I think at the end of the day what Ezra means by "white nationalism" is just:
1) Do you believe in The Bell Curve and similar things
2) Do you think whites sometimes have defend their interests as whites
A conservatism that can't explain why people are different and is terrified of being called racist and unable to defend itself is of course useful for Ezra.
"...white nationalism is now obsolete thanks to the mainstream Right taking up the identity issues."
Worth being clear: this means that they won. The GOP has been re-shaped to pander to their interests.
That should have always been the goal of this group, had they had any sense about it. The people still marching under that flag are the ones who didn't, or who resent that it was Trump, not they, who actually did the work.
Rubbish. The GOP has does what it's always done, talk out of their ass about things White people care about and then fail to deliver. Trump happened to be the perfect candidate for that purpose. Yes the controversy surrounding some his statements was useful, but it has not actually changed the demographic situation at all.
This false sense of victory is exactly why. Daddy Trump will handle it, the GOP are on our side, trust the plan. No need to do any actual work ourselves. Just vote straight R!
This is what I don't get. No mass deportations, white Americans now what, 55 percent and dropping? The replacement population has already been born. Open hostility towards white Americans is celebrated and never punished. Is there something I'm missing? This is winning?
I don't know a single mainstream figure in any western nation who views white interests as anything other than neo-Nazi hate, especially conservatives. They fall over themselves to maintain the liberal order. Most aggressively police language and discussion about demographic change. Almost all embrace civic nationalism.
You’re correct that whites currently view themselves as “Americans” first and have little appetite for racial identification. But I would be very surprised if that doesn’t change in the future. The 2024 electorate was 71% white - that figure is already and will continue dropping sharply.
Even if total immigration fell to zero forever, the population would stabilize at about 43% white. But of course immigration won’t fall to zero, so a stabilized figure in the 30-35% range is more plausible. Will whites cling to the “American” identity, at least as it’s currently understood, in that situation? I’m skeptical.
Does that lead to the New Hyperborea? No, of course not. But because whites are and will remain legally discriminated against in all sectors of life due to Civil Rights Law, white identitarianism will increase markedly.
I’m not sure it’s true that white identity is continuing to decrease, I think it has already reached a nadir and begun to rebound. The low point was sometime in the 1990-2010 End of History period but as the demographic (and consequently electoral) realities becomes clearer, it will inevitably reemerge.
White men are now an R+25 demographic. White men under 30 are R+30. They probably won’t ever reach “blacks for Democrats” type margins, but that level of electoral-racial polarization is a clear leading indicator of the realization that their interests are not represented by the broad national identity.
Whites under the age of 30 were R+0 in 2024. While I imagine there is a gender skew I highly doubt it's enough to be R+30. Trumps highest % was Gen X white men.
53% of the white electorate were women. Unmarried white women are strongly democrat, and marriage is on the decline.
In general the electoral future of the GOP revolves on convincing the whiter half of Hispanics to identify as white and hate blacks.
I feel too how weird that in one sense Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlson's numbers and ratings grew when they espoused what the media called White nationalist rhetoric. Trump as well. Maybe though it is the lefts image of White nationalist, whereas Scott would say it is more standard conservative stuff that he espouses.
The ‘identitarian right’ was and remains the least-served market in American politics - largely because it is de facto illegal to espouse or to support publicly if you have to work for a living. But something like ‘right identitarianism’, maybe watered down and with the sharp edges sanded off, is something like 25%-33% of the entire electorate.
Trump’s rise to power in 2015-2016 was the result of being the only candidate in a large field who would even approach it. If you’re the only person offering a product for which there is significant unmet demand, and you can do it in a slick, easily approached package like Trump as a politician or Carlson as a national TV personality, it’s not surprising your product sells.
So true, as look how the Non identitarian right gets crushed in ratings. Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, even Auron Macintyre dwarf the Bill O'reilly's, David Frenches and any other right winger who wants 2004 Republicanism to discuss marginal tax rates capital gains tax rates.
What accounts for this? We may know that it is happening, but why? Whites are attacked for no other reason but being born White. Not for being Christian, speaking English, or even for being Republican as much as they are for being White. Seems shocking that never breaks through to the masses of White people who do not wakeup to a collective White identity. Your book sales will tell us a lot Scott.
