The Fault in our Tongues: Tablet, Spencer, and Political Deafness

Tablet Magazine recently ran an article about Richard Spencer’s slightly less recent interview on Israel’s Channel 2: Richard Spencer Says He Just Wants ‘White Zionism.’ Here’s Why That’s Malicious Nonsense.

Spencer I regard as somewhat like the Boogeyman: journalists like to pull him out when they want to scare someone. He doesn’t represent the Alt-Right inasmuch as the Alt-Right is mostly a vague collection of people/groups on the internet who don’t fall into mainstream conservatism, rather than a coherent entity with a single leader.

I am not personally well-acquainted with Spencer’s work–if I’ve read any of it, I’ve forgotten it–but he is famous enough that I am familiar with the gist of it.

According to Tablet:

…alt-right luminary Richard Spencer declared himself to be a “white Zionist.” Just as Jews want a state of their own, the Charlottesville far-right organizer argued, he merely seeks a state for white people.

“…you could say that I am a white Zionist in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that’s for us and ourselves just like you want a secure homeland in Israel.”

So far, so good: this sounds a lot like things Spencer has said elsewhere, eg, Wikipedia says:

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Spencer has advocated for a white homeland for a “dispossessed white race” and called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” to halt the “deconstruction” of European culture.[19][20][58] To this end he has supported what he has called “the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent”, an “ideal” that he has regarded as a “reconstitution of the Roman Empire.”[59][60]

The white nationalist wants a white nation. Sounds tautological. But this is where Tablet gets interesting:

It’s an analogy with superficial plausibility. It’s also a malicious lie, and a deliberate one. …

Essentially, the alt-right maliciously appropriates the deeply held values of liberals and minorities in order to attack them. This is not because the alt-right shares those values, but because it wants to troll those who do.

This is quite the claim! It’s one thing to claim that someone has appropriated a cultural item, such as a white person performing a style of music invented by black people or an Asian person wearing a Mexican hat. “Cultural appropriation” is a logical mess in practice, but at least it rests on the somewhat coherent idea of “this is my culture, we do and make these things, therefore these things belong to us.”

What does it mean to appropriate someone’s values? “You can’t be an environmentalist, only people whose ancestors were environmentalists are allowed to care about the environment?” “I’m sorry, but since Freedom of Speech was not originally enshrined in your country’s laws, you’re not allowed to want it.”

But if we read the paragraph again, it becomes clear that Tablet doesn’t really want to accuse Spencer of appropriating liberal values, (which it thinks he does not hold) but instead the logical arguments used to support liberal positions.

And for what purpose? Here Tablet’s answer is simple: to troll them:

This disingenuous dynamic of using liberal values to troll liberals has been documented elsewhere by journalists who have followed the alt-right. … As Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in his 1946 treatise Anti-Semite and Jew:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. … they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

Spencer’s doing it for the shits and giggles, folks.

To be fair, the alt-right is full of trolls and jokers, and many of them are anti-Semitic. Spencer himself is probably anti-Semitic, or at least anti-people-who-write-for-Tablet, but anti-Semitic trolling of the frogs-and-gas-chamber-memes-variety doesn’t appear to be his primary concern. He seems to be primarily concerned with promoting white nationalism. (It’s almost as though “alt-right” were a vague, poorly-defined term that includes a lot of people who might not even believe in the same stuff besides a general dislike of both the mainstream left and right.)

If Spencer is just trolling you, then what is his real intention? In this case, we have nothing–nothing but sound and fury, blustering for no reason. What’s the point? Does Spencer have secret reasons for promoting white nationalism other than white nationalism?

In my many years of trying to figure out why people believe and advocate for the politics they do, I have observed two things:

  1. People often ignore each others’ arguments, respond to arguments their opponents didn’t make, assume their opponents are lying, or lie themselves about their opponents’ arguments
  2. People I disagree with make more sense if I assume they are generally trying to be truthful

For example, in a debate about abortion, one side might argue, “We think women should have the right to control their own bodies,” and the other side might argue, “murdering babies is immoral,” and then side A responds, “You hate women and want to force them to be breeding cows,” and side B shoots back, “You hate babies and want to murder them.”

But it actually makes more sense to assume the anti-abortion side is opposed to baby-murder than that they’re interested in using women like cattle, and it makes more sense to assume the pro-abortion side is more interested in controlling whether or not they are pregnant than in maliciously murdering people.

