Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

“What is American culture?” Exactly the problem. No, America was it a melting pot. It has been engineered to be one since roughly the 1960’s. America had a distinct culture. It’s dead.
That didn’t answer my question. What is American culture? It has always been a melting pot, in one way or another. When the slaves were brought over, they brought their customs and culture with them. The Spanish and French colonies left their customs and cultures behind as well.
 
Malf’s anology wasn’t apples and oranges. It was, imo, quite a good comparison. Can you explain why it’s a ridiculous metaphor?
Malf’s anology wasn’t apples and oranges. It was, imo, quite a good comparison. Can you explain why it’s a ridiculous metaphor?
Is ridiculous because his metaphor is comparing a sentient creature with an inanimate object. Implying that a gun is capable of killing people on its own. It’s human volition that causes one to pull the trigger, the gun isn’t pulling its own trigger. So, perhaps his metaphor would work if you argued for more ARMED HUMANS as opposed to more guns. Even then his absurd metaphor would only work if you trained your shark companion to attack other sharks, or if you could use the shark like a weapon and aim it at only the targets you wish to harm. Throwing a gun into the middle of a knife fight wouldnt do anything. It would literally sit on the ground until a human picked it up and used it. A shark, thrown into the water, is a creature with volition. It may or may not attack the other shark (probably not) it will likely attack YOU.

I find it hilarious that people see guns as some sort of entity with its own will. Funny, I don’t see the same absurd fear when it comes to knives. People rightfully understand that a knife isn’t going to pick itself up and stab you. A gun isn’t going to pick itself up and shoot you. Another human being must make that choice. It is the same with every other inanimate object. A car can be used to commit murder. A rock, a baseball bat, and even spoons (just ask the UK authoritarians). Why aren’t we banning all of these? Oh, I get it. There’s no other implicit purpose for guns like there is for those other things. So is it implicit purpose that’s the problem or it’s actual usage? I would argue implicit purpose doesn’t mean a damned thing. Murder is murder, whether I use my hands (with all their implicit usages) or a gun.
 
Vault, are you a libertarian capitalist / anarcho-capitalist? Or not? I'm asking to understand what your position is. Mine is libertarian socialist / anarcho-socialist.
I don’t really have an ideology. I’d say, I’m probably a traditional conservative on many things, but I despise republicans. I’m not alt-right, though, I obviously sympathize with their desire to conserve white peoples and culture. (Just like I sympathize with any race/culture wanting to conserve their own).

Politically, I pretty much hate all of it. I can’t say there’s a single ideology with which I identify. Maybe that’s flakey, but it’s the truth.
 
That didn’t answer my question. What is American culture? It has always been a melting pot, in one way or another. When the slaves were brought over, they brought their customs and culture with them. The Spanish and French colonies left their customs and cultures behind as well.
It hasn’t always been a melting pot. Here’s a good video on it
 
I don’t even understand how a firearm would protect you from a tyrannical government. The government has access to powerful weapons and firearms that civilians can’t get. Any firearm a civilian has isn’t going to stop the army from breaking down your door.
It’s called geurilla warfare. Also, I pointed that out specifically because it IS a problem. The American people (or any people for that matter) should never have let the government amass such military power. We should have fought against military black budgets when they started. We should have fought against the idea of secrets for “national security”. The topic is honestly waaaaay to big to really give due justice here.
 
Is ridiculous because his metaphor is comparing a sentient creature with an inanimate object. Implying that a gun is capable of killing people on its own. It’s human volition that causes one to pull the trigger, the gun isn’t pulling its own trigger. So, perhaps his metaphor would work if you argued for more ARMED HUMANS as opposed to more guns. Even then his absurd metaphor would only work if you trained your shark companion to attack other sharks, or if you could use the shark like a weapon and aim it at only the targets you wish to harm. Throwing a gun into the middle of a knife fight wouldnt do anything. It would literally sit on the ground until a human picked it up and used it. A shark, thrown into the water, is a creature with volition. It may or may not attack the other shark (probably not) it will likely attack YOU.

I find it hilarious that people see guns as some sort of entity with its own will. Funny, I don’t see the same absurd fear when it comes to knives. People rightfully understand that a knife isn’t going to pick itself up and stab you. A gun isn’t going to pick itself up and shoot you. Another human being must make that choice. It is the same with every other inanimate object. A car can be used to commit murder. A rock, a baseball bat, and even spoons (just ask the UK authoritarians). Why aren’t we banning all of these? Oh, I get it. There’s no other implicit purpose for guns like there is for those other things. So is it implicit purpose that’s the problem or it’s actual usage? I would argue implicit purpose doesn’t mean a damned thing. Murder is murder, whether I use my hands (with all their implicit usages) or a gun.

Because knives, bats, rocks, and spoons aren’t capable of the same thing a gun is capable of. It’s like this quote, “If a guy walks into a crowd of 100 people with a knife, and kills all of them, 97 people deserved to die.” Of course a gun doesn’t kill people by itself. People kill people. But people wouldn’t be able kill 50+ people in under a minute without a gun.
 
I don’t want to speak for Steve, but I don’t think he meant white people. Just people who are apart of the majority and freak out when minorities want rights.
I understand that, I’m just shocked he would wish death like that on anyone. He’s usually really nice guy. I was just surprised is all. But hey, if that’s how he feels, he’s entitled.
 
Again, those are the extremists saying those things. I can just as easily go find people tweeting racist things about minorities. It is useless to do so.

I feel bad for your daughter, I mean that sincerely. But, I am homeschooled now from all of the racist bullshit I had to put up with at my school. It isn’t just white people getting bullied for their race. Once again, anecdotes don’t really prove anything.

Go ahead and say you’re a white activist. I honestly don’t care. And no, I won’t call you a Nazi nor are you “literally Hitler”.

Nobody is mad that you are “defending white people”. If you are referring to Charlie, I’m sorry but he wasn’t defending white people. He was spouting complete nonsense and I was trying to engage in a discusiion with him. He decided to ignore me like Michael. I am willing to discuss ideas, it’s just hard to do that when you are being ignored. Don’t make a strawman argument on a hypothetical situation. You don’t know what would happen if it were any other race because it hasn’t happened. Unless, of course, you are able to access the multiverse. White people DID steal the land. I’m not understanding how else they got it. Native Americans didn’t just hand it over. Again, don’t use a strawman argument. I am a pacifist, so no, I don’t agree with violence from anyone. I feel like like that last sentence is a bit of a hyperbole.

First off, not that it matters, I’m not having kids. Whites are still the majority in America, so where are they going exactly? If any race is going “extinct” in America it would be the black population because they are the minority of all races. Are you implying that there is going to be a white genocide? So if a white person agree with social justice, they are sacrificing themselves? I’m honestly confused about that last sentence.
I’ll just say this: yes, white genocide is real. Yes, I think there is a high likelihood of it happening. And finally, anyone who believes in the inherent philosophy underlying “social justice” either has no idea what they are actually supporting, or is actually working to subvert their own interests. Social justice as an ideology that will eventually destroy itself, because it’s underlying philosophy is inherently destructive. It’s based on an ideology of deconstruction, therefore, it cannot build anything, only destroy.

That being said, I do not believe social justice is what is going to cause white genocide. It is however only one of the means by which it will be brought about. In other words, it’s a Trojan horse. Mark my words, if white genocide occurs, you-and everyone else left- will not like what the world has become. I’m not saying that because I think white people are the savior of the human race. I say that because if those who wish to accomplish this are successful, those left behind will most certainly either face the same fate (meaning it won’t stop with us) or they will get to experience true slavery first hand.

I’m sure that sounds hyperbolic or like tin foil hat fodder. But it’s the truth. The fight for white preservation is the fight for preservation of all races and cultures.
 
Because knives, bats, rocks, and spoons aren’t capable of the same thing a gun is capable of. It’s like this quote, “If a guy walks into a crowd of 100 people with a knife, and kills all of them, 97 people deserved to die.” Of course a gun doesn’t kill people by itself. People kill people. But people wouldn’t be able kill 50+ people in under a minute without a gun.
I already covered that. Murder is murder. Implicit use doesn’t matter. Explicit use does.

Bombs can kill a lot more people in less time than a gun, any gun. Those are outlawed. People still use them. They’re actually pretty easy to make.

Moreover, I don’t care if someone killed “only” one person vs. 10. They’re a murderer. Chances are they’d nuke the planet if they could.
 
I’ll just say this: yes, white genocide is real. Yes, I think there is a high likelihood of it happening. And finally, anyone who believes in the inherent philosophy underlying “social justice” either has no idea what they are actually supporting, or is actually working to subvert their own interests. Social justice as an ideology that will eventually destroy itself, because it’s underlying philosophy is inherently destructive. It’s based on an ideology of deconstruction, therefore, it cannot build anything, only destroy.

That being said, I do not believe social justice is what is going to cause white genocide. It is however only one of the means by which it will be brought about. In other words, it’s a Trojan horse. Mark my words, if white genocide occurs, you-and everyone else left- will not like what the world has become. I’m not saying that because I think white people are the savior of the human race. I say that because if those who wish to accomplish this are successful, those left behind will most certainly either face the same fate (meaning it won’t stop with us) or they will get to experience true slavery first hand.

I’m sure that sounds hyperbolic or like tin foil hat fodder. But it’s the truth. The fight for white preservation is the fight for preservation of all races and cultures.
Your first paragraph makes no sense. "To support social justice you either don't understand it or you are ignoring your own interests." There can't be any other reasons for wanting to support it? Sounds ignorant to me. How is the underlying philosophy inherently destructive? Wanting equality for all races, genders, sexualities, etc. is destructive? Again, last sentence doesn't make any sense.

I'm not going to touch that second paragraph.

I don't think it's the truth at all, but you believe what you want to believe.
 
It hasn’t always been a melting pot. Here’s a good video on it

I instantly want to click off of a video that says, "the left" and "liberals" every minute. But, I made it about eight minutes in before I clicked out. He basically just lists laws and regulations that America has had in the past concerning immigration. This doesn't disprove America being a melting pot. Again, slaves were brought to America, before America was even a concept. The slaves brought their culture and customs from Africa. That's two cultures already. Not to mention that the French and Spanish colonies both left behind pieces of their cultures as well. When America won Texas in the Mexico-American war, it brought Mexican culture to the U.S. Just because "white culture" was mainstream, doesn't mean that no other cultures existed. It was racism and discrimination that kept "white culture" dominant, which, imo, wasn't a good thing.

Again, what is/was American culture?
 
I think white people will be eradicated or nearly so.
It will be close, but we will survive.

Natural Selection is never pretty. The vast majority of White People here will behave like they currently do in South Africa. They will cling to their programming and ride out ever increasing crime and persecution until they evaporate from fear of bringing babies into the hellscape. Examples: Trevor and Carol in this video...


I have recalculated this 10 ways to Sunday. America will go the way of South Africa in the coming decades; ever increasing Marxist Critical Theory, slow painful destruction of the Middle Class, and ever-increasing police state surveillance & brutality like in Brazil to control the growing mixed-race LumpenProletariat class.

Surviving White People will be the ones who Divorce FedGov and retreat into their own armed ethnic communities like these people are doing...

https://suidlanders.org

Check out their plan. I predict ours will be in the Pacific Northwest.
 
Glad to see that this thread that could have been a useful discussion about race, has now turned into a conspiracy theory that white people are going through a genocide. If this is what it has come to, I'm out.
 
It's an insane proposition for sure, TheRaven. Genocide of white people? Can anybody point to any actual evidence of white people being systematically eliminated? I mean, there's plenty of evidence of the reverse in countries like yours - the USA - and mine - Australia - in which white colonisers attempted to systematically eliminate the indigenous populations, but... white genocide? The mind boggles.
 
By the way, I think this sorely deserves a response:

White people DID steal the land. I’m not understanding how else they got it. Native Americans didn’t just hand it over.
What exactly is it that you're contending, Vault313? That white people popped on over to North America, saw that there were a bunch of people living there already, and said, "Chaps, we'd like to have your land", to which the Native Americans responded, "Righto lads, and what do you propose for us to do?", to which the colonisers responded, "Ah, jolly good question. Well, see here, we'll set up some reservations for you - you chaps wander over there, the view's great", to which the Native Americans responded, "Well, then it's settled! You'll have our land and we'll go and enjoy ourselves in these reservations".
 
So full of nonsense. Nothing was stolen, that’s absurd. Dark corners of the Internet? Like Duke university professors tweeting “I’m dreaming of a white genocide”? And nothing being done about it? Like the article in the University of Texas school paper titled White People, Your DNA is an Abomination? Like the University of Texas professor who said “white people just need to die”? BTW, the student who wrote the article was not suspended, expelled or even disciplined in any way. The professor, same thing. Not so much as a “hey, don’t say that, k”. Like the constant, non-stop “white kids not allowed” garbage going on on college campuses, everywhere. Not just a few. EVERYWHERE. Even my local shitty community college threatened a white girl with expulsion for questioning why “safe spaces” for every other race was allowed but not for white kids. I wish I was making that up.

