ID:2208464
 
In the Discord, there's a lot of hate for pretty much anything and everything on the right - especially the alt-right which everyone has labeled "Nazis". Now, I had never really investigated the alt-right but decided to talk to a woman within the alt-right movement who's actually close to Richard Spencer. I wanted to get to the bottom of why they do what they do, so I did what any sensible person would do and just asked her.

Their gripes with non-whites

She explained that it's not entirely about a gripe with non-whites, but rather a desire to look out for her own race. She says that putting your own race before other races is perfectly natural and every race does it EXCEPT for whites. People can shout "black pride", and no one cares. People can shout "Hispanic pride", no one cares. If you shout "White Pride", you get fired from your job and she finds that ridiculous. She grew up in a poor predominantly black neighborhood and says that her main gripe with blacks is that she doesn't want to have to be responsible for them. No matter how many benefits whites give to blacks, the crime and poverty rates still increase and so, to put it bluntly, she'd just rather end it altogether and let the criminal, non self-sufficient blacks helplessly fend for themselves since the their situation isn't improving anyway. She said she has no problem with blacks who are intelligent, reasonable people - her issue is that the majority of us aren't and she'd rather not have anything to do with that majority in any way, shape or form.

They hate other whites just as much if not more than non-whites

Interestingly, she says that other white people pose a threat to her movement more-so than non-whites do. She says BLM was created by a white man who hates himself, and that a lot of the riots are started and instigated by whites, so even though blacks are the ones carrying out a lot of nonsense during BLM riots, she primarily blames the whites for organizing those riots to begin with.

They want an ethnostate

This was probably the meatiest part of the conversation and probably the foundation of the movement. What white nationalists want is an ethnostate, or a homeland for whites. She says every race has one: Koreans have Korea, Chinese have China, Mexicans have Mexico, but she feels whites are the only ones who have diversity forced on them. She says that her homeland, which should be Europe, is on the fast track to having its native whites outnumbered by minorities and says that's entirely unacceptable. She says if, for example, Chinese were on the verge of being replaced by Brazilians, there would be an uproar, and no one would call the Chinese racist for wanting to preserve the Chinese natives in China.

She says that most liberal whites she meets care more about pandas going extinct than their own race going extinct and thinks that's absurd. She feels that, in a way, her race is being exterminated and "forced" to just deal with the fact that eventually, there won't be a such thing as a "white person" anymore. Meanwhile, other races, the Japanese for instance, can preserve and promote their race as much as they want to and no one bats an eye and calls them racist or criticizes how they deal with immigrants. She told me to watch "Beige Power" which is a video she's not too particularly fond of:



She believes its perfectly within her rights and every other white nationalist's rights to put their race first and have a homeland without being labelled as "evil" for doing the exact same thing virtually every other race on the planet does. She said they also breed for IQ purposes and says that if a white says they don't want to breed with blacks because they, on average, have lower IQs than whites, that shouldn't be construed as racism or being immoral and she admits that Jews and Asians have, on average, higher IQs than whites, and she wouldn't blame Jews and Asians for not wanting to breed with a white person. They don't want there to be "only beige people" by 2050 or 3000. They want blacks to still be blacks, Koreans to still be Koreans, and whites to still be whites, all with our own homelands. Being diverse and mix-breeding should be an option, not a mandate, especially since that mandate only seems to apply to people with white skin.

There are non-white alt-righters too

She says there are non-whites within the alt-right who sympathize with their movement and the idea of every race having the right to preserve its race and homeland. She pointed out that a lot of the people from pol who trolled the HWNDU stream are non-white and she appreciates their support, but at the end of the day, it's still a white movement and the end goal is for each race to eventually go their own way and preserve themselves unless they CHOOSE to opt for being diverse, which is also completely within their right to do.

What they mean when they talk about other races being exterminated

On her Twitter account, she was making remarks like "Those millions of starving Africans shouldn't exist" and I asked her what she meant by that and if she was advocating violence. She says that because of the UN, there are millions of Africans suffering in horrible living conditions and that we should've just let nature take its course and let them die off. By constantly giving them aid without the situation actually improving, all they're doing is bringing more and more people in the world only to have them starve or die of disease - suggesting that they should all just die sounds evil at first, but she says the point she's getting at is bringing lives into the world under those circumstances is even more evil because it just keeps making more and more people suffer. She says a lot of black nationalists she has spoken to agree with this sentiment as well - that we need to stop depending on other races and become self-sufficient in our own homeland. A black state run by blacks for blacks. This would eliminate racism and prevent blacks from blaming whites for all their problems. She says she does not advocate for violence or murder, but simply relocation, and that if any race can't pull themselves up on their own ( or even when other races are giving them a helping hand ), allow nature to take its course.