I do believe more and more Whites fear becoming a minority and becoming aware of that would change them. Especially when they think what it entails. The following from Eugene Daniels, an MSNBC/MSNOW Black commentator.
Projection of Power Dynamics: Observers often note that the fear White Americans have is deeply tied to the historical realities of how minority groups have been treated by the dominant majority in the U.S.. The anxiety stems from the worry that a new demographic majority might enact the same systems of inequality.
Loss of Cultural Dominance: As the country shifts into a more multicultural society, there is a perceived threat to long-standing, traditionally white-centric cultural norms, values, and institutions.
Political Shifts: The numerical shift means a potential redistribution of political power. As diverse communities grow in size and influence, there is fear among some that white, conservative, or traditional interests will no longer dictate the political landscape.
The huge beef I have with Daniels view, is that Whites as a majority have been quite a bit more fair, especially to Hispanics and Asians. Blacks today are completely racist, and especially have in power positions like Media, or Juries and lawyers and politicians. I think we can want to conserve our majority at least without being White nationalists, which I always thought meant wanting a 100 percent White America.
The future is Rhodesia. No other group cares about out groups. Only whites. This is the essential fantasy of liberals. Their client groups will genocide them when they have the upper hand.
We are ignoring history. Decency is not rewarded, only strength. You do not retain your strength when you open your borders.
The U.S.A will continue getting browner, the quality of life for average White people will decline, it's already beginning with the younger generations that now look at Socialism as an acceptable option for relief. You can play the sensible centrist all you want, you might be okay in your bubble with the other well-off Whites who don't care what happens to the ones not wealthy enough to escape diversity. But your message is not going to inspire White people who will have to grow up in the trenches, and the GOP is just going to shift gears to what the new majority wants to hear.
The longer this goes on, more radical solutions will be necessary, and people will be more open to them. The reverse side of the Socialist supporters are all the kids that got racialized in the last 6 years. They may be crude and unrefined as of now but they have a clearer picture of what's coming down the pipe than you.
I also discussed this with people that I can do so with, and they all agreed what is the end goal of a White nationalist and is it even achievable? America returning to demographics of the 1950's? Even then would it make most of them happy? Demographically unless we get another Biden type immigration policy the next 25 years might start bending our way again. Number 1:) White birthrates are expected to be higher than all other racial groups in the US in 2028 or 2029. Number 2:) Birthrates are down below replacement in most of the rest of the world, including India and China, Mexico, and Brazil. Number 3:)Refugee policy now favors White South Africans so the US is getting basically only White refugees right now. So maintaining a strong plurality of 49 percent might be plausible to at least 2045 or 2050. Number 4:) The GOP has a youth of White people now with Scott Greers views, so at least 1 party once the Baby Boomers die off, the Republican Party will be your covert or Implicit White identity party to join. It won't be explicit, but Implicit White identity will be the Republican party without the threat of doxxing, financial ruin, or jail. Joining that makes more sense than joining Patriot Front or Enoch's National Justice Party if you are a White male or female under the age of 40 right now.
I think Jared Taylor's idea of white advocate works for me. I think what Scott ignores is that someone could be quite left wing (in favor of dope, hedonism, porn, some alternative lifestyles, not really interested in repressive religion, traditional living etc., support a large welfare state for a white population) and still want to protect whites from the violent hordes of diversity. So while it may be true that enough progress can be made through mainstream politics to render an alternative right redundant, there's no point in being intellectually dishonest and calling yourself a conservative when you're not, and telling people they can't be racial unless they embrace your particular cultural viewpoint. That's a false dilemma.
I read this nonsense and I disagree wholeheartedly. This country is what it is, not what we imagine it is, is baloney. The idea that capitalism is a solid economic path forward undermines the ideals of equality, because it must. Meritocracy is a non-starter because we all contribute to this society and the fruit of that labor is divided up according to people who think they are the generators of wealth, therefore deserving of "more," a lot more. In fact, many of them inherited wealth from birth. Those who acquire it through the couse of their lives, owe their success to the innovations, research and processes gifted to them. We are all of the same race, but of differing ethnicity. Being human is your race. Defining what makes a person American in America is fodder for discrimination. All bullshit. None of us, including you have anywhere else to go. We all have this little spaceship called Earth to live on, that's it. No matter your money, your status, your definitions, ideas or redesigning the terms of your intellect to redefine your viewpoint of who we are and what we deserve, you are stuck here, on earth, with everyone else.
Equality is the only course forward. Conservatives are socially repressive and support class systems. Empathy is dangerous to conservatives and so they argue against they platform to embrace diversity out of fear and disguise that fear as intellect.
Nothing you say here is correct. Our country was founded by a specific group of people with specific ideas, not an amorphous blob of humanity. It has always been capitalist and that's why one reason among many why we have the world's largest economy and have been a superpower for so long. Ensuring equal outcomes for all has never been one of our ideals and never will be. There are easily identifiable differences among different races and ethnicities. Our government has a duty to protect our borders and historically race / ethnicity were determining factors in forming immigration policies. It was a mistake to abandon this.
Actual equality, like socialism, is a non-starter—both would destroy the economy (and pull down your beloved proletariat even further!). The best that any statist elite can deliver is the welfare state—and even this is inefficient and often harmful to its clients.
Clients? I'm sure you meant to say citizens, right? Don't try to tell me what I love and use big words like "proletariat." Lastly, what expertise do you have to talk about what is "inefficient" or "harmful?"
People are the most powerful force on this planet, period. Organization and solidarity is our challenge to wield that power. The economic royals know that, and use their money, influences and state power to keep the masses separated and hopeless to achieve the righteous path of self-governance.
You can argue for them, and the system that empowers them, but they are no more relevant than the guy who picks up my trash on Tuesday.
That response is pure romance. There is no “righteous path of self-governance”. The rich are certainly not perfect but they often accrued their wealth because they create value. When I talk about inefficiency, I draw on the expertise and theoretical frameworks of experts.
While then Spencer, enjoy the ride into fascism. The 800 lb gorilla knows no bounds on their insatiable hunger for more. More money, more power, more admiration for their greatness, until that gorilla is the monster than insists you bow before them in a dystopia nightmare.
The existence of rich people is not an automatic path to fascism. That doesn’t mean that some rich people won’t support stupid right-wing causes (or stupid left-wing causes), but most are benefactors in terms of the value they create. Money doesn’t flow to them for no reason at all.
So, society should just leave it up to the individual to decide how they invest their money.
I don't think Elon should have the right to launch rockets into space, I don't think Elon should be able to buy his way into the necessary functions of government and eviserate the health and safety of our citizens, I don't think anyone is being served by having billionairs in the highest offices of our government.
This idea that you can "contain" the harmful effects of the ultra-wealthy through laws and regulations is flawed, they couldn't care any less for social safety nets because they don't need them. They will attack, and continue to attack, those safe guards until the structure works in their best interest.
I would argue the idea that they deserve the wealth they have, but that topic has many tangents I haven't time time to discuss right now. Leave it stated that they make policy that benefits them, and their heirs and those benefits work in perpetuity.
If you place great importance in maintaining the historically white demographics of western nations (which as far as I can tell you do, correct me if you've changed on that), you are a "white nationalist" to the normie. Your own personal definition may perhaps be more accurate but it won't convince people like Klein or anyone else on the left. They've drawn the line at any sort of race realism and any degree of pro white sentiment. Of course that doesn't mean you have to embrace the idiocy of the fringe online far right, but running from these labels is also mostly a waste of time. Doing this whole "I'm against immigration because I want America to stay American, wink wink" bit doesn't actually fool anyone.
Letting your enemies define you is silly. There was always this dumb argument back in the Alt Right that said "they're gonna call you a Nazi anyway, so you might as well be one."
The point is not to win over your enemies. The point is to win over the sympathetic and curious. Accepting the bogeyman label from the Left ensures those types tune you out, especially when you aren't even that thing the media claims you to be.