Interestingly, conservatives tend to understand liberals’ motivations and reasons for their political beliefs better than liberals understand conservatives’. As Haidt reports in The Righteous Mind, (quoted on The Independent Whig):

In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right.)’ …

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

I find this holds among people I know in real life: the conservatives tend to understand what liberals believe, while the liberals tend to despair that they live in a country full of evil psychopaths who voted for Trump.

There has been a lot of debate (and public marching) lately about Free Speech, especially whether people like Richard Spencer should have free speech. It seems that some people see even their political opponents as basically honest and well-meaning, their political opinions therefore something a good person might believe if they had different life experiences or were just working with different information.

By contrast, some people see other people as fundamentally dishonest and malicious, their “opinions” as just justifications or deflective cover for being a bad person. (Would you debate the ethics of murder with a serial killer?)

If you fall into the first camp, then the principle of Free Speech makes sense, because knowledge and experiences can be conveyed. But if you fall into the second camp, then there are positions that you think are not honestly argued nor susceptible to logic or debate–in which case, there’s no point to extending “free speech” to such ideas.

For example, Donna Zuckerberg, (yes, sister of Mark Zuckerberg,) recently announced some changes to her Classics Magazine Eidolon’s mission statement (h/t Steve Sailer):

Will this shift lead to a less diverse Eidolon? Our writers always have been, and will continue to be, a diverse group. Our writer pool has excellent diversity of race, age, gender, professional status, and sexuality. … we’ve been accused of not being “ideologically diverse.” This charge is a common one, but I think it is misguided, in addition to being morally bankrupt. Making ideological diversity a primary objective is fundamentally incompatible with fighting against racism, sexism, and other forms of structural oppression, and we choose to prioritize the latter.

In other words: liberals don’t think conservatives deserve free speech because they assume conservatives are basically lying to cover up their real agenda of hurting various minorities.

But why are liberals more susceptible to misunderstanding their opponents than liberals? Let’s return to Tablet, which makes two interesting arguments. First:

Thus, [the alt-right] wrenches causes like affirmative action, black pride, and Zionism from their historical and moral context—as defenses of minorities against long-standing majority oppression—and inverts them to serve white supremacist aims against minorities.

Well, I don’t think Spencer mentioned affirmative action in this article, but the rest is sensible.

In general, American conservatives tend to believe that moral principles should be applied universally–to quote Kant’s categorical imperative:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.[1]

Tablet is in effect saying that nationalism is not meant to be a universal political value, but particular to specific groups in specific contexts. The universalizable principle is not nationalism, but, “Nationalism for minority groups in order to protect them from majority groups.”

By this logic, American whites shouldn’t be nationalist vis American non-whites, but South African whites would be perfectly justified in nationalism against South Africa’s black majority. This rule does not tell us, however, whether a group that expects to become a minority in the future is justified in pre-emptively trying to prevent this or look out for their future interests.

When does the right to nationalism kick in?

(Incidentally, US infants are already majority non-white, and the entire US will be majority non-white around 2050. NPR also estimates that about 20% of the 2060 US population will be foreigners. By contrast, the nation was 84% white back in 1965, before passage of LBJ’s immigration act.)

“Nationalism for everyone” is at least a clear principle that doesn’t get hung up on such nuances as “Are we a minority yet?” or “Are we sufficiently oppressed?” Unfortunately, it leads to other questions, like “Should Basques have their own country?” or “What about Northern Ireland?”

But to return to Spencer and Tablet, it appears that Spencer is working under the assumption that “nationalism is good” is a universal principle applicable to all peoples, while Tablet is working on the assumption that “nationalism is a defense for minority populations against oppression.”

Tablet unnecessarily muddles the waters by adding:

In this manner, the return of Jews to their indigenous homeland is recast by white nationalists, who are not indigenous to America, to justify kicking Jews and other minorities out of the country.

Whoa whoa whoa. “Indigeneity” is a whole different argument. If anyone gets to be called “indigenous” in Israel, it’s the Palestinians. Genetically speaking, claiming indigeneity based on having lived somewhere 2,000 years ago is nonsense–during the 1,900 years of diaspora, pretty much all Jewish groups intermarried with their neighbors and are now about 50% “non Jew” by DNA (most of that on their mothers’ side, as men are nigh universally more likely than women to travel long distances and then take local wives.) Ashkenazim–the majority of Jews–are about 50% Italian, having taken wives from among the Romans after their expulsion from Judea following the destruction of the Second Temple.

For that matter, I would like to point out that the majority of Jews are genetically “white” and that Jewish culture has been part of European culture for almost 2,000 years. (I don’t know how to politely express just how dumb I think two different groups of whites arguing about “white nationalism” is.) Jews have been living in parts of Germany for almost as long as the ethnic Germans, having been officially invited in during the Ostsiedlung. If Jews are indigenous to anywhere, they have a much better argument for Germany and Poland than Israel.

