White nationalists go wild for Tucker Carlson's "great replacement" theory

[Acadia]

Me thinks Tucker is the new villain to replace former President Trump.

They share the leftist spotlight and are favorite targets, because they present a threat to the progressive, radical agenda.
Tucker is spot on with replacement of Americans and the insane notion that we as a country are not allowed to have an identity.

 

[Master Debator]

They share the leftist spotlight and are favorite targets, because they present a threat to the progressive, radical agenda.
Tucker is spot on with replacement of Americans and the insane notion that we as a country are not allowed to have an identity.

No one said we can't have an identity, white wingers are just salty Americans are rejecting their white victim grievance identity.

 

[Acadia]

No one said we can't have an identity, white wingers are just salty Americans are rejecting their white victim grievance identity.

Oh, you mean the white devils of America past and present?

 

[Master Debator]

Oh, you mean the white devils of America past and present?

I don't believe in devils. I mean the white bigots of America past and present. America has chosen diversity and secularism.

 

[Acadia]

I don't believe in devils. I mean the white bigots of America past and present. America has chosen diversity and secularism.

America has diversity, the difference now is that skin color is ascendent, which belies our founding and Constitution.

 

[Master Debator]

America has diversity, the difference now is that skin color is ascendent, which belies our founding and Constitution.

Maybe you should go back and read up on the founding.

 

[Yakshi]

They share the leftist spotlight and are favorite targets, because they present a threat to the progressive, radical agenda.
Tucker is spot on with replacement of Americans and the insane notion that we as a country are not allowed to have an identity.

Eventually, the "see-no-color" whites were bound to get in bed with the white supremacists. It's one of the few voting blocs left for conservatives to align themselves with.

 

[Acadia]

Eventually, the "see-no-color" whites were bound to get in bed with the white supremacists. It's one of the few voting blocs left for conservatives to align themselves with.

Is that why David Duke endorsed Ilhan Omar? You know he hates Trump, right?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Right. You came here to lecture, not debate. Your beliefs can't stand the scrutiny.

It will amuse you, no doubt, that Richard Weaver said "All speech is sermonic". At the base of any statement, even the grotesquely low, there is always a sermonic element. Meaning, what we say reveals to and also teaches the listener. That is the purpose of communication. Take all of your (distorted and ugly) first principles and all that you say as a form of sermonizing. You speak, you teach. What you say will ultimately educate children: your child or other children. If you say stupid s***, you teach others stupid s***. It is really that simple.

You did not enter into conversation with me because you want to *debate*. You are adamantly opposed to all the categories that I propose as important. I know this and that is why I say it is of far greater advantage to detail why that is.

Not hatred for whites and white culture. For white supremacist culture.

The United States of America, my dear forlorn child, was made by white supremacists for white supremacists. This is a really difficult fact to be faced by everyone, on all sides. It has become a tenet of many people -- people like you -- operating today that all that they created must be modified and remade, and indeed there are some who actually desire destruction. This is what is going on in our present. Those who want to destroy, and will destroy, and those who do not want to allow destruction. The battle-lines begin to be drawn.

I do not deny or negate the importance of Whites -- European Caucasians -- remaining powerful and even dominant within their domains. So, the rumblings that we now notice, with increasing volume, by those who are getting sick of watching you and people like you declare their destructive will, and then engage in open, malicious destruction, is something I understand. I side with them against *you*.

So while not a 'white nationalist' in the strict sense I definitely support a 'white supermajority' and will resist, if only intellectually and in written form, the engineering of a contrary civic platform -- which is of course what you and others advocate. A 'white supermajority' had in fact granted *you-plural* an extraordinary range of concessions since the Sixties. So it cannot be said that a white supermajority is not in your interest.

I do acknowledge that the American white supermajority is being undermined. Many of us do. Who knows what results from talking about it?

You mean I disagree that white supremacy is an essential category of our society. That you now claim it as essential let's see you defend it and prove it as such.

