Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[VanceMack]

There are LOTS of stories of 'the good' that came from slavery. There are inspirational and heroic stories of people that worked to free slaves, of people fighting to ending a evil practice, it could be said that it was inspirational that a nation that was relatively in its infancy abandoned a global evil practiced by multiple cultures inluding the aboriginal people in these lands long before the European settlers arrived. We can point to the post civil war successes of freed slaves, of the tribulations and sacrifices of people that travelled to the south to fight for freedom and equality, many of who gave their lives in the struggle.

None of that excuses or justifies or minimizes the evil of slavery...a practice with its origins in Africa and one that is still today impacting 40 million ostly black and brown people around the world.

 

[Master Debator]

There are LOTS of stories of 'the good' that came from slavery. There are inspirational and heroic stories of people that worked to free slaves, of people fighting to ending a evil practice, it could be said that it was inspirational that a nation that was relatively in its infancy abandoned a global evil practiced by multiple cultures inluding the aboriginal people in these lands long before the European settlers arrived. We can point to the post civil war successes of freed slaves, of the tribulations and sacrifices of people that travelled to the south to fight for freedom and equality, many of who gave their lives in the struggle.

None of that excuses or justifies or minimizes the evil of slavery...a practice with its origins in Africa and one that is still today impacting 40 million ostly black and brown people around the world.

You didn't describe any good that came out of slavery. You described good that came out of resisting slavery.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You can believe you have a moral right to form a white ethno state in America, but you have almost no chance whatsoever of convincing a majority of Americans to believe this.

Your mistake is that because you need to find people who you can wage war against you always seek out those who you perceive are the *white-wingers* who are the focus of your ire.

Your *ire* is a complex thing — it is sociological and amenable to different levels of analysis.

Your discourse also occurs within your rather obvious *love of gloating* and this element, because it is so predominant in you, becomes the topic of analysis.

This *seeking out the beloved enemy*, the needed enemy, largely defines what on the whole takes place (is enacted) on this forum and within American politics. But I think that you have mis-perceived me because if you were to perceive me correctly you’d lose the clearly defined enemy that you need.

And we can’t do without our enemies! Because they provide us with the unrelinquishable opportunity to rally our forces; to define our views; to concentrate our opinions; to work with others to enact our will.

While I recognize that *the direction of things* does indeed follow its line of flow, what interests me more than lining up on one side or the other is to see how it has all come about. And part of seeing how it has come about is to examine the *powers & potentialities* (the factions within society) that have the power to mold ideology and ideation.

What is happening in America today — socially, culturally, politically — is an internal conflict. But that conflict, these conflicts, occur in a larger global context.

It looks to me as if America is on the verge of losing its nerve in a group of different senses. It has lost its definition. It does seem true to me that *America is divided* and as such cannot, today, and perhaps not ever again come together as a united nation. So, to say *the nation is fracturing* is not inaccurate. But what does this portend? One thing is that the State must assume control because it must hold things together even though they can’t be held together.

On another level there is a vast conflict and disconnection between the neo-imperial aims and objectives of those who own and run the military and industrial structures, their interests being global, and the people of the nation itself. I do not see these aims as being reconcilable.

And if I am not mistaken that context must be described as *war*. The war that is developing is taking shape in ways that are new and strange — yet very real. Where all of this is going, and how the power-dynamics will get resolved, is as yet unknown. But there is a low-intensity war going on, at least it seems so to me.

So about that one has to at least mention the Surveillance State. What is this? Apparently, it is the power of the State turned toward the object of absolute control. And what is to be controlled? Well, that is a rather complex question. However some hints can be provided. But this our surveillance state (the NSA state if you wish) is a mirror of another notorious nation-state that I have referred to often.

And all of this unknown-ness as well as the daily stream of strange news has the effect of producing a great deal of uncertainty, confusion and plain angst. It all requires interpretation — some description that settles it, that makes it all clear — but what comes our is partial and tendentious interpretations.