The old alt right argument is half right. You shouldn't become a Nazi caricature, but the left are going to call you a bigot no matter what. You know that's true. There's no acceptable level of race realism or white advocacy for them. Even with the normie you're going to have to be honest about where you stand on race, it's not something you can dance around forever.
I understand your realist frame Scott, but why retrench back into "conservatism" instead of just saying you're a nationalist or an "American nationalist"?
Contra Greer and Spencer, the GOP is still institutionally anti-white so we have a long way to go. Once Trump is gone, both legal and illegal immigration will go back up.
In spirit, you are still a white nationalist you just are a realist. At the end of the day we are tribal and we will look out for our own interests. My children have very much different view on race compared to myself at their age. I’m not raising bigots, but they’re starting from a place of racial awareness and the fact that they are minorities in their age group for this country.
White nationalist politics will go mainstream once they are considered moral. Which they are. Trump was just the beginning, but to think that the United States and its current form will all of a sudden become a white ethnic state is ridiculous. In that sense you are correct… who knows what will come
Mechanically, it seems like that would be the best way to write in order to argue for Mr. Greer's positions in contrast to white nationalism. Draw people away, you know?
I think we will not agree. Any economic system benefitting in such lavish amounts that the sum of which is greater than 90% of all others, is ludicrous. Some folks are in poverty due to choices they make, but their ignorance is bequeathed them through culture, racism, poor education, healthcare and the very lack of opportunities afforded the to wealthy.
Few escape poverty just as few wealthy contribute to the society in which they themselves depend upon. Investments undertaken are done so in selfish interest. Wanting more of what they already have too much of.
People, in numbers, are the greatest power on this planet and everyone, in time, will acquiesce to the long arch of justice that favors everyone who contributes, in a more equitable manner.
I think at the end of the day what Ezra means by "white nationalism" is just:
1) Do you believe in The Bell Curve and similar things
2) Do you think whites sometimes have defend their interests as whites
A conservatism that can't explain why people are different and is terrified of being called racist and unable to defend itself is of course useful for Ezra.
"...white nationalism is now obsolete thanks to the mainstream Right taking up the identity issues."
Worth being clear: this means that they won. The GOP has been re-shaped to pander to their interests.
That should have always been the goal of this group, had they had any sense about it. The people still marching under that flag are the ones who didn't, or who resent that it was Trump, not they, who actually did the work.
Rubbish. The GOP has does what it's always done, talk out of their ass about things White people care about and then fail to deliver. Trump happened to be the perfect candidate for that purpose. Yes the controversy surrounding some his statements was useful, but it has not actually changed the demographic situation at all.
This false sense of victory is exactly why. Daddy Trump will handle it, the GOP are on our side, trust the plan. No need to do any actual work ourselves. Just vote straight R!
This is what I don't get. No mass deportations, white Americans now what, 55 percent and dropping? The replacement population has already been born. Open hostility towards white Americans is celebrated and never punished. Is there something I'm missing? This is winning?
I don't know a single mainstream figure in any western nation who views white interests as anything other than neo-Nazi hate, especially conservatives. They fall over themselves to maintain the liberal order. Most aggressively police language and discussion about demographic change. Almost all embrace civic nationalism.
Where is the realism the author is discussing?
Does not matter what you say as they will define you anyway.
Yup, just ask Peter Beimelow or Steve Sailer.
“I have to let the left define me.” - a cuck
You’re correct that whites currently view themselves as “Americans” first and have little appetite for racial identification. But I would be very surprised if that doesn’t change in the future. The 2024 electorate was 71% white - that figure is already and will continue dropping sharply.
Even if total immigration fell to zero forever, the population would stabilize at about 43% white. But of course immigration won’t fall to zero, so a stabilized figure in the 30-35% range is more plausible. Will whites cling to the “American” identity, at least as it’s currently understood, in that situation? I’m skeptical.
Does that lead to the New Hyperborea? No, of course not. But because whites are and will remain legally discriminated against in all sectors of life due to Civil Rights Law, white identitarianism will increase markedly.
You're not seeing it increase though. If anything, it continues to decrease. There was more "white identity" in the Civil Rights Era.