Luckily for me, I think “indigeneity” is a stupid argument and that countries should exist because there exists some entity with the military power to secure the area. By my logic, Israel gets to exist because it does exist: Israel is the only entity with the military strength to control the area, and denying this would just destabilize the area and lead to more deaths.

Likewise, Americans (whites included) have a right to their country because they are already here and controlling it.

Tablet’s justification for why it thinks Spencer (and the alt-right generally) is lying about being interested in white nationalism, or perhaps that white nationalism is comparable to Zionism, is that alt-righters tend not to like Israel or Jews:

That the alt-right does not genuinely support Israel or Zionism—that “they delight in acting in bad faith” on the topic—is readily apparent from how its members talk about Israel when they are not engaged in trolling.

(Here the article quotes several people from Twitter saying negative things about Zionism or Israel, none of whom, I note, are Spencer.)

But I don’t think Spencer (or any other alt-right spokesman) ever claimed to care about Israel. Just because someone believes in the generalized concept of “nationalism” does not mean they care personally about the national ambitions of all peoples. In fact, I wager a Serbian nationalist and a Kosovar nationalist take pretty dim views of each other. Kurdish nationalists have difficulties with Iraqi nationalists; Northern Irish Catholic nationalists don’t get along with Northern Irish Protestant nationalists. An American nationalist may not care one way or another about nationalist ambitions in Guatemala or Indonesia. And white nationalists are under no obligation to care about Jewish nationalism, nor Jews to care about white nationalism.

Here, I think, is the crux of the matter: the point of Zionism is to benefit Jews; the point of white nationalism is to benefit whites. If white nationalism results in Jews getting hurt, then that’s a pretty big practical difference (from the Jewish POV) between the two ideologies. And this, of course, is why Tablet would prefer that you not use Zionism as a justification for an ideology that is–at the very least–filled with people who are anti-Zionist.

“Nationalism for everyone” is a clear principle, but “nationalism for me but not for you,” benefits me much more. This is true for everyone. The only reason whites probably don’t generally think this way is that we’ve been the majority for so long.

But what’s best for the whole of society? It’s easy to say, “Hey, let’s do what’s best for the whole of society” when your group already is most of society. What about minority groups in that same society? Should they–as in the Prisoner’s Dilemma–cooperate with others for the greater good? Or should they look out preferentially for their own good? And what happens in a multi-ethnic society where no group has a clear majority? Can you convince people to cooperate for the greater good, or does the inevitable presence of some people who prefer to cooperate only with co-ethnics and defect on strangers inevitably drive everyone apart?

Long term, how does a multi-ethnic democracy prevent itself from breaking down into everyone voting for their own tribal self-interest?

 

To be honest, I’m not feeling very optimistic.

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “The Fault in our Tongues: Tablet, Spencer, and Political Deafness

  1. If I’m not mistaken, Israel is no longer majority Ashkenaz, for what it’s worth (and I suspect that Mizrahi and certain other ethnicities of Jewish have at least as strong a claim on that real estate as anyone else).

    What’s interesting about Zionism and WN is that Zionism is more universalist than full bore ethnonationalism. There are many Jewish ethnicities in Israel, just as there are many white ethnicities in Spain, Russia, etc. Catalonian nationalism would be, compared to Zionism, like Yemeni Jewish Israelis demanding one city – state of their own within Israel.

    Like

    • > Israel is no longer majority Ashkenaz,
      Yes. According to Wikipedia, “People of Ashkenazi Jewish descent constitute around 47.5% of Israeli Jews (and therefore 35–36% of Israelis),” but Ashkenazim are still the majority of Jews globally and the majority here in the US, they’re the majority of high-IQ Jewish intellectuals and they are the guys who started the whole Zionism project, while Israeli Misrahim and Sephardim aren’t really getting involved in American debates. So when Jews and WNs start arguing, my inner geneticist starts screaming.

      Yes, interesting point.

      Like

  2. This is very good and gets to the essence of the whole matter. I want to show you a comment that someone copied somewhere from someone else that I also copied, because it’s so on the point.

    “White people aren’t out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.”