So, TL;DR: The alt-right wants to preserve their own race and have a homeland like every other race already does, they don't necessarily hate anyone on the basis of race but rather your stance on this very issue ( i.e. there are non-whites that they like and whites that they hate ), and when they talk about other races not existing, they are more-so referring to just allowing a race to die off if they can't support themselves and not just walking in with guns blazing killing all the blacks, Mexicans, etc. which is what most people seem to believe they are referring to.

As a black person, I actually don't care about preserving my race ( I don't really feel a connection or allegiance to any race really ) but at the same time I don't find it offensive if someone else wants to preserve theirs. I don't believe this alt-right woman was an evil person for anything she said to me. My verdict is let them have their Europe ethnostate, and yes, a black ethnostate would probably be nice as well so we can finally shut up about how the "white man be holdin' us back".
The white man isn't holding you black?

I still have no idea what in the frell "alt-right" even means. The term popped up out of nowhere, and I know Googling it is not going to give me any kind of useful defninition because it seems to mainly be a pejorative--which means Google will be littered with examples that aren't trustworthy or helpful. Are there some examples of who self-identifies as alt-right and why?
The girl I spoke to referenced The Daily Stormer as like, the "heart of the operation" or at least where like, she first joined the alt-right. This definition is probably as good as it gets.

http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/
Alt-right was originally a term used to distinguish white nationalists. They were so unheard of because no one really took them seriously. Then the Trump movement came up and attempted to 'steal' the label of alt-right. Unfortunately, the media did their homework and countered the 'theft' by lumping the Trumpians with 'undesireable' individuals. So at this time, the Trumpians have dropped the alt-right moniker and have switched to 'The New Right'.

So the short version is this:
Alt-Right: White nationalism, ethno-centrism
New Right: Conservatism while rejecting 'muh Establishment'.

Don't $@#!ing use the Daily Stormer as a guide. They're a satire website.
Real talk:

I supported Bernie Sanders this cycle, as many of you are probably aware.

I served in the intelligence community under Hillary Clinton's State department, so I knew personally how much of a disaster four more years of international policy under Clinton would be. We created ISIS. We enabled them. We armed them. We signal-boosted their message. Hillary Clinton was not the Commander in Chief of the armed forces I would trust to admit the failures in international policy that gave rise to the greatest tragedy to befall the middle east since Islamism.

I would have voted for Biden had he run, and the other mainline democratic nominees were only there to sell their books and publicize their name. They weren't in the game to win because they'd been all but told to take a dive for Hillary.


As for the right? Let's talk fiscal conservatism with a focus on social well-being of all resident aliens and citizens, a smaller military budget, bigger investments in public and private research, and increased oversight on healthcare and insurance billing. Let's spend less time on the immigrants, the gays, transgenders, and the unborn. Let's really talk about getting the economy in shape while preparing for a mechanized workforce. Let's stop demonizing drug users and stop trying to keep America's ethnic and cultural identity from changing with the evolving global marketplace.

Jeb Bush was the only republican candidate I even remotely liked, because while he is socially conservative, his state's prosperity has always taken frontsies to aggressive idealism. He did a good job as governor and I think he would have done a great job as President even if I disagree with a lot of his ideas.


But yeah, this is the moment I keep coming back to after the election:



In this one moment, Bernie made a fatal mistake. He let a couple of SJW bullies become the public face of his rally. It's a metaphor for what's happened to the left and why we have a Trump presidency.

The left made this by giving a vocal, violent, absolutist minority the outward face of their party. By pandering to this group and assuming their support was higher than it really was, and by surrendering their platform to these radical ideologues, they created exactly the backlash that carried Donald Trump into the white house.

And now the left thinks that these same groups are going to carry Trump out of office through the same tactics of bullying, shouting, and violence?


I'm off the left wing bus. I won't be jumping to the right wing bus. Fuck both of you. I'm walking.
That happened in Seattle, Washington. Just looked up some statistics on Kings County ( which Seattle is apart of ), took like 5 minutes. This was the first result I found.

In 2010, the arrest rate per 100,000:
- 254 Asians were arrested
- 2656 Blacks were arrested
- 1796 Native Americans/Alaskan Natives were arrested
- 500 Whites were arrested

Notice anything weird about this list? In white supremacist America, somehow Asians, a minority group, are arrested at lower rates than every other group. How'd that happen? These stats don't exactly fit the left's narrative.

"But Empirez, of course more whites will be arrested than Asians! Just by sheer number, more whites will be arrested than Asians! That's the only reason!"