All that I do, all that I can do, is to try to create lists as it were in an attempt to categorize what is going on. I do not have the power to decide what will happen.

 

[vanceen]

I would also advocate the notion of a totality of information in the universe, what David Bohm calls “the implicate order.” But I don’t know that determinism follows from that. That would seem to be predicated on the idea that all events in time are predetermined.

I wasn't arguing that determinism follows from a consideration of conservation of information and the Big Bang. I was examining the implications of assuming deterministic materialism and what that means for the universe at the instant of the Big Bang. And certainly, determinism can actually be defined as the predetermination of all events.

 

[Master Debator]

I wasn't arguing that determinism follows from a consideration of conservation of information and the Big Bang. I was examining the implications of assuming deterministic materialism and what that means for the universe at the instant of the Big Bang. And certainly, determinism can actually be defined as the predetermination of all events.

I don't think it means anything at all to the Universe. I don't think it should even necessarily upset believers in free will. I'm one of them. Determinism isn't that different from the notion of an all knowing God. Laplace's demon assumes the role but nothing for humanity changes. Humanity isn't all knowing. It's still making imperfect choices based on limited information.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's only from the perspective of the believer in the taboo. I'm sure you can imagine that there are the religiously inclined who find gay sex to be taboo and gay people who find sex to be completely natural.



However the idea that these judgements don't equate to cosmic absolutes shouldn't be that hard to grasp considering we know that what is considered good or evil by society changes over time. Why is that? Because talking about society as if society is some unified hive mind is nonsensical. Again society is a set of individuals who are going to agree on some things, disagree on others, sometimes peacefully, sometimes violently but in the end what everyone accepts is the strength of the victors will.

Their beliefs are real in that they actually believe them, that doesn't make their beliefs objectively real. Take a radical islamists belief that blowing himself up and killing a bunch of infidels will reward him with 72 virgins in the afterlife. You and I might not believe that but it's an objective fact that he does. Scientists aren't making an objective evaluation of the content of that song birds song. He could be telling those females he's got a baseball bat between his little song bird legs and can smash all day and he'd probably be full of shit but he is singing.

They became real in the case of the American revolution because slavers were forced to accept the end of slavery. That's the power of force, not proof of absolute right or wrongs. You can't force someone to believe in something they don't. You can manipulate them or trick them but you can't force them. In regards to slavers, they could of gone to their graves believing in the righteousness of slavery they were prevented from engaging in it by the force of law.

This finally circles back to the point I was making to @Alizia Tyler. You can believe you have a moral right to form a white ethno state in America, but you have almost no chance whatsoever of convincing a majority of Americans to believe this. That's just not the direction societies overall moral beliefs are heading to. If your argument is true, and society dictates moral beliefs then clearly according to you @Alizia Tyler's belief in the moral goodness of white power is wrong. No? Or do I have you mistaken?

The existence of transgressions against the taboo do not demonstrate that the taboo is merely subjective, any more than does the opposing proposition.

I have not advocated a hive mind any more than AT advocated a cosmic mind. As for “the victor’s will,” that often depends on the long view. In Vedic India, invaders from the North, who used to be termed “Aryans” in early studies, mastered the so called “Dravidian” inhabitants of the land. Over time, though, Aryan culture was absorbed by the priorities of the numerically superior Dravidians. We’re arguably seeing something like this today, with the tribal ways of the Afghans resisting the might of the American occupation.


It is not the content of the belief— what I referenced as “specific forms”— that are objective. Rather, it is what William James termed “the will to believe.” This is objective in the sense that sentient creatures cannot live without a foundation of self assertion, whether one regards that system as a set of biological imperatives or of cultural concepts.

The ideals of slavery persisted through force as well. The custom endured for centuries based on the simple equation, “if my tribe is stronger than yours we can enslave you.” What makes the Civil War more complicated than you represent is that it involved two subgroups in the same tribe, and the abolitionists at least were extending “ingroup membership” to slaves as a whole, rather than viewing them as outsiders from other tribes. Force played a role in the specific elimination of slavery, but the fact that Northerners and Southerners still belonged to the same tribe made negotiation more possible than, say, Americans and Afghans.