    I’m not just trying to pick on Blacks I feel exactly the same way with Jews. Their constant efforts to attack, disrupt, degrade and disorder our and any other society they move into is driving me up a wall. I’ve had it with the Jews. I would favor any program at all if it got rid of the Jews from this country and Europe. Any. Jews ongoing behavior is really just the exact same as Blacks but much smarter, longer range and more deadly over all. I want them and all the rest out. I get along with Hispanics ok, same with most others, Asians etc. but I just don’t want them to decide my future. I look at the rest of the planet and can quickly see that I don’t want to live like them. I want them all gone. A few would be fine. 30%??? I don’t have a number but they should be a minority. The argument that some Whites are the same doesn’t hold because the vast majority of them have a shared sense of values. Even the Left, and I’m talking about crazy Left not classic Liberalism, worker Left, that has brain problems in that they can’t recognize danger, does have some shared sense of values they just don’t know where the line is should be drawn.

    By the way it’s been shown that Leftist have a vastly shrunken brain structure called the amygdala. It’s the part of the brain responsible for perceiving threats. They think you can pack a whole mass of people from totally different societies in one country and…it will all work out. I think that either the Jews will kill us all off in mass, we will run them out and the aliens or there will be a huge race war some day. Only because…well that is exactly what has happened over and over when you pack a bunch of different races together. Even the close cousins from England the round heads(North) couldn’t get along with the Scot’s and English from(I think east of London, most of English in the South). Same people who fought each other in the English revolution. If we deported everyone not White, that means Jews too as they claim to not be White, then we would in the long run be doing them a favor. With the culture we have now and not only zero assimilation but active attacks on the former majority things will come to a head sooner or later. I doubt that Whites will submit in the end. Whites seem to have a long fuse but once we’ve made our minds up we are ruthless killers. We didn’t get where we are by being pacifist and the Whites in the US are a genetic breed of Whites that tend to prefer action to sitting around and submitting. After all they came here. (Negating all the White servants(slaves) of which there were massive, massive amounts before the revolution).

    “…That the alt-right does not genuinely support Israel or Zionism…”

    The reason this is so is because Jews are actively trying to destroy Whites worldwide. I personally am all for Zionism…if they would just go there.

    For fun, Adolf Hitler on Zionism,

    “While the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organisation for their international world swindler, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.
    It is a sign of their rising confidence and sense of security that at a time when one section is still playing the German, French-man, or Englishman, the other with open effrontery comes out as the Jewish race.”

    Like

    • Thanks.

      Honestly, I don’t think the majority of Israelis care one way or another about American politics. We’re separate countries and they have their own day-to-day concerns. Unlike American Jews, most Israelis know their bread is buttered on the Republican side, because Republicans support Israel with religious fervor and have no sympathy for Palestinian Muslims. They see Democratic leaders like Obama, with his Islamic ties, as automatic bad news. Many liberal American Jews, having drunk the SJW cool-aide, are explicitly anti-Israel and advocate for the Palestinians. There’s a deep divide between these two groups.

      Like

  3. >“Indigeneity” is a whole different argument. If anyone gets to be called “indigenous” in Israel, it’s the Palestinians.

    Untrue-those of them who are not descended from the Jews who remained here and converted to Islam-the majority-come from a grab bag of invaders.

    First, descendants of pre-Islamic invaders like the Greeks, who were actually Hellenized Syrians as much as they were the descendants of actual Greek colonists.

    There’s a reason that Shechem is called Nablus in Arabic-they can’t pronounce “p”-it was renamed to Neapolis by the Greeks.

    There’s a reason that Beit Shean was renamed to Scythopolis (though those Scythians may actually have been the descendants of some of the exiles of the ten Northern tribes of Hebrews.)

    Then, there are the Arabs who came here during the initial invasion, and the settled Bedouins. Of course, originally they were from the deserts south, east and west of us.

    Then, there are the descendants of the mixed multitudes of Muslim armies that fought over the place-Iraqis, Egyptians, Turks, Persians, Afghans…

    Then, the mass wave of work migrants from the Ottoman Empire that came when the Jews started coming en masse in the 19th century and created an actual economy. They came from the Sudan, Iraq and everywhere else, because there was work. This influx continued right up until the creation of the State of Israel-the British restricted Jewish immigration but did not restrict Muslim immigration.

    A pretty good summary of the latter can be found here: https://youtu.be/iheid3DYZxQ

    > Genetically speaking, claiming indigeneity based on having lived somewhere 2,000 years ago is nonsense–during the 1,900 years of diaspora, pretty much all Jewish groups intermarried with their neighbors and are now about 50% “non Jew” by DNA

    This is not how nationhood works. Russians today are very different from the Russians of 1000 years ago, having absorbed lots of other people and their DNA. Englishmen are very different from their ancestors of 1000 years ago. Pretty much every nation, unless it exists on a remote island, goes through this process constantly.