Well, the *give me proof* thing is a vain charade. I can make suggestions though. I actually do believe it better if America, and also Europe, remain *in white hands* (I do not know how else to put it). These are not arguments that I feel inclined to make, myself, though I have read many of them and see their good sense.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

things will play out how they play out and people have been performing their roles for as long as we have had society and those roles tend to rhyme or repeat themselves throughout history.

A vain and empty comment really.

 

[Yakshi]

Is that why David Duke endorsed Ilhan Omar? You know he hates Trump, right?

Or you could've address the content of my post.

 

[Acadia]

Or you could've address the content of my post.

Your post has no merit.

 

[Yakshi]

Your post has no merit.

Of course, your replied showed that it did.

Again, manning up and actually addressing a post is often the better choice.

 

[Master Debator]

It will amuse you, no doubt, that Richard Weaver said "All speech is...

Yadda yadda yadda...

...That is the purpose of communication...

You did not enter into conversation with me because you want to *debate*. You are adamantly opposed to all the categories that I propose as important. I know this and that is why I say it is of far greater advantage to detail why that is.

I entered into debate with you to amuse myself at your expense.

The United States of America, my dear forlorn child, was made by white supremacists for white supremacists. This is a really difficult fact to be faced by everyone, on all sides.

You aren't exposing shocking truths here. I've been saying that very thing since I first got here.

It has become a tenet of many people -- people like you -- operating today that all that they created must be modified and remade, and indeed there are some who actually desire destruction.

It has become clear to everyone here that as you dramatically prognostigate the profound it turns out you're just summarizing every debate about the Founders we've all had here over and over. You're basically like the movie trailer voice of the Debate Board....

In a world where people have grown weary of white supremacy... dun dun dun... some set out to change it.

This is what is going on in our present. Those who want to destroy, and will destroy, and those who do not want to allow destruction. The battle-lines begin to be drawn.

Well until you can offer a good argument for why white supremacy shouldn't be destroyed you're going to continue to lose that battle. Come up with anything yet?

I do not deny or negate the importance of Whites -- European Caucasians -- remaining powerful and even dominant within their domains. So, the rumblings that we now notice, with increasing volume, by those who are getting sick of watching you and people like you declare their destructive will, and then engage in open, malicious destruction, is something I understand. I side with them against *you*.

Until they can do more than look upon our works and tremble or feel ill I'm really unconcerned by those flaccid cucks.

So while not a 'white nationalist' in the strict sense I definitely support a 'white supermajority' and will resist, if only intellectually and in written form, the engineering of a contrary civic platform -- which is of course what you and others advocate. A 'white supermajority' had in fact granted *you-plural* an extraordinary range of concessions since the Sixties. So it cannot be said that a white supermajority is not in your interest.

It certainly can be said... just maybe not by someone afraid to debate the merits of their proclomations. Nothing was conceed to blacks and minorities magnanimously. They were made uncomfortable and fearful until they were bent to our will.

I do acknowledge that the American white supermajority is being undermined. Many of us do. Who knows what results from talking about it?

Well public ridicule and shame for one.

Well, the *give me proof* thing is a vain charade. I can make suggestions though. I actually do believe it better if America, and also Europe, remain *in white hands* (I do not know how else to put it). These are not arguments that I feel inclined to make, myself, though I have read many of them and see their good sense.

Not inclined seems like code for unable to defend with any confidence.

 

[Slartibartfast]

A vain and empty comment really.

Ahh, so you are here just to be contrarian then.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I entered into debate with you to amuse myself at your expense.

Of course, I knew that and understood it even months ago.

I respond to you and elucidate ideas beyond your ken because with you as the subject, with you as the infected subject ruled by hatred and ressentiment, it is possible to reveal and expose what is going on in our present.

For all who read to see.

There may be an ‘expense’ — the time and effort put in — but i assure you all this is pure benefit to me.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Ahh, so you are here just to be contrarian then.

Contrarian? Contrarian to what?

 

[Master Debator]

Of course, I knew that and understood it even months ago.

I respond to you and elucidate ideas beyond your ken because with you as the subject, with you as the infected subject ruled by hatred and ressentiment, it is possible to reveal and expose what is going on in our present.

