Reddit and Hate Speech

submitted by ManWithABanana from self.MeanwhileOnReddit

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AFutureConcern 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I still think you got it wrong here. Let's be real - it's probably due to the Holocaust and the destruction of the 2nd temple. If whites were less successful it'd just be quicker.

This is true of elites, but can't explain why the masses go along with the program.

Not to mention: who cares? What does people being slightly more loyal have to do with anything?

The mystery is why does a misfit bunch of degenerates not fall apart within 5 minutes? Purely racial in-group theories of loyalty don't explain what keeps these people relatively cohesive. Of course the explanation is speculative but it makes intuitive sense.

Do Jews know this? No. It's about destroying white people. So you side with nonwhites and sick whites. That's why. It's not because they're secretly biolenist enlightened NRxers.

I agree here, actually. I don't think that it's planned out using NRx theory. I do think that NRx is a useful way to view what's going on, though.

[–]ChristianSonnenkreuz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is true of elites, but can't explain why the masses go along with the program.

Oh, that's just because the masses are a domesticated slave race lmao. Occasionally aberrations like me and maybe you happen and we end up dead if in a shithole country or posting stuff like this if not.

The mystery is why does a misfit bunch of degenerates not fall apart within 5 minutes?

What do you mean? I don't know of any trannies at the top or anything like that. The people who make the decisions are generally intelligent, 120+ IQ based on some studies. Most are in fact Jewish men. They also might formally coordinate.

Of course the explanation is speculative but it makes intuitive sense.

Nah, it's a totally race-blind red herring that makes way too many assumptions.

I agree here, actually. I don't think that it's planned out using NRx theory. I do think that NRx is a useful way to view what's going on, though.

It's totally not because it's a race blind red herring. Meanwhile these people occassionally actually write about wanting to abolish whiteness and being mad over the Holocaust. My theory is literally what they're thinking, not a race blind mental masturbation session that is only relevant to reality because it results in similar outcomes if true (it doesn't result in all the same outcomes which is why it's wrong. This gets at another issue with NRx writers - they're really reckless and negligent epistemically. They put out these grand theories with 5th grade understandings of the facts at hand. It's obvious Spandrell knows the bare minimum level of detail about the Bolsheviks and what is going on today from the way that he only engages with the vaguest of notions, and only says the broadest understandings. The writing is totally devoid of historical detail. Same with Moldbug. For some reason they thought that this poor understanding was good enough to start forming theories with. They obviously write more than they read, a huge no-no.)

[–]AFutureConcern 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nah, it's a totally race-blind red herring that makes way too many assumptions.

I wouldn't count neoreaction as race-blind. Most neoreactionaries are very HBD-aware.

Meanwhile these people occasionally actually write about wanting to abolish whiteness and being mad over the Holocaust.

Yeah this was embarrassing from Moldbug, though I suppose what you'd expect given his heritage.

The writing is totally devoid of historical detail. Same with Moldbug. For some reason they thought that this poor understanding was good enough to start forming theories with. They obviously write more than they read, a huge no-no.

I think this is a very unfair characterization, at least of Moldbug. Watching some recent interviews with him he seems to be very well-read. In fact many have noted that a lot of his ideas simply piece together older reactionaries as well as Hoppe's ideas on democracy and monarchy, so if anything the criticism is that he's unoriginal. Spandrell... maybe you have a point, though I've not read too much of his stuff.