Dad Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I'm curious what Stefan thinks (and y'all) of Richard Spencer. I've heard him speak about Spencer once but he was just commenting on the sucker punch incident. Has he said anything about Spencer or his movement? Some of the people Stefan associates with such as Cernovich, Laura Loomer, Jack Posebiec, etc purposely distance themselves and try to delegitimize Spencer. It seems like FDR is distancing itself from Spencer also. Theres been a lot of great presentations and talks about race here. Specifically IQ and negatives of multiculturalism. White identitarianism is a logical conclusion that can be drawn (correct me if you disagree) from the facts we discuss here about race. Richard Spencer advocates for white identitarianism but gets no support from Stefan. Even though it appears Stefan agrees with Spencer because Stefan will talk about how multiculturalism is bad. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofd Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Quote over rather than risk being condemned for straight forwardly advocating for the interests of whites. You don't even have to use philosophy to argue for white identity politics. A simple though experiment suffices. If group A is atomized and group V has cohesion and fights for their interests, who will succeed in the long run? I suppose some Libertarians rather stick autistically to their principles and lose than admit that they have been had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Crowe Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 Good question, @Dad. There's a growing number of people that are just going to keep hammering the facts rather than talking about conclusions and solutions. I think the reasoning is if we can't agree on the facts then we won't be able to marshal our resources toward any solution anyway. Another take on it is in Stef's book, "Revolutions" https://freedomainradio.com/free/#rev Also, would it be necessary for you to hear explicit support for someone if it means consequences for Stef? Often times people say to YouTubers "You need to talk about the JQ" or similar controversy. It might not be a sustainable direction or even be an area that they're knowledgeable in. Based on those things do you think you have a better understanding of why this could be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Crowe Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 Another angle is that talking about solutions might be in violation of US Code. (Yes, I know he's in CA.) But a similar thing might apply. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 Helpful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 1, 2017 Author Share Posted July 1, 2017 12 hours ago, ofd said: You don't even have to use philosophy to argue for white identity politics. A simple though experiment suffices. If group A is atomized and group V has cohesion and fights for their interests, who will succeed in the long run? I suppose some Libertarians rather stick autistically to their principles and lose than admit that they have been had. Not sure what the difference between thought experiments and philosophy is. 3 hours ago, Tony Crowe said: Good question, @Dad. There's a growing number of people that are just going to keep hammering the facts rather than talking about conclusions and solutions. I think the reasoning is if we can't agree on the facts then we won't be able to marshal our resources toward any solution anyway. Another take on it is in Stef's book, "Revolutions" https://freedomainradio.com/free/#rev Also, would it be necessary for you to hear explicit support for someone if it means consequences for Stef? Often times people say to YouTubers "You need to talk about the JQ" or similar controversy. It might not be a sustainable direction or even be an area that they're knowledgeable in. Based on those things do you think you have a better understanding of why this could be? A growing number of people are indeed hammering the facts and thats exactly why it would be great if Stefan moved up to solutions and conclusions. Not very many people are capable of doing what Spencer does but I think Stefan could do it 10x better because he is so reputable and established. But I guess its a lot to expect of a person and Stefan does so much good already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 Who's Richard Spencer? Are people distancing themselves per se from Spencer or is Spencer trying to come in contact with the prominent heads of the movement and failing? I'm very skeptical of people who push forward Spencer because it looks to me like some hipster BS. "I was into Richard Spencer way before you guys were so neeh!". Why is it that every time Spencer is mentioned he's mentioned in name only? Does he have a YouTube? No. Does he have a book? No. Even you, OP did the same thing. You mentioned Spencer without explaining who he is as if everyone knows who he is, and you mentioned white nationalism as if we know what it is and what the arguments for it are. I cannot engage in a conversation about him if you're gonna leave it in name only. I have no idea what his deal is. Is he saying the same things Stefan is saying? Yes? So what? Lots of people are saying the same things Stefan is saying who have a much bigger audience than Spencer and they have not been invited in the alt-right circle of friends (so to speak). Is FDR distancing themselves from PewDiePie? It's a shame PewDiePie has been left to hang by everyone. I guess its just easier to go for the low hanging "CNN is fake news" fruit over and over rather than risk being condemned for straight forwardly advocating for the interests of whites. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 If someone makes a post asking what do you think of Pewdiepie its sort of implied that the people who should respond atleast be familiar with Pewdiepie. Are you asking me if Stefan is distancing himself from Spencer? Because thats what I was trying to investigate. The other people I listed (cernovich, loomer, pesobiec) are definitely consciously distancing themselves from Spencer. There was drama on youtube/twitter recently because they were all going to have a rally but those 3 pulled out and had a separate rally at the exact same time because Spencer was going to be speaking. I suppose thats what prompted me to wonder what Stefan thinks of Spencer. Idk about books but he does have a youtube channel its called altright.com. Theres also a handful of speeches hes given floating around on the internet. You know how people say a picture is worth a thousand words? I think something similar can be said of speeches to books. I've always thought one of the most powerful things Stefan has done was his Bitcoin vs Political Power speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenstauffer Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I'm curious too (what Stefan thinks about Richard Spencer). You also asked what forum members thought, so here goes: I like Richard Spencer and think it must takes a huge amount of courage to do what he does. I am uncomfortable with the position he holds, which as best as I can tell is: White nationalism, white rights, praise for the White race. I saw him interviewed by a black reporter and Richard Spencer said people of all races should promote and defend their race. So at least his position is consistent. The black reporter did a fair and respectful job, even though he couldn't resist smirking at Spencer for holding what he believed to be an insane and morally horrid position. So I cannot defend the logic of Spencer's racism, but I still like Spencer. I like him for the fact that he is pushing back. Why is it okay for every other group to defend itself and use their race/gender as a reason for respect and power (and free stuff from the government)? Why can all other groups get away with this but White European Males cannot? So my appreciation for Spencer is for having someone standing up for my group. I know this is racist and illogical. It is similar to why I like Trump. I know his tariffs are dumb and economically unsound. I know his health care reform will be botched like all centrally planned things are destined to be. But I like Trump anyway for fighting back and causing the liberals to go insane. For now Richard Spencer serves to highlight the hypocrisy of the left. When I think of Spencer I can't help but think of that u-tube video of AIDS Skrillex: "You're f***'ing a white male!". One counter argument might be: Supporting Richard would encourage the wrong solutions. This could lead Trump or some other politician, swayed by Spencer's position, to enact special white biased laws. Yes, that would be bad, but a drop in the pond against the other group favouritism now occurring. There was a time when you could tell Pollock jokes, use racist words to describe groups of people in everyday conversation. And no one batted an eye. When the left made these things immoral, when they shamed us for doing this they gained tremendous power over us. Spencer helps to balance this out, at great personal cost to himself. So one possible advantage of having Spencer around is to suck the wind out of the liberal sails. It would diminish the strength of the club they are using to gain power over us. Imagine if the masses just rolled their eyes and shrugged off the lefts racial guilt-fest. It could happen! I see it happening for certain things, for example I don't observe politicians uttering the phrase, "That's not who we are!" much any more. I think because most people now roll their eyes and groan when they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 What are you talking about when you say Spencer's racism? Why are white biased laws bad? Israel gives incentives to keep Israel Israeli. Do you think those are also bad? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 22 hours ago, Dad said: You know how people say a picture is worth a thousand words? I think something similar can be said of speeches to books. No. A picture is a picture. Words are words. A speech is not a picture, it is words. 23 hours ago, Dad said: Are you asking me if Stefan is distancing himself from Spencer? Because thats what I was trying to investigate. Also you earlier: On 6/28/2017 at 11:40 AM, Dad said: Richard Spencer advocates for white identitarianism but gets no support from Stefan. A more recent post you've made. 22 hours ago, Dad said: Are there any people who've been on the show that you thought were smarter than Stefan? The only 2 I can think of are Jared Taylor and Gabor Mate. I'm curious who your favorite guests are. Maybe you will name someone I haven't watched yet. After someone asked how you determined one was smarter than the other you said: 8 hours ago, Dad said: I didn't determine anything. You're a pretty duplicitous guy. You make these threads and ask a question that has a hidden criticism of Stefan and after people point it out in some fashion you pretend you've never said the things you've said and play dumb. That tells me the whole point of these threads are to take gratuitous shots at Stefan. If you want to criticize him make a thread criticizing him, don't be a weasel about it. I may not know what Richard Spencer's deal is exactly but I've been noticing a certain pattern with his supporters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Crowe Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 @kenstauffer, Yes you're mistaken as @Dad said. Racism, bigot, prejudice all have a requirement that it's irrational. That's not what Richard Spencer is doing. He's promoting being direct, honest, courageous, rational, and pro-white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 6, 2017 Author Share Posted July 6, 2017 I think you are projecting on me. You said I'm deceitful but you just quoted part of what I said in another thread to confuse people. Literally anyone who reads what you just quoted will be confused. Maybe you are confused though idk I'll try to explain what I was saying to that guy who asked me how I determined Gabor Mate is smarter than Stefan. determine - ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation. I asked people which guests they think are smarter. What I was trying to explain to him in the other part of the comment you quoted is that I'm not necessarily right. If you recall I actually gave some reasons which were things Jared Taylor and Gabor Mate did that I thought were very impressive. I can give reasons why I think something but I can't explain how I determined something if i never really determined it. People who want to clutch their pearls or be offended will always find a way to do so. That other thread wasn't a criticism of Stefan. Stefan is a genius, clearly, and a lot smarter than me for sure. Am I criticizing myself because I think one of the smartest people on the planet is smarter than me? Funny how no one on that thread seemed to have thought I was criticizing Stefan either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts