Richard Spencer and Modern Nazism: #NotMyAmerica

[New haven america]

Thank you for proving you support genocide.

You have absolutely nothing to add the majority of the time; a lot like a few others in this thread. Sometimes you have to take the risk and speak the obvious. I'll take it.

You stated that you would have no problem putting your race first and going out and defeating another race if you see the other race posing a threat to your own.

White supremacists and Nazis have been spouting that rhetoric for decades now, and have used it as an excuse for most of the crimes they've committed throughout history.

[Torrocca]

You stated that you would put your own race (white) above another because of a perceived "thread". That's the definition of white supremacist.

No, it's the definition of racial nationalist. There is a difference, no matter how much people close their ears and squeeze their eyes shut and proclaim that it isn't. It won't change because of tantrums.

White people don't have any singular piece of land they could look at and declare to be their racial nation. Racial nationalism is bullhonkey.

[United States of Red Dawn]

You don't grasp irony very well do you? It's more of a protest flag.

And you don't grasp very well that having my flag be a certain something on NS doesn't mean that's the certain something I support, do you?

You comments suggest it. Good enough, see?

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

You stated that you would put your own race (white) above another because of a perceived "thread". That's the definition of white supremacist.

No, it's the definition of racial nationalist. There is a difference, no matter how much people close their ears and squeeze their eyes shut and proclaim that it isn't. It won't change because of tantrums.

Wot? You never specified nation in there, at all. You just said "defeating another race". Nothing about nations.

[Liriena]

Well, I will give you some credit for your tribalism at least making some sense, rather than being based on something as historically baseless and dangerous as "white identity".

My identity is centered around the company I keep. And I stick with my own.

I can respect that.

[Torrocca]

And you don't grasp very well that having my flag be a certain something on NS doesn't mean that's the certain something I support, do you?

You comments suggest it. Good enough, see?

My comments don't suggest I support the Soviet Union.

Try harder.

And again, as to my claim you're a white supremacist that you so wish to dispute:

Is genocide OK? Yes or no?

Defeating another race and defending ourselves against another race that have proven their antagonism toward our race, yes.

That doesn't spell genocide.

Now see? THOSE words scream, "white supremacist!" in big, bold letters.

[United States of Red Dawn]

No, it's the definition of racial nationalist. There is a difference, no matter how much people close their ears and squeeze their eyes shut and proclaim that it isn't. It won't change because of tantrums.

Wot? You never specified nation in there, at all. You just said "defeating another race". Nothing about nations.

That doesn't make sense.

[Liriena]

Wot? You never specified nation in there, at all. You just said "defeating another race". Nothing about nations.

That doesn't make sense.

Yes, racial nationalism makes no sense. Glad we could agree on this.

[Shikihara]

People who support capitalism, are right-wing, or otherwise not on board with the whole far-left enterprise. The people who are normally killed or exiled when a socialist revolution succeeds. If we're somehow supposed to believe that Spencer could pull off the Final Solution, then why shouldn't we believe that the far-left, who's equally fond of violence and fantasies about revenge, would give us the bullet too? They already said that they would.

While his regime was authoritarian and committed numerous atrocities (that were not known at the time) it would not be accurate to call Pinochet a member of the "totalitarian right," and he was detained and indicted for trial in Great Britain. Your narrative of events seem more self-serving than they are in accordance with facts. Which is not a surprise, all truth can be reduced to the class struggle after all, am I right?

You know, you were making a good, compelling counter-argument... and then you had to ruin it with a very petty jab at my supposed ideals.

Also, it's nice that Great Britain went on to indicte Pinochet for trial. It almost makes up for Thatcher openly supporting him.

What a shame, because your mind was just about ready to be changed.

While I dislike Thatcher extremely, and am more fond of Allende than Pinochet, it's pretty understandable why the West, especially the US, would not want another Soviet satellite state in South America. The Cuban Missile Crisis had happened just a decade beforehand.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Wot? You never specified nation in there, at all. You just said "defeating another race". Nothing about nations.

That doesn't make sense.

Yes, it does, mate. How is that statement supposed to give the idea of "racial nationalist" when you never said nation? All you did was say race. You said you wanted to defeat another race. Supremacist

[United States of Red Dawn]

You comments suggest it. Good enough, see?

My comments don't suggest I support the Soviet Union.

Try harder.

And again, as to my claim you're a white supremacist that you so wish to dispute:

Defeating another race and defending ourselves against another race that have proven their antagonism toward our race, yes.

That doesn't spell genocide.

Now see? THOSE words scream, "white supremacist!" in big, bold letters.

This thread itself proves antagonism and hostility. There are also too many white people who have bought into bullshit about whites as a whole and themselves. When I feel under siege I'm reacting. You can refer to it however you please.

[Shikihara]

That doesn't make sense.