    We are the same people who lived here 3000 years ago. We speak the same language, pray to the same God, celebrate the same holidays, have the same worldview. And we never converted, renounced our nationality or our claim to this land. Further, there was never a period when this land was without Jewish communities.

    Finally-I agree with the larger point-our claim to this land is not based in indigeneity. But it’s also not based on brute force. We believe that God gave it to us as part of our national charter. Interestingly, the Muslims are also supposed to believe this-the only place in the Koran where a particular people are mentioned as having been given a particular piece of land by God, it speaks of us and the Land of Israel. And it also says in there that He will bring us back.

    >But what’s best for the whole of society?

    What’s best for society is that the weak obey the strong and the strong take care of and have responsibility for the weak.

    Nationalism is great-I love the idea of city-states-but racial nationalism has never been tried. At no time in history that I can think of have whites/blacks/Asians/Indians thought of themselves as primarily that and acted accordingly. Usually, you see the opposite-most of the wars fought in Christendom (synonymous for whites) have been between whites, not against others. Same goes for all other races.

    When we look at historical states and nations, practically all have been multi-ethnic, in some sense. Ancient Greek city states too-Sparta had its Messenians, Athens its resident aliens and Scythian police. The steppe nomads who overran Europe were usually doing so as part of a multi-ethnic coalition-for instance, Hungarians were Onogur, Ten Arrows, one for each tribe. Jews have always been multi-ethnic on some level, from the Twelve Tribes to today’s Sepharadim (with their varieties,) Ashkenazim (with their varieties,) Yemenites, Iraqis, Persians…

    The only way you can really have a real monoethnic society is either to crush everyone into assimilation or to devolve society to the village level, like in Papua New Guinea. Otherwise, you have to figure out a way for different subgroups to live together productively.

    Like

    • Mr. Kogan,

      Irrespective of Who promised what to who, I think that it’s safe to say that Israel was primarily established because of the historic persecution of the Jewish people, and had Israel existed at the time of the Holocaust, millions of Jewish lives would have been saved. I personally think that this would have been a good and salutary thing. Jews were a hated minority in many countries, and it is good that they have their own country. Would God that they had had it sooner.

      Well, now, people like me (white) are in danger of becoming a minority in a country where we once were a majority, and there are many, many people who hate us at least as much as the Jews were hated in Medieval Europe (If you doubt this, a short perusal of the internet will prove this to you). Why do we not have a right to establish our own homeland, where we will be a majority, where we can be safe from persecution? But we have learned from the Jewish people. This homeland must be established before the killing starts, not afterward.

      “At no time in history that I can think of have whites/blacks/Asians/Indians thought of themselves as primarily that and acted accordingly. ”

      You are absolutely right, but this was not our idea. Most white Americans of my generation wanted no part of this. We did not choose this fight, or this radical solution. But it has been forced on us by the fanatics of identity politics, who openly seek our destruction and there is no way out other than separation or all-out race war. There is no doubt which is preferable. As one Jewish scholar once said of the Holocaust, one of the great lessons of this period is “If someone says that they want to kill you, believe them!” Our enemies say, openly, that they want to kill us. We believe them…

      Most conservative whites have always seen why the creation of Israel was necessary, for every defamed and persecuted people needs its own state, Jews, Kurds, Armenians – and American and European whites. I would hope that the Jewish community would agree, and come to see white ethno-nationalism as being just as inevitable as Jewish nationalism, and just as salutary.

      Like

      • Mr. Cat,

        I feel that white nationalists are missing the key point.

        White people are extraordinarily gifted in terms of their productivity, creativity and organizational/combat abilities.

        Over and over in history, we see small numbers of whites outfight, conquer and outadminister vast numbers of non-whites, all over the world. I say this unironically-the white-founded empires in South America, South Asia and Africa were a great improvement on what they replaced, for all involved (except the deposed elites and the slain, of course.)

        Case in point: several hundred Spaniards conquered the insane, evil and genocidal Aztec empire, which was 25 million strong.

        Why, given those historic odds, are Western whites threatened by the prospect of becoming 30% of the population in their countries, with the various non-whites making up the other 30% both benefiting from white leadership and administration and benefiting the whites?

        The answer is very simple: the whites are plagued by infighting. They do not form a single group at all-they form multiple groups which all hate each other and generally do not like their own members very much. They don’t seem to have any sort of cohesive ideology or worldview.

        Unless you solve this problem, putting all these people in their own ethnostate is a recipe for disaster.

        If you solve it, you will not need an ethnostate, any more than the Spartans wanted their own ethnostate.