I feel sure your “goodness of white power” query is just another of your many straw men, and as such is not worth addressing.

 

[Ouroboros]

You didn't describe any good that came out of slavery. You described good that came out of resisting slavery.

While in some ways the country today might have been better off had we never imported African slaves, people of color would have lost the only weapon they have in the promotion of their alleged quest for equity: that of White Guilt. Without that, you got nothing.

 

[Master Debator]

The existence of transgressions against the taboo do not demonstrate that the taboo is merely subjective, any more than does the opposing proposition.

Nor does the existence of a taboo demonstrate its moral objectivity.

I have not advocated a hive mind any more than AT advocated a cosmic mind.

I don't think either of you know what you're really advocating for. All of your arguments are contradictory and make no sense.

It is not the content of the belief— what I referenced as “specific forms”— that are objective. Rather, it is what William James termed “the will to believe.” This is objective in the sense that sentient creatures cannot live without a foundation of self assertion, whether one regards that system as a set of biological imperatives or of cultural concepts.

Who's denying that you have thoughts of your own? Or sentiments you share with other people? That's not the objectivity I'm talking about.

The ideals of slavery persisted through force as well.

Yea that's exactly my argument and has been from the start. Force > morality. @Alizia Tyler can cry about having the moral right to advocate for a white ethno state, but she'll never have the physical or political might to manifest that dream in reality. Not in this country. Especially in light of the census.

Force played a role in the specific elimination of slavery, but the fact that Northerners and Southerners still belonged to the same tribe made negotiation more possible than, say, Americans and Afghans.

Tribal allegiances change. We might very well have to slap down some Dissident Whites before all is said and done.

I feel sure your “goodness of white power” query is just another of your many straw men, and as such is not worth addressing.

That's right, ignore Dissident Whites. Demographically we'll all being ignoring them before long.

While in some ways the country today might have been better off had we never imported African slaves, people of color would have lost the only weapon they have in the promotion of their alleged quest for equity: that of White Guilt. Without that, you got nothing.

But we do have it and with it we can take your country.

 

[Master Debator]

Your mistake is that because you need to find people who you can wage war against you always seek out those who you perceive are the *white-wingers* who are the focus of your ire.

You mean laughter. But go ahead and deny you're in a culture war while Cucker rails against it every night on t.v.. That's part of the reason you're going to lose. Half of you are too embarrassed and ashamed to even admit what you are.

Your discourse also occurs within your rather obvious *love of gloating* and this element, because it is so predominant in you, becomes the topic of analysis.

Again, half the fun in winning is laughing and talking shit to your loser opponents.

This *seeking out the beloved enemy*, the needed enemy, largely defines what on the whole takes place (is enacted) on this forum and within American politics. But I think that you have mis-perceived me because if you were to perceive me correctly you’d lose the clearly defined enemy that you need.

Whether you can admit what you are makes no difference to the fact there is a white wing in this country and we aim to make them a powerless, cockless, minority. If you're not going to ride to their defense, if half of you are too ashamed to stand with your brethren it'll be all the more easier to smack them down.

While I recognize that *the direction of things* does indeed follow its line of flow, what interests me more than lining up on one side or the other is to see how it has all come about.

You just like to watch. I get it.

The war that is developing is taking shape in ways that are new and strange — yet very real. Where all of this is going, and how the power-dynamics will get resolved, is as yet unknown. But there is a low-intensity war going on, at least it seems so to me.

Low intensity sure describes the enthusiasm for defending Dissident Whites.

All that I do, all that I can do, is to try to create lists as it were in an attempt to categorize what is going on. I do not have the power to decide what will happen.

No you don't.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

@Master Debator I was enjoying the metaphysical desviación but I notice that you seem to prefer to go directly back into the territory that most moves you! But if I answer you it will be to repeat all over again so many things already said.

So, I think it is better to try to seek alternatives.

