What's the opinion of Richard Spencer and Eric Striker by the people who post on this board using the Killing Fields...

I think the appeal that people see is that he offers a radically different view of political philosophy than conservatives and tries to have a vision for the future, rather than just being a reactionary.

That's kind of the general appeal of fringe politics, isn't it? I wrote him off in like 2014 or earlier so I don't actually know what he's saying these days.

He basically talks about the need for pan-europeanism, an alternative to the republican party that embraces social democratic economics, getting off of the trump bandwagon, and identatarianism.

And his criticisms of classical liberalism, of course. And he's gotten into this absolutism and generative anthropology stuff, but he doesn't talk about that as much.

Sounds really out of touch and of no consequence to most people, especially the notion of forming yet another third party. The idea of distancing the far-right from Trump also seems laughably late, since they've clearly milked and squandered the brief period of legitimacy afforded to them by the administration and have no choice but to weather the blowback.

I think he wants to form a third party because of, in his view, all of the poor campaigns run recently by people associated with the alt-right (Patrick Little, Faith Goldy, Paul Nehlen). He says he wants to have his own party so that he can discipline candidates who go off message.

I disagree that Faith Goldy's campaign went badly, but the larger problem with the idea is that A.) third parties don't work in America and B.) nobody is interested in Richard Spencer's leadership, a fact which has eluded him for years.

He had his own special snowflake ideology, s.trasserism, it's not nazbol. Imagine corporatism but somehow even more shitty and also with rent & with some minor nationalizations.
He's a fascist who took the meme seriously; fascism is fascism no matter how many red flags you prop up.
Autonomous zone =/= borders; nobody is stopping you from living there as long as you play by the rules. Remember, anarchism means no rulers, not no rules. It's not an ethnostate.
Nationalism requires borders enacted by a state, national "anarchism" literally cannot exist, it's not even a matter of 'personal preference', it is not anarchism. period.
If a black man moves into your neighborhood, you can't make him leave unless you use force against him, such coercion is unanarchist and requires a violation of negative liberty. If you wanna go live out in the woods with your """"white"""" friends, go ahead, I won't stop you, but leave the factories, and the people already here, alone.

Attached: Landmark Supreme Court Cases.png (735x873, 1.1M)

He thought that Faith's campaign went badly because she sold out to non-identitarian conservatism, essentially.

Neo-zapatismo emphasizes the continuation of mayan tradition and culture. This is impossible if anyone is allowed to move in in unlimited numbers, hence why it seems very similar to National Anarchism. Also, didn't the neo-zapatistas have a leader in the form of Subcomandante Marcos?

.

Uhm, what? Literally nobody is stopping you from practicing your tradition/culture/whatever just because other people move in. If everyone in my neighborhood moved away, regardless of if they were replaced by other people, I could still continue my traditions and culture. Furthermore the encouraged traditions of the Mayans are aimed at historical preservance, nobody is going to hold a gun up to your head and force you.

Look, nations are borders which are basically imaginary lines in the dirt, what you're really saying is that proximity dilutes some form of social cohesion, if this were even true, then how far away must a non-ethnic person live from this imaginary line before it "dilutes" the nation? A mile outside city limits? Why not 15 feet away? Furthermore, a tradition/culture is only kept alive by the practicioners of it, so if someone non-ethnic moves in and converts to it, then they are keeping the traditions/culture alive.
The "leader" portion of the anarchist etymology was then-described as forced, coercive hierarchy, y'know, slave-master relationship. As times change, so do terms, there's nothing wrong with free association and forming a voluntary hierarchy based on consent, non-exploitation, and right to withdrawl at any time with no negative consequences; Marcos was more of an inspirational leader, an icon, he didn't force anybody into his service nor did he keep them when they decided to quit.

The Tibetan people are being genocided by the immigration policies of the Chinese government (mass immigration by the Han into Tibet). Or are you a Tibetan genocide denier?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet
Also, it's not about geographic distance, it's about dispossessing people of their land and breaking up their traditional communities. If 10 million Mexicans move into the Maya's land, that would be genocide. Your ideology is nothing more than settler-colonialism.

If I'm standing 10 feet away from you, am I violating your personal space? What if I stand a foot away from you? What if my skin is 0.1 mm away from your skin? What if my hands hover 0.1mm away from a woman's sexual organs, is that sexual assault? See, the idea of personal space is ridiculous. If you can't tell me the exact, qualitative specification at which something becomes a problem, then the problem can't exist!

lol you fucking retard

Good thing thats not what I'm advocating
Stop being retarded, in order for it to be a genocide you actually have to kill people. Or are you one of those "white women won't fuck me, this is hwite genocite!" imbeciles?
You do realize capitalism causes immigration, right? read a fucking book, and learn what colonialism means.

Way to miss the point, it was a queation of how spacing can be quantified; just because you get butthurt over some black neighbors doesnt mean they're out to kill you or destroying your tradition/culture/whatever. Read a fucking book, preferably Kropotkin.

That is what you are advocating. In any system with any type of democracy, if a host of people move in, the population that was already there will be democratically overwhelmed. This enables a larger group to start moving their people in and democratically take the resources of the smaller and weaker group, thus dispossessing them of their land and resources.

I will concede that the UN definition of genocide does not explicitly include immigration as one of the acts which can make something a genocide.

Yeah, no shit sherlock, when did I advocate for capitalism?

.