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

[Aurora]

Tucker Carlson does not know his ass from a 2x4. But oh how the Right sucks his drivel up.

One point Tucker misses and simply glosses over is that Immigrants do not arrive here as Citizens. They HAVE no voting rights when they land on our shores. So this whole notion of "importing voters" is painfully naive and painfully flawed and therefore perfectly digestible for your average Trumper.

The left see's racism under every rock and embrace the race industry and race media that keep singing that song.

 

[lwf]

I think this is a near absolutely unintelligent comment. First, the people who are concerned about immigration, about 'white well-being', and all the issues that surround it, are often very much patriots and define themselves as such.

What you do is to say, and you have no justifiable right to do so, none, that they are not patriots, that their values mean nothing and are false values, false concerns. This is completely incorrect and it is also vile.

They are IN NO WAY American patriots. The United States of America is not defined by one culture. America is a melting pot of cultures and has been since it's founding. The central value of the USA is freedom and as a country has always welcomed foreigners to its soil.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

White nationalists in the U.S. by definition are anti-American. That doesn't mean that they aren't loyal to their own race, or that their values mean nothing or are false concerns. But they are not and will never be patriots to their country. They are, in fact, opposed to their country's core values and embrace the cowardice of xenophobia and as such are an utter embarrassment to their country.

 

[Aurora]

India has dozens if not hundreds of different cultures within it.

India has more people within it than I believe all the white nations combined

Are there Caucasian people living in India?

Answer (1 of 8): Yes we do have, though pretty much in a minority, and that too scattered in pockets here and there. The most common kind of Caucasians, you have here are the Anglo Indians. Basically this community, traces it’s origins to the British times, and could refer to Britishers who sett...

www.quora.com

Yes we do have, though pretty much in a minority, and that too scattered in pockets here and there.

The most common kind of Caucasians, you have here are the Anglo Indians. Basically this community, traces it’s origins to the British times, and could refer to Britishers who settled down in India, or people of mixed British and Indian ancestry. However their numbers have been declining, and many have migrated to Australia, UK and US of late. During the British Raj, it was fairly common, for many Brit officers and soldiers to marry native Indian women. Their descendants were initially referred to as Eurasians, but later on the term Anglo- Indian became more common

 

[Aurora]

They are IN NO WAY American patriots. The United States of America is not defined by one culture. America is a melting pot of cultures and has been since it's founding. The central value of the USA is freedom and as a country has always welcomed foreigners to its soil.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

White nationalists in the U.S. by definition are anti-American. That doesn't mean that they aren't loyal to their own race, or that their values mean nothing or are false concerns. But they are not and will never be patriots to their country. They are, in fact, opposed to their country's core values and embrace the cowardice of xenophobia and as such are an utter embarrassment to their country.

At the time that message was made in regards to the Statue of Liberty, immigration into the USA was mostly white. Mostly European.

Where did it say multiculturalism (race) is our greatest strength? Not until about 1965 with the Kennedy's and democrats.

 

[Lisa]

The left see's racism under every rock and embrace the race industry and race media that keep singing that song.

Where is the race industry located and how many Pulitzers have been won by the race media.

Unless you are willing to stop with the strawman and admit that it's about fighting for equal rights?

 

[Aurora]

Where is the race industry located and how many Pulitzers have been won by the race media.

Unless you are willing to stop with the strawman and admit that it's about fighting for equal rights?

Preferential hiring, diversity, quotas are not equal rights.

 

[Lisa]

Preferential hiring, diversity, quotas are not equal rights.

Yes, they are when there is still a racial bias in hiring.

Many U.S. corporations are calling for an end to institutional racism and proclaiming support for diversity and inclusion. Historically, however, HR departments and recruiting firms around the country have helped perpetuate racial bias in their hiring processes and workplaces.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants based on their race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity) and disability. Despite the sweeping legislation, the discrimination didn't end. Explicit bias became implicit. Racial slurs became code words.

For decades studies have found that ethnic minorities receive fewer responses to job applications even when they have comparable qualifications to whites, and race-based legal complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission continue apace.

Related​

In an interview with LiveCareer, Ruqaiijah Yearby, a professor of law at St. Louis University, explains that racist policy didn't end with the Civil Rights movement. "We have anti-discrimination laws that say you shouldn't discriminate against people when you're hiring them," she says, "but how we go about hiring people has built-in inequalities."

Black Job Seekers Still Face Racial Bias in the Hiring Process | LiveCareer

Despite HR and recruiting professionals instituting equal opportunity hiring practices, Black job seekers and other people of color encounter major hurdles.

www.livecareer.com

 

[Mashmont]

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

Tucker Carlson's apparent embrace of a major racist talking point sparks ecstasy among far-right online fanatics

www.salon.com

FOX didn't distance itself from Carlson's tinfoil racist beliefs. Oftentimes silence tells you all you need to know.

