Its good to see alt right ideas like anarcho-tyranny penetrate the mainstream

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Something that's been on my mind lately is very similar to this. It's how terms I could have sworn originated in our circles have somehow became co-opted and redefined before entering the mainstream. Let me explain:

I used to be active on the TRS forum around 2016. And there I could have sworn that people used the term 'woke' to refer to 'having awakened to the Left/System and becoming very Right-wing in response'. Several years later I heard a quackademic using the term 'woke' to refer... to herself. But this woman wasn't even remotely 'woke' in the sense I understood it. She's a White bisexual in a relationship with a literal Jew. One of her quackademic friends is an openly Antifa lesbian. Later I started to see it online. By late 2018 'woke' had developed its current meaning. Nowadays 'woke culture', 'wokeness', 'wokesters', etc. are ubiquitous terms even in the mainstream 'Right' media.

And what about 'based'? It used to mean something like 'that sounds very Right-wing and that's good'. Now I've seen literal feminists use it to mean something like: 'that sounds very feminist and that's good'.

And what about 'redpilled'? Now I see literal feminists using the term 'pinkpilled' to mean 'I became aware of the "patriarchy" and am now committed to feminism'.

The one I'm most sure about is the current term 'cuck' which, I could have sworn, came from the Alt-Right term 'cuckservative' around 2015-16 to mean: 'person who claims to be Right-wing but is insufficiently so, who heavily and weakly compromises with their opponents, to the point that they are in practice Left-wing'.

Now I see literal Far-Leftists use 'cuck' to refer to people who are insufficiently Left-wing (e.g. the viewers of 'Vaush' or 'Destiny').

Did these terms originate somewhere else first, and I'm just getting the origins wrong? Or are they really our terms, having drifted away from their creators to develop new meanings, with every Leftist and 'normie' out there completely unaware of their origins?

Returning closer to your original point, I've also noticed that various terms that cannot really be co-opted by other groups ('White genocide', 'Great Replacement', 'Cultural Marxism' being three of the best examples) have undergone a somewhat similar change, whereby instead of developing new meanings, they are simply branded 'conspiracy theories', etc. and became taboo. 'Good' people apparently do not mention or believe in such things. Mentions of 'Cultural Marxism', for example, inevitably attract some smug Cultural Marxist who will proudly mention something about the supposed 'Nazi' origins of the term—a transparent attempt at guilt by association.

Likewise, despite the 'Great Replacement' having become taboo, terms such as 'replacement migration' effectively mean the same thing, except in language that the System accepts—'replacement migration', far from problematizing it, frames it as 'necessary' and even 'desirable'. Thus we have an example of a term that appears to be taboo for little reason other than its 'Far-Right' origins, whilst newer terms have been invented to replace it simply because it seems that there must be a term to refer to this very real phenomenon.

Similarly, 'White genocide' was effectively replaced by a term that means the same thing, except in a mocking, non-critical and non-serious way: 'Mayocide'. Again, it appears that people accept that 'White genocide' is real, but have simply invented a replacement term which is essentially supportive of it ('White genocide' clearly problematized this very same phenomenon, which is why it needed to be replaced).

We can, of course, also see the System/Left co-opt and create other terms ('peaceful protest' is constantly used to 'de-problematize' violent, destructive Far-Leftist riots, which makes the crushing of such riots seem more unjustified in the eyes of the masses, helping to ensure that there will be no crackdown on them).

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Spot on. You're not seeing things, it is as you expect.

I remember a discussion about Cultural Marxism on r/Denmark where people started doing exactly what you're saying when mentioned, almost like clockwerk, and the proper response was to ask them to distance themselves from marxism, which they obviously wont do. Something like: "To continue the conversation and to take your criticism of the term cultural marxism serious, I just need to know that you're not just calling everyone nazis because you yourself are a marxist. Could you please tell everyone here that marxism is indeed bad before we proceed, so I can know that you're coming to debate in good faith?"

