What the hell are you talking about? It reads like you are accusing Thiel of being a white supremacist. If so, please provide citations.

I refer you Thiel's multiple published articles on multiculturalism during his time at Stanford for the journal 'Academic Questions', such as 'Multiculturalism and the decline of Stanford', followed by the book he co-authored called "the Diversity Myth", about how multiculturalism is horrific and how multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture, are where you should look if you wish to get a good idea of what is going on in that man's mind.

Is anyone who prefer cultural globalisation over multiculturalism a white supremacist?

Of course not. But Thiel didn't write a book simply expressing a preference against multiculturalism, he wrote a book claiming that multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture.

'White culture is under threat' is a core belief of white supremacists.

>'White culture is under threat' is a core belief of white supremacists.

It's also a well known fact. All you have to do is look at the demographic changes in Western countries.

Wanting white culture to survive still doesn't make one a white supremacist. I even want Japanese culture to survive. Does this make me a Japanese supremacist?

> Wanting white culture to survive still doesn't make one a white supremacist.

You change the original point. Professing "white culture" is under threat and that other cultures should survive someplace else does indeed make you a white supremacist.

The U.S. was multi-cultural from the start, even if some cultures (natives or blacks) wanted nothing to do with it. This is what made it later stand out and attract people all over the world. You can't re-neg it without turning into a genocidal shithole.

> It's also a well known fact. All you have to do is look at the demographic changes in Western countries.

What do you mean by this?

Are you saying that American culture is "white" culture? If so, then you might want to do some self-reflection.

Not too long ago many people in the US would have claimed that White Culture died the day the Irish, Italians or Polish started to be considered 'white'

White culture does not exist.

I don't find statements like that particularly helpful.

It is fair to say that most organised attempts to advocate for 'White Culture' -such as White Pride events and a staggering proportion of 'European Students Associations' etc are explicitly racist in practice. This by itself should be concerning enough to lead observers to scrutinise very carefully organisations or publications devoted to securing 'White Culture'.

This is a factual statement. But I see how it can be seen as an emotionally charged one.

White people are too ambigously defined a group to have one common culture. Hence the term is nonsense.

Black culture does not exist.

Is this statement morally equivalent? Why or why not?

I don't think this is a moral question, but rather a question of reality. Black culture does not exist globally. Black culture of the United States does exist, because black people in the U.S. have a common history and common societal experience that binds them together.

White people are too diverse a group to have one single culture. I am white and not from the U.S. Based on these facts people cannot guess what my values are, what my traditions are, whether people of my ethnicity were ever opressed or were the opressors, or even what language I speak, or what religion I have. Hence the term "white culture" does not make sense.

That would make the 'White culture is under threat' the core message of your post, not "how multiculturalism is horrific". The post you made (and I replied to) talked primarily about criticism to multiculturalism, and white culture is only mentioned a single time.

Cultural globalisation merges all cultures into one common. Small (or less vocal) cultures get less representation in the global culture, while large ones get incorporated more wholesale. Cultural diversity in contrast try to keep cultures distinctive, while also trying to dodge cultural tensions. White supremacists generally require that cultures stay distinctive, but they don't care to decrease cultural tensions. That doesn't seems to fit well for either side, and makes attempts to do so to look as political attempt of associating white supremacists with criticism to multiculturalism.

There's an obvious correlation, and the language of the former is also used as cover for self-identified white supremacists who until recently found themselves obliged to cloak or mute their views.

NB: that correlation is less obvious for those who have the "right" culture.

Not only that, but there is implicit violence in taking a "racial nationalist" stance in a country that is not and has never been racially homogeneous. These people couch their ideas in ostensibly neutral terms like "preserving white culture", yet how else is their ideal society attainable without the forced removal of non-white people? To expect that non-white Americans will adopt a worldview that involves leaving the only country they've ever known is obviously completely unrealistic, and of course it would never occur to these imbeciles that their own position entails going straight back to Europe.

"how else is their ideal society attainable without the forced removal of non-white people?"

Um, how about just reducing immigration a lot and giving it time? It's not that complicated.

I think you're just obscuring the obvious non-Hitler solutions because you want easy moral superiority. Easy to slag someone when you can pretend they just want to commit genocide. Much harder when you take their views charitably.

But, this is common, which is why I generally agree with Thiel here: Nobody had ever tried to convince me otherwise, only accused me of wanting things I don't want.

> Um, how about just reducing immigration a lot and giving it time? It's not that complicated.

You have still completely glossed over what specifically you expect ought to to happen to the non-white people who already reside in whichever country you're talking about, and their descendents, and anyone they interbreed with, even presupposing some weird test for who does or does not count as white. I don't think it's inappropriate for readers to be quite alarmed about all of that.

This is also completely ignoring crucial context about where these white people you refer to came from or which lands they should be entitled to, and begs the question of why white people should be the ones who get to turn their nation of birth into an ethnostate for them rather than the ones being excluded.

Of all the things one might say about Ethnostates, the blithe claim that "it's not that complicated" is profoundly scary.

> Um, how about just reducing immigration a lot and giving it time? It's not that complicated.

But not reducing immigration from most of Europe, right? And in turn should white Americans not be allowed to live abroad in most of the rest of the world?

I should have refrained from saying "imbeciles", because that's not conducive to discussion and obviously there are some smart people like Thiel and yourself who end up advocating these ideas. It's hard to even begin a discussion about racial nationalism though, because I think it's pretty clear that the idea of race itself is scientifically shaky.

I'd like to convince you though. But first, what exactly is it that you're advocating?

And some questions I have...

1) Can you clarify your stance on immigration?

2) Can you give me a coherent definition of race?

3) What entitles one particular race (I'm assuming "white" people in this case) to predominate in America?

4) What if anything should happen to non-white people that are currently legal US citizens?

5) What should happen to Americans like myself who are married to non-white, non-US-citizens? Won't we end up in limbo with no place to go? I can assure you that I am not just looking for moral superiority -- I feel that my very wellbeing is threatened by the ideas that I hear espoused by racial nationalists.

6) Would you break apart the United States to give, for example, a black nationalist movement their own country? Seems only fair considering whites forcibly brought them to this country. And Native Americans? If so, what are the logistics of this and who gets what?

7) Do you feel that there is something fundamental connecting culture and "race"? What specific elements of the cultures of other races do you see as harmful? Are these differences fundamentally irreconcilable and why? Surely there are other white people (myself probably) who hold opinions that are equally divergent, so why not separate on that basis rather than purely on race?

Again, I find myself halting while even typing out these questions because I have to keep referring back to this ill-defined idea of race. But, I guess the discussion has to start somewhere unless we plan on wiping each other out.