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

The best thing that any government can do is to help the people alive now, to live as fulfilling lives as possible.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Who wants the government telling them how to live a fulfilling life? They can't even get dietary recommendations right. How are they going to help people live fulfilling lives? In the US they do it by giving students loans which are the only type of loan you can't discharge through bankruptcy court. So the universities all raised their tuition much faster than inflation since students could borrow lots of money to pay it, and many students after they leave school can't afford a house and can't get married and start a family until many years after they graduate because of student loan payments. The government turned students into indentured servants of the universities. The health care system in the US is messed up because of government involvement too. The war on poverty is really the war on the family. The war on drugs is really a CIA profiteering scheme and a way to keep unemployment statistics low by keeping people in jail. "Government" is just the title we bestow on the biggest baddest organized crime gang.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Who wants the government telling them how to live a fulfilling life? They can't even get dietary recommendations right. How are they going to help people live fulfilling lives? In the US they do it by giving students loans which are the only type of loan you can't discharge through bankruptcy court. So the universities all raised their tuition much faster than inflation since students could borrow lots of money to pay it, and many students after they leave school can't afford a house and can't get married and start a family until many years after they graduate. The government turned students into indentured servants of the universities. The health care system in the US is messed up because of government involvement too. The war on poverty is really the war on the family. The war on drugs is really a CIA profiteering scheme and a way to keep unemployment statistics low by keeping people in jail. "Government" is just the title we bestow on the biggest baddest organized crime gang.
Despite our disagreements in many areas, I can say that we do share the anarchist aspirations!
 
David,

Please reread my posts to this thread, because you don't seem to understand what I've advocated for. You seem to be confusing or conflating it with your own preconceptions.

Once you've responded to what I've actually advocated for, then I'll be happy to respond to the questions in your post above.

Laird
 
People have been doing horrific things to each other since the dawn of time. Horrific things to people other than their own, and horrific things to those of their own kind. Every race has blood on their hands. It just so happens that the white race had more than its share of blood on its hands AT THE TIME that collective consciousnes of the people became aware that this was not the way to treat people. It used to be the standard norm in every place in the world, at least usually. As a world, we became more aware that this sort of behavior is wrong. It started during the Enlightenment but really reached full circle after knowledge of the Holocaust spread. This occured at the same time that the white people were in a position throw power around, and they did so at the expense of other races. But we’d be fooling ourselves if we said that this sort of behavior had not been practiced by any other race. As I said before, the Africans were killing each other before the whites came, and the native Americans were killing each other before the whites came. Do not think that I am saying that the actions of the whites as a collective people toward other races was okay during this time period. Quite the opposite. What I am saying, is that the other races are not different with regards to this history. I agree that current history is more relevant and important as it’s what we have to work with. But every race has blood on its hands. It was the white race who had the technology more recently, so they were able to project power. It’s likely that if this sort of technological innovation had occurred within another race, it’s highly likely the would have behaved the same way.

So while I am very sorry to minorities that they have experienced and still experience wnat they do, I am sorry in a way that I am sorry that Mrs. Browns husband died. In that I am very sorry, but not personally responsible. I have no “white guilt.” I didn’t do anything, I try to treat everybody exactly the same and life is too short be feeling guilty over something you had no hand in.
 
Well said, Wormwood. I'd only add that whilst guilt is not necessary, we should nevertheless support the righting of wrongs even where we are not personally responsible for those wrongs, and where such a thing is meaningfully possible.
 
Well said, Wormwood. I'd only add that whilst guilt is not necessary, we should nevertheless support the righting of wrongs even where we are not personally responsible for those wrongs, and where such a thing is meaningfully possible.
Absolutely, 100 percent we should. The current time is the only one we can affect.
 
We will eventually have to divorce from the U.S. as we cannot share a Polity with people whose culture and ideals we do not share.
Who is 'we'? We've been after this with Charlie for several pages in this thread. He started with the 'White People' moniker and when pressed on the topic was evasive.

Recently he's seemed to whittle it down to those who appear 'white skinned' (since no details in terms of DNA or other more objective criteria has been provided) and live in a "Southron Culture".

So "we" isn't "white people" after all. Its a group of white skinned (appearance test only) people who live in Texas and other states deemed acceptable under the "Southron Culture" banner who share a political view that is anti-black/Asian/jewish/muslim/northern white/etc.

Your pretense at being forthright and plain speaking has worn thin Charlie.
 
Of course, it is totally understandable that a person born in a colonised land, and especially a person ignorant of the historical context in which they came to be in that country (not saying that this is you), would argue for their joint ownership of that land. Look at it from the other side of the fence though: is this fair to a person whose ancestors have lived there for millennia, and into whose midst the strangers have imposed themselves only recently, in the process attempting to commit genocide against that person's people?
Yeah, I get your point.... but I think we are where we are..... and we've got to deal with reality as currently constituted..... resolving the present effects of past wrongs..... but wouldn't your solution be weirdly anti-democratic?