The white supremacy movement is a myth. The remnants of the Klan are so small, as to be inconsquential. The media lies as it always does, and protects the much larger movement, which is the Antifa and BLM terrorists paid by Soros.

 

[Mashmont]

Yes they are wheen there is still a racial bias in hiring.

Black Job Seekers Still Face Racial Bias in the Hiring Process | LiveCareer

Despite HR and recruiting professionals instituting equal opportunity hiring practices, Black job seekers and other people of color encounter major hurdles.

www.livecareer.com

Let me explain a little something to you leftwingers. You have made employers afraid to hire these people for fear of frivolous lawsuits when something goes wrong, and they have to get rid of them. I know that's true in the landlord business.
What the left doesn't understand is business owners and landlords will always hire the people they want to hire, and not hire the people they don't want to hire, for whatever reason they want, and no law is going to make them do otherwise.
So, in order to avoid accusations and lawsuits, employers and landlords simply don't return calls. If they reject black applicants, they simply don't give a reason. They say nothing.

If leftwingers would just stay the hell out of it and let people do things on their own merits, and not be out to nail every employer or landlord, black applicants would be so much better off.

 

[Tigerace117]

The actions speak for themselves. Call it whatever you want.

The simple fact of the matter is that the racist garbage people like Tucker spew is exactly that.

 

[Aurora]

Yes, they are when there is still a racial bias in hiring.

Black Job Seekers Still Face Racial Bias in the Hiring Process | LiveCareer

Despite HR and recruiting professionals instituting equal opportunity hiring practices, Black job seekers and other people of color encounter major hurdles.

www.livecareer.com

United Airlines just set a discrimination program into place.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

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.

Since your base argument is and has always been that there is no objective morality to be referred to, and no agreed-upon morality that is seen and recognized, and that any assertion of morality is false, you yourself really have no argument against that argument developed by Lothrop Stoddard. Because you yourself cannot define what is either *valid* or *invalid* in any sense except in the most naturalistic sense, a sense defined through biological definitions.

Except you weasel it into your argument by associating the universal domination of European-Caucasians in the colonial era with the scheming, conning and robbing of thieves.

As I have said now many times you are invested in absurd ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny while simultaneously you are totally captured by a virulent cultivated hatred. This is the ressentiment I refer to — a complex, emotion-based complex by which you are strangely bound to the object of your hatred.

Now, the reason I bother to expose what you are — what animates you essentially — is because *you* are very powerful in our present. Your consuming ressentiment looks for destructive weapons and it finds them in the tools of applied postmodernism, post-colonial theory, and the various derivatives of Critical Theory. So what this means is that you-as-disease, as a man captured by the disease of ressentiment have become crucially disempowered while at the same time you have been granted power and you claim power.

The skit you rehearse here constantly is with this false-image of a laughing, mocking man having a rollicking good time, yet if you were honest with yourself you might admit that you are quite simply consumed with what you hate.

The real issue here is that *you* (you-plural) should not be given power, for the obvious reason that were to have it you would without question abuse it. And the reason is because ressentiment does not want to merely to correct a perceived wrong, or alleviate a wound, but to inflict harm against that object which did it harm. And in your-plural case — that is in reference to the raging mob — your anger and hatred, because it is blind and unreasoning, sets itself to the task of brazen destruction. The *you* I refer to includes, for example, Antifa philosophy, BLM philosophy, and those who are captured by these strange idea-currents borne out of Critical Theory (applied critical theory).

I think that what I am beginning to understand, and this goes to the heart of what has happened in America and to America, is really very simple: it would have been best for America, for the people of America, to have been able and capable of holding to and maintaining its *identity* as it had been defined throughout its history up until the 1960s.

I could of course refer to your argument to defend this proposition — that power should have determined this and that the emotional arguments about *justice* or any of the developing ‘globalist’ arguments which encouraged a ‘multi-cultural outlook’ should have been shunned. But if I do this (I mean that if one were to have done this) you would have made the accusation of *white supremacism*. That it is wrong and improper for a people to define itself and defend its self-definition and all that connects with that.

So you present me with a strange but interesting challenge. You tell me to develop more forceful and convincing arguments and also to break out of what you call being a ‘cuck’ (a cuckservative you mean) and to begin to develop a communicable platform to rally people who resist what it is you represent.

Though you do not bother about any *moral* aspect the fact of the matter is that a whole nation of people do. That is a curious and problematic aspect to all of this. You do not have a moral structure, and yet you abuse and manipulate those who do.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

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.

