News

BREAKING: Richard Spencer Removed From CPAC

I’m catching up on the action at CPAC:

TagsCPAC

Comment

54 comments

  1. sanerant7 24 February, 2017 at 10:32 Reply

    RIchard has some good stuff in there. Wish it hadn’t have cut off where it did. Anyone know where a copy of the full thing can be found?

  2. Ken Skalding 24 February, 2017 at 09:40 Reply

    Great work Richard! Actually the Neo-Cons of CPAC are merely leading the lemmings to similar ends as the other wing of the Bolshevik Party. Maybe they should be called FakePAC. Richard just keeps getting better and better all the time.
    White countries for White people!

  3. Alex Harris 23 February, 2017 at 19:28 Reply

    Richard,

    “All men are created equal” is obviously an absurdity taken at face value. However, let’s not be historically myopic. Remember, this move toward equality was a REACTION to something, namely tyranny.

    Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Equality BEFORE THE LAW is very, very valuable, and we should not forget that. Part of the terrible trouble we are in is due to the fact that equality before the law has fallen by the wayside, due to the corruption of money in the judicial system. Do you really want to open the door to a scenario where some individuals or classes are EXPLICITLY above the law, instead of just “clandestinely”, de-facto above the law like they are now?

  4. Rocket 23 February, 2017 at 18:51 Reply

    Spencer did a great job handling the media questions. He seems to be stronger and more confident in his new role as the voice of the Alt Right. Wish we could have heard the rest of the scrum.

    Although I want him to be involved in the Rep party, CPAC kicking him out might get him more mainstream exposure.

  5. Y Finkelstein 23 February, 2017 at 18:37 Reply

    Great Work Richard.

    The optics of some Paki Brit Raheem Kasaan ordering Richard out of CPAC are very good for the Alt Right, and very bad for Kikebart and CPAC. Why do Conservatives fear a White advocate like Richard Spencer?

  6. Evolver1 23 February, 2017 at 16:47 Reply

    Spencer should keep it up and others should join. Force the press to cover good people such as Spencer by causing such news worthy items.

    • Pioneer American 23 February, 2017 at 19:15 Reply

      Yes, he’s been through the wringer, and his interviews and fat-chewing on podcasts give him lots of ammunition.

    • VictoryOrValhalla 23 February, 2017 at 17:41 Reply

      The “non-effective” flow of some information is purposeful and intentional. If he posts his itinerary for the week on Twitter, Antifa will probably bomb the building or at least call in a false bomb threat to shut it down. I’m not joking when I say that either; it’s well within their feral precedent.
      Same story for basically any major Alt-Right figure. I’m glad most of them are travelling with friends.
      Remember, our public information is visible to us AND (((them))). I’d love to attend one of Spencer’s events, and I’m forever sad that I missed his last Detroit event, but I’d rather not see him physically assaulted again.

  7. Crud Bonemeal 23 February, 2017 at 14:44 Reply

    Spencer continues to do good work.

    Of course, by getting kicked out he grabs far more than attention if he had been allowed to buy a ticket and sit there watching some bad speeches.

    Also, CPAC guy has officially labeled us Left Wing Fascists, which is a positive development if ever there was one.

    • Pioneer American 23 February, 2017 at 15:29 Reply

      I don’t think the ‘animal level’ of this kind of attention is good though – getting punched, getting thrown out – it doesn’t make us look like winners.

      • Jason R. 23 February, 2017 at 15:49 Reply

        That’s a fair comment. At the same time, it shows the fear of the Republican establishment (the Left has already been in panic mode since last November). Especially at an event like CPAC, it would have been so much easier to simply ignore the “stupid racist,” but the “stupid racist” happens to be highly intelligent, well educated, articulate, and unabashedly pro-White . . . and he is wanted by the media. Their ratings LOVE this stuff. So in a sense, the fragile CPAC reps *can’t* just let Richard soak up the media attention without risking the spot light altogether.

        • Alex Harris 23 February, 2017 at 19:42 Reply

          Are there any other highly intelligent, well educated, articulate, and unabashedly pro-white “stupid racists” out there who can come out of the shadows and back Richard up, for crying out loud? Reading the panoply of Alt-Right websites and their comments sections, one would think that there are.

          In a country of at least 200 million white people, is Richard the ONLY one who has the skill-set to be doing what he is doing? Think about how great it would be right now to have 2 or more Richard Spencer type figures active! Take some of the heat off the man, act as a force-multiplier, and a backup in case Richard is somehow “taken out”.

          Really, somebody please step up. If Richard goes down, this movement is likely to collapse, at least partially. Step up now. Look, he is out there doing it, and he is surviving so far. Now is the time to be bold! We are operating within a closing window of time here.

          • Jason R. 23 February, 2017 at 20:31

            I hear you. It’s a tough conundrum, but one that we need to overcome. There are, of course, intelligent, rational White Nationalists: Jared Taylor (a little too soft on the JQ, but indisputably a champion of the cause); Keven MacDonald (maybe a bit too cerebral/academic for some, but also an indisputable champion), and others. But ultimately it’s most convenient when the speaker has the qualifications and does *not* depend on a work place for money to feed a wife and kids. That said, Spencer has been talking about professionalization of the movement and that requires all of us chipping in to provide salaries for a staff, etc… It can be done. There are easily 10,000 of us out there (likely several million); if we chipped in nothing more than 15 a month, that’s a budget of 150,000 per month, which is not bad at all to start. This might mean that the Alt-Right needs to be, in effect, an organization with leadership (something that we’re are starting to see, but still not solidified). This has its negative side, of course, but to move forward . . . we need to. Ultimately, we need communities of like-minded, awakened Whites; we need professional communications, strong media, and even trained militia to protect our communities. These are likely the first steps to fulfilling our Nationhood.

          • Hipster Racist 23 February, 2017 at 21:43

            “Are there any other highly intelligent, well educated, articulate, and
            unabashedly pro-white “stupid racists” out there who can come out of the
            shadows and back Richard up”

            Yes there are – but the troll faction is working overtime to alienate them. We cannot let that happen.

          • Alex Harris 23 February, 2017 at 23:06

            So people like Richard can’t come forward, because they have to stay in the shadows to fight Andrew Anglin?

            Look, I think Spencer would be wise to keep his distance from Anglin or any 1488’ers (while not disavowing or counter-signalling too hard), but is Richard being “alienated” by Anglin right now? Is anything Anglin is doing stopping Richard from being effective?

            Honestly, WTF are you talking about? The man (Spencer) is having a major impact right now. Somebody else with a similar skill-set should immediately step-up and be the wind at his back. Maybe stake out a slightly different territory, say, a more traditional Christian pro-white/Alt Right stance, or a more “Founding Fathers were White Nationalists” stance. But it is time to strike while the iron is hot.

          • Hipster Racist 23 February, 2017 at 23:52

            Honestly, WTF are you talking about? Spencer is out there despite being attacked by those very same trolls for nearly two years.

            You were asking about other people. Every time any pro-white person gets involved in this movement, if they don’t play act (((Hollywood))) – they get attacked.

            No one wants to be associated with a hostile stupid-acting clown show.

          • Rick Sullivan 24 February, 2017 at 01:34

            I’d like to see Nathan Damigo step up, he probably needs funding or whatever but he’s shown he has some good charisma. This style of Q&A is where we’re strong and it’s entertaining.

          • Hipster Racist 23 February, 2017 at 23:59

            “is Richard the ONLY one who has the skill-set to be doing what he is doing?”

            Let’s see. You have Jared Taylor – but he’s out because he thinks Jews are hu-white.

            You have Paul Ramsey, giving speeches at conferences and making funny videos – but he’s out, because, well, you know.

            You have Peter Brimelow, but he’s out, because he’s not a fan of Adolph Hitler.

            You have Millennial Woes, but he’s out because he’s not anti-homo enough.

            I mean I could go on, but anyone who chooses to be a pro-white public figure can pretty much expect to be attacked, smeared, and slandered by the anti-whites – and the trolls pretending they aren’t anti-white.

          • Monty Mondegreen 24 February, 2017 at 03:37

            Each one of them should step up.

            But more importantly, the problem is that we are afraid of losing our jobs.

            So how about setting up a monetary fund and a legal support team to back such people up. Maybe some WN lawyer, such as Kyle Bristow, could set up such a fund or provide legal support. $100 from each reader of WN sites could create a pretty big fund, kind of like an SPLC for White people.