I’m not sure it’s true that white identity is continuing to decrease, I think it has already reached a nadir and begun to rebound. The low point was sometime in the 1990-2010 End of History period but as the demographic (and consequently electoral) realities becomes clearer, it will inevitably reemerge.
White men are now an R+25 demographic. White men under 30 are R+30. They probably won’t ever reach “blacks for Democrats” type margins, but that level of electoral-racial polarization is a clear leading indicator of the realization that their interests are not represented by the broad national identity.
Whites under the age of 30 were R+0 in 2024. While I imagine there is a gender skew I highly doubt it's enough to be R+30. Trumps highest % was Gen X white men.
53% of the white electorate were women. Unmarried white women are strongly democrat, and marriage is on the decline.
In general the electoral future of the GOP revolves on convincing the whiter half of Hispanics to identify as white and hate blacks.
I feel too how weird that in one sense Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlson's numbers and ratings grew when they espoused what the media called White nationalist rhetoric. Trump as well. Maybe though it is the lefts image of White nationalist, whereas Scott would say it is more standard conservative stuff that he espouses.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-ratings-support-white-nationalism-talking-points-nyt-2022-4
The ‘identitarian right’ was and remains the least-served market in American politics - largely because it is de facto illegal to espouse or to support publicly if you have to work for a living. But something like ‘right identitarianism’, maybe watered down and with the sharp edges sanded off, is something like 25%-33% of the entire electorate.
Trump’s rise to power in 2015-2016 was the result of being the only candidate in a large field who would even approach it. If you’re the only person offering a product for which there is significant unmet demand, and you can do it in a slick, easily approached package like Trump as a politician or Carlson as a national TV personality, it’s not surprising your product sells.
So true, as look how the Non identitarian right gets crushed in ratings. Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, even Auron Macintyre dwarf the Bill O'reilly's, David Frenches and any other right winger who wants 2004 Republicanism to discuss marginal tax rates capital gains tax rates.
What accounts for this? We may know that it is happening, but why? Whites are attacked for no other reason but being born White. Not for being Christian, speaking English, or even for being Republican as much as they are for being White. Seems shocking that never breaks through to the masses of White people who do not wakeup to a collective White identity. Your book sales will tell us a lot Scott.
I do believe more and more Whites fear becoming a minority and becoming aware of that would change them. Especially when they think what it entails. The following from Eugene Daniels, an MSNBC/MSNOW Black commentator.
Projection of Power Dynamics: Observers often note that the fear White Americans have is deeply tied to the historical realities of how minority groups have been treated by the dominant majority in the U.S.. The anxiety stems from the worry that a new demographic majority might enact the same systems of inequality.
Loss of Cultural Dominance: As the country shifts into a more multicultural society, there is a perceived threat to long-standing, traditionally white-centric cultural norms, values, and institutions.
Political Shifts: The numerical shift means a potential redistribution of political power. As diverse communities grow in size and influence, there is fear among some that white, conservative, or traditional interests will no longer dictate the political landscape.
The huge beef I have with Daniels view, is that Whites as a majority have been quite a bit more fair, especially to Hispanics and Asians. Blacks today are completely racist, and especially have in power positions like Media, or Juries and lawyers and politicians. I think we can want to conserve our majority at least without being White nationalists, which I always thought meant wanting a 100 percent White America.
The future is Rhodesia. No other group cares about out groups. Only whites. This is the essential fantasy of liberals. Their client groups will genocide them when they have the upper hand.
We are ignoring history. Decency is not rewarded, only strength. You do not retain your strength when you open your borders.
The U.S.A will continue getting browner, the quality of life for average White people will decline, it's already beginning with the younger generations that now look at Socialism as an acceptable option for relief. You can play the sensible centrist all you want, you might be okay in your bubble with the other well-off Whites who don't care what happens to the ones not wealthy enough to escape diversity. But your message is not going to inspire White people who will have to grow up in the trenches, and the GOP is just going to shift gears to what the new majority wants to hear.
The longer this goes on, more radical solutions will be necessary, and people will be more open to them. The reverse side of the Socialist supporters are all the kids that got racialized in the last 6 years. They may be crude and unrefined as of now but they have a clearer picture of what's coming down the pipe than you.
Agreed. This is right-wing liberalism. The world is nothing like America or the west. And now it is here in our midst.
I also discussed this with people that I can do so with, and they all agreed what is the end goal of a White nationalist and is it even achievable? America returning to demographics of the 1950's? Even then would it make most of them happy? Demographically unless we get another Biden type immigration policy the next 25 years might start bending our way again. Number 1:) White birthrates are expected to be higher than all other racial groups in the US in 2028 or 2029. Number 2:) Birthrates are down below replacement in most of the rest of the world, including India and China, Mexico, and Brazil. Number 3:)Refugee policy now favors White South Africans so the US is getting basically only White refugees right now. So maintaining a strong plurality of 49 percent might be plausible to at least 2045 or 2050. Number 4:) The GOP has a youth of White people now with Scott Greers views, so at least 1 party once the Baby Boomers die off, the Republican Party will be your covert or Implicit White identity party to join. It won't be explicit, but Implicit White identity will be the Republican party without the threat of doxxing, financial ruin, or jail. Joining that makes more sense than joining Patriot Front or Enoch's National Justice Party if you are a White male or female under the age of 40 right now.
I think Jared Taylor's idea of white advocate works for me. I think what Scott ignores is that someone could be quite left wing (in favor of dope, hedonism, porn, some alternative lifestyles, not really interested in repressive religion, traditional living etc., support a large welfare state for a white population) and still want to protect whites from the violent hordes of diversity. So while it may be true that enough progress can be made through mainstream politics to render an alternative right redundant, there's no point in being intellectually dishonest and calling yourself a conservative when you're not, and telling people they can't be racial unless they embrace your particular cultural viewpoint. That's a false dilemma.
I read this nonsense and I disagree wholeheartedly. This country is what it is, not what we imagine it is, is baloney. The idea that capitalism is a solid economic path forward undermines the ideals of equality, because it must. Meritocracy is a non-starter because we all contribute to this society and the fruit of that labor is divided up according to people who think they are the generators of wealth, therefore deserving of "more," a lot more. In fact, many of them inherited wealth from birth. Those who acquire it through the couse of their lives, owe their success to the innovations, research and processes gifted to them. We are all of the same race, but of differing ethnicity. Being human is your race. Defining what makes a person American in America is fodder for discrimination. All bullshit. None of us, including you have anywhere else to go. We all have this little spaceship called Earth to live on, that's it. No matter your money, your status, your definitions, ideas or redesigning the terms of your intellect to redefine your viewpoint of who we are and what we deserve, you are stuck here, on earth, with everyone else.
Equality is the only course forward. Conservatives are socially repressive and support class systems. Empathy is dangerous to conservatives and so they argue against they platform to embrace diversity out of fear and disguise that fear as intellect.
Nothing you say here is correct. Our country was founded by a specific group of people with specific ideas, not an amorphous blob of humanity. It has always been capitalist and that's why one reason among many why we have the world's largest economy and have been a superpower for so long. Ensuring equal outcomes for all has never been one of our ideals and never will be. There are easily identifiable differences among different races and ethnicities. Our government has a duty to protect our borders and historically race / ethnicity were determining factors in forming immigration policies. It was a mistake to abandon this.
Actual equality, like socialism, is a non-starter—both would destroy the economy (and pull down your beloved proletariat even further!). The best that any statist elite can deliver is the welfare state—and even this is inefficient and often harmful to its clients.
Clients? I'm sure you meant to say citizens, right? Don't try to tell me what I love and use big words like "proletariat." Lastly, what expertise do you have to talk about what is "inefficient" or "harmful?"
People are the most powerful force on this planet, period. Organization and solidarity is our challenge to wield that power. The economic royals know that, and use their money, influences and state power to keep the masses separated and hopeless to achieve the righteous path of self-governance.
You can argue for them, and the system that empowers them, but they are no more relevant than the guy who picks up my trash on Tuesday.
Fuck the rich!
That response is pure romance. There is no “righteous path of self-governance”. The rich are certainly not perfect but they often accrued their wealth because they create value. When I talk about inefficiency, I draw on the expertise and theoretical frameworks of experts.