Here you are simply defending the ‘power-principle’. And you are suggesting to do away with all ideas associated with the intangibles of ‘value’ and ‘meaning’. You have a furious commitment of those who not only describe the world in pure, physical and biological terms (the growth and survival of those beings who attain it strictly through force) but also of those who lack understanding as to what this inevitably and inexorably leads.

The only brake that exists to the *power-principle* is in what arises in humankind as ‘metaphysical principle’. This really should be obvious and clear and without ambiguity and doubt. There is no restraint or ‘brake’ in the natural world (except those understood by ecological science).

Yet the human world — civilization essentially — bases itself on all sorts of different *brakes* that originate in metaphysical principles. The ‘idea’ intervenes and the being (the person, the self) modifies action.

You do not recognize where your own philosophy leads. And for this reason — the reason being that you are intellectually blind and also substantially ignorant and committed to nihilistic categories — renders your entire argument absurdiste. You have made yourself into a postmodern joke in a literal sense.

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?

It actually requires a range of metaphysical arguments, arguments that intervene in human behavior, to establish therefore a platform that would suppress homosexual activity, that would discourage it, that would limit it. That would attach to it a sense of remorse and doubt.

The introduction of the definition *good* obviously represents an assertion that arises in metaphysical categories. And for this reason there are *sound* arguments as to why it is best to suppress and limit homosexuality.

But now we must turn back to examine *you* once again — the man who declares there are no metaphysical categories, the man who sets his intellectual will to dis-define them, to de-structure them. You do not have the awareness as to the ramification of your brutal decisions. And you act like a brute and with brutal force as defined. Your *philosophy* leads to brutality in the precise sense of the word.

And you are part of a mass movement that does what you do because you define it to them — “all speech is sermonic” — as possible and also, ultimately, as a ‘good’ (a worthy objective).

But none of this do you — Caliban — understand. So, one has to begin once again to talk about *you* and what you do in the most harsh terms, without holding back, without *polite restraint*.

Any of this making more sense?

 

[Master Debator]

Since your base argument is and has always been that there is no objective morality to be referred to, and no agreed-upon morality that is seen and recognized, and that any assertion of morality is false, you yourself really have no argument against that argument developed by Lothrop Stoddard. Because you yourself cannot define what is either *valid* or *invalid* in any sense except in the most naturalistic sense, a sense defined through biological definitions.

Skepticism doesn't make my arguments invalid and your reliance on figures like Lothrop Stoddard to do your arguing for you is a crutch. I have never claimed that there weren't agreed upon moral frameworks but until you prove that objective morality exists then all they represent are shared opinions.

Except you weasel it into your argument by associating the universal domination of European-Caucasians in the colonial era with the scheming, conning and robbing of thieves.

The shoe fits. White Europeans and their culture didn't spread westward on good will and rainbows.

As I have said now many times you are invested in absurd ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny while simultaneously you are totally captured by a virulent cultivated hatred. This is the ressentiment I refer to — a complex, emotion-based complex by which you are strangely bound to the object of your hatred.

If that were the case then you would argue my ideas instead of the empty rhetoric personal insults you try to pass off as debate. There is no emotion in asking you to prove the existence of an objective morality you would have us all accept as a fundamental premise of your argument.

Now, the reason I bother to expose what you are —... Your consuming ressentiment ... you-as-disease, as a man captured by the disease of ressentiment ...

You're the one constantly referring to posters as diseased or infected, it's all just tired empty rhetoric.

The skit you rehearse here constantly is with this false-image of a laughing, mocking man having a rollicking good time, yet if you were honest with yourself you might admit that you are quite simply consumed with what you hate.

The thing is it's not a skit and I'm not consumed with hate. I'm a human being so I do hate and love and envy and lust and all the other emotions humans feel but I'm not consumed by them. My rhetoric isn't the sum of my debate as they are yours they are the amusing punctuations to the end of them because I find most of all this amusing. But that's the privilege of being on the winning side. I might be upset or saddened by individual events of tragedy or momentary political set backs but I can see the score board and I can tell which way the wind is blowing so over all I'm pretty content with things. They could certainly be worse.

 

[Master Debator]

The real issue here is that *you* (you-plural) should not be given power, for the obvious reason that were to have it you would without question abuse it.

You mean more than white Europeans abused every set of people they came across in their quest for power?

I think that what I am beginning to understand, and this goes to the heart of what has happened in America and to America, is really very simple: it would have been best for America, for the people of America, to have been able and capable of holding to and maintaining its *identity* as it had been defined throughout its history up until the 1960s.

This is partly what I find so amusing. I'm enjoying the here and now while your longing for the 60s yet you accuse me of resentment. Maybe you can't appreciate the humor in that since it's you I'm laughing at but that shit is funny.