      • Jason R. 23 February, 2017 at 15:51 Reply

        one side note: the getting punched and getting kicked out of venues shows a piece of reality in the *we* are the ones whose ideas are persecuted in this, our “free” society. I don’t think it’s bad publicity (at least not yet).

      • Paul Warkin 23 February, 2017 at 16:38 Reply

        Watch the video, though: he’s mobbed by reporters desperate to get his comments. Can this be said of any other speaker or attendee?

        By getting thrown out, he’s forced CPAC to show that they see him as a threat.

        Not the best outcome, of course. Maybe he’ll be the keynote in 2018?

        • Pioneer American 23 February, 2017 at 18:54 Reply

          Yes – I’m a low-information commenter, I reacted to the headline. He’s worth listening to as an analyst, ironically kind of non-partisan, quite apart from his controversialness. And now the ground’s been cleared of Milo, at least for a time. Go Spencer.

    • Y Finkelstein 23 February, 2017 at 18:39 Reply

      Not only that, Spencer was ordered to be removed by some Paki Brit Kikebart Editor, Rahaam Kasaan. This looks great for the Alt Right!

  8. Tyron Parsons 23 February, 2017 at 14:39 Reply

    Richard,

    You ought to make clear that ” all men created equal” was meant by the founders to mean all white men have the same political/religious etc rights. In NO WAY were they saying that all white men and all people of all races where made equal physically, spiritually, mentally and so on.

    This whole notion that they meant everyone, everywhere is born equal is egalitarian/Marxist false propaganda to turn the true definition in it’s head.

    • ArkansasReactionary 23 February, 2017 at 14:44 Reply

      “All whie men are created equal” would be just as false.

      Egalitarianism is like cancer. Once unleashed it won’t restrict itself to one area.

      • Pioneer American 23 February, 2017 at 19:13 Reply

        Yet it’s worth pointing out (mention slavery) that it didn’t include brown people. Get that meme, that emotional shield of “This is America, it’s always been for everyone!” out of the way.

        • Alex Harris 23 February, 2017 at 19:56 Reply

          Catch them in their own cognitive dissonance. If a POC says, “America has always been for everyone”, you say, “but weren’t the Founders evil White slaveholders?”

          Then start calmly but firmly pointing out the lack of universal suffrage in early America, the original immigration laws limiting immigration to “free white persons of good moral character”, the comments by John Jay in the Federalist papers about providence giving this “one connected country to one group of people, professing the same religion, very similar in their manners and customs…”

          I would use this on libertarians and ESPECIALLY “patriotard” types too. Corner them with “don’t you agree with the Founders? Clearly, you’re not that much of a patriot if you think the Founders just intended all along to hand this country over to Arab Islamists and communist Chinese”.

        • ArkansasReactionary 23 February, 2017 at 23:58 Reply

          That’s definitely a good way of deconstructing egalitarianism. My point was simply that “egalitarianism for whites” is a fool’s errand, as it won’t stay just for whites.

      • Hipster Racist 23 February, 2017 at 21:48 Reply

        All white men are born naked, crying, and shitting ourselves. “All men are created equal” was well understood at the time to mean opposition to an aristocracy by the accident of birth and the advocacy of an aristocracy of merit.

        The American Founding Fathers were White Nationalists to a man – we should reclaim that heritage. Counter-enlightenment LARPing and idiotically chanting “death to America” (which was unfortunately popular in certain crowds two years ago) is not just counter-productive, it’s fundamentally dishonest.

        “Egalitarianism” is not the problem – according to Kevin MacDonald, Northern Europeans are fundamentally “egalitarian individualists” by psychology. We aren’t Arabs or Pakistanis or Chinese. We are what we are – no sense pretending otherwise.

        • ArkansasReactionary 23 February, 2017 at 23:55 Reply

          I was making comment about what is actually, you know, true. Not about psychological dispositions and what have you.

          As far as the argument that we’re equal because we’re all helpless at birth, that applies just as well to nonwhites as it does intraracially. And I’m perfectly aware that the founders wanted to replace aristocracy and replace it with meritocracy. What I’m saying is, that won’t stay within whatever limits you want it to. Replacing blood with merit inevitably leads to antiracism.

          I’m not entirely convinced of the psychological claim (being that we went millennia without egalitarianism being an issue), but even if it’s granted it doesn’t prove the point. Blacks are stupid, violent, and impulsive. Doesn’t mean they should celebrate it. Psychological traits that are self-destructive should be fought back against.

          • Hipster Racist 24 February, 2017 at 00:07

            “being that we went millennia without egalitarianism being an issue”

            Except that isn’t true, as MacDonald has laid out rather comprehensively. The psychological disposition of White people is, you know, actual reality.

            ” Psychological traits that are self-destructive should be fought back against.”

            Agreed – like knee-jerk reaction. It’s like Tom Sawyer painting the fence, or “reverse psychology” that used to work on your ten year old kid brother. It’s easy to make someone react.

            ” that won’t stay within whatever limits you want it to.”

            What is the alternative? The NRx LARPing about a restored monarchy? For some reason I think that’s a non-starter.

          • ArkansasReactionary 24 February, 2017 at 00:31

            Whether whites are inclined to support political equality or not is a matter of actual reality. It’s not however an indication of whether or not political equality is actually a good idea. In any case, we went millennia without being believing in political equality. I’m not particularly interested in psychoanalysis.

            Aristocratic monarchy worked for millennia. That it’s a non-starter with modern Americans is true but irrelevant. So if explicit white nationalism.

          • Hipster Racist 24 February, 2017 at 01:00

            Whether or not it’s “good” depends on your value system.

            “That it’s a non-starter with modern Americans is true but irrelevant.”

            If it’s a non-starter than there’s no point advocating for it – that’s just LARPing.

            “So is explicit white nationalism.”

            That is becoming less true all the time and it has a far better chance of coming to fruition than NRx fantasies about a monarchy. At least White Nationalism is in the character of White Americans while monarchy is not. We’ve had hundreds of years of anti-monarchy – White Nationalism was mainstream until the 1970s.

            “Aristocratic monarchy worked for millennia.”

            That depends on what you mean by “worked.”

          • ArkansasReactionary 24 February, 2017 at 01:14

            Value systems which hold political equality to be important are false. And of course, political equality inevitably becomes universal. Once you deny the legitimacy of blood relation in politics, you’ve made it inevitable that racial identity will fall apart.

            Saying the truth is valuable for its own sake. In any case, monarchy was the way Europe worked for nearly two millennia. Two hundred years is more than fifty, but it’s hardly an eon. Rome canned democracy after having it much longer.

            It maintained Christianity, good mores, and a stable social order. And, you know, racial homogeneity.

          • ArkansasReactionary 24 February, 2017 at 03:17

            European monarchies took over a thousand years to reach that point. Heck, most of the countries that partioned Africa had already fully or partially embraced democracy. Also:

            “Value systems are not true or false.”

            Is that true?

          • Marquis the Renegade 24 February, 2017 at 10:40

            Yes because voting isn’t a natural right. Its a civil construct made into human law. The thing the current system values most (in theory. not always in practice) is natural rights. What value system its based on is temporal and changes, the US being based on the constitution that upholds the natural rights isn’t entirely temporal since its not simply going to vanish (atleast until the system forces us into a civil war – assuming we don’t economically collapse before then).

          • Marquis the Renegade 12 March, 2017 at 00:50

            Beliefs can be true or false, equality is clearly false belief about humanity. At best you can provide equal opportunities & equal treatment in the law (in theory, not so much in rpactice) to represent our desire to be equal or classless. Prescriptive ethics is much more difficult, attempt to prove it is damn near impossible (instead you merely give evidence in support of it) that a particular ethical theory is more consistent with the needs of humanity, evolutionary psychology or spiritual and metaphysical reality.

          • Marquis the Renegade 12 March, 2017 at 01:05

            “Value systems which hold political equality to be important are false. Political equality inevitably becomes universal. ”

            Voting isn’t a natural right. Its a civil construct made into human law. The thing the current system values most (in theory. not always in practice) is natural rights. What value system its based on is temporal and changes, the US being based on the constitution that upholds the natural rights isn’t entirely temporal since its not simply going to vanish (atleast until the system forces us into a civil war – assuming we don’t economically collapse before then). Value systems can be based on beliefs that are true or false by the current corroborating evidence.

    • Crud Bonemeal 23 February, 2017 at 15:02 Reply

      i don’t have a big issue with the political systems used by the founders

      but some of the enlightenment language and reasoning they used has turned out to be a bit… uh… problematic.

      If we ever get a white Republic, let’s not put in language about people being “created equal”, even if they have the same political rights.