They really do have no public support whatsoever and this is illustrated by how even conservatives use the term Nazi as a slur. On their own they couldn’t topple the government let alone govern. They can’t cooperate so I doubt they could find a way to get millions of people to follow them. Especially considering the majority, even the majority of whites, hate them.
There is one scenario where I can see white supremacists playing a role in overthrowing the United States government. Basically, I could see a Napoleon or Caesar like figure using them to get rid of some of his enemies and to participate in street brawls, intimidation, etc. However, in such a scenario they’d still be major liabilities and the moment their usefulness was outweighed by their liability they’d get the SA treatment.
However, I’d like to clarify that when I refer to white supremacists being used as street fighters, I’m not referring to the alt right spergs but literal gangsters. The alt right is a bunch of middle class wankers that are not even useful as bullet sponges. They’re so useless that they’d be sidelined and likely would be the first to be shot -probably by poor whites with an adjacent worldview- in any civil war/coup/civil unrest.
I disagree with this solely based on history and the patterns of Leftist revolutionary movements. Everything from the Viet Cong to Castro's Cuban revolution - and probably most relevant, the IRA during the Troubles - for the first phase of the revolution never amounted to more than a few hundred people at most. Usually no supplies. Very little if no public awareness or support.
Chairman Mao wrote extensively on this, and interviews with the Black Panthers and Weather Underground say that they studied the military writing of Mao and Che Guevera extensively. Even the Viet Cong during not one but 2 Indochinese wars between America and France started with low numbers, absolutely no weapons, no widespread support, and were off in the woods. Studying the Cuban Revolution is very interesting and you see just how outnumbered, outfinancied, and outgunned he was. But every revolution in the history of humanity was executed by a minority, especially the Bolsheviks. Widespread popular support is the least of your worries because it happens pretty easily once you can own your optics and narrative.
Here's the thing: violence actually gets wide swaths of the population on your side. it gets people excited, it makes you seem relevant, it makes people think "change is happening" and, politically, the promise of change is an incredible recruitment tactic even if the change you promise is not detailed at all.
That violence, by the way, is also how groups like the various European Bolshevik movements were to create a coalition of the fringe. You see it in America right now, when violent leftists can actually bring in Black Nationalists and Mexican Reconquistadors and Strasserists and whomever into the fold. The violence is the momentum that gathers steam and builds the ranks, we see it right now.
It happens time and time again, from Ireland to China to New York. The purpose of the insurrectionist is baiting a larger force with smaller actions to make them look bad by any reaction looking comparatively disproportionate. This is how they win hearts and minds.
Now obviously America is different geographically, demographically, and militarily. But the same rules apply. Here is where the Right fucks up and will continue to fail: they think winning hearts and minds is a waste of time, and anything short of Civil War Right Now is seen as a cope, a fedpost, a shill, etc. The truly Insurrectionist Right has no patience and if it's not Day of the Rope as of Tomorrow they're not interested. And when it comes to building a unified movement, you need a unified spirit. There is no unified spirit on the Right, to the point where if you float the idea you're accused of "Big Tent Nationalism" and, once again, a Fed, a Jew, a Shill, whatever.
The Dissident Right could be more popular, more effective, and more energetic than the entire Left tomorrow if they could stop bickering over esoteric theology and whether or not so-and-so with a show is actually white. Illiterate Jungle Asians managed to do it twice in a row and - this has been covered extensively by military scholars, the book War of the Flea is a good one - literally all they had was, as Mao put it, "time, space, and will."
I disagree with this solely based on history and the patterns of Leftist revolutionary movements. Everything from the Viet Cong to Castro's Cuban revolution - and probably most relevant, the IRA during the Troubles - for the first phase of the revolution never amounted to more than a few hundred people at most. Usually no supplies. Very little if no public awareness or support.
Chairman Mao wrote extensively on this, and interviews with the Black Panthers and Weather Underground say that they studied the military writing of Mao and Che Guevera extensively. Even the Viet Cong during not one but 2 Indochinese wars between America and France started with low numbers, absolutely no weapons, no widespread support, and were off in the woods. Studying the Cuban Revolution is very interesting and you see just how outnumbered, outfinancied, and outgunned he was. But every revolution in the history of humanity was executed by a minority, especially the Bolsheviks. Widespread popular support is the least of your worries because it happens pretty easily once you can own your optics and narrative.