Whether you can admit what you are makes no difference to the fact there is a white wing in this country and we aim to make them a powerless, cockless, minority. If you're not going to ride to their defense, if half of you are too ashamed to stand with your brethren it'll be all the more easier to smack them down.

I do not think it is a question of *shame* -- I have said a great many things that I feel are truth-based so I could not have all that much shame -- it is that my own destiny does not connect directly to the fate of the United States but rather to Finland where, eventually we suppose, we will end up residing. So that is one thing.

The other thing I think could be discussed is your insinuation about the *power* you say you have. You say that *you* intend to make them powerless. I think your own sense of your power is a false sense. I do not think *you* have that much real power (you will have to define what you mean when you say *we*). You have been given as certain power (here E Michael Jones' analysis might have some relevance). But power given is not the same as real power. And it has happened that power given to the African American cause has been withdrawn. And it has been said -- by many, including by Black activists -- that the African American community has wound up non-advantaged.

I am not sure I understand where, today, real power lies. I do recognize (as I said above) that American culture is in the throes of cultural struggles but I think these are internal struggles that have been exacerbated by powerful interests in their quest for power. I do not fully understand these struggles but wish I did understand more and better.

And I am not sure what to think of Tucker Carlson's general presentation.

So I have already said, numerous times, that many of the things you notice going on (the color shift and the *color revolution* among others) are real. What happens in the US is one thing and it can be talked about. But also relevant is what is happening and what will happen in Europe and this is more my area of interest.

Finally, you incite me to *do something* but I am not the person that you will gain anything much by inciting. My interest is in the realm of study and not activism. As you know I have spoken of *renovation* on a cultural level (for Europe, for European-descended) but the more I look into it the more difficult the problem is.

I just don't think you are going to get toooooo far with obvious baiting techniques! But they are, to a degree, noted and appreciated.

 

[CaughtInThe]

hey, a racist on the Hannity message board use to post that slaves got free room and board.

 

[CaughtInThe]

While in some ways the country today might have been better off had we never imported African slaves, people of color would have lost the only weapon they have in the promotion of their alleged quest for equity: that of White Guilt. Without that, you got nothing.

 

[Master Debator]

@Master Debator I was enjoying the metaphysical desviación but I notice that you seem to prefer to go directly back into the territory that most moves you!

Were you? Because @vanceen ignored all the blatant white supremacist rhetoric of your post engage you in that metaphysical discussion and so far you haven't responded. I was kind o f looking forward to laughing at that.

I do not think it is a question of *shame* -- I have said a great many things that I feel are truth-based so I could not have all that much shame -- it is that my own destiny does not connect directly to the fate of the United States but rather to Finland where, eventually we suppose, we will end up residing. So that is one thing.

It's really obvious what you are. You talk about Dissident Whites, you cry about multiculturalism and issue grave omens about the destruction of white people and their culture. You just can't accept the implications of what you are. That's shame. It's not a shame though. It's one of the more hilarious traits about your people.

The other thing I think could be discussed is your insinuation about the *power* you say you have. You say that *you* intend to make them powerless.

I'm talking political power which holds the reigns on the physical power of the United States government. Culturally you've already lost. As the recent census showed white people as a percentage of the population are decreasing. But the more interesting part of that census was that the largest growing demo by a mile where people who identify as mixed race. Multiculturalism has won. There are going to be a lot angry Dissident White grandparents with black and brown skinned grand babies.

You have been given as certain power (here E Michael Jones' analysis might have some relevance). But power given is not the same as real power. And it has happened that power given to the African American cause has been withdrawn.

You like to say that like @Ouroboros but my simple response is, then do it.

So I have already said, numerous times, that many of the things you notice going on (the color shift and the *color revolution* among others) are real. What happens in the US is one thing and it can be talked about. But also relevant is what is happening and what will happen in Europe and this is more my area of interest.

Same thing as over here. They're even bigger libs than we are. Wait a generation. Those Muslim communities are going to change the face of Europe.

