussing this without getting emotional, but you really don't seem to know anything about the subject. Some education would really help you out.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
Your historical illiteracy is not a replacement for scholarship. Why do you think the US has no official language, and why do you think many parts of the united states are so vastly different today?
Germans, Japanese, Hispanics, blacks, Irish, British, French? All of those demographics have been in this country since the very start.
Why do you think the Irish were considered sub-human by other Europeans, and why do you think European conflicts were so common for so long?
Why do you think eastern Europeans were often considered subhuman and in conflict with western Europeans?
Why do you think the civil war happened? The idea that there's ever been "one American culture" is fiction.
These aren't "well understood demographic projections" they're projections retards throw out, retards often following the "one drop rule" and claiming white Hispanics with white parents aren't "white."
There are no credible projections supporting the argument you're making.
Spencer is absolutely a fascist. Word for word, the things he repeats are out of the Nazi playbook.
1 RedLetterMediaFan111 2018-01-05
Totally untrue (U.S.A, the country, and the North American landmass circa 1550-1775 are very different... U.S.A did not exist at the time). But you've done no research, so I can only reiterate that you need to learn.
Great example of an area where I, and Richard Spencer, totally disagree with the Nazi policies of Adolf Hitler. I completely agree with you about European conflicts being bad. As a pan-European white nationalist I totally disagree with the designation of the Irish as 'subhuman', and with Hitlers classification of Eastern Europeans, and Slavs in specific. I also fully abhor any European wars (Hitler started a big one, not something I'm a fan of).
A simple google search would prove you completely wrong about this, just like a simple Wikipedia browse for maybe 30 minutes would prove you wrong as to the origins of your country.
Some of the things he says are consistent with Nazi ideology, and many of the things he says are not. You wouldn't call someone a communist because they happen to align with Marxist theory on a few topics would you? Spencer is not a fascist, neither am I, and I'm waiting for you to clarify your position here. How is he a fascist? Do you know what a fascist is?
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
How in the shit is that untrue?
Blacks have been here since the start? Is this true or false?
Japnese? True or false?
Hispanics? True or false?
Irish? True or false?
British? True or false?
French? True or false.
You can't just change reality to fit your delusion.
Saying you disagree with it doesn't change the fact all of these people have different cultures, and all of these people have been in the US since the start.
No, it won't, and the fact you think that displays a deep ignorance of population projections or how absurdly fucking stupid the ones you're citing are.
How is he NOT a fascist? Do you even know what fascism is? Fascism is not a doctrine, it's a set of emotional traits. The things Spencer says line up with other fascists said.
Your claim that he's not a fascist needs to be clarified here, what does Spencer say that doesn't fit the fascist mould?
1 RedLetterMediaFan111 2018-01-05
It's nothing close to this... You really need to stop arguing with me, and start spending a bit of time actually learning about the topics you want to debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
No, that's not how this works. You've made the claim, now you need to elaborate. He is not a fascist, he has never claimed to be a fascist. That is your claim. Defend it. This will be hard for you to do since you've demonstrated that you have no idea what fascism actually is.
There was no significant Japanese presence in the U.S.A in 1776, and there was no substantive body of Hispanics or Irish either, at the time. There also was no sizeable transplant of Germans; they arrived later as a result of immigration, which the majority (of British protestants) found very unsettling. There were definitely black people in the U.S by 1776, many even fought in the revolutionary war. "British" as a demographic is a bit of a misnomer, because the American settlers were nearly all former Brits. You might as well just call them Americans. At any rate, the founding fathers had an express demographic design for the country, and you could easily find this out if you just bothered to read some of their writings. Check out Jefferson, he was a cool dude.
In 1960 whites made up about 90% of the U.S.A. Today, whites make up about 65% of the U.S.A. Just... google it man. We can't keep doing this he said, she said thing. You're hilariously wrong.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
That's ironic. I'm well educated on this subject and have read every credible academic work on fascism. You don't seem to understand fascism. Don't mistake your ignorance for mine.
From the anatomy of fascism:
1
That's exactly how this works. You're claiming he doesn't line up with fascism, how does he not line up with fascism? What seperates him from fascism? That's the argument here, and the fact you can't come up with something that removes him from the fascist label is very telling.
What he "claims" to be isn't relevant, as seen above.
Right.
You're right, but they and Chinese people were here as early as the 1820s though, which means they've been here for most of the countries history.
Do you even know what Hispanics are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans_in_the_United_States#Spanish_Expeditions
Are you retarded?
Here, let's link something you'll comprehend.
http://www.emmigration.info/irish-immigration-to-america.htm
??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Americans#Colonial_era
1
There's a difference between "the percentage of the white population is smaller today than it was in the 1960s" and "white people will be a minority in x amount of years.
You're a really uneducated person.
But what makes it worse is you have no idea that you're uneducated.
1 RedLetterMediaFan111 2018-01-05
It's a trend... good grief.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/01/484325664/babies-of-color-are-now-the-majority-census-says
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/tomorrows_test/2016/06/american_is_becoming_a_majority_minority_nation_it_s_already_happened_in.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/20/end-of-white-christian-america
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/05/future-immigration-will-change-the-face-of-america-by-2065/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/10-demographic-trends-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world-in-2017/
Re. Fascism. Paxton is the one source you've read on this, I take it, as he's the only citation from Wikipedia which even remotely agrees with your categorization of fascism. Read the Wiki article; it will take you 15 minutes. The vast majority of historians and researches are defining fascism as a specific political structure. You have not read "every credible academic work on fascism"... that's such a ludicrous statement. There have been hundreds of thousands of pages published on the subject. The world's foremost researcher on fascism has most definitely not read "every credible academic work on fascism".
No substantive population until the 1800's, and it was a big social problem at the time. Because the original conception of America (or British North America, for that matter) expressly did not include Catholics (nor the Irish as a supposed racial group).
Okay you're right. I was thinking of German Catholics, which were considered the problem group, and only arrived in large numbers in the early 1800's.
Today, hispanic largely refers to latin-Americans. I'd just say Spaniards... and there wasn't a large number of them at any rate.
He doesn't express any support for the fascist system of government, and he does not refer to himself as a fascist. If you want to find any reason whatsoever, feel free to do so, and I'd be happy to argue with you. During a discussion it's not considered appropriate to level an accusation with no supporting argument and then demand your opponent disprove it.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-05
One more time you illiterate. The white population is only in rapid decline if you subscribe to the 1 drop rule, and believe that white kids, raised in white families, by at least 1 white parent aren't actually white because they're also hispanic.
That's the ONLY way any of those projections work.
http://prospect.org/article/likely-persistence-white-majority-0
Here you go dude.
And Richard Evans.
And Neil Gregor.
And Hannah Arendt.
And every other credible academic that studies/studied fascism. You will not find a single expert on fascism claiming fascism operates on doctrine, because it doesn't. The only 2 successful fascist movements in history had no "doctrine."
You should quit thinking wikipedia is a valid source, or a replacement for historical scholarship.
Define "substantive" you clown. You can't just change reality to fit your delusions.
But that IS what he expresses support for. What are you smoking? How is a right-wing authoritarian nationalist government not a fascist system of government?
Better yet, because fascism has no doctrine and fascists say whatever they need to say to seize power, how can you possibly know what he intends?
Not relevant. What he calls himself doesn't matter, because again, fascism is no doctrine, they say whatever they need to say.