But you aren't revealing anything. Certainly not about me. These are things I've always said. Calling disdain for white supremacy an infection isn't really advocacy for white supremacy either, it's just a mirror of your own bitterness towards white supremacy's social decline.

For all who read to see.

There may be an ‘expense’ — the time and effort put in — but i assure you all this is pure benefit to me.

I'm not sure how looking like you're afraid to debate is a benefit to you but sure, let's go with that.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

It has become clear to everyone here that as you dramatically prognostigate the profound it turns out you're just summarizing every debate about the Founders we've all had here over and over. You're basically like the movie trailer voice of the Debate Board....

I am uncertain but moreover doubtful that you can speak for everyone, but you definitely speak for some. And since I have only participated in research on these topics for 6-7 years now I admit that I do not understand everything and for that reason I am not in a position to offer a political program or to make specific recommendations. But the recommendation I do make is to *keep studying* and keep reading. But I said this even years ago: there is no clear path here, and no political action possible, so the first order of business is in a) self-education and b) communicating with others.

And as to previous conversation (I doubt they were actually conversations) you and other may have had where you went over everything, I was not around since I only have about a year+ here on this forum.

Well until you can offer a good argument for why white supremacy shouldn't be destroyed you're going to continue to lose that battle. Come up with anything yet?

Well, I do make many different arguments, or put another way open up conversation into many different areas, and taken on the whole or as a whole the ideas I work — that is, our ‘epistemological categories’ — definitely show themselves as worthy of preservation. And the battle which you seem to define and articulate is a unfettered, violent, resentment-laden attack against not only ‘The Founders” and what they created specifically, but also an attack against their ‘epistemological categories of concern’.

Now the term ‘white supremacy’, as you and I discussed (quote/unquote) when I referenced Lothrop Stodard’s (A.M., Ph.D. Harvard) The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (1920) was at that time not a negative term, but a realistic one, and one understood by all to be valid and to express sound view and sound reasoning. What interests me, personally, is as I have said many times: in the transvaluation of values. How a thing positive is turned into a thing negative.

So, what I do (again personally) is to linger over that issue, that question, because I have a philosophically-inclined mind, and not an artivist’s personality. I want to know how it comes about that values shift, or are shifted, so abruptly, and I want to know what arguments and structures of ideas support the shift, especially when something *good* (for example heterosexual normativeness) is transvalued into something questionable, debatable, and then negative and undesirable; while another valuation such as homosexual perversion is turned upside-down, and made to seem the *good* thing. (Take for example the scene in American Beauty where the homosexual couple visits their new neighbor).

It is my view that in order to understand what has happened and where we are now, that we have to *backtrack* into prior causation. But most people, certainly many people, do not have much of an historical perspective, they exist in *immediacy* and in the *mutable present*. And this ties in to my ideas about people who do not live in and through ‘metaphysical categories’ but through ‘mutable experience’ and of course sensation.

What I do — what I am doing — is responding to what I learn from people, in this case a philosopher, such as Richard Weaver. Because what is ultimately proposed by his ideas is a refashioning of relationship to eternal categories in the most important sense (hence the relevancy of the Christian revelation), but in more specific senses rediscovering a *truer* foundation on which to construct our relationship to more quotidian categories. So there are two phases: One, beginiing to develop a sense of what those eternal categories are, and two then turning one’s eyes, one’s capacity to analyze and to see, to the actual on-going affairs.

You see my entire argument is that we must focus on a) renewal within ourselves as a starting point, which really means connecting with eternal springs that nourish being, and simultaneously initiating a renewal process within our culture and civilization. I truthfully say that I regard all this as *sacred work*, and this is why I cannot, as you can and do, separate myself from moral and ethical categories in the sense of imperatives and mandates.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

[cont. from previous]

And therefore you rightly notice my hesitancy in making any ‘militant’ recommendations about how to deal with people like you. And this is why I am still *stuck* if you will within those categories of classic Liberalism.

Well public ridicule and shame for one.