Anyway, I do think indigenous peeps should have first claim on sacred site use etc.

Sure people in the West got a few things - sugar for instance - that they wouldn't have had otherwise,
Well, you could make an argument that the industrial revolution couldn't have happened without that sugar.... acting as it did as cheap energy for the forcibly converted peasantry (converted to wage slaves, that is).... and you could follow this forward to the high (relatively) standard of living in the UK.

Really, I think the birthing of modernity, with it's unparalleled levels of barbarism, is something we're all still recovering from...... in greater or lesser degrees, of course.
 
Last edited:
Your pretense at being forthright and plain speaking has worn thin Charlie.
I'm not being evasive. The first time you asked, I stated plainly that there is no concrete definition of what is "White People".

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, so let me say it again: There is no concrete definition of what is "White People".

Do you understand?
 
wouldn't your solution be weirdly anti-democratic?
Good question. My answer is: no, because the choice to return effective sovereignty to the land's indigenous custodians would itself be democratic - it would in at least the case of Australia probably require constitutional change, which would require a referendum. Even if not, it would in any case require widespread public discussion, debate and general acceptance, presumably regarding not just the restoration of indigenous sovereignty, but also regarding the path forward which those custodians foresaw and intended.
 
What part of my statements do you not understand?
I don't understand, specifically, why you use the term counter-semitism instead of anti-semitism when there isn't a difference between the two definitions

It rings particularly hollow to me when the one jewish president in history did more to bring the south into modern times (seemingly what you'd want in your 'anti-degeneracy platform') than any other president. Or perhaps roads, bridges and jobs aren't important to such a high-minded theoretical polity
 
why you use the term counter-semitism instead of anti-semitism
The minor difference to an outsider like you is probably inconsequential. Conquest and enslavement of Infidels/Goyim/Kaffirs like me has been a core part of your ideology for 1,000 years, but to elaborate:

Anti-Semitism is disliking Semites for no reason.

Counter-Semitism is opposing Semitic intrusion into White homelands via physical invasion, and attempts to influence our governments by organizations like the Jewish Lobby.

If Semites stay out of our Polity, there is no reason to dislike them.
 
It rings particularly hollow to me when the one jewish president in history did more to bring the south into modern times (seemingly what you'd want in your 'anti-degeneracy platform') than any other president. Or perhaps roads, bridges and jobs aren't important to such a high-minded theoretical polity
Er...who was this president? My Googling has failed to reveal his name; indeed says that there has never been a Jewish president, only a few presidential candidates.
 
The line between bad old Anti-Semitism and Alt-Right's revised and updated "Counter-Semitism" seems to be so thin and blurry after such a statement that I doubt quite strongly that it actually exists...
That is not to say that Isreal, its internal acts and its external influence (including the one in the US, including the political lobbying) should not be criticised. They should. And there is nothing Anti-Semitic in it at all, since a political organisation which every government, Israeli one included, is, must never be immune from criticism no matter the ethnic / racial heritage (as well as gender, sexual orientation etc.) of its participants.
 
The minor difference to an outsider like you is probably inconsequential. Conquest and enslavement of Infidels/Goyim/Kaffirs like me has been a core part of your ideology for 1,000 years, but to elaborate:

Anti-Semitism is disliking Semites for no reason.

Counter-Semitism is opposing Semitic intrusion into White homelands via physical invasion, and attempts to influence our governments by organizations like the Jewish Lobby.

If Semites stay out of our Polity, there is no reason to dislike them.

Nevermind that the biggest part of the appeal to the alt-right is that the 'white man' shouldn't have to suffer 'white guilt' for the actions of past generations, but you think Semites should... jew-guilt acceptable; white guilt, not
 
Thank you for the interview, Alex and Michael, you guys covered some very interesting ground without fear of its controversial nature.
These words are one of the reasons for my respect for you, Laird, and the reason while I do not perceive you as the SJW in the negative sense of the term. You're not authoritarian, not censorious, not dogmatic - you are open to debate and critique and can handle serious disagreement. Unfortunately, some (but not all) Leftists are actually Authoritarian, oftentimes even strongly so (I can easily imagine Chris from Psience Quest attacking the forum administration for "providing a platform for racists" and demanding to "no platform" Charlie...).

This is not to say that I agree with Charlie, or like him - as one can easily notice by reading my posts, I disagree with him strongly and explicitly. And I dislike him as strongly as I disagree with him, finding his positions to be as morally ugly as they are intellectually weak (in my evaluation).

Yet, as Noam Chomsky famously noted, being for free speech means being for free speech for the positions one despises. And I'm for free speech.
 
Last edited:
Top