all 37 comments

[–]SamiAlHayid 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Someone still using Ruqqus needs to comment on one of CertifiedRabbi's Ruqqus posts to remind him to revisit here. Anyone know what happened to 'AFutureConcern' and 'WaltzRoommate'?

Probably the best way to start is to make a 'best threads' thread where everyone can submit their favourite thread links (links to this sub or to related subs only). We can then use this to consider the various questions commonly asked, topics commonly discussed, and positions commonly held, and work out what's worth including and what doesn't really matter. Some of my favourites:

France: https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/6q0t/what_is_the_nationalist_movement_like_in_france/

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/6wb4/france_prominent_academics_and_macron/

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/7el5/the_french_state_in_the_process_of_dissolving/

Nietzsche: https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/6pkh/nietzscheanism_is_right_wing_christianity/

China: https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/6x9p/the_nazi_inspiring_chinas_communists/

Duginism: https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/79wy/alexander_dugins_thoughts_on_the_west_europe_and/

From these threads one could ask at least two questions:

  • What are the general positions held on Dugin, 'Duginism' and NazBol?

  • Is France one of the most likely to be saved (e.g. Ethnocrat), or one of the least likely to be saved (e.g. Paul Gottfried, MartinezPerspective)?

Some arguments in favour: Size/popularity of RN compared to similar parties elsewhere, birthplace of much of the DR's predecessors (e.g. Benoist, Faye), current popularity of one of the only 'based' J's ever, Zemmour.

Some arguments against: Compare their sports team even against that even of Sweden, recent banning of GI.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

We had something like this on the rightrealist website. I think that's down now. We could use the DAR wiki if you'd like. It's blank right now. If the project moves forward my 2 cents is we should error on the side of 'tight writing' i.e. entries that really get to the point and are easy for outsiders to understand. Many of us, myself definitely included, have a tendency to drone on.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

the DAR wiki

Essentially what I am thinking of is an expanded FAQ, so I imagine the wiki is a good source.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I'm going to go ahead and mod you on a temp basis to manage the new wiki editing project. If the other mods agree with my decision and you want to stay on we can make the position permanent.

[–]Girondin 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I hate to be a naysayer but I feel like it would be pretty schizophrenic. Most people have widely different perspectives on the Alt-right. Imagine Richard Spencer, Eric Striker, Greg Johnson and Ryan Faulk writing a Q and A, I can imagine there would be too much disagreement, If it were possibly made it would a confusing hodge-podge of Nietzcheanism, National socialism, Savitri Devism and some graphs thrown in there. I would imagine it would be better if their were 4 unique books (so far only Greg Johnson has written one).

I think maybe a book about personal red-pill stories be better, sorta like what Amren has been doing but broader and more honest (they won't publish how you got to the JQ etc). Or some sort of democratic alt-right reading list.

If it is made I think their should be multiple answers, it would reduce most friction.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it is made I think their should be multiple answers, it would reduce most friction.

Yeah, this. Many of us disagree on what most people would consider very important issues, yet we still come together over, for lack of a better term, the 14 words.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (23 children)

Excellent idea.

And it doesn't have to be self-published. Arrange it in chapters, rather than Q&A. So that it's not too depressing, include a bit of humor, where possible. For example, a chapter on 'race' can be titled, 'Honkies' (and then discuss how everyone has been 'racist' for ages, and what solutions are possible for this). It would be important to offer potential approaches to solutions in each chapter, or at the very least to note in a chapter how solutions can start with local movements and expand to broader movements, and how this would work in a democracy. Contributions by those who want a bloody revolution would be welcome, but they too should offer reasonable arguments (as much as possible), perhaps referencing H. Arendt, the French Revolution, Syria, and what happens when dictators take over thereafter. Each chapter could be divided according to topic and Saiditor. For example, the Honkies chapter could inclulde a section by a Saiditor on the BLM protests, and the failure of the GOP and NeoLiberal Dems and Libertarians to appropriately deal with them. Another chapter could address the Main Stream Media, along with non-mainstream - though heavily biased - websites.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Ok. Mainstream is the objective source. Of course. Why do you pretend to be here in good faith? You argue that DAR shouldn't be on the front page because of "hate speech" and "extremism" (I'm sure as defined by you) and the definitions always include anything White people do or say that is in their interests.

You advocating for DAR to not be allowed on /s/all isn't good faith, it's saying you don't want other people to see what we have to say. It's a way to sabotage your political and social opponents. You don't want to debate. Will you debate racial science? Will you debate crime rates? Will you debate the Culture of Critique? Will you address any of those things in an honest manner? No, that isn't your job. Your job is to enforce the establishment orthodoxy.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Everyone is aware that socks is not a dissident. No need to call him names everytime he posts. It's an open debate sub.

We are all aware that leftists are anti white (some explicitly so) but just spamming that at them every comment means we won't have anyone to converse or debate with besides ourselves. This sub was never designed to be an exclusive club that shuns outsiders.

If anybody disagrees with that (my fellow mods included) please jump in and let me know.

[–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You’re being very generous with the “not a dissident” label.

This individual simply has no interest in engaging in good faith. So do tell, what is the purpose of enduring provocation when nothing productive is to come of it?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This individual simply has no interest in engaging in good faith.

I have the same suspicion and he has been warned so if you see more bad faith from /u/socks please report so the mods can ban. Bad faith is against the rules but it needs to be pretty obvious and repetitive. Some stuff is said deep in threads and we don't read every comment and if it's not reported we can't get a good picture of how bad faith the user is really being.

So do tell, what is the purpose of enduring provocation when nothing productive is to come of it?

I agree socks is provocative or purposefully trying to trigger response. Please report /u/socks every single time he shows bad faith arguing (or other rule violations) and the mods will get together and decide if it merits a ban.

edit. if you really want to get into the weeds with the socks issue you're welcome to read this thread

https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/83mr/debatealtright_banned_me_and_this_was_my_response/

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Thanks - though as you've seen - many users at DAR differ from other users by reacting with those they disagree with by posting only insults and mean comments, rather than debates or anything above the base of the pyramid. Posts like this are literally in "bad faith", which again is one of the rules that apply to any disagreement. Is DAR really for debate? No.

The reason I like the book idea is because it will give some purpose to your concept of being a dissident. If DAR has true dissidents, then they would have a practical plan. Without the practical plan, there is no dissident activity. It's just whining. A book would help with dissident activity.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

many users at DAR differ from other users by reacting with those they disagree with by posting only insults and mean comments, rather than debates or anything above the base of the pyramid

This isn't a liberal safe space. We don't tone police. People are going to say mean things sometimes especially if they think you are trying to fuck with them and not debate them. Suck it up if you want to debate here.

Posts like this are literally in "bad faith", which again is one of the rules that apply to any disagreement

Not quite. Bad faith implies a level of deception. If someone here just gets frustrated with you and calls you names instead of addressing your points then you should either not engage or tell them to fuck off and move on to addressing other people. This isn't a 'no bad words' sub. On the other hand if every regular user on this sub refuses to engage you and tells you to fuck off then you're clearly the one arguing in bad faith. That hasn't quite happened yet but it could depending on how you choose to act in this sub. Many of the users like /u/EuropeanAwakening14 calling you names have years of quality contributions to this sub. They've put their time in and proved themselves. They ARE the sub not you and certain not me. Piss them off at your peril.

Is DAR really for debate? No.

You still think this even though you've been allowed to stay and contribute here despite bumping up against are rules? That's interesting to me. The reason DAR doesn't seem like debate to you is because you're use to debate spaces that exclude data and idea because someone felt 'offended' by the person presenting them. There's an entire world of knowledge, history, and data outside of the liberal academic bubble. Read Chomskys manufacturing consent all news and information is controlled by 23 media companies (it's down to 5 since that book has been written) and one way those companies control information is by doing exactly what you are doing. You're trying to fight ideas because they might be mean or offensive or they might come from people you don't like. You need to get above those trivialities and search for truth. Truth is on a higher plane.

In fact you need to stop what you're doing and read the first few pages of Uncle Ted's Manifesto. You are a heavily conditioned oversocialized human and you have to break out of that first if you're going to survive. Liberals (and as a former liberal I have the right to speak on this) are oversocialized, we are all socially engineered from birth to be followers and managers not independent thinkers. Stop trying to use 'I'm offended' or 'there's no debate here' as an excuses. That's lazy and you know it. There's lots of debate here for people that want to actually engage in the data, the history and the ideas.