Finally, you incite me to *do something* but I am not the person that you will gain anything much by inciting. My interest is in the realm of study and not activism.

The joy of that is the certainty that you can't.

I just don't think you are going to get toooooo far with obvious baiting techniques! But they are, to a degree, noted and appreciated.

Do imagine some goal beyond my personal amusement?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Were you? Because @vanceen ignored all the blatant white supremacist rhetoric of your post engage you in that metaphysical discussion and so far you haven't responded. I was kind o f looking forward to laughing at that.

I am uncertain what you are referring to. Blatant white supremacist rhetoric? in the discussion of metaphysics? Can you please link to what you are talking about?

 

[Master Debator]

I am uncertain what you are referring to. Blatant white supremacist rhetoric? in the discussion of metaphysics? Can you please link to what you are talking about?

Your discussions on metaphysics have always centered on defending white eurocentricism as a legitimate and reasonable ideology.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

It's really obvious what you are. You talk about Dissident Whites, you cry about multiculturalism and issue grave omens about the destruction of white people and their culture. You just can't accept the implications of what you are.

I appreciate that you are making efforts to stir things up. It is noticed!

The problem here is that I know, very well, what I am -- that is what I think and believe. And I talk and write about what I think and believe all the time. Without *shame*.

I talk about dissident intellectual traditions. My ideas about *identitarianism* are applicable to all people. All people should have an identity-position. But all of this I have talked about in depth.

Oddly, it is you who cannot have an identity-position. Because you are now mixed-race. If you define an identity-position it will be, and can only be, in that non-identification with what is distinct and 'diverse', and identification with what is mixed, like you, and getting more mixed. You are on a road to *lost identity*. And that presages many different problems that have yet to fully manifest.

I find that an interesting area for continued examination. But I do it with a certain dispassion. You on the other hand are obviously rather bound-up in your non-identitarian identity.

I do not *cry* about multiculturalism, but I do regret that multi-culturalism presages a cultural destruction. I think that you are an example of this. You have confused identity and, to all appearances, you need those who do have identity in order to rail against them and also it.

I do not think your position is as strong as you think it is.

But I do agree that I have issued 'grave omens'. So what else is new?

As it pertains to the United States I think I have long ago accepted 'the implications'. But, I have also said that it remains to be seen what unfolds in history. Lots of different events seem to be presaged. The ground is unstable. It seems to me that the future is a glyph.

So it is within this context that interesting conversation and philosophizing can take place. It has been interesting. I am surprised that more are not interested in what we write about here. But most of those who write on this forum -- the regulars -- don't seem to really deal in ideas and they seem really empty intellectually.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Your discussions on metaphysics have always centered on defending white eurocentricism as a legitimate and reasonable ideology.

Where was any such thing discussed or even alluded to with Vanceen?

Why would not Eurocentrism be a valid position?

 

[Master Debator]

I talk about dissident intellectual traditions. My ideas about *identitarianism* are applicable to all people. All people should have an identity-position. But all of this I have talked about in depth.

That's fine. The people with a white eurocentric identity who think blacks and Whites living together and having babies together equates to the destruction of their culture are who everyone else identify as cucked white supremacists.

Oddly, it is you who cannot have an identity-position. Because you are now mixed-race.

I do enjoy the occasional glimpses of white wing logic these talks provide.

I do not *cry* about multiculturalism, but I do regret that multi-culturalism presages a cultural destruction.

So not really a destruction. More like cuck white wing identity not being able to compete with more appealing and inviting cultures.

I do not think your position is as strong as you think it is.

Yes, but we've all seen how you think.

So it is within this context that interesting conversation and philosophizing can take place. It has been interesting. I am surprised that more are not interested in what we write about here.

No one is really interested in what Dissident Whites have to say. I'm just here for the shits and giggles.

Where was any such thing discussed or even alluded to with Vanceen?

Oh he or she just chopped off the uncomfortable parts of your post to try and give your cosmic consciousness theory some semblance of rationality.