Here's the thing: violence actually gets wide swaths of the population on your side. it gets people excited, it makes you seem relevant, it makes people think "change is happening" and, politically, the promise of change is an incredible recruitment tactic even if the change you promise is not detailed at all.
That violence, by the way, is also how groups like the various European Bolshevik movements were to create a coalition of the fringe. You see it in America right now, when violent leftists can actually bring in Black Nationalists and Mexican Reconquistadors and Strasserists and whomever into the fold. The violence is the momentum that gathers steam and builds the ranks, we see it right now.
It happens time and time again, from Ireland to China to New York. The purpose of the insurrectionist is baiting a larger force with smaller actions to make them look bad by any reaction looking comparatively disproportionate. This is how they win hearts and minds.
Now obviously America is different geographically, demographically, and militarily. But the same rules apply. Here is where the Right fucks up and will continue to fail: they think winning hearts and minds is a waste of time, and anything short of Civil War Right Now is seen as a cope, a fedpost, a shill, etc. The truly Insurrectionist Right has no patience and if it's not Day of the Rope as of Tomorrow they're not interested. And when it comes to building a unified movement, you need a unified spirit. There is no unified spirit on the Right, to the point where if you float the idea you're accused of "Big Tent Nationalism" and, once again, a Fed, a Jew, a Shill, whatever.
The Dissident Right could be more popular, more effective, and more energetic than the entire Left tomorrow if they could stop bickering over esoteric theology and whether or not so-and-so with a show is actually white. Illiterate Jungle Asians managed to do it twice in a row and - this has been covered extensively by military scholars, the book War of the Flea is a good one - literally all they had was, as Mao put it, "time, space, and will."
You’re right about not needing to win everyone over. Imo the right could very well lead a succesful revolt, I just doubt that white nationalists can do it currently. Imo they could have in the past but they’re a shadow of what they once were. You’re right it’s not necessary to win over a majority to take over a country but part of the calculus that the average citizen takes is based on how much they hate a given movement v what they have to lose. In many dictatorships part of the reason normies don’t rise up is because they considered the dictatorships a stabilizing force that reduced crime and brought about unity. Some found employment and the fear was if that regime went away, so would the stability, the law, their jobs, and often government handouts. Essentially they were given the carrot and if they didn’t take it, they knew they’d get the stick. Furthermore, there was the fear that the fall of such a regime would usher in more civil violence, and having lived through previous civil conflicts, they’d prefer to avoid that possibility. Consequently, imo, more people would see them less as a stabilizing entity that reduced crime and corruption and more of a pernicious one that gets in the way of every day living. Therefore, more would be willing to act against white supremacists than against other dissident movements, even other right wing dissident movements.
Imo there has to be some unifying cause for the small number of partisans on ones side. In a country as large and as diverse as the US, I just don’t see ethnic nationalism as a unifying rally cry here- even among a small minority- as it could be in say Western Europe or South Eastern Asia. Part of the issue is the size of the US and the low population density. The large geographical size results in local communities diverging in terms of culture, even if they came from the same wave of immigration. It also means it would require the ability to project force across a larger area, which becomes more exponentially more difficult in the US than in other countries. The US is much larger than Vietnam or Cuba and less densely populated than China. So it’d require more manpower to not just overthrow but also to rule the US by force than it would be in say France. It’s part of the reason the US is a federal system, it’s easier to let the states and cities determine certain aspects of rule for themselves.
The other issue is the root problem of American white nationalism: Despite what leftists say, there really isn’t a singular white identity or culture, and as a consequence any attempt at rallying with it would result in a movement more fractious than the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. You alluded to this last point as well and I think we agree that their inability to define what is and isn’t white and to unite in any meaningful way is ultimately their undoing.
Plus any white supremacist movement, even if it managed not to succumb to infighting, would face stiff resistance and even have to deal with other insurgencies, not just in the South, which has a significant black population, but also in the West and Southwest. It wouldn’t be just them v the federal government, it’d be them v state governments, blacks, Jews, Catholics, latinos, other whites, Fundies, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Antifa, Communists, Constitutionalists, other dissenting white supremacists, local governments, small towns who consider them outsiders trying to tell them what to do, etc. Anyone that thinks they could be targeted by white supremacists, which is practically everyone, would have a much greater incentive to fight against them, but may have less of a desire to fight against say a general promising order and stability for the whole US or a government that wants to expand gibs.
However, I do think a sort of “America Fuck Yeah” nationalism could take off if the economy continues to decline and people were desperate but it wouldn’t be ethnocentric. However since they’d see it as big tent nationalism and possibly as a Jewish conspiracy, they would manage to kick themselves out of any such movement and likely draw its ire early on. I’m not hoping for “America Fuck Yeah” nationalism as I’ve known individuals who’ve lived under dictatorships in South America and Asia. There are many frustrating things about our current government but I’d prefer to keep the accounts of living in a dictatorship as second hand stories and not something that I’d live through myself... it’s not something I’d want to personally experience. Imo a lot of Americans underestimate how much worse it can get under a dictatorship or junta..
Imo the three most likely scenarios in which a dictatorship or authoritarian governments could topple the Republic are the following: 1. A coalition of reactionary “deep statists” that includes elements of the military, especially officers, the fbi, and cia, other agencies + corporate interests. Essentially, the bureaucracy wouldn’t change, it just wouldn’t pretend to answer to congress or elected officials. Likely formed in response to attempted budget cuts or other reforms touted by Republicans or libertarians. 2. A right wing populist movement that creates a coalition with farmers, the working class, and the grunts of the military. Basically it’d be like the coalitions formed by Peron or Vargas. 3. Civil unrest followed by a military coup led by a charismatic officer aka a Napoleon or Caesar like figure that promises to end corruption and bring about stability.
The problem with white nationalists is that they are very abrasive and have little tolerance -not surprisingly- for divergent attitudes. In many ways they’re worse than SJWs when it comes to purity cycles. This imo could be overcome in a nation that is small in both terms of population and geography but the United States is neither. Plus they often really hate other types of Caucasians so there’s lots of bad blood between them. For example, in the past Germans, Italians, Irish, etc have been targeted by the KKK and Anglo-American supremacists.
Plus they were incapable of taking over the US when segregation was legal, racism was commonplace, and mob violence was acceptable. I highly doubt that they’re capable of taking over the US today. They could be terrorist threats but imo they aren’t capable of toppling let alone controlling the American nation.
Disagree. Pre 1960s, there was no need for White Nationalist because America was controlled by whites. The current wave post 2016 wave of White Nationalism is being caused by demographic change. This is a new factor.
You’re right about not needing to win everyone over. Imo the right could very well lead a succesful revolt, I just doubt that white nationalists can do it currently. Imo they could have in the past but they’re a shadow of what they once were. You’re right it’s not necessary to win over a majority to take over a country but part of the calculus that the average citizen takes is based on how much they hate a given movement v what they have to lose. In many dictatorships part of the reason normies don’t rise up is because they considered the dictatorships a stabilizing force that reduced crime and brought about unity. Some found employment and the fear was if that regime went away, so would the stability, the law, their jobs, and often government handouts. Essentially they were given the carrot and if they didn’t take it, they knew they’d get the stick. Furthermore, there was the fear that the fall of such a regime would usher in more civil violence, and having lived through previous civil conflicts, they’d prefer to avoid that possibility. Consequently, imo, more people would see them less as a stabilizing entity that reduced crime and corruption and more of a pernicious one that gets in the way of every day living. Therefore, more would be willing to act against white supremacists than against other dissident movements, even other right wing dissident movements.
Normies voting lesser of 2 evils, being kept on the GOP plantation is a huge problem. But as GOP loses because of their bad platform + demographic change, that'll mobilize more and more normie cons.
Imo there has to be some unifying cause for the small number of partisans on ones side. In a country as large and as diverse as the US, I just don’t see ethnic nationalism as a unifying rally cry here- even among a small minority- as it could be in say Western Europe or South Eastern Asia. Part of the issue is the size of the US and the low population density. The large geographical size results in local communities diverging in terms of culture, even if they came from the same wave of immigration. It also means it would require the ability to project force across a larger area, which becomes more exponentially more difficult in the US than in other countries. The US is much larger than Vietnam or Cuba and less densely populated than China. So it’d require more manpower to not just overthrow but also to rule the US by force than it would be in say France. It’s part of the reason the US is a federal system, it’s easier to let the states and cities determine certain aspects of rule for themselves.