The reason I like the book idea is because it will give some purpose to your concept of being a dissident.

What a dissident is has already been established politically. A DAR book would just be the foundational ideas of white nationalism and white civil rights movements. We call ourselves dissident because not everyone in our movement explicitly a white nationalist but they are in our group because they oppose the current neo liberal world order like we do and find common ground on many truths we profess.

If DAR has true dissidents, then they would have a practical plan

Not sure what you mean by this. Dissidents are not the same as rebels or revolutionaries.

It's just whining

All movements need good historical and intellectual underpinnings or they just fall apart and get taken over by other more thought out parties. Pointing out lies, child trafficking, sexual blackmail of elites, social engineering, government corruption, theft of resources, rape, lies about race differences, murder, psyops, color revolutions, systematic subversion, etc is not 'whining'. That's a bizarre thing to say. The only reason you don't see 'planning' is because that's not the purpose of DAR. Dissident planning is something that can't really be done in a public setting due to the tyranny of the current junta that's in charge of our government.

If you want 'planning' go to our political apratus:

https://nationaljusticeparty.com/

A book would help with dissident activity.

Ah. I think I see the disconnect. You want us to write down some type of violent or rebellious shit in a book so it can be used against us. That's another example of bad faith on your part socks. Shows you're not here to debate just steer us in the direction you want us to go and that direction is towards are destruction. Do you see now why people call you names?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thanks

My argument is NOT that I am offended. My argument is that it's 'bad faith' to tell users who don't seem to fit in DAR to GTFO. This phrase and others in the rules can be easily misinterpreted, especially because of the literal meaning of 'bad faith'.

This isn't a liberal safe space.

You seriously don't think I believe that, I hope.

Bad faith implies a level of deception.

If anyone thinks I am trying to deceive users on DAR, they're nuts, like tinfoil hat nuts.

Piss them off at your peril.

LOL

Read Chomsky's manufacturing consent

I read that when it hit the shelves in '88 (I spent a lot of time in bookstores), and have agreed with every word of it. I recommend that members of DAR read Christopher Lasch's 'The Culture of Narcissism'. It's very interesting to me that you've mentioned Chomsky, who is somewhat more left-wing than me, and he's known for political activisim. I am big fan of his work. Whats happened at Saidit is that many users agree with the disinformation at right-wing websites listed at /u/ShitpostNews. Those websites are intentially manufacturing consent with disinformation.

Uncle Ted's Manifesto

I read it when it was first shared online. I think many people agree with his points, which aren't so original, as he seems to have pulled them from late 19th and early 20th century philosophers. (Blowing up innocent people was a bad idea, however.)

There's lots of debate here

I'll keep looking

What a dissident is has already been established politically.

I've not seen this

Dissidents are not the same as rebels or revolutionaries.

OK - but it's not surprising when others ask you: what do you want and how do you want to get it?

All movements need good historical and intellectual underpinnings or they just fall apart and get taken over by other more thought out parties.

Agreed - 100%

Pointing out lies, child trafficking, sexual blackmail of elites, social engineering, government corruption, theft of resources, rape, lies about race differences, murder, psyops, color revolutions, systematic subversion, etc is not 'whining'.

Also agreed 100% - and many others also agree on this. If nothing is done about it, it's just whining. For example, DAR is already doing something, by discussing their interests. The question you are bound to face repeatedly will be: what's next?

Planning... nationaljusticeparty.com/

Thanks for the info. I'll have a look.

You want us to write down some type of violent or rebellious shit in a book so it can be used against us.

If it's so easy to argue against approaches in the book, why would you have any confidence in what's written? This is a really strange comment. Write what is credible and deserves to be written and stand by it. It's that simple. If you know it's problematic, now I am really curious about your comment.

That's another example of bad faith on your part socks.

Not in the slightest. Points in the book would be points made at Saidit, and perhaps here: nationaljusticeparty.com . I am not sure what I am missing here.

Shows you're not here to debate just steer us in the direction you want us to go and that direction is towards are destruction.

By reading and commenting on DAR posts, and agreeing with an idea for a book? If you don't believe in what you'd have to say, why write it? Or to put it another way: if you don't think Alt Right comments would hold up to critical thinking or scrutiny, why bother with Alt Right arguments?