Why would not Eurocentrism be a valid position?

I never said it wasn't. I've only said white Eurocentrism is the identity of cuck white supremacists. I didn't say you didn't have a right to be a cuck white supremacist.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

That's fine. The people with a white eurocentric identity who think blacks and Whites living together and having babies together equates to the destruction of their culture are who everyone else identify as cucked white supremacists.

Africans and Whites, in my opinion, are better off not mixing at a biological level. I do not think this requires much explanation and very little defense. So yes, that is my opinion. I am certainly not the only one to have it. And many Blacks (Africans) also have the same view.

Is that view wrong? Why?

More like cuck white wing identity not being able to compete with more appealing and inviting cultures.

Here I think you are making stuff up. Where is the "more appealing and inviting cultures" you reference here? Please be specific. You are making an important statement. Can you demonstrate what you are referring to? and why you see it as 'more appealing'? Appealing in what ways?

Oh he or she just chopped off the uncomfortable parts of your post to try and give your cosmic consciousness theory some semblance of rationality.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What specific post are you referring to?!?

I never said it wasn't. I've only said white Eurocentrism is the identity of cuck white supremacists.

Is the problem here that I take you seriously when I shouldn't?

If a Eurocentric position is not something bad or undesirable (or evil or immoral) what is your issue with those who have such a position? Can you be really clear here? Or will you continue argument-by-emoticon?

 

[Master Debator]

Africans and Whites, in my opinion, are better off not mixing at a biological level. I do not think this requires much explanation and very little defense. So yes, that is my opinion. I am certainly not the only one to have it. And many Blacks (Africans) also have the same view.

Do you imagine that because some blacks share this sentiment it means it can't be racist? Does that mean you think blacks can be racists? Have you fallen for MadLib rhetoric?

Is that view wrong? Why?

I didn't say it was wrong. I'm not a moralist. That seems to be a really difficult thing for you to grasp.

Here I think you are making stuff up. Where is the "more appealing and inviting cultures" you reference here? Please be specific.

Go back to the Census data. The largest growing demographic are those who identify as mixed race. That's in large part thanks to white people choosing to have babies with people of other ethnicities. On top of that poll after poll shows younger Americans are less racist, less homophobic, and xenophobic and incredibly progressive politically. As I've said, you've already lost the culture. Politics will catch up eventually. It's already starting to.

If a Eurocentric position is not something bad or undesirable (or evil or immoral) what is your issue with those who have such a position? Can you be really clear here? Or will you continue argument-by-emoticon?

What's wrong with argument by emotion? You've admitted above that you not wanting race mixing is a matter of your opinion. What do you think your opinion is? As for why would I have a problem with white supremacist political and cultural power if I don't believe in moral absolutism? Because I'm not white! How hard is it for you to grasp pure self interest. I'm just not trying to gussy it up with lipstick and high heels and call it metaphysics.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nor does the existence of a taboo demonstrate its moral objectivity.

I don't think either of you know what you're really advocating for. All of your arguments are contradictory and make no sense.

Who's denying that you have thoughts of your own? Or sentiments you share with other people? That's not the objectivity I'm talking about.

Yea that's exactly my argument and has been from the start. Force > morality. @Alizia Tyler can cry about having the moral right to advocate for a white ethno state, but she'll never have the physical or political might to manifest that dream in reality. Not in this country. Especially in light of the census.

Tribal allegiances change. We might very well have to slap down some Dissident Whites before all is said and done.

That's right, ignore Dissident Whites. Demographically we'll all being ignoring them before long.

But we do have it and with it we can take your country.

No, moral objectivity only arises when a given taboo or transgression against a taboo has some social utility. MLK's transgressions against racial taboos were objectively moral because they benefited the culture as a whole. Race hustlers like Ibram Kendi seek to create a new set of taboos, but whatever modest gains he's made-- for himself, not for the culture as a whole-- are not sustainable because he's shown that all he's done is promote a new form of racism.

I'm sure you can't follow the arguments here, but your attempt to force in your own straw men merely confuse the issues further.

Your peculiar phrase "you have thoughts of your own" doesn't even come close to addressing the matter of shared cultural concepts.

If your message had actually been "force> morality," you wouldn't give a crap as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson had extorted sex from Sally Hemings. You would view it as being of no consequence because that was the state of the society at the time, and it would be of no more consequence to you than the thousands of anonymous slaves taken by Muslim slavers over eight centuries. But clearly you want to glory in the supposed reversal of fortunes, because you think it benefits you and yours. In addition, even though you claim to be amused by the "white ethno state" that you claim AT wants, the fact that you talk about more than she does shows how threatened you are.

Glad to see you admit you don't know what "negotiation" means.

You repeatedly asked me for my definition of White Culture and ignored the definition I provided because it conflicted your lame tautology. If I ask you to define Dissident Whites, what kind of definition will you come up with? Hint: "anyone who disagrees with me" is not sufficient.

Thanks for admitting that the Civil War produced something you consider good.

 

[Ouroboros]

You mean laughter. But go ahead and deny you're in a culture war while Cucker rails against it every night on t.v.. That's part of the reason you're going to lose. Half of you are too embarrassed and ashamed to even admit what you are.

Again, half the fun in winning is laughing and talking shit to your loser opponents.

Whether you can admit what you are makes no difference to the fact there is a white wing in this country and we aim to make them a powerless, cockless, minority. If you're not going to ride to their defense, if half of you are too ashamed to stand with your brethren it'll be all the more easier to smack them down.

You just like to watch. I get it.

Low intensity sure describes the enthusiasm for defending Dissident Whites.

No you don't.

Who's Cucker supposed to be in this oddball scenario? Tucker Carlson? And when did AT claim not to be in a culture war? Not in the section you excerpted. I thought you claimed she was advocating culture war because of the "white ethno state?" It can't be both.

Nobody cares if you laugh like a silly jackal. AT is pointing out that when you do so, you provide us with grist for the analysis mill, rather than making any salient points.

Since you can't admit what you are, you've no standing to advise anyone else on their identity.

Watching attentively is always better than just making up crap that fits your narrow world view.

And you got the sense of the words wrong again. More of that addiction to failure we've already seen.

And you have even less power to decide than anyone, because you don't know what's going on.

 

[Ouroboros]

Speaking of more silly jackal-laughter...

 

[Ouroboros]

Were you? Because @vanceen ignored all the blatant white supremacist rhetoric of your post engage you in that metaphysical discussion and so far you haven't responded. I was kind o f looking forward to laughing at that.

It's really obvious what you are. You talk about Dissident Whites, you cry about multiculturalism and issue grave omens about the destruction of white people and their culture. You just can't accept the implications of what you are. That's shame. It's not a shame though. It's one of the more hilarious traits about your people.

I'm talking political power which holds the reigns on the physical power of the United States government. Culturally you've already lost. As the recent census showed white people as a percentage of the population are decreasing. But the more interesting part of that census was that the largest growing demo by a mile where people who identify as mixed race. Multiculturalism has won. There are going to be a lot angry Dissident White grandparents with black and brown skinned grand babies.

You like to say that like @Ouroboros but my simple response is, then do it.

Same thing as over here. They're even bigger libs than we are. Wait a generation. Those Muslim communities are going to change the face of Europe.


The joy of that is the certainty that you can't.

Do imagine some goal beyond my personal amusement?

The usual garbage, but how in the world did Muslim reactionaries become Mad Libs?

They benefit from Mad Lib fetishization of tolerance, but they are not Libs. If they were to take over the US the first thing to go would be Rap, quickly followed by Hip Hop. Lotta brothers would be back working at KFC then.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your discussions on metaphysics have always centered on defending white eurocentricism as a legitimate and reasonable ideology.

In the hundreds of posts made here no one here has proposed a reason as to why it could not be. Plenty of stupid reasons, like "it makes POC crap their pants." But no good reasons.