The other issue is the root problem of American white nationalism: Despite what leftists say, there really isn’t a singular white identity or culture, and as a consequence any attempt at rallying with it would result in a movement more fractious than the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. You alluded to this last point as well and I think we agree that their inability to define what is and isn’t white and to unite in any meaningful way is ultimately their undoing.
Plus any white supremacist movement, even if it managed not to succumb to infighting, would face stiff resistance and even have to deal with other insurgencies, not just in the South, which has a significant black population, but also in the West and Southwest. It wouldn’t be just them v the federal government, it’d be them v state governments, blacks, Jews, Catholics, latinos, other whites, Fundies, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Antifa, Communists, Constitutionalists, other dissenting white supremacists, local governments, small towns who consider them outsiders trying to tell them what to do, etc. Anyone that thinks they could be targeted by white supremacists, which is practically everyone, would have a much greater incentive to fight against them, but may have less of a desire to fight against say a general promising order and stability for the whole US or a government that wants to expand gibs.
However, I do think a sort of “America Fuck Yeah” nationalism could take off if the economy continues to decline and people were desperate but it wouldn’t be ethnocentric. However since they’d see it as big tent nationalism and possibly as a Jewish conspiracy, they would manage to kick themselves out of any such movement and likely draw its ire early on. I’m not hoping for “America Fuck Yeah” nationalism as I’ve known individuals who’ve lived under dictatorships in South America and Asia. There are many frustrating things about our current government but I’d prefer to keep the accounts of living in a dictatorship as second hand stories and not something that I’d live through myself... it’s not something I’d want to personally experience. Imo a lot of Americans underestimate how much worse it can get under a dictatorship or junta..
3 problems.
1. GOP already does AmNat. You aren't selling anything new.
2. American Nationalism is white supremacy against Native Americans. Once the Indigenous Rights narrative is normalized, The USA flag will be the new Nazi flag. All whites will be vilified as colonizers. AmNat national of immigrants melting post was a post-modern (post ww2) narrative.
3. American Nationalism cannot globalize. You think that Chinese FOB will care more about some White American than his cousins still in China? American Nationalism only worked because whites were separated from their European homelands and the only conflict USA had with Europe was WW1 and WW2.
I think AmNat is cucking for people who are too afraid to advocate for population transfer.
Imo the three most likely scenarios in which a dictatorship or authoritarian governments could topple the Republic are the following: 1. A coalition of reactionary “deep statists” that includes elements of the military, especially officers, the fbi, and cia, other agencies + corporate interests. Essentially, the bureaucracy wouldn’t change, it just wouldn’t pretend to answer to congress or elected officials. Likely formed in response to attempted budget cuts or other reforms touted by Republicans or libertarians. 2. A right wing populist movement that creates a coalition with farmers, the working class, and the grunts of the military. Basically it’d be like the coalitions formed by Peron or Vargas. 3. Civil unrest followed by a military coup led by a charismatic officer aka a Napoleon or Caesar like figure that promises to end corruption and bring about stability.
USA will collapse within 20-40 years because the 1) Political System will be ungovernable. As white boomers and even gen x retire, our congress will look more and more like the Squad. Eventually white Americans will want to escape. 2) Economic problems will start hitting 2030+. Social Security will have to get cut or taxes on the rich raised. GDP growth rate is expected to slow down. 3) Fed Reserve money machines go blurr wildcard. Whether we hit a civil war or not is hard to say but we will 100% need a Napoleon or Caesar type figure to abolish the Republic aka US Constitution. This is a guaranteed.
\
at least we agree the NJP are not WN. Their platform has 3 points dedicated to keeping the muhnoreetees happy.
I guess Striker needed to make sure nobody yeeted his midget ass back to Puerto Rico or whatever Squatemala his folks oozed out from
Disagree. Pre 1960s, there was no need for White Nationalist because America was controlled by whites. The current wave post 2016 wave of White Nationalism is being caused by demographic change. This is a new factor.
Normies voting lesser of 2 evils, being kept on the GOP plantation is a huge problem. But as GOP loses because of their bad platform + demographic change, that'll mobilize more and more normie cons.
I disagree. We can get into inter-European conflict later. White Nationalism is real. The White Flight and racial self segregation maps show this.
The entire goal is white nationalism (aka supremacy) is to deport these people back to their home nations.