While then Spencer, enjoy the ride into fascism. The 800 lb gorilla knows no bounds on their insatiable hunger for more. More money, more power, more admiration for their greatness, until that gorilla is the monster than insists you bow before them in a dystopia nightmare.
The existence of rich people is not an automatic path to fascism. That doesn’t mean that some rich people won’t support stupid right-wing causes (or stupid left-wing causes), but most are benefactors in terms of the value they create. Money doesn’t flow to them for no reason at all.
So, society should just leave it up to the individual to decide how they invest their money.
I don't think Elon should have the right to launch rockets into space, I don't think Elon should be able to buy his way into the necessary functions of government and eviserate the health and safety of our citizens, I don't think anyone is being served by having billionairs in the highest offices of our government.
This idea that you can "contain" the harmful effects of the ultra-wealthy through laws and regulations is flawed, they couldn't care any less for social safety nets because they don't need them. They will attack, and continue to attack, those safe guards until the structure works in their best interest.
I would argue the idea that they deserve the wealth they have, but that topic has many tangents I haven't time time to discuss right now. Leave it stated that they make policy that benefits them, and their heirs and those benefits work in perpetuity.
"this little spaceship called Earth" made me lol
If you place great importance in maintaining the historically white demographics of western nations (which as far as I can tell you do, correct me if you've changed on that), you are a "white nationalist" to the normie. Your own personal definition may perhaps be more accurate but it won't convince people like Klein or anyone else on the left. They've drawn the line at any sort of race realism and any degree of pro white sentiment. Of course that doesn't mean you have to embrace the idiocy of the fringe online far right, but running from these labels is also mostly a waste of time. Doing this whole "I'm against immigration because I want America to stay American, wink wink" bit doesn't actually fool anyone.
Letting your enemies define you is silly. There was always this dumb argument back in the Alt Right that said "they're gonna call you a Nazi anyway, so you might as well be one."
The point is not to win over your enemies. The point is to win over the sympathetic and curious. Accepting the bogeyman label from the Left ensures those types tune you out, especially when you aren't even that thing the media claims you to be.
The old alt right argument is half right. You shouldn't become a Nazi caricature, but the left are going to call you a bigot no matter what. You know that's true. There's no acceptable level of race realism or white advocacy for them. Even with the normie you're going to have to be honest about where you stand on race, it's not something you can dance around forever.
What about “Letting your enemies define you is silly” do you not understand?
I understand your realist frame Scott, but why retrench back into "conservatism" instead of just saying you're a nationalist or an "American nationalist"?
Contra Greer and Spencer, the GOP is still institutionally anti-white so we have a long way to go. Once Trump is gone, both legal and illegal immigration will go back up.
In spirit, you are still a white nationalist you just are a realist. At the end of the day we are tribal and we will look out for our own interests. My children have very much different view on race compared to myself at their age. I’m not raising bigots, but they’re starting from a place of racial awareness and the fact that they are minorities in their age group for this country.
White nationalist politics will go mainstream once they are considered moral. Which they are. Trump was just the beginning, but to think that the United States and its current form will all of a sudden become a white ethnic state is ridiculous. In that sense you are correct… who knows what will come
Why would anyone think you were? You’re just a Reaganite-Romneyite Republican type with a little race-realism thrown in here and there.
Don’t talk like one of them, Scott. You’re not. Even if you’d like to be.
You mean talking like a white nationalist?
Mechanically, it seems like that would be the best way to write in order to argue for Mr. Greer's positions in contrast to white nationalism. Draw people away, you know?
I think we will not agree. Any economic system benefitting in such lavish amounts that the sum of which is greater than 90% of all others, is ludicrous. Some folks are in poverty due to choices they make, but their ignorance is bequeathed them through culture, racism, poor education, healthcare and the very lack of opportunities afforded the to wealthy.
Few escape poverty just as few wealthy contribute to the society in which they themselves depend upon. Investments undertaken are done so in selfish interest. Wanting more of what they already have too much of.
People, in numbers, are the greatest power on this planet and everyone, in time, will acquiesce to the long arch of justice that favors everyone who contributes, in a more equitable manner.