Not so fast. The 2010 census shows that Asians made up 14.6% of the Kings County population. Blacks made up only 6.2% in the same year. So no, this isn't about sheer number. Asians, which are a non-white minority group, got arrested at far lower rates than blacks despite the fact that there's a lot more Asians than black people in Kings County, and they outnumber Native Americans and Alaskan Natives even more. If we're going to use the "sheer number" logic here, we are forced to admit that Asians should have a significantly higher number of arrests in a white supremacist America because Asians are not white people. So BLM is going to have to come up with an explanation as to why the supposed white supremacists lurking about in every police department who have a burning hatred for all minorities are forgetting to oppress Asians. Because that's their narrative anyway: that they're just being arrested or killed by racist cops left and right for no apparent reason.

https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Housing/ PropertyManagers/ManagementResources/ CriminalJusticeSystemDisparities_07-23-13.pdf

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/RHI125215/ 53033#headnote-js-a

BLM is good because they recognize there's an issue ( there's way too many of us getting locked up ). They're bad because they haven't figured out why that issue exists.

Problem is you can't point to Asian crime statistics as validation of groups that are arguing that there isn't a black/native incarceration problem.

In fact, the US has an incarceration problem period.



You can't be #1 in incarceration globally and call yourself "Land of the Free".



Source of the problem is the criminalization of narcotics, which has disproportionately affected natives and blacks, as it was intended to.

Quote:

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Erhlichman, Advisor to Richard Nixon.
There is indeed a problem.

It's not due to whites rounding us up for shits and giggles. There's a long list of issues and the one BLM seems to be spewing is a lie which doesn't get us any closer to a solution. It's like when feminists claim they get paid less because employers have all decided to just give women less money. There's a long list of reasons why women get paid less, and the reason feminists have provided for why that is distracts from the true causes and doesn't get us any closer to a solution.

And also with Jeb Bush, I think the "Bush" name is so tarnished at this point people didn't want to take any chances. Like, if I had a dollar for every person I heard say "I don't want another Bush in office"...
It's not due to whites rounding us up for shits and giggles. There's a long list of issues and the one BLM seems to be spewing is a lie which doesn't get us any closer to a solution. It's like when feminists claim they get paid less because employers have all decided to just give women less money. There's a long list of reasons why women get paid less, and the reason feminists have provided for why that is distracts from the true causes and doesn't get us any closer to a solution.

I agree with this.

I think that the kind of thinking that's been incubated on the left the last decade or so has actually really set us back in terms of equality and national unity.

A decade ago, most people in this country were legitimately shitting their pants over the thought of a terrorist organization getting their hands on a nuclear weapon and detonating it on American soil.