        Like

      • “…Why, given those historic odds, are Western whites threatened by the prospect of becoming 30% of the population in their countries, with the various non-whites making up the other 30% both benefiting from white leadership and administration and benefiting the whites?…”

        Because Whites don’t run the country, Jews do and they have a record of being homicidal maniacs. Where as most races let up pressure on those they have conquered as they gain control the Jews are more ruthless the more they control a population. Total control means total oppression.

        “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

        Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

        The reason they did this is they assumed Jews were like them and if they were not a threat then they would be spared but Jews are not like White people. They enjoy persecuting and torturing people. They make up all kinds of reasons why, “We were persecuted, blah, blah, blah, Holohoax, blah, blah, blah”, but the whys don’t matter. The results do. I can’t say exactly how many Jews are psychopaths but there is no substantial difference between the long term results of Jews running a country and a tribe of psychopaths running a country.

        Like

    • >At no time in history that I can think of have whites/blacks/Asians/Indians thought of themselves as primarily that and acted accordingly.

      I agree. Racial identity is a novelty due to mass-transportation that allows people from far-flung corners of the planet to live near each other. The vast majority of conflicts have been with a group’s neighbors, whoever they are. How the effects of mass-immigration/modern transportation will ultimately play out has yet to be seen.

      “Indigeneity” is a pseudo-scientific mess people use to justify political positions rather than use in any logically consistent way.

      It’s officially defined as “the people who come from a place.” In practice, it is applied almost exclusively to brown people who were conquered by Europeans (no one speaks of the Icelanders as “indigenous” to Iceland,) but in rare cases it can be used for a conquered white group like the Sami. (The fact that SJWs get confused and think that Sami are brown because they are “indigenous” is very telling.) The Boers have been living in certain areas of South Africa for longer than the Bantus, but no one speaks of the Boers as “indigenous South Africans” and the Bantus as “invaders.”

      When the Zionist project began, Jews were living primarily in Europe and the people actually living in the region were mostly Palestinians. As “the brown people living in the area when European conquerors arrived,” the Palestinians are absolutely indigenous. Even if we use the more general definition, “The people living in a place,” the Palestinians are still indigenous.

      >those of them who are not descended from the Jews who remained here and converted to Islam-the majority-come from a grab bag of invaders.

      Everybody in the world comes from a grab-bag of invaders. The ancient Hebrews themselves were invaders who replaced the indigenous Canaanites. If they’re “indigenous,” then the people who did the exact same thing later are also indigenous. And the modern Jews are a 50% genetic mix of lots of different peoples whose ancestors never lived in Israel at all.

      >Englishmen are very different from their ancestors of 1000 years ago.
      Absolutely untrue. England has not suffered a major genetic change since the Bell Beaker invasion 4,000 years ago. The Russian genome shows traces of Eastern and Siberian DNA that could be related to the Mongol conquests or just the native peoples who happen to live in the area, but shows no evidence of having substantially changed since the Indo-European expansion thousands of years ago. They’ve been there for far longer than the “Indigenous” Eskimo (who wiped out the indigenous Dorset people) have been in Alaska and Canada. (For that matter, the Norse were in Greenland before the Eskimo.)

      At this point, I think I’m beating a dead horse, so I’ll stop. I understand saying that you have a cultural, religious, or practical connection to the land. I understand saying that you really love the place. And I understand saying, “Hey, I have to live somewhere safe, so it might as well be here.” But arguments based on indigeneity are not your friend. They are already being used against you to attack Israel.

      Like

      • >England has not suffered a major genetic change since the Bell Beaker invasion 4,000 years ago.

        The Normans were what, chopped liver? What about the Danes, who colonized Mercia?

        >The Russian genome shows traces of Eastern and Siberian DNA that could be related to the Mongol conquests or just the native peoples who happen to live in the area, but shows no evidence of having substantially changed since the Indo-European expansion thousands of years ago.

        Turchin says 17% of Cossacks had Tatar descent. The Russians conquered and intermarried with Ugrofinnic and Turkic people (lots of Russian basic vocabulary words are of obvious Turkic origin, and I don’t know any Ugrofinnic languages so can’t judge, but suspect the same.) They imported a Scandinavian elite and were then conquered by the Mongol Horde (which was mostly Turkic, not Mongolic.) The Russian intellectual elite for 200 years was made up in large part of Baltic Germans.

        As I said, our claim to our land is not based on aboriginality.

        >As “the brown people living in the area when European conquerors arrived,” the Palestinians are absolutely indigenous.

        The first mentions of a “Palestinian people”, meaning, Arabs, are from the 1960s. Until then, “Palestinian” was an adjective used to refer to Jews.