I certainly see what you are trying to say, but I do suppose that you are yourself noticing that day-by-day the *public conversation* in America begins to shift toward categories of definition, toward a more realistic ’seeing things as they really are’, which in fact you yourself recommend. You don’t accept moral categories (in the metaphysical sense) and you have reduced everything to the simplicity of straight power principles to quote Chomsky. So your argument really resolves to Who has the power, decides. It is a very problematic argument but there is, of course, some truth in it.

I am really interested as I say in *ridicule & shame* as the basis of motivation (I call it *wielding blame & shame*). It is essentially a sentimental argument and an emotional one, but not an intellectual and idea-based one. Because intellect and idea always — always — involve metaphysical categories.

But you aren't revealing anything. Certainly not about me. These are things I've always said. Calling disdain for white supremacy an infection isn't really advocacy for white supremacy either, it's just a mirror of your own bitterness towards white supremacy's social decline.

But I am not ‘bitter’ about what classic Liberalism has accomplished when examined from some distance. It has been the established system certainly in the Postwar period. And if the supremacy of Whites or the dominance of white rulership and control was, as seems to be the case, spread and shared I cannot but see that as a legitimate accomplishment.

But some say — Tomislav Sunic comes to mind — that when Liberalism over-ripens it turns into an influence that ‘rots the soul’. It leads to the decadence that Weaver talks about. And that indicates, once again, the need to seek our renovating currents.

And you say I am not revealing anything. I disagree. I just go far more slowly and I think more thoroughly and such an approach makes no sense to you — because it is idea-based, not based in blind, angry passion.

And so we come full-circle:

”There is a certain harrowing alternative to be pointed out as a possibility of our inaction or our failure. It is undeniable that there are numerous resemblances between the Southern agrarian mind and the mind of modern fascism, and I would affirm that fascism too in its ultimate character is a protest against materialist theories of history and society. This is certain despite the fact that fascism immersed itself in materialist techniques for its conquests, and thereby failed. This other society too believes in holiness and heroism; but it is humane, enlightened, and it insists on regard for personality more than do modern forms of statism under liberal and social-democratic banners. Above all, in meeting the problem of motivation it does what social democracy has never been able to do. Now that truth can once more be told, let us admit that fascism had secret sympathizers in every corner of the world and from every social level. It attracted by its call to achievement, by its poetry, by its offer of a dramatic life. It attracted even by its call to men to be hard on themselves. Social democracy will never be able to compete with this by promising to each a vine-covered cottage by the road and cradle-to-grave social security. People who are yet vital want a challenge in life; they want an opportunity to win distinction, and even those societies which permit distinction solely through the accumulation of wealth and its ostentatious display, such as ours has been, are better than those that permit none. From the bleakness of socialist bureaucracy men will sooner or later turn to something stirring; they will decide again to live strenuously, or romantically.”

 

[Slartibartfast]

Contrarian? Contrarian to what?

One theme I have seen consistently in your responses with a variety of people is as follows

1. You play devils advocate but never take a stance of your own
2. You elicit emotional reactions from people and then take that as some sort of victory
3. You call statements you have no real argument against absurd

So, that pretty much makes you a textbook contrarian with a little bit of troll on the side.

Not that I disrespect your position, I like to mess with people as well.

 

[jnug]

What is truly funny is how ridiculous and strident Tucker has gotten since he has lost his sounding board.

Used to be that Tucker would howl at the moon or Hannity would and Trump would howl back. You had to pay attention because Trump was howling from the Oval. Now Trump is no longer in the Oval and struggling to find the means to howl in a way that actually draws some sort of attention. Trump is for the most part silent. Donnie can't put more than a tweet's worth of copy together and his base can't understand more than that. Earth to Donnie....not going to happen.

In the meantime, Lindsey Graham or Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley trying to howl back just makes the whole propaganda process developed by Fox for Trump look absurd. Nobody outside of S.Carolina really cares what flip-flop Lindsey Graham or Cancun Ted or Power salute to Insurrectionists Hawley have to say unless they are actually a constituent of one of those whack job performance artists. In that case any constituent with a brain is just plain embarrassed if not appalled.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

1. You play devils advocate but never take a stance of your own
2. You elicit emotional reactions from people and then take that as some sort of victory
3. You call statements you have no real argument against absurd

1) I do not want to take any position that does not have *true merit*. So, and I say this openly and constantly, I am a researcher. And I have at least one function: take for example my clarification of what ‘white nationalism’ is offerend to GrandDaddy (I forgot what his username is). I am trying to clarify ideas and positions.