At this point, it feels like a lot of Americans would read the manual to them just to get it over with already.
In response to Ter13
~~~~~~~ NOW TIME FOR MY OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!! ~~~~~~~~~
Ter13 wrote:
... but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.
... Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Erhlichman, Advisor to Richard Nixon.

This.
This will always get me.

Not everything the government does and tells us is justified or for the reason they tell us.
Obviously.

I mean, most of the stuff they do is mostly to keep us in check, and we do have a very advanced system of living in order to try and keep everyone safe BUT NOT ALWAYS do they always do the right things.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad for the law enforcement or government not to call us up every 5 minute and explain WHY they're doing things because that would ruin the point of doing it " secretly " or doing it at all.

Bottom line : The government does govern us pretty well, as they should, but there is always place for human error.
Over all, I support probably 90% of arrests that cops make and 95% of force that they use for people that they have to use force on to in order to subdue.

Hate these BLM groups ( and people bitching about cops killing people ) that are defending people doing BAD THINGS.

I mean, is the law going to reign in the end or can we all just rob shops and hurt people because " cops use too much force "
I mean, as always, HUMAN ERROR. Not everything cops do are justified, but we usually only hear when they screw up.

As someone who lives NEAR Chicago, the crime is horrible. You see these buildings abandoned and streets empty because people are afraid to walk outside.

One thing I do support of Donald Trump is him saying that he will CLEAN UP CHICAGO.
Knowing him, he'll probably even screw up doing that or something; but at least it's a light on the problem.

TL;DR :
Government does bad things. Usually are justified?

Cops use necessary force most of the time, the force they use in necessary.

Chicago is screwed up. #SendInTheFEDS

Also, stop with arresting people for weed.
Please.

Focus on other stuff rather than someone getting high off the freaking herb.
In response to Ter13
Also,

Never seen Empirez not troll or not spew sarcasm into his posts.

Kinda disappointed.
On the subject of incarceration rates--which are shameful--I think the problem is we've created ridiculously inflated sentences and classifications of various crimes. Not just talking about the drug war, which is a big part of it. The average American commits 3 felonies a day, just because way too many things have been classified as felonies. It used to be a felony was like murder, rape, arson, embezzlement.

I watched an episode of Cops tonight where a woman was busted in a drug buy sting. One of her charges was going to be that she used a cell phone as part of the process, and using a cell phone to buy drugs was a felony there. How frickin' stupid is that? It's the drug buy that should be criminal, not that she used a phone to communicate! And raising that to the level of a felony is absurd. I'm not saying let all the drug dealers off with a slap on the wrist, but most of these situations just don't rate as felonies. Not when you have guys committing armed robbery.

The other big problem is way too much power has been put into the hands of prosecutors, and too much has been taken away from juries. But I could rant about this for hours.
Jeb Bush was too Bush for the left, and not Bush enough for the right. I lived in Florida while he was governor, and even as a relatively liberal independant, i would have taken him over any of the Republicans, and probably over Hilary. He seemed a pretty reasonable guy, which doesnt really play well these days...
one of the dumbest things ive heard was back when i was in high school and a recruiter came. one of my classmates smoked weed and had gotten caught before and had like, some drug charge or whatever. at any rate, he raised his hand and asked if he'd be eligible to join the military if he had a drug charge and she told him no. then he asked her why that is since he knows people in the military who say they get wasted and whatnot - basically why is it okay to be a drunk and get into the military but if you got caught blazing it at some point, you're automatically disqualified. the recruiter just shrugged her shoulders.
In response to Flick
Flick wrote:
Jeb Bush was too Bush for the left, and not Bush enough for the right. I lived in Florida while he was governor, and even as a relatively liberal independant, i would have taken him over any of the Republicans, and probably over Hilary. He seemed a pretty reasonable guy, which doesnt really play well these days...

Actually I think he was too Bush for the right. The Bush family has not shown a proven track record of fiscal conservatism.

But putting that aside, and that he came across as lackluster or that his campaign's handling of advertising was completely inept, I think he was unelectable because he was yet another Bush. Americans are pretty sick of dynastic politics, and he would have taken one of Hillary's major weaknesses and turned it into an even bigger weakness for himself.



Still the best thing to come out of 2016.












fun times
It's going to be a fun 4 years =)

And the funny thing is the left COULD Have won, had they removed the anti-establishment leg from the Trump campaign and ran Sanders. But it was her turn. Congratulations democrats, you played yourselves.
In response to EmpirezTeam
EmpirezTeam wrote:
That happened in Seattle, Washington. Just looked up some statistics on Kings County ( which Seattle is apart of ), took like 5 minutes. This was the first result I found.

In 2010, the arrest rate per 100,000:
- 254 Asians were arrested
- 2656 Blacks were arrested
- 1796 Native Americans/Alaskan Natives were arrested
- 500 Whites were arrested

Notice anything weird about this list? In white supremacist America, somehow Asians, a minority group, are arrested at lower rates than every other group. How'd that happen? These stats don't exactly fit the left's narrative.

"But Empirez, of course more whites will be arrested than Asians! Just by sheer number, more whites will be arrested than Asians! That's the only reason!"


'Hey! I found a single minority that statistically doesn't seem to be held back subtly by systematic oppression! . . . Now let's just ignore all of the other statistics that point towards it, since I found a single minority (never mind the other I just posted) that proves my point!'

DENIED.

Would go into it, but Ter already posted a quote that shows just how deeply rooted incarceration is with racism. Most arrests are over crimes that were only made crimes to oppress minority, lol.

The government has even gone to aid in ensuring that the minorities were enabled to do their crimes, smh.

This is only a single generation removed from me.

Do you honestly think the system isn't inherently made for the general populace of minorities not to succeed (by some luck, it may not target YOU specifically).

Also, hrm. Despite Asians being a minority, I don't think I can think of any recent discrimination. Except, y'know during WW2, but that's not recent.

So yeah, while it's not impossible for a minority to succeed -- and certainly, most white people don't stare down minorities and hope they don't make it in life -- just from your birth, you have the cards stacked slightly against you. Mind you, I don't dwell on race much and I feel I can become a millionaire with enough effort. But I feel it's ignorance to parade around like race doesn't matter. Especially in America, a country founded on racism and bigotry, and one that still hasn't fully washed its hands of the past.

Interesting topic, though.

I can feasibly understand some of her complaints. Especially about letting them fend for themselves.

You know, many charities are often fraudulent, and can be detrimental to a struggling country's economy? It works simply like so.

People give free shit to the poor country.
Sure the people who receive the free items will be happy. But. . ?
That stifles currency circulation. Now the person who was given free food and shoes has no reason to go purchase their own from the store. Now the store owner has no money, and will eventually need aid.

An the cycle continues. On top of that, I don't get why poor people have children. It makes no sense.

Her whole spiel about a white based sanctuary is silly, though. America is still primarily white by a WIDE margin. This is with the country existing for 200 years and readily accepting refugees. It's still 70%+ white.

Not sure on the European countries, though.
Page: 1 2 3 4