Do you see now why people call you names?

Yes - this appears to be 'bad faith' on their part, to get me kicked off DAR (as it's true that I disagree with some of the posts; God forbid). I am obviously not too worried about name-calling, or I wouldn't be at Saidit. It's obvious I am not trying to deceive anyone on DAR, nor would any sane person think this (my comments are not so important). But someone who disagrees with some of the alt ritght posts here is apparently not welcome to debate the alt right.

The questions I note above are mainly rhetorical, and I do not expect answers to them. I've responded to your posts because I appreciate your approaches to the explanations, which help me understand DAR.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I read it when it was first shared online.

Very cool.

I think many people agree with his points, which aren't so original, as he seems to have pulled them from late 19th and early 20th century philosophers.

Most authors borrow. He wasn't trying to create a groundbreaking new philosophy. He was just trying to give a warning.

(Blowing up innocent people was a bad idea, however.)

He doesn't advocate blowing people up in his manifesto. That was his chosen path and it's not one that I have or anybody I've seen on DAR has. Anybody that even jokes about that is kicked off DAR. The most useful part of the book is probably his analysis of how liberals are formed and how they think. The tech stuff is turning out to be more and more true though. He has a lot of other arguments but maybe we can do that in another post.

Read Chomsky's manufacturing consent

I read that when it hit the shelves in '88 (I spent a lot of time in bookstores), and have agreed with every word of it.

Also very cool. (You're dating yourself though socks!). Then you've probably read some similar stuff that I have. You see my biggest problem when I was a liberal was I thought there just wasn't enough focus on the wealth gap. I'd learn latter why that was. It seemed that people at the top were rigging the system but even then I struggled to comprehend who exactly those people were. Marx has some arguments that help to understand this but Marx got hijacked by an ethnic group that used his ideas to start revolutions against their enemies and fuck up a LOT of religious and monarchical stability in the world. Marx also failed as he assumed that the social sciences were like the hard sciences and that his conclusions were beyond reproach. Trotsky is an import figure to study. What I find interesting about his plan is that he thought the best way to get the cashless workers paradise was to first pool (by donation or FORCE) all the money in one central bank. That should send up some red flags for anyone.

We are going through what looks like a 50 year updated Trotskite revolution in the states today but it's really all a cover for central bankers and their family, friends, allies, and blackmailed assets. This is where the JQ comes into play but I doubt you're really ready for that... so let's pause there.

Have your read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine? That's a good book from the liberal side that can start you on the journey. If you've already read that try A History of Central Banking by Goodson (not a liberal book but well researched and racial or antisemitic so it won't trigger your conditioning too hard.). That book will blow your mind. Goodson use to work for the IMF so he had an insider view of what was going on with 'shock doctrine' capital and he traced it's historical (((roots))).

Here's an interesting excerpt

https://i.postimg.cc/W38316k5/1557914838137.png

You want us to write down some type of violent or rebellious shit in a book so it can be used against us.

If it's so easy to argue against approaches in the book, why would you have any confidence in what's written?

Stop playing dumb. You just goaded the sub on in the previous sentence of that comment saying that, and I'm paraphrasing, 'dissidents should DO things not just whine'. That's a direct implication for us to write down 'revolutionary' actions in a book socks and now you're acting like you didn't just imply that. This is why I called you sneaky user and I think I'm again being proven right in that assessment. We know your tactics as we see them over and over so be careful with the tricks socks. Be very careful.

If you know it's problematic, now I am really curious about your comment.

Today's intelligence community, business, and political class our hostile to dissidents. There's a general 'look the other way' with antifa violent organizing and a general hostility to right wing dissident organizing of even peaceful non violent organizing. I will repeat again that 'dissidents' are simply people that through logical argument and peaceful, lawful, non violent acts oppose all mainstream ruling parties and ruling zeitgeists. That's what a dissident is. DAR is a space for dissidents. National Justice Party is an actual political party that seeks to gain access to the political system so they are probably the group you want to talk to about actions but try as you might you won't find the appeals to lawlessness or violence that you seem to be looking for. White people are incredibly peaceful rule following people. We are only violent when there are historical needs to defend our homes, families, borders and ways of life. If you believe that white people do not deserve this sacred right to self defense then you are the worst type of anti white there is. And even a casual glimpse at history will show