So you present me with a strange but interesting challenge. You tell me to develop more forceful and convincing arguments and also to break out of what you call being a ‘cuck’ (a cuckservative you mean) and to begin to develop a communicable platform to rally people who resist what it is you represent.

I'm mainly making fun of the fact that you can't. You're never going to convince the people who do believe in morality that white supremacy is good and moral and you simply don't have the numbers anymore to do the sort of violence required to bend the unconvinced to your will.

Though you do not bother about any *moral* aspect the fact of the matter is that a whole nation of people do. That is a curious and problematic aspect to all of this. You do not have a moral structure, and yet you abuse and manipulate those who do.

Everything is a weapon of you know how to weild it right.

 

[Master Debator]

It actually requires a range of metaphysical arguments, arguments that intervene in human behavior, to establish therefore a platform that would suppress homosexual activity, that would discourage it, that would limit it. That would attach to it a sense of remorse and doubt.

The introduction of the definition *good* obviously represents an assertion that arises in metaphysical categories. And for this reason there are *sound* arguments as to why it is best to suppress and limit homosexuality.

No there aren't and you can't produce any which is why you simply state it as fact and move on to...

But now we must turn back to examine *you* once again —

Personal attacks are not a substitute for sound argument.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You're the one constantly referring to posters as diseased or infected

I very carefully explain that I see people who are infected by diseased ideas. And my discourse operates within a sense that there is a diseased pole and one that brings people, and a person, to health and well-being.

Within that polarity -- an essential duality -- I try to talk about what sickness is and what health is.

It seems to me a fair proposition.

Personal attacks are not a substitute for sound argument.

A 'personal attack' in my book is one in which a person, exclusively as a person, is attacked. But when I refer to you I always refer to a plurality of people and to a movement of ideas in culture. And that distinguishes my 'attack' from the classic ad hominem.

I do not see a way around referencing social psychology to one degree or another, but it does have to be done carefully and qualified.

 

[Master Debator]

I very carefully explain that I see people who are infected by diseased ideas. And my discourse operates within a sense that there is a diseased pole and one that brings people, and a person, to health and well-being.

Within that polarity -- an essential duality -- I try to talk about what sickness is and what health is.

It seems to me a fair proposition.

Yes, your arguments take a lot of things for granted that you haven't yet established, it's why they're mostly irrational ramblings and personal insults.

 

[calamity]

...suppress homosexual activity, that would discourage it, that would limit it. That would attach to it a sense of remorse and doubt.

The introduction of the definition *good* obviously represents an assertion that arises in metaphysical categories. And for this reason there are *sound* arguments as to why it is best to suppress and limit homosexuality.

But now we must turn back to examine *you* once again — the man who declares there are no metaphysical categories, the man who sets his intellectual will to dis-define them, to de-structure them. You do not have the awareness as to the ramification of your brutal decisions. And you act like a brute and with brutal force as defined. Your *philosophy* leads to brutality in the precise sense of the word.

And you are part of a mass movement that does what you do because you define it to them — “all speech is sermonic” — as possible and also, ultimately, as a ‘good’ (a worthy objective).

But none of this do you — Caliban — understand. So, one has to begin once again to talk about *you* and what you do in the most harsh terms, without holding back, without *polite restraint*.

Any of this making more sense?

People have tried suppressing homosexuality for a thousand years, it failed. You know what they call repeating things that failed. Right?

 

[Slartibartfast]

People have tried suppressing homosexuality for a thousand years, it failed. You know what they call repeating things that failed. Right?

conservatism?

 

[calamity]

Yes, your arguments take a lot of things for granted that you haven't yet established, it's why they're mostly irrational ramblings and personal insults.

They are not very well thought out, to say the least.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

People have tried suppressing homosexuality for a thousand years, it failed. You know what they call repeating things that failed. Right?

Of course, that is obvious. But what I meant is something different. My view is that homosexuality exists and that it will have to be tolerated, but that it should be generally shunned and not encouraged. The difference is there.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

They are not very well thought out, to say the least.

The arguments I make are completely superior to any argument you have made and possible will ever make.

Even this argument!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Yes, your arguments take a lot of things for granted that you haven't yet established, it's why they're mostly irrational ramblings and personal insults.

My arguments in the whole are based on ideas that you are incapable of understanding, or that you have set your will not to understand, and the difference is there. It is true though that given your predicates and first principles that all conclusions that flow out of my ideas -- and the ideas of those I reference -- appear to you, and you are genuine in this, as irrational ramblings. This flows directly from your first principles.

 

[Master Debator]

Of course, that is obvious. But what I meant is something different. My view is that homosexuality exists and that it will have to be tolerated, but that it should be generally shunned and not encouraged. The difference is there.

You have to tolerate it because you have no choice. We forced you to.