War breaks out in the grassroots right

[Andrew Jackboot]

This is why a person like me is censored on sites like this. There is a major split on the right, and it is largely along generational lines.

The split came to the fore over the past week as Charlie Kirk, founder of the allegedly conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, found himself under attack from his target demographic, the under-30 Christian populist right. In the Q&A portions of his "Culture War" tour Kirk has repeatedly been grilled about his sycophancy toward Israel, his enthusiasm for gays and trannies, and his denial of demographic realities.

Kirk is under attack because younger conservatives do not want to be fed the same old globalist-interventionist-libertarian pap that has seen the United States steadily sold out and ruined over the past 50 years.

The movement to destroy Kirk's brand of "cuckservatism" is apparently being led by Nick Fuentes, a 21-year-old YouTube pundit and conservative activist. It is also being inspired by the work of E. Michael Jones, a dissident Catholic intellectual who has written extensively about the role played by Jews in undermining Western societies.

Like it or not, this is where the battle lines are being drawn. The youngest and most energetic members of the right see no future for the US if present trends continue, and they are tired of ignoring the poisonous lgbt agenda, racial realities, and who exactly is behind the Marxism and cultural Marxism destroying the West.

Highlight reel of Kirk vs the "groypers":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SX6rFsoDCU

Spectator.us article on Fuentes and Kirk:

https://spectator.us/nick-fuentes-sad-demise-provocation/

[skeeter]

Change 'racial realities' to 'cultural realities' and you'll be fine.

[roamer_1]

Change 'racial realities' to 'cultural realities' and you'll be fine.

That's right.

[corbe]

   @Andrew Jackboot IMHO, this belongs in Editorial/Opinions or better yet the Member Content category.  /JS 

[Andrew Jackboot]

Change 'racial realities' to 'cultural realities' and you'll be fine.

You illustrate the split that is being discussed. There is so much science and evidence making it undeniable that we are confronting racial realities, not mere cultural realities, that younger right-wingers are sick of beating around the bush.

The problems we are facing will not be solved unless we can describe things as they objectively are.

[Andrew Jackboot]

   @Andrew Jackboot IMHO, this belongs in Editorial/Opinions or better yet the Member Content category.  /JS

I considered that, but why wouldn't this fall under current events? It's a fracas, making the news, highly relevant to conservatives, that is playing out right now.

[roamer_1]

I considered that, but why wouldn't this fall under current events? It's a fracas, making the news, highly relevant to conservatives, that is playing out right now.

No, Not among Conservatives. No conservative would think that way.

[skeeter]

You illustrate the split that is being discussed. There is so much science and evidence making it undeniable that we are confronting racial realities, not mere cultural realities, that younger right-wingers are sick of beating around the bush.

The problems we are facing will not be solved unless we can describe things as they objectively are.

I guess the younger right wingers have yet to learn that nothing good will come from such a discussion.

[Andrew Jackboot]

No, Not among Conservatives. No conservative would think that way.

Edmund Burke, the founder of philosophical conservatism, would likely agree with these "racist," "anti-Semitic," "homophobic" young Christians 100% of the time.

[Andrew Jackboot]

I guess the younger right wingers have yet to learn that nothing good will come from such a discussion.

Again, you illustrate the split. Look around you, what has come of not having these discussions? What has been conserved???

[TomSea]

I know little about this matter and I don't want to take a lot of time hunting down all the info involved but this last week, Dr. Sebastian Gorka came down on this Nick Fuentes like a ton of bricks for ?? Anti-Semitism.  Gorka's twitter:   https://twitter.com/SebGorka  That was about Thursday.

Gorka penned this, this is more like a blog entry than a full force editorial, see, Gorka unloads in that first sentence:

Our Take: Anti-Semites Represent the Opposite of What America Stands For

It is truly a disheartening thing to see so many American citizens, plenty over the age of 18, unapologetically defend an anti-Semite and Holocaust-denier like Nicholas J. Fuentes.

There are many possible reasons for why they think this is a reasonable use of their time: They could simply be stuck in that immature phase of desiring to be as “edgy” and provocative as possible, or it could be the “forbidden fruit” allure of following someone who is (rightfully) considered a dangerous individual.

Read more at: https://www.sebgorka.com/our-take-anti-semites-represent-the-opposite-of-what-america-stands-for/

[skeeter]

Again, you illustrate the split. Look around you, what has come of not having these discussions? What has been conserved???