Yes, it does, mate. How is that statement supposed to give the idea of "racial nationalist" when you never said nation? All you did was say race. You said you wanted to defeat another race. Supremacist

That's not necessarily supremacism, believing there's a struggle between the races doesn't mean that one is superior to the other. It's just a bad misinterpretation of natural selection.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

People shouldn't be punched for expressing even the shitest of opinions. That said, if he starts calling for the mass murder of other races, get his ass off the stage and into a jail.

[United States of Red Dawn]

That doesn't make sense.

Yes, it does, mate. How is that statement supposed to give the idea of "racial nationalist" when you never said nation? All you did was say race. You said you wanted to defeat another race. Supremacist

Nitpicking and semantics.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Yes, it does, mate. How is that statement supposed to give the idea of "racial nationalist" when you never said nation? All you did was say race. You said you wanted to defeat another race. Supremacist

That's not necessarily supremacism, believing there's a struggle between the races doesn't mean that one is superior to the other. It's just a bad misinterpretation of natural selection.

Defeat tends to mean that one comes out on top of the other. Supremacism is the idea that one race is, or should be, above another.

[Des-Bal]

So then not Nazis or white supremacists?

That depends, are they inciting violence? Saying "let's kill the Jews" won't fly "I don't like the Jews" will. Much like saying "I don't like my wife" is okay but saying "kill my wife" is not.

[Torrocca]

My comments don't suggest I support the Soviet Union.

Try harder.

And again, as to my claim you're a white supremacist that you so wish to dispute:



Now see? THOSE words scream, "white supremacist!" in big, bold letters.

This thread itself proves antagonism and hostility.

What bearing does this have on your perceived notion that I'm somehow a Tankie?

There are also too many white people who have bought into bullshit about whites as a whole and themselves.

Ah, yes, supporting equality is buying into bullshit now. Guess I'mma race traitor, mama!

When I feel under siege I'm reacting. You can refer to it however you please.

>Gets criticized
>"ERADICATE THEM FOR BEING A DIFFERENT RACE oh but it's self defense because they said mean words before I said this"

This is the implication you give off with shit like this.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Yes, it does, mate. How is that statement supposed to give the idea of "racial nationalist" when you never said nation? All you did was say race. You said you wanted to defeat another race. Supremacist

Nitpicking and semantics.

No, coming to a conclusion using evidence provided by you in your statement that you want your race to defeat another.

[Liriena]

You know, you were making a good, compelling counter-argument... and then you had to ruin it with a very petty jab at my supposed ideals.

Also, it's nice that Great Britain went on to indicte Pinochet for trial. It almost makes up for Thatcher openly supporting him.

What a shame, because your mind was just about ready to be changed.

I mean, I'm still a green socialist with anarchist sympathies, but I did see your point.

While I dislike Thatcher extremely, and am more fond of Allende than Pinochet, it's pretty understandable why the West, especially the US, would not want another Soviet satellite state in South America. The Cuban Missile Crisis had happened just a decade beforehand.

Of course. I'm not arguing that "Thatcher shouldn't have supported Pinochet", because at this point it's like arguing "Hindenburg shouldn't have given Hitler any power". It happened, and it happened because conditions and interests at play made it pretty much innevitable. One can (and, in my opinion, should) be critical of Thatcher and... pretty much everything about her... but without engaging in speculative fiction.

[United States of Red Dawn]

That's not necessarily supremacism, believing there's a struggle between the races doesn't mean that one is superior to the other. It's just a bad misinterpretation of natural selection.

Defeat tends to mean that one comes out on top of the other. Supremacism is the idea that one race is, or should be, above another.

Defeat also means victory against those who threaten you. If you want to be disingenuous at least try harder.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Defeat tends to mean that one comes out on top of the other. Supremacism is the idea that one race is, or should be, above another.

Defeat also means victory against those who threaten you. If you want to be disingenuous at least try harder.

What's the "threat"? All the "dangerous brown people"?

[Conserative Morality]

Defeat also means victory against those who threaten you. If you want to be disingenuous at least try harder.

What's the "threat"? All the "dangerous brown people"?

And the half-breeds and race traitors, of course.

[Torrocca]

Defeat tends to mean that one comes out on top of the other. Supremacism is the idea that one race is, or should be, above another.

Defeat also means victory against those who threaten you. If you want to be disingenuous at least try harder.

"Those uppity Negroes glared at me funnily, your honor! As such, you see, it wasn't a massacre I committed; oh no, oh no oh no oh no, it was merely a case of me righteously defeating them in the name of the white race!"

Again, what you're saying is basically this in disguise.

[United States of Red Dawn]

No, it's the definition of racial nationalist. There is a difference, no matter how much people close their ears and squeeze their eyes shut and proclaim that it isn't. It won't change because of tantrums.

White people don't have any singular piece of land they could look at and declare to be their racial nation. Racial nationalism is bullhonkey.

Europe as a continent. Nuff said.

[Socialista Mozambique]

Europe as a continent. Nuff said.

Gotta say, first time I've seen a White nationalist considering that Hispanics, Latins and Slavs are all true members of the White Race.