2) It is more accurate to say that you-plural exist in and operate from emotional positions. You react emotionally because you don’t really have a grounding in ideas — and in the ‘metaphysics’ I refer to constantly. If you react emotionally it is your issue, not mine. And it is no victory. It is a loss, especially to the forum and what it can and should be.

3) You’d have to provide a specific example. What did I call ‘absurd’?

I like to mess with people as well.

So you are projecting! I am not messing with people, that is by definition trolling, ins’t it? I am trying to clarify important ideas.

 

[Slartibartfast]

1) I do not want to take any position that does not have *true merit*. So, and I say this openly and constantly, I am a researcher. And I have at least one function: take for example my clarification of what ‘white nationalism’ is offerend to GrandDaddy (I forgot what his username is). I am trying to clarify ideas and positions.

2) It is more accurate to say that you-plural exist in and operate from emotional positions. You react emotionally because you don’t really have a grounding in ideas — and in the ‘metaphysics’ I refer to constantly. If you react emotionally it is your issue, not mine. And it is no victory. It is a loss, especially to the forum and what it can and should be.

3) You’d have to provide a specific example. What did I call ‘absurd’?

So you are projecting! I am not messing with people, that is by definition trolling, ins’t it? I am trying to clarify important ideas.

1. As far as I can tell, you have no position at all and generally researchers are not provocative unless they are measuring something that is not apparent to the subject.
2. This tends to be the theme you use to get a rise out of people
3. Any number of my responses, but I can quote them if you wish

Observant, not projecting. If I were projecting, I would try to deny my own trait and I do not.

 

[Master Debator]

Well, I do make many different arguments, or put another way open up conversation into many different areas, and taken on the whole or as a whole the ideas I work — that is, our ‘epistemological categories’ — definitely show themselves as worthy of preservation. And the battle which you seem to define and articulate is a unfettered, violent, resentment-laden attack against not only ‘The Founders” and what they created specifically, but also an attack against their ‘epistemological categories of concern’.

Not all of them apparently or you wouldn't be here desperately searching... sorry researching for an argument that would lead to their restoration.

Now the term ‘white supremacy’, as you and I discussed (quote/unquote) when I referenced Lothrop Stodard’s (A.M., Ph.D. Harvard) The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (1920) was at that time not a negative term, but a realistic one, and one understood by all to be valid and to express sound view and sound reasoning.

Understood by all to be valid isn't the same as actually being valid. That all white supremacists saw white supremacy as good and true is no more proof of validity than all thieves believing scheming, conning and robbing to be valid forms of employment.

What interests me, personally, is as I have said many times: in the transvaluation of values. How a thing positive is turned into a thing negative.

Let's acknowledge here that your interest isn't chemistry or physics but in one particular change, the fall of white supremacy. Look no further than the limitations of metaphysical rationalizations. As long as you limit your arguments to the idea of something rather than its actual make up you lose out to those who can describe the world as it is rather than how you feel it should be. In other words physics > metaphysics.

I want to know how it comes about that values shift, or are shifted, so abruptly, and I want to know what arguments and structures of ideas support the shift, especially when something *good* (for example heterosexual normativeness) is transvalued into something questionable, debatable, and then negative and undesirable; while another valuation such as homosexual perversion is turned upside-down, and made to seem the *good* thing. (Take for example the scene in American Beauty where the homosexual couple visits their new neighbor).

This is a perfect example. You even acknowledge the limitations of your argument by putting * in front of good in a subconscious acknowledgement that this *good* is not something you can actually define or describe. Homosexuality is a good thing to those who experience joy and pleasure and companionship from it and so when your metaphysical assertions collide with established reality is it really any wonder that yours is the side that gives?