        >When the Zionist project began

        When was that, exactly?

        Like

      • >The Normans were what, chopped liver? What about the Danes, who colonized Mercia?
        I know, I was surprised, too. Normal and even Anglo-Saxon conquests didn’t do much. Anglo-Saxons are about 10% of modern English DNA; Bell-Beaker, by contrast, replaced 90%.

        >The first mentions of a “Palestinian people”
        Ethnonyms change all the time, usually for annoying political reasons. Still, you know the folks I mean, by whatever reason.

        >When was that, exactly?
        Sorry for being vague, but I was referring to the Modern Zionist movement founded by Herzl in 1897.

        I shall concede the Russians, as I have no really studied them.

        Like

      • “…England has not suffered a major genetic change since the Bell Beaker invasion 4,000 years ago…”

        This is correct. The DNA evidence is in on this.

        Like

      • Perhaps the Normans and Danes did not replace the English villagers-they lived off them. But they certainly replaced the elites.

        >Still, you know the folks I mean, by whatever reason.

        What I’m saying is that half of those folks showed up in the last 150 years, and are as indigenous as Mexicans in Wisconsin.

        >Sorry for being vague, but I was referring to the Modern Zionist movement founded by Herzl in 1897.

        But the Jewish return to Israel didn’t start in 1897, by any means.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah#200.E2.80.93500_AD
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Yishuv

        It never stopped, throughout the last 2000 years.

        And these people were not coming to Israel as strangers looking for work or conquest-they saw themselves as coming home.

        Like

    • “…>But what’s best for the whole of society?

      What’s best for society is that the weak obey the strong and the strong take care of and have responsibility for the weak…”

      Like the Jews took care of the Russians and the Ukrainians when they took over Russia? Like the Jews took care of the Spanish after they collaborated with the Moors to take over Spain? Like the Jews took care of the Germans when they controlled all the finance and legislature of the Wiemar Republic in Germany?

      And in a non-Jew example, like the Mongolians took care of the Chinese, the Russians and the Hungarians? Like the Spanish took care of the Indians?(I submit that without all the childhood diseases that felled the Indians they would have driven the Spanish into the sea.) Same in North America.

      The above statement you made doesn’t seem to work out for those that are the weak and it never has, as a general rule.

      “…Nationalism is great-I love the idea of city-states-but racial nationalism has never been tried….”

      Nonsense. The Spartans were a different race(tribe), somewhat, from the people they enslaved. The vast majority of the populace were of one race or tribe. The idea that any race in the political area means that the country is multiracial is foolish and contrary to common sense. The deciding characteristic is political control and there’s no doubt who had that in Sparta. Didn’t China run China for the Chinese? I don’t recall China ever being run for the British or the Spanish or the Albanians. What about the Japanese? They run their country for the Japanese and it’s the best example possible of Nazi rule but done by the Japanese.In the US the predominate race that ruins(runs) things is the Jews. How’s that working out for your average White guy? Not well at all. Germany under Hitler was run for the benefit of the Germans.

      Germany did great until the buffoon swelled his head up and attacked Russia. I’ve been reading “How Hitler Could Have Won World War II_ The Fatal Errors That Led to Nazi Defeat” (2000) and it’s easy to see, in hindsight, if he would have controlled the middle eastern oil fields he could have strangled Russia over time and got everything he wanted without mass casualties.(I do believe that Russia intended to attack Germany, after a two front war started, but it didn’t happen as Stalin planned and Germany took France.

      Viktor Suvorov

      http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdf

      The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II

      Hard to say what would have happened if Hitler would have not directly attacked Russia. I believe Stalin would have not started a war with Germany preemptively.(sorry for getting off track but WWII is too interesting.)

      Like

  4. Long time reader, first time commenter.

    I realize this is not the primary topic of the post, but Spencer’s ‘White Zionism’ comment is simultaneously acute and disingenuous. It’s disingenuous because Israel for the time being is an alt-lite country and Richard Spencer would not, in fact, be satisfied with a White ethnostate that had 20% non-Whites and – a fortiori – allowed immigration to any non-whites who could pass a test demonstrating their knowledge of observance of rituals that most Whites don’t keep (i.e. conversion). On the other hand it’s accurate, because actual White Zionists (i.e. the alt-lite) are pilloried in the same way as Richard Spencer is. Indeed, the whole point of parading Richard Spencer before the media is precisely to de-legitimize the alt-lite (and the sub alt-lite, and the sub-sub-alt lite).

    If Spencer had said he was a White Kahanist then it would have been accurate, but not very effective rhetorically.