I can be convinced. Walk me through how such a discussion will protect & preserve liberty and justice for all.

[corbe]

   There will forever be people, so steeped in their dogma, that they are unreachable~unteachable. With that being said, in spite of 8 years of obummer setting race relations back we are on course to recover that lost time, IMHO with President Trump.  In conclusion I want to share a piece of advice my pappy gave me:  'Pick your battles well, Son'

[Andrew Jackboot]

I can be convinced. Walk me through how such a discussion will protect & preserve liberty and justice for all.

I assume you're talking about the racial question, so I will do my my best...

We are in a civilization built and made great exclusively by white men. This is objective fact. Wherever our ancestors went, whether in North America, Australia, South Africa or anywhere else, high tech, stable, lawful, first world societies sprang up. This is on top of a long history of white men building great societies, going back at least to Ancient Greece.

Meanwhile, no dark-skinned nation or territory has ever independently industrialized or built or maintained a first world society. No dark-skinned nation or territory has embraced anything like Jeffersonian or Lockean rights or philosophy.

So, there is ZERO evidence, and endless evidence to the contrary, that dark-skinned folks are able to, or even want to, maintain what our ancestors built for us.

This is abundantly clear in the US, where dark-skinned folks almost exclusively create third world settings and almost exclusively support simple minded socialist policies...even after being here generations, and in the case of blacks, centuries.

All of this is supported by basic biology, the latest science, and global statistics.

So, if we ignore the obvious trends, imagining that racial realities are not going to assert themselves as they have everywhere and always, throughout history, we will lose everything.

[TomSea]

"Kirk is under attack because younger conservatives do not want to be fed the same old globalist-interventionist-libertarian pap that has seen the United States steadily sold out and ruined over the past 50 years."

To me, this line doesn't even really make sense, "globalist-interventionist-libertarian", I mean, I keep up with things, Rand Paul is libertarian, say, Lindsay Graham (and possibly Rubio) are somewhat globalist-interventionist.  Something like this so to lump all 3 into a hyphenated phrase is a bit puzzling.   Maybe one just phrased what they were trying to say wrong.

-------

If Charlie Kirk is alt-right, I don't know if he is, but he seems acceptable. I get some of his tweets... but there are some red meat alt-righters I don't care for, they don't define what I believe in.

--------

Larry Elder brings up some Catholic Highschool in NYC, heavy black attendance but the students did real well, the problems of learning probably had more to do with the education system.  I'm wary of this kind of stuff; and I'm sorry, pointing out these theories is probably the stuff that are a bit over-the-line in some venues. Elder, Thomas Sowell, a lot of examples of great thinkers.  I probably agree mostly with Elder.

Oh, yes, the Great Society probably set folks back as much as anything.

[skeeter]

   There will forever be people, so steeped in their dogma, that they are unreachable~unteachable. With that being said, in spite of 8 years of obummer setting race relations back we are on course to recover that lost time, IMHO with President Trump.  In conclusion I want to share a piece of advice my pappy gave me:  'Pick your battles well, Son'

Roger that. Thank your pappy for me.

[roamer_1]

Edmund Burke, the founder of philosophical conservatism, would likely agree with these "racist," "anti-Semitic," "homophobic" young Christians 100% of the time.

Ahh, the appeal to authority. The key word is 'likely', and no doubt subject to your savant-like singular interpretation.

But all the same, your case is futile, as it goes directly against timeless principles.
In order for you to be right, the foundations of America are made false, and the Judeo-Christian Ethic overturned.

Your thinking is terribly flawed...

[Andrew Jackboot]

To me, this line doesn't even really make sense, "globalist-interventionist-libertarian", I mean, I keep up with things, Rand Paul is libertarian, say, Lindsay Graham (and possibly Rubio) are somewhat globalist-interventionist.  Something like this so to lump all 3 into a hyphenated phrase is a bit puzzling.   Maybe one just phrased what they were trying to say wrong.

-------

If Charlie Kirk is alt-right, I don't know if he is, but he seems acceptable. I get some of his tweets... but there are some red meat alt-righters I don't care for, they don't define what I believe in.

--------

Larry Elder brings up some Catholic Highschool in NYC, heavy black attendance but the students did real well, the problems of learning probably had more to do with the education system.  I'm wary of this kind of stuff; and I'm sorry, pointing out these theories is probably the stuff that are a bit over-the-line in some venues. Elder, Thomas Sowell, a lot of examples of great thinkers.  I probably agree mostly with Elder.