3 problems.
1. GOP already does AmNat. You aren't selling anything new.
2. American Nationalism is white supremacy against Native Americans. Once the Indigenous Rights narrative is normalized, The USA flag will be the new Nazi flag. All whites will be vilified as colonizers. AmNat national of immigrants melting post was a post-modern (post ww2) narrative.
3. American Nationalism cannot globalize. You think that Chinese FOB will care more about some White American than his cousins still in China? American Nationalism only worked because whites were separated from their European homelands and the only conflict USA had with Europe was WW1 and WW2.
I think AmNat is cucking for people who are too afraid to advocate for population transfer.
USA will collapse within 20-40 years because the 1) Political System will be ungovernable. As white boomers and even gen x retire, our congress will look more and more like the Squad. Eventually white Americans will want to escape. 2) Economic problems will start hitting 2030+. Social Security will have to get cut or taxes on the rich raised. GDP growth rate is expected to slow down. 3) Fed Reserve money machines go blurr wildcard. Whether we hit a civil war or not is hard to say but we will 100% need a Napoleon or Caesar type figure to abolish the Republic aka US Constitution. This is a guaranteed.
\
lol that Spencer has been largely vindicated (Trump lost and didn’t deliver on most of his promises, “optics” strategy failed, his AmNat critics self-destructed, gay rumors all shifted to Fuentes, third positionism is becoming more popular) but it doesn’t matter because he burned all bridges by being a contrarian douchebag anyway
Richard Spencer's obsession is trying to signal, over and over and over again, that he is not the stereotypical conservative bumpkin. We get it, Richard, you're a pudgy, prissy WASP asshole with no friends, not a working class conservative.
Here he is clowning on Kyle Rittenhouse. Listen to how delusional he is about himself, trying to sound tough. He talks about wanting to beat up Nick Sandmann as well. What is it with people fantasizing about beating up high school kids? I guess his liberal girlfriend is rubbing off on him, or something.
Wrong take, Spencer was 100% totally vindicated on Sandmann(who is now literally working for Mitch McConnell) and Kyle Rittenhouse doesn't share any of the values (besides maybe being pro-gun) of the people that are hoisting him into glory & paying his legal fund.
I wouldn't agree with that, Richard Spencer talks about unions, how working class people can afford things and how people at all levels of society feel. He does signal a lot, but he talks about pro-working class a lot more than his contemporaries. Since the start of corona he has been highly concerned about the middle and working class beyond the effects of the disease, primarily his concern was no circling into a cycle.
He signals against this very 2016, btfo the libs mentality because he figured out that doesn't work. He's taken the blackpill and he's not going to lie to you about Nick Sandmann or Kyle Rittenhouse.
Wrong take, Spencer was 100% totally vindicated on Sandmann(who is now literally working for Mitch McConnell) and Kyle Rittenhouse doesn't share any of the values (besides maybe being pro-gun) of the people that are hoisting him into glory & paying his legal fund.
Both of those people were targeted because they were white. Ideology is irrelevant. It isn't hard to understand that if they were from any other racial background, the media would either react in a very different way or not react at all. I'm sure Richard Spencer understands this, but is eager to trash them because being a normie conservative is super cringe for someone of his background. The reason why Jews kick WASP ass in the ethnic narrative game is because Jews would never do this to one of their own, and WASPs never have a shortage of Spencers from across the political spectrum to condemn their own when their Twitter feed isn't something they approve of.
Both of those people were targeted because they were white. Ideology is irrelevant. It isn't hard to understand that if they were from any other racial background, the media would either react in a very different way or not react at all. I'm sure Richard Spencer understands this, but is eager to trash them because being a normie conservative is super cringe for someone of his background. The reason why Jews kick WASP ass in the ethnic narrative game is because Jews would never do this to one of their own, and WASPs never have a shortage of Spencers from across the political spectrum to condemn their own when their Twitter feed isn't something they approve of.
You're just being a reactionary conservative rather than having any ideology, these people should not be the of any movement besides maybe a libertarian one and your attempts to form a big tent coalition will fail.
This redpilled nobody and backing up these rich kids had no advantage for the right wing movement, particularly just look at Kyle Rittenhouse's incompetent legal case.