Of course they will never denounce marxism. Leftists are trained not to look "weak", so they always want to be the one attacking and wont condemn lefting ideas like we see cuckservatives do on the right. It is absolutely hilarious to watch in realtime because to every normie the leftist is 100% exposed when they wont condemn marxism and then start defending cultural marxism and calling everyone nazis.

Another approach wrt cultural marxism is to ask them how they, the leftist, would define the things you're discussing. Usually they will come with words that only leftists see as a distinction from cultural marxism. And the normie is already convinced from that.

violent, destructive Far-Leftist riots

Did you mean to say domestic terror attacks? Because that's what they are

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Their 'argument' or 'reasoning' when encountering the term 'Cultural Marxism' can be plotted out as follows:

P1. You have used the term 'Cultural Marxism'.

P2. Nahtzees also used a term akin to 'Cultural Marxism'. (Note that they often write this as though it's some great discovery that they deserve a pat on the back for, 'See, I'm sooo good at detecting Nahtzees!')

C1. You are doing something 'Nazi-ish' and so must be a Nahtzee (guilt by association, 'quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck').

C2. Because you are a Nahtzee, you are also 'anti-Semitic', 'racist', etc. (the consequences of being a Nahtzee)

P3. But I am not a Nahtzee. I'm a Leftist. I'm inclusive, tolerant, etc.

C3. I win. You lose. Your argument is 'wrong' because I 'exposed' you as a Nahtzee and I am 'better' than that.

This same type of 'argument' can also play out when someone uses other taboo terms like 'White genocide'. But 'Cultural Marxism' is one that I have personally observed this happen with numerous times (e.g. at r/ConsumeProduct before its ban). Sometimes the term isn't even used by the person they want to 'defeat', but they'll assume that you implicitly mean it and then follow on with the rest of this 'argument' as though you used it anyway.

Obviously this kind of argument is unsound. All that the Leftist is attempting to do is assert a sort of quasi-moral superiority over his opponent and then conflate his supposed quasi-moral 'correctness' with a factual 'correctness' ('I'm a "better" person than you, which [somehow] also means that I am more correct than you'), which both verifies and falsifies nothing.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

C3. I win. You lose. Your argument is 'wrong' because I 'exposed' you as a Nahtzee and I am 'better' than that.

Let's be honest though. They use this tactic because in the current climate this DOES win them the argument and can even get you fired if they get enough of their friends to call you a nazi and 'report' you to a HR department that conveniently agrees with them. There is no protection from these people. There is no killshot logical argument that can be applied to them that will make them see your point of view. It's better for us to only engage with the non ideologically possessed and to treat discussions with these leftists as an opportunity to redpill the crowd not the target person.

Obviously this kind of argument is unsound. All that the Leftist is attempting to do is assert a sort of quasi-moral superiority over his opponent and then conflate his supposed quasi-moral 'correctness' with a factual 'correctness'

I remember having a conversation with a family member as the Ahmaud Arbery shooting was getting into the mainstream news. My family member hadn't even heard about the case but instantly assumed the black man in question was 100% innocent and hunted in the street by rednecks. Nothing I told him changed his mind. No fact I laid out got to him (and there were plenty pointing to Arbery as a robber/criminal/liar). He instantly fell back on his 'white rednecks are hunting black people' cultural programming. As the discussion went on he left the table. I dropped no dog whistles or terms that might be construed as conservative/right leaning. Everything I presented to him even had a sensible liberal tone to it. Nonetheless, the simply fact I wanted to investigate the case for real facts meant I was potentially an evil immoral racist siding with other racists. This is my own family member that has known me my entire life. That's the level of social engineering we are dealing with here.

In nutshell we aren't dealing with facts and debate. We are dealing with all the trappings of a new religion and some type of strange moral panic that liberals/leftists are going through. Until the country destabilizes, balkanizes, and there's a serious impact on living standards I'm not really sure how we are going to get through to these people. All we can do as dissidents is chew around at the edges and hope that we convert fence sitters and logical people that are not yet fully possessed by the 'narrative'.

The nice thing is that even if we only convert 1 in a 100 people those people do become very strongly on our side. There's no going back to the matrix and there's soon going to be a lot of incentive for traditional and dissident right people to closely tribalize. The system will soon start applying draconian measures against us. There is no greater tribalizing force than a true 'enemy' outgroup. And to be honest, nobody tribalizes better than we do...

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with this comment 100%.

Generally speaking, I think they somehow conflate 'moral right' with 'factual right'. And therefore 'moral wrong' with 'factual wrong'. Certain things that probably come from memes, such as 'hate facts', exemplify this way of thinking. Whatever contradicts their idea of correctness is both 'evil' and 'wrong' at the same time. This is how they come to reject observations (ones that seem empirically factual to us to the point that denying them would just seem flat-out delusional), such as black dysfunction, J dominance, etc. regardless of how much evidence is presented to them—because 'racism' strikes them as 'morally wrong', all the evidence must also be 'factually wrong'. Thus, 'hate facts'. Of course, somehow we're external to their 'social engineering', which puts us in the position of being observers or outsiders watching those 'inside', who effectively seem brainwashed or indoctrinated. It is not clear to me why some people are affected more than others (some, like myself, never went through it; others 'woke up'; most seem deeply and irreparably affected by it).

I prefer to analogize baizuo Leftism to a cult, though if it develops a clear substitute for God, then it is probably a flat-out religion. It certainly has all the trappings of a cult. It now even has an apocalyptic/doomsday vision (a climate disaster will happen in the year 20XX, and like religious groups with the rapture, etc., this number will continue to be pushed forwards simply because climate change is at most a 'slow burn'—there will be no specific day that the world ends). Those photos of Whites submissively grovelling (and in large numbers, too) before blacks. Those screenshots of academics engaging in ritualistic, Bolshevik-style self-criticism. 'White privilege' being a racialized 'original sin' that applies only for Whites; victimhood and the 'burden of racism' being its flip-side for non-whites. The parallels seem to grow every so often.

Pelosi's comments about Floyd's 'sacrifice' are the latest example I can think of. We have already seen some strange things going on with Floyd and some of his predecessors like Trayvon, such that we joke about him becoming 'Saint Floyd'. And all over his death ostensibly being because of a White man—after all, which black has ever been canonized because he was killed by non-whites? To be killed by Whites is the single criteria for black canonization. His deification (see, for example, https://img.apmcdn.org/c1da69cfb422d7008816f573c47f956a5f0f5fe7/square/789663-20200610-floyd-file-photo03.jpg, which literally depicts Floyd as an angel complete with wings and a halo), his being beyond criticism (any mention of his crimes is simply 'racist'), and so forth. To then posit that it was essentially necessary for him to die in a way that could be blamed on Whites (as evidence of, and in order to highlight, our sins) just shows to me that the cult even has sacrifices, too.

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

I think they somehow conflate 'moral right' with 'factual right'. And therefore 'moral wrong' with 'factual wrong'.

Yeah. I think that's what's happening and there's certainly historical precedent in European society for this type of fanaticism and almost blind moralism. The Jews closely studied our dispositions and designed subversive approaches that would work with our temperaments.

My gut instinct is that what drives all the collective delusion is the constant exposure to all the disunity and filth. Whites like order, cleanliness, clear rules, high trust, goals, positive growth, hard work, fair laws. The disharmony of our multiculty western world does a number on high trust Europeans. These ideological whites that constantly see poverty and disorder can only double down on the 'approved' explanation: systemic racism and centuries of evil white oppression. The alternative (that blacks are simply incompatible with western civilization and especially white people) is unthinkable to many whites. Our white nurturing and community building has been exploited to foster a parasite. Except the host doesn't know it has a parasite.

which literally depicts Floyd as an angel complete with wings and a halo), his being beyond criticism (any mention of his crimes is simply 'racist'), and so forth

If you get a chance make sure to check out that David Cole article I posted. He mentions this phenomena and tries to figure out why it's happening.