"Globalist" refers to universalist Marxist values, which they are using as the basis for abolishing borders and, as their ideas play out, to promote things like child transsexualism.

"Interventionist" refers primarily to wars for Israel.

"Libertarian" refers to radical individualism, which is a poisonous concept, because humans are social animals and our choices affect our cultures and communities. A gay couple on your street, even if they keep their sodomy in their bedroom, is still seen by your children, and normalizes gayness and by implication sodomy.

[mystery-ak]

I assume you're talking about the racial question, so I will do my my best...

We are in a civilization built and made great exclusively by white men. This is objective fact. Wherever our ancestors went, whether in North America, Australia, South Africa or anywhere else, high tech, stable, lawful, first world societies sprang up. This is on top of a long history of white men building great societies, going back at least to Ancient Greece.

Meanwhile, no dark-skinned nation or territory has ever independently industrialized or built or maintained a first world society. No dark-skinned nation or territory has embraced anything like Jeffersonian or Lockean rights or philosophy.

So, there is ZERO evidence, and endless evidence to the contrary, that dark-skinned folks are able to, or even want to, maintain what our ancestors built for us.

This is abundantly clear in the US, where dark-skinned folks almost exclusively create third world settings and almost exclusively support simple minded socialist policies...even after being here generations, and in the case of blacks, centuries.

All of this is supported by basic biology, the latest science, and global statistics.

So, if we ignore the obvious trends, imagining that racial realities are not going to assert themselves as they have everywhere and always, throughout history, we will lose everything.

I've had enough...this is the 2nd site you have been banned from in less than 24hrs...

[Andrew Jackboot]

Ahh, the appeal to authority. The key word is 'likely', and no doubt subject to your savant-like singular interpretation.

But all the same, your case is futile, as it goes directly against timeless principles.
In order for you to be right, the foundations of America are made false, and the Judeo-Christian Ethic overturned.

Your thinking is terribly flawed...

Right. That is the split. Jeffersonian classical liberalism is not timeless or universal. Objectively speaking. These ideas have only been the basis for law and culture in white societies. To the extent that white societies have become nonwhite, the ideas have died. Visit So Cal, North Philly, Dearborn, Baltimore, London, Paris, etc etc.

[roamer_1]

To me, this line doesn't even really make sense, "globalist-interventionist-libertarian",

Yes - Absolutely a contradiction in terms so juxtapposed as to only be uttered in ignorance.

[EdJames]

[mountaineer]

 

[Bigun]

I've had enough...this is the 2nd site you have been banned from in less than 24hrs...

 

[Absalom]

I assume you're talking about the racial question, so I will do my my best...
We are in a civilization built and made great exclusively by white men. This is objective fact. Wherever our ancestors went, whether in North America, Australia, South Africa or anywhere else, high tech, stable, lawful, first world societies sprang up. This is on top of a long history of white men building great societies, going back at least to Ancient Greece.
Meanwhile, no dark-skinned nation or territory has ever independently industrialized or built or maintained a first world society. No dark-skinned nation or territory has embraced anything like Jeffersonian or Lockean rights or philosophy.
So, there is ZERO evidence, and endless evidence to the contrary, that dark-skinned folks are able to, or even want to, maintain what our ancestors built for us.
This is abundantly clear in the US, where dark-skinned folks almost exclusively create third world settings and almost exclusively support simple minded socialist policies...even after being here generations, and in the case of blacks, centuries.
All of this is supported by basic biology, the latest science, and global statistics.
So, if we ignore the obvious trends, imagining that racial realities are not going to assert themselves as they have everywhere and always, throughout history, we will lose everything.

--------------------------
A reflection and a demurral.
Man's earliest cultural structures worldwide, were tribal.
It was not until the dawn of the Fertile Crescent some 10,000 years ago that the first
societies emerged, encouraging individual rather than group/tribal attitudes and behaviors.
Individualism was the creative dynamic, fostering the Empires of Antiquity, among them,
Assyria, Babylon, Carthage, Egypt, Persia, Sumer followed by Greece and Rome, creators of
western civilization and founders of Europe which later developed North America.
Yet did cultures/societies emerge as they did because of inherent race or the choices they made?
History affirms it is the latter. Further, genetics has identified the earliest inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent as darker skinned rather than lighter skinned, the change being attributable to inbreeding over many centuries. Moral of the tale is plain and simple as change is possible if we have the fortitude and wisdom to change.