These people are treated are martyrs by EVERYBODY in the right well people like James Fields or Vic Mackey are thrown to the side. That's the problem, it's irrelevant if normies support him but the far right needs all the help it can get, and I can tell you they'll certainly never get a chance to go on Fox to beg for donations.
You're just being a reactionary conservative rather than having any ideology, these people should not be the of any movement besides maybe a libertarian one and your attempts to form a big tent coalition will fail.
This redpilled nobody and backing up these rich kids had no advantage for the right wing movement, particularly just look at Kyle Rittenhouse's incompetent legal case.
These people are treated are martyrs by EVERYBODY in the right well people like James Fields or Vic Mackey are thrown to the side. That's the problem, it's irrelevant if normies support him but the far right needs all the help it can get, and I can tell you they'll certainly never get a chance to go on Fox to beg for donations.
Whoa, put down the thesaurus and try to speak clearly. That's enough buzzwords for a week. This is your brain on Spencer tweets.
If Spencer was serious about promoting the interests of whites, he would not be concerned about the ideologies of Rittenhouse or Sandmann. Literally any ideology either of them have other than being an anti-white shitlib is irrelevant. In a racial or ethnic conflict, your race or ethnicity is your uniform. Yelling that "Ackshually I'm a neo-Bolshevist 3rd positionist post structural union supporter" is not going to accomplish anything other than convincing your enemies that you're an idiot who is a safe target to attack.
But no, Spencer prefers to bluster and scream on livestreams like some kind of alcoholic James Bond villain. Seriously, listen to that video again and try to tell me that is the tone of a reasonable, emotionally stable person.
lol that Spencer has been largely vindicated (Trump lost and didn’t deliver on most of his promises, “optics” strategy failed, his AmNat critics self-destructed, gay rumors all shifted to Fuentes, third positionism is becoming more popular) but it doesn’t matter because he burned all bridges by being a contrarian douchebag anyway
Yeah no. If it's even close to becoming popular, it's among those on the right which Ric Sponsor constantly makes takes against. Plus third positionism is a lame snowflake ideology anyway.
I wouldn't agree with that, Richard Spencer talks about unions, how working class people can afford things and how people at all levels of society feel. He does signal a lot, but he talks about pro-working class a lot more than his contemporaries. Since the start of corona he has been highly concerned about the middle and working class beyond the effects of the disease, primarily his concern was no circling into a cycle.
So does every middle to upper class progressive under the sun and even some reformicon types. Spencer's only differentiation is that he has (or had) spicy takes on race. That angle is endearing to no one other than his consistent sycophants.
It worked in the sense of turning people away from the left. It failed in the sense of taking and exercising power and becoming cringe themselves. It's not like Spencer's let's be racist progressives mentality will work either since he doesn't even have a constituency to pitch this too other than the small few of other edgy internet contrarians like him.
Whoa, put down the thesaurus and try to speak clearly. That's enough buzzwords for a week. This is your brain on Spencer tweets.
If Spencer was serious about promoting the interests of whites, he would not be concerned about the ideologies of Rittenhouse or Sandmann. Literally any ideology either of them have other than being an anti-white shitlib is irrelevant. In a racial or ethnic conflict, your race or ethnicity is your uniform. Yelling that "Ackshually I'm a neo-Bolshevist 3rd positionist post structural union supporter" is not going to accomplish anything other than convincing your enemies that you're an idiot who is a safe target to attack.
But no, Spencer prefers to bluster and scream on livestreams like some kind of alcoholic James Bond villain. Seriously, listen to that video again and try to tell me that is the tone of a reasonable, emotionally stable person.
If you think "libertarian" and "reactionary" are thesaurus worthy words, I don't know what to tell you.
They're accounted for once again, you're oversimplifying this based on your own personal interpretation of Spencer's ideology when he doesn't care for white liberals either. Kyle Rittenhouse is also not white, he's hispanic so get your facts straight and this is equivalent to arguing that Spencer should support Milo in ruining his life because Milo's a fellow white, what Sandmann supports, Mitch McConnell is the essentially the antithesis of what Spencer believes in. Good thing he doesn't identify that way and doesn't get caught up in terminology, have you ever even watched Richard Spencer? Or in the past year?
Cause it's really starting to sound like you've never listened to him speak and you're using some 2d cartoon stereotype version of him.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH what...........? Spencer doesn't yell or scream on livestreams at all. He's one of the calmest speakers around whom I can't remember him losing his temper over somebody on livestream in the last 2 or 3 years. What you're referring to is leaked Cville audio, I mean good job on confusing a livestream and "leaked" audio, proving that you don't actually know literally anything about Richard Spencer.
Actually watch him talk for 10 minutes before you run your mouth
It's the idiotic idea of one of those magical American midwit ideologues (Frances Parker Yockey) that you can pick and choose from the extreme right and left whatever you want.
A lame pseudoideology that fails to understand socialism kills Nationalism, only appealing to lefty losers who woke up one day to realize their Antifa friends hated them for being White and/or straight aka the current TRS crop.
If you think "libertarian" and "reactionary" are thesaurus worthy words, I don't know what to tell you.
They're accounted for once again, you're oversimplifying this based on your own personal interpretation of Spencer's ideology when he doesn't care for white liberals either. Kyle Rittenhouse is also not white, he's hispanic so get your facts straight and this is equivalent to arguing that Spencer should support Milo in ruining his life because Milo's a fellow white, what Sandmann supports, Mitch McConnell is the essentially the antithesis of what Spencer believes in. Good thing he doesn't identify that way and doesn't get caught up in terminology, have you ever even watched Richard Spencer? Or in the past year?
Cause it's really starting to sound like you've never listened to him speak and you're using some 2d cartoon stereotype version of him.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH what...........? Spencer doesn't yell or scream on livestreams at all. He's one of the calmest speakers around whom I can't remember him losing his temper over somebody on livestream in the last 2 or 3 years. What you're referring to is leaked Cville audio, I mean good job on confusing a livestream and "leaked" audio, proving that you don't actually know literally anything about Richard Spencer.
Actually watch him talk for 10 minutes before you run your mouth
Rittenhouse is such a hispanic name... and the kid 's whiter than Spencer himself. Even if he has some Hispanic heritage- there are White hispanics.
Milo is a Jew.
Spencer doesn't yell or scream on livestreams at all. He's one of the calmest speakers around whom I can't remember him losing his temper over somebody on livestream in the last 2 or 3 years. What you're referring to is leaked Cville audio, I mean good job on confusing a livestream and "leaked" audio, proving that you don't actually know literally anything about Richard Spencer.
I posted a video in this very chat of Spencer acting like a weirdo, fantasizing about beating up high school kids, and acting like a bargain bin James Bond villain. Sure "scream" was misspoken on my part, my bad. But Spencer absolutely acts emotionally unstable. (If that video isn't loading on your browser, try installing "Brave," that's what I'm using and it's showing up fine.)
Richard Spencer acts like a 2d cartoon stereotype of Richard Spencer.
I posted a video in this very chat of Spencer acting like a weirdo, fantasizing about beating up high school kids, and acting like a bargain bin James Bond villain. Sure "scream" was misspoken on my part, my bad. But Spencer absolutely acts emotionally unstable. (If that video isn't loading on your browser, try installing "Brave," that's what I'm using and it's showing up fine.)
No he doesn't. Again, I'm really not trying to be disrespectful here but you don't know Richard Spencer very well. He is if anything, a bore to listen to.
He's not really being that weird in the clip when you consider the entire conservative movement (see the comment above yours) totally simps for some RINO stooge and some non-white kid. None of these kids have said any meaningfully conservative ideas or ideas at all. Idealizing people like that is immature and if they're going to represent a warrior, they shouldn't look pasty. It's a harsh stance but he's making a point that this is nobody that you would want to aspire to be. The only thing about him that is unstable is his depression if anything. I'm sure he's an angry man, but that doesn't change he doesn't act as one and you're really focusing on your preconceived notions of Spencer rather than what he's actually saying. You reaction, as I have said, is knee jerk and not based in an understanding of Richard Spencer.
Rittenhouse is such a hispanic name... and the kid 's whiter than Spencer himself. Even if he has some Hispanic heritage- there are White hispanics.
Milo is a Jew.
Judaism says a bunch of retarded gibberish that doesn’t reflect reality. Jewishness is not like being a cambion (half-demon) even though a lot of WN unironically treat it like demonic heritage.
Judaism says a bunch of retarded gibberish that doesn’t reflect reality. Jewishness is not like being a cambion (half-demon) even though a lot of WN unironically treat it like demonic heritage.
