• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

caveman1917 said:
Spencer calling for genocide is well-established. Your silly denials do not change this, other than showing you have an interest in denying that.
Click to expand...

It's not well-established at all.

Every time I've seen someone claim it, the "evidence" they give is a parody article written by a different person (Colin Liddell) on a site Spencer was the editor of, and the article in question wasn't even published on the site during Spencer's editorship.

Got something better than that?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
It's not well-established at all.

Every time I've seen someone claim it, the "evidence" they give is a parody article written by a different person (Colin Liddell) on a site Spencer was the editor of, and the article in question wasn't even published on the site during Spencer's editorship.

Got something better than that?
Click to expand...

About Richard Bertrand Spencer

SPLC said:
In an address at white supremacist Jared Taylor’s 2013 American Renaissance conference, Spencer called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.” As an example of how this could be accomplished, he cited the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, where new national boundaries were formed at the end of World War I. “Today, in the public imagination, ‘ethnic cleansing’ has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so),” Spencer said. “But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.”
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Tank said:
So peacefully getting people to consolidate by race in certain areas, and for certain groups to leave certain areas, is genocide?

If that is genocide by your standards, would it also be genocide when a group that wants to live alone has tons and tons of people from other groups forced upon them?
Click to expand...

Spencer is slippery, though. In the video where he gets punched, he is asked 'do you like black people?' and he answers nonchalantly 'sure, why not?' He also says neo-nazis 'kind of hate' him. But he has written articles discussing Black Genocide and the best ways to go about it, and his 'Hail Victory' with a nazi salute kind of shine light on where his head is really at, no?
 
MostlyDead said:
Spencer is slippery, though. In the video where he gets punched, he is asked 'do you like black people?' and he answers nonchalantly 'sure, why not?' He also says neo-nazis 'kind of hate' him. But he has written articles discussing Black Genocide and the best ways to go about it, and his 'Hail Victory' with a nazi salute kind of shine light on where his head is really at, no?
Click to expand...

He has not written any such article. Colin Liddell, a Scottish alt-right guy, wrote an article about black genocide which was meant to parody leftist academics who talk about white genocide (Noel Ignatiev, in particular, I believe) and it was published on a site that Spencer would act as editor for at one point. It wasn't even published during the time Spencer was running it. People have been falsely attributing it to Spencer and falsely implying it was a serious article honestly suggesting black genocide.

He didn't do a Nazi salute. He raised a glass of whiskey and 4 or 5 people in an audience of 300 did the Nazi (Roman) salute in response to the "Hail Trump, Hail Victory, Hail our people!" thing Spencer said as he raised his glass. There's been a lot of debate in the alt-right about whether those 4 or 5 guys were stupid to do that. Lots in the alt-right disavow and think Nazi imagery, Nazi worship, etc. is stupid and counterproductive. Others like to be deliberately provocative and joke about these things and try to take the wind out of the demonizing caricatures thrown at them by "embracing it" and poking fun at it, etc. Some % of people are actual, legit Nazis or fancy themselves as such. I would wager very few if any of that final type were at the NPI conference. Those types (as Spencer said) tend to view Spencer as weak, soft, and a cuck. They also tend to suspect he's gay. If you ask Spencer himself about why he said the "hail victory" stuff, he'd say he was being deliberately over the top and tongue-in-cheek grandiose as a fun way to trigger the left and enjoy the moment.
 
Last edited:
MostlyDead said:
Spencer is slippery, though. In the video where he gets punched, he is asked 'do you like black people?' and he answers nonchalantly 'sure, why not?' He also says neo-nazis 'kind of hate' him. But he has written articles discussing Black Genocide and the best ways to go about it, and his 'Hail Victory' with a nazi salute kind of shine light on where his head is really at, no?
Click to expand...

Spencer didn't write that article. Colin Liddell did, for Spencer's white nationalist website AlternativeRight. Liddell claimed he was being ironic, by comparing the notion of a black genocide with the real white genocide he claimed was occurring in post-apartheid South Africa. However, what the "article" seemed to be clearly suggesting is that, if anyone should be the object of a genocide, it should be blacks, not whites. The last two paragraphs of this masterpiece:

With Europeans and some Asians having much less children, most of the population growth leading to this future crisis is projected to come from Africans. This is the race that history and the present example of South Africa proves is least able to take care of itself; a race that has contributed almost nothing to the pool of civilization and which even shows little inclination to stay within the bounds of that civilization; a race that also seems to harbor a potent inferiority complex and savage hatred towards the creators of that civilization; and a race that votes to keep the ANC in power, the very party that helps power their increasingly genocidal attitude towards Whites.

Maybe it’s unfair to tar every Black in South Africa with the genocidal tar brush, but the support the majority have given to the ANC at least allows a reasonable case to be made for the kind of collective racial guilt that also serves as the basis of the ANC’s efforts to pull Whites down to the level where they can be raped, sodomized, murdered, and mutilated.
Click to expand...

Spencer proudly published this piece, until he concluded the heat it was attracting would undermine other projects he was working on, so he deleted it. Shortly after publication, Liddell contributed Is White Genocide Right?, which Spencer also deleted along with the former piece. This article actually was sarcastic, making basically the same "argument" as Is Black Genocide Right?

Both Spencer and Liddell are clearly neo-Nazis, from where I'm sitting.
 
trustbutverify said:
Spencer didn't write that article. Colin Liddell did, for Spencer's white nationalist website AlternativeRight. Liddell claimed he was being ironic, by comparing the notion of a black genocide with the real white genocide he claimed was occurring in post-apartheid South Africa. However, what the "article" seemed to be clearly suggesting is that, if anyone should be the object of a genocide, it should be blacks, not whites. The last two paragraphs of this masterpiece:



Spencer proudly published this piece, until he concluded the heat it was attracting would undermine other projects he was working on, so he deleted it. Shortly after publication, Liddell contributed Is White Genocide Right?, which Spencer also deleted along with the former piece. This article actually was sarcastic, making basically the same "argument" as Is Black Genocide Right?

Both Spencer and Liddell are clearly neo-Nazis, from where I'm sitting.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the impact the loss of every black person on the planet would have compared to the loss of every white person?

If every black person mysteriously vanished into thin air, magically, tomorrow, I think it would be strikingly different from the same happening to whites.

The number of airplanes in flight that would crash as a result, very different. The number of important scientific research projects or life saving surgeries which would be halted would be very different too.
The average IQ of the species would move in very different directions in these two scenarios.
The level of crime, AIDS, and many other things would be interesting vectors to look at too.

A lot of American cities would suddenly become safe again in one of these two scenarios.

What do you think?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
He has not written any such article. Colin Liddell,...
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I did not know the whole story and was relying on second-hand recounting.

....He didn't do a Nazi salute...If you ask Spencer himself about why he said the "hail victory" stuff, he'd say he was being deliberately over the top and tongue-in-cheek grandiose as a fun way to trigger the left and enjoy the moment.
Click to expand...

Also true, he did raise his glass. But if he thinks using Nazi symbolism is is fun or enjoying the moment, well, that really says it all, doesn't it?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the impact the loss of every black person on the planet would have compared to the loss of every white person?

If every black person mysteriously vanished into thin air, magically, tomorrow, I think it would be strikingly different from the same happening to whites.

The number of airplanes in flight that would crash as a result, very different. The number of important scientific research projects or life saving surgeries which would be halted would be very different too.
The average IQ of the species would move in very different directions in these two scenarios.
The level of crime, AIDS, and many other things would be interesting vectors to look at too.

A lot of American cities would suddenly become safe again in one of these two scenarios.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

ahh, Jesus, here we go...
 
MostlyDead said:
Fair enough. I did not know the whole story and was relying on second-hand recounting.



Also true, he did raise his glass. But if he thinks using Nazi symbolism is is fun or enjoying the moment, well, that really says it all, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really, no.

Charlie Chaplin? Monty Python? Sarah Silverman? Many, many others? Nazi symbolism has been employed for fun and enjoyment and humor by endless people.

You feel it's different in the case of Richard Spencer because you feel he has beliefs which put him in the same general zone as Hitler. Beliefs about racial differences and the need for separation. Right? Well I would just point out that almost every person in the United States had those views until very recently. Certainly all the founders did. So he's in the same zone as them too.

MostlyDead said:
ahh, Jesus, here we go...
Click to expand...

You don't think it's interesting or legit, in a thread where white genocide and black genocide have come up as topics, to muse about the impact on the world if one or both of those were to happen? I think it's a pretty natural thought experiment under such circumstances.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Not really, no.

Charlie Chaplin? Monty Python? Sarah Silverman? Many, many others? Nazi symbolism has been employed for fun and enjoyment and humor by endless people.

You feel it's different in the case of Richard Spencer because you feel he has beliefs which put him in the same general zone as Hitler. Beliefs about racial differences and the need for separation. Right? Well I would just point out that almost every person in the United States had those views until very recently. Certainly all the founders did. So he's in the same zone as them too.



You don't think it's interesting or legit, in a thread where white genocide and black genocide have come up as topics, to muse about the impact on the world if one or both of those were to happen? I think it's a pretty natural thought experiment under such circumstances.
Click to expand...

Interesting, to say the least. Almost certainly entertaining. Likely a freaking hoot. But insanely difficult to discuss rationally.
 
MostlyDead said:
Interesting, to say the least. Almost certainly entertaining. Likely a freaking hoot. But insanely difficult to discuss rationally.
Click to expand...

Seems like the kind of challenge skeptics on a skeptic's forum would really get excited to tackle.

A topic which is one of the hardest things for human beings to discuss rationally, without emotion, or without allowing concern for what some who read the discussion might feel to get in the way of said discussion?

Sounds like exactly the sort of thing this board should be for.
 
When it comes to political violence, I recall a figure in the Roman Republic. His name was Tiberius Gracchus, Tribune of the Plebs. In a highly polarised Republic, he was a demagogue railing against a corrupt and unequal system. However, the Senate decided to lynch him, fearing that he would become a tyrant. Unfortunately, it didn't save the Republic but normalised violence, which is fatal for any political system. When you say "violence is acceptable because I disagree with its targets", there is no going back and you just gave fascists an acceptable excuse to use violence.
 
Last edited:
It sure didn't take Skeptic Tank long to go from "Spencer's website didn't suggest black genocide is a good thing" to "Spencer's website was totally right to suggest that black genocide is a good thing".

EDIT: Oh, and at the time Liddell's article was published, Spencer was still listed as co-editor along with Liddell.
 
Last edited:
A'isha said:
It sure didn't take Skeptic Tank long to go from "Spencer's website didn't suggest black genocide is a good thing" to "Spencer's website was totally right to suggest that black genocide is a good thing".
Click to expand...

Reminds me of holocaust deniers with their "No, no. It didn't happen at all, but the Jews totally deserved it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom