Spencer argues for Statism

Just checked his website, and saw a bunch of pro-christianity articles in a row, yech.

Christianity has, to an extent, be pretty decent on maintaining and encouraging moral and responsible behavior in the masses, but it has a pretty spotty record on actually protecting whites

This debate is from July 2018, many things might've changed since then

I don't think Christianity was argued in this debate though

Spencer argues for White Ethno Statism from an Indo European natural order

I've grown more recently to believe it's probably better, if a religion or spirituality must be employed to combat degeneracy, to utilize a variant which incorporates tribal reincarnation, instead of a completely immaterial afterlife.

This idea of an eternal hereafter, divorced from the collapse of society, has turned into point of vulnerability for nationalism.

"Oh, it's okay if my civilization ends, because Jesus has a place for me in heaven, and everything is going according to God's plan. All the wicked will be judged ....later, and not be me."

Spencer basically just wants an EU, but for white people. Not a fan.

The only non Statist forms of Nationalism I've seen are in National Anarchism and Hoppean covenants

Both of which are highly volatile

There aren't really many non-statist forms of *anything* because statism is exceedingly common.

And how are Hoppean covenants volatile, has one actually been created?

I'm classifying it as volatile with respect to the standard critiques of libertarianism, not through real world examples

Okay, so it's speculative.

https://youtu.be/fJGyYBwgxyA

Also, what I mean by nationalism is basically just that of a people who can be sufficiently coherent in their values, objectives, and nature as to constitute one. It's both a consequence of having a sufficiently coherent people, and something which must be secured to ensure future stability as well.

I'm more of a blood and soil nationalist

That's usually the most organic form for it to take, yes.

Are you familiar with the Loyalty Matrix?

No

It's basically an idea of how to evaluate the strength and persistence of loyalty between a group of people based on three primary factors.

1. Procreation
2. Ritual
3. Survival

Basically, how they reproduce or recruit, what their activity or goal is, and how they avoid dying or going extinct.

If a group of people share all these in common, then they usually are more inclined to be loyal to one another.

To see each other as essentially members of the same "tribe"

However, if any of these factors are *antagonistic* then it leads to negative loyalty

Sounds natural

For instance, if one person achieving their procreative /recruitment goals means that another person *can't* procreate / recruit

Or if the only way for someone to survive, is if they kill someone else

An example of this in action, an extremely brief and spontaneous event, was given as a group of people trapped in an elevator.

Their survival has the same threat. The elevator being stuck and the fear of panic. So, if they can share a common ritual, such as calling for help to keep each other calm, and in order to recruit (procreate) someone to join them in solving the problem, this means they will likely have a fairly high loyalty.

Right now, the left and right wing in the US have increasingly disparate, and antagonistic forms of *all* these factors.

Which is why tensions have gotten so high.

The left and right often don't share much common ritual, they have competitive procreation, due to immigration, the media, and academia, and each one regards the other as a threat to survival, more than an asset to it.

Left and Right wing americans, particularly of the far left, and even moderate right, are functionally not of the same tribe. Rather, they are two separate tribes at war with one another.

Intertribal loyalty should be expected to be extraordinarily low.

There's actually a fascinating experimental demonstration of this, as well.

iirc the details, some adolescent boys were recruited into some kind of camp or recreation event, and were placed in two separate teams, which would compete with one another in various activities

There was a marked level of hostility and antagonism between them, even though they had no real history outside these initial events, and were selected arbitrarily, not based on any particular characteristics to distinguish them.