My daughter see’s the anti-white rhetoric EVERY DAY on social media. She’s actually legitimately worried, and no, this was not me indoctrinating her, she see’s it all the time. She’s lost friends, good friends, because she was white. Again I WISH I was making this up.

This entire thread is a testament to what white people are up against. I find it interesting that you can even be a “minority activist” and consider that a virtue. But what if I said I was a “white activist”? Well, gee, I’d probably be called a Nazi. Literally Hitler.

One guy, and me, dared to speak up in defense of white people, and look at the dog piling. If it was ANY OTHER RACE doing exactly the same, it would be praised as virtuous. This is what things have come to. And for any white virtue signalers out there whose reflex response is to hate the words I’ve typed here, look to The Raven’s words. White people STOLE this land. I’m guessing in their mind, they deserve to have it back. My question is, Raven, would you use violence to accomplish this goal? I’m guessing you would. This is the state of things. Ignore it all you want as the civilization your ancestors built is burnt to the ground around you.

But, hey Raven, you’re future progeny probably won’t have to worry about the white devil in a few generations. Far too many of us are just eager as hell to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of social justice.
This notion of the "white genocide" has always, well, surprised me - I can't see whites being genocided anywhere in Europe, America and Australia (despite the fact that whites did come to the latter two continents as violent invaders and colonisers).

White people do have problems, sometimes, with some authortitarian segments of the modern Left movements (which cannot be equated with the Left movements in general). They can indeed, sometimes, be a target of aggression by some overenthusiastic SJW-types. I, being a Libertarian Leftist, do not support such acts of aggression, and think that modern Left movements need to acknowledge that some of their participants are openly authoritarian.

Yet such acts - which are in most cases are not even physical, let alone lethal - is a galaxy away from a genocide, that is, a systematic massive murder (directly, by physical killing, or indirectly, by a stuctural oppression intence enough to ensure that the oppressed would not survive it) of people who do (or do not) fit some criteria in which their murderers believe. As for now, white people are not subjected either to mass slaughter or to the lethally intence oppression.

Being insulted by some angry SJW, or being directed away from a "people of color safe space" on campus, or being forced to cleanse one's lecture of "trigger warnings" is not a pleasant experience, surely. Yet it is not on the same level - not even remotely so - of the one of being sent to a concentration camp, or assassinated by a death squad, or forced into a slave labour, or banished into ghetto / reservation, or deprived of food and shelter.
 
Last edited:
Funny how more evidence is coming out that there were people here nearly 20k years ago. Long before the so-called natives.
Oh? This is a very contested claim. But let's say you're right: that there were people in the so-called USA before the Native Americans arrived. What do we know, many thousands of years later, about how and why they longer seem to be present? Can we say definitively that it is because of violence or injustice? And even if we could: does one act of violence justify another? I mean, the set of hoops you have to jump through to justify European invasion of Native American land on this basis is totally unsustainable.

But yeah, this “I was here first” nonsense is just that, nonsense. Humanity is and always was about conquest and might makes right. Not saying I agree
Not saying you agree except that you are justifying the European invasion of Native American lands on the basis that might makes right. That's quite a trick.

You know, I hope that neither you nor anybody close to you is ever subjected to unprovoked violence, because ("not that you agree") out of intellectual honesty you would have to just suck it up and accept that you or your loved one simply wasn't mighty enough to defend yourself/themself. The perpetrator's might would make their violence against you/yours right. And God forbid that you should appeal to some sort of normative system of justice, because you wouldn't be that inconsistent, would you? To deny the indigenous occupants of your land the right to justice whilst appealing for justice on your own or your loved ones' behalf.
 
Last edited:
Funny how more evidence is coming out that there were people here nearly 20k years ago. Long before the so-called natives. But yeah, this “I was here first” nonsense is just that, nonsense. Humanity is and always was about conquest and might makes right. Not saying I agree, however, those who were not capable of defending what they built were eradicated. If this happens, it wouldn’t be the first time and it won’t be the last. Fight or succumb. That has always been the rule. Why do people think this has changed?

Has it occurred to any Europeans here that the reason you are losing your culture, your land is because you refuse to fight? Because you have been psychologically neutered by weaponised compassion? Probably not. Can’t wait for the hate to roll in for that comment! Doesn’t make it untrue though.

And before I’m called a racist, one of the greatest conquerers to ever live was Genghis Kahn. Not a white man.
Oh? This is a very contested claim. But let's say you're right: that there were people in the so-called USA before the Native Americans arrived. What do we know, many thousands of years later, about how and why they longer seem to be present? Can we say definitively that it is because of violence? And even if we could: does one act of violence justify another? I mean, the set of hoops you have to jump through to justify European invasion of Native American land on this basis is totally unsustainable.



Not saying you agree except that you are justifying the European invasion of Native American lands on the basis that might makes right. That's quite a trick.

You know, I hope that neither you nor anybody close to you is ever subjected to unprovoked violence, because ("not that you agree") out of intellectual honesty you would have to just suck it up and accept that you or your loved one simply wasn't mighty enough to defend yourself/themself. The perpetrator's might makes their violence against you/yours right. And God forbid that you should appeal to some sort of normative system of justice, because you wouldn't be that inconsistent, would you? To deny the indigenous occupants of your land the right to justice whilst appealing for justice on your own or your loved ones' behalf.

There is some interesting evidence for Pre-Columbian contacts between the Americas and Afro-Eurasia, researched, among many others, by Stephen C. Jett from the Society for the Scientific Exploration:


https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Ocean-Crossings-Reconsidering-Pre-Columbian/dp/0817319395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527358838&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+jett&dpID=51blYSD%2BVDL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch


In fact, the SSE has published some materials about such contacts in their Journal and the Edge Science magazine..


But contacts are not remotely the same as inhabitation. In this case, I do not know of valid case that the Americas has earlier inhabitants than Native tribes and civilizations. Except, maybe, for some super-ancient long-dead civilizations, for the existence of that there is some intriguing evidence, provided by Graham Hancock and others. But, since such civilizations, if they did existed, were destroyed by catastrophes and cataclysms aeons ago, we can still state that the Natives were the original, indigenous inhabitants of the Americas.
 
Last edited:
There is some interesting evidence for Pre-Columbian contacts between the Americas and Afro-Eurasia, researched, among many others, by Stephen C. Jett from the Society for the Scientific Exploration:

https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Ocean-Crossings-Reconsidering-Pre-Columbian/dp/0817319395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527358838&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+jett&dpID=51blYSD%2BVDL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

In fact, the SSE has published some materials about such contacts in their Journal and the Edge Science magazine..

But contact is not remotely the same as inhabitation. In this case, I do not know of valid case that the Americas has earlier inhabitants than Native tribes and civilizations. Except, maybe, for some super-ancient long-dead civilizations, for the existence of that there is some intriguing evidence, provided by Graham Hancock and others. But, since such civilizations, if they did existed, were destroyed by catastrophes and cataclysms aeons ago, we can still stand that the Natives were the original, indigenous inhabitants of the Americas.
I understand Charlie to have originally been referring to "the Solutrean Hypothesis", and presumably Vault313 was referring to the same, although that assumption might be wrong.

Here's one geneticist's view: Rejecting the Solutrean hypothesis: the first peoples in the Americas were not from Europe

Last month’s release of The Ice Bridge, an episode in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation series The Nature of Things has once again revived public discussion of a controversial idea about how the Americas were peopled known as the “Solutrean hypothesis”. This idea suggests a European origin for the peoples who made the Clovis tools, the first recognized stone tool tradition in the Americas. As I was one of the experts appearing on the documentary, I want to share my thoughts about it and why I see the ideas portrayed within as unsettling, unwise, and scientifically implausible.

First, in addition to the scientific problems with the Solutrean hypothesis which I’ll discuss shortly, it’s important to note that it has overt political and cultural implications in denying that Native Americans are the only indigenous peoples of the continents. The notion that the ancestors of Native Americans were not the first or only people on the continent has great popularity among white nationalists, who see it as a means of denying Native Americans an ancestral claim on their land. Indeed, although this particular iteration is new, the idea behind the Solutrean hypothesis is part of a long tradition of Europeans trying to insert themselves into American prehistory; justifying colonialism by claiming that Native Americans were not capable of creating the diverse and sophisticated material culture of the Americas. Unfortunately, the producers of the documentary deliberately chose not to address this issue head-on, nor did they include any critical perspectives from indigenous peoples. While supporting the agenda of white nationalists was not the intent of the producers or of the scientists involved, it would have been appropriate for the documentary to take a stand against it, and I and many archaeologists are disappointed that they did not.
 
Top