    Like

    • Welcome to the comments section.
      I agree that “belonging” is defined different among whites and Jews (though the rule of “if your mother’s a Jew, you’re a Jew,” is awfully genetic,) but the point of the Jewish state is to be a state for Jews.

      I suspect that much of the alt-right would be just fine with a 20% Asian women component in the state. Most aren’t really interested in some abstraction of genetic purity so much as avoiding black crime.

      Like

      • I agree that “belonging” is defined different among whites and Jews (though the rule of “if your mother’s a Jew, you’re a Jew,” is awfully genetic,) but the point of the Jewish state is to be a state for Jews.

        Well, yeah, it’s different, but if we agree the differences are trivial then they are basically the same.

        I suspect that much of the alt-right would be just fine with a 20% Asian women component in the state. Most aren’t really interested in some abstraction of genetic purity so much as avoiding black crime.

        Perhaps to his credit, Spencer hardly ever talks about black crime and dysfunction and he’s just as much against Asian immigration as any other non-white form. I don’t deny that there are parts of the alt-right who could legitimately be described as white zionists, but Spencer isn’t one of them and this goes a fortiori for the ‘right’ (for want of a better term) wing of the alt-right that he believes should be included in the alt-right.

        Sam J

        Not that I’m a Spencer fan club member but…says who? Where did you get this? I see this as a prime example of exactly what this whole post by evolutiontheorist is about. Far as I can tell you just assume that’s what he wants.

        That’s my view from reading various articles of his and various youtube videos I listen to at work. I think he ideally wants a 100% white country and would be willing to sacrifice territory to achieve it. I don’t know what his lower limit is, but I’m pretty sure it’s way above 80%. He’s quite vague about specifics, of course.

        Well assuming he’s a WN then why would any non-White immigration be allowed? Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of being WN? Why don’t you just call him racist, Nazi, Anti-Semite like they do on TV and stop all this round about way of talking about him?

        I think anti-semites should practice what they preach and not take excessive umbrage at imagined slights.

        “Everyone non-White is your enemy”. I don’t see this as good…you differ?

        Err, what?

        Like

      • “…“Everyone non-White is your enemy”. I don’t see this as good…you differ?

        Err, what?…”

        You called him a Kahanist. They believe, “…Jewish theocratic state, where non-Jews have no voting rights, should be created..” and if I’m not mistaken believe only Jews are truly human, (not that they advertise this loudly). So the equivalent for Spencer would be him hating all non-Whites.

        “…I think anti-semites should practice what they preach and not take excessive umbrage at imagined slights….”

        So if someone is against mass immigration of a lot of different races into the USA they are an anti-semite??? I think you let be known a little more of your way of thinking than you wished because that means any one against mass immigration is an enemy of the Jews to you.

        Like

      • I’m for anyone who’s pro-White and for Whites managing their own affairs by themselves whether they’re racist, Nazis, Anti-Semites, Alt-Lite, Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Faggots, Trans, ABGOZNQ’s, Birchers, Klansmen, anybody, whatever. We can disagree on other issues between ourselves AFTER we regain control of the country. First you must control your own fate which now, we do not.

        The Cruel Fate of Kekistan

        This is the future of the USA.

        Like

    • “…Richard Spencer would not, in fact, be satisfied with a White ethnostate that had 20% non-Whites…”

      Not that I’m a Spencer fan club member but…says who? Where did you get this? I see this as a prime example of exactly what this whole post by evolutiontheorist is about. Far as I can tell you just assume that’s what he wants.

      “…and – a fortiori – allowed immigration to any non-whites who could pass a test demonstrating their knowledge of observance of rituals that most Whites don’t keep…”

      Well assuming he’s a WN then why would any non-White immigration be allowed? Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of being WN? Why don’t you just call him racist, Nazi, Anti-Semite like they do on TV and stop all this round about way of talking about him?

      Like

  5. Mr. Kogan,

    It matters that whites are becoming a minority in our countries because we live in a demotic age, and numbers matter. It may have been true in the past that a minority o white people could rule over any number of others, but this is no longer the case; the fates of Rhodesia and South Africa prove that. Besides, I have no desire to be a minority Spartan living on the labor of a population of black and brown helots. To be neither a slave nor a master was the great dream of America; I personally would like to return to that, and at the moment, I see no other solution other than an ethnostate.

    At any rate, I appreciate your thoughtful and polite reply.

    Like

    • “…I have no desire to be a minority Spartan living on the labor of a population of black and brown helots. To be neither a slave nor a master…”

      I think this is a really important point you brought up and I agree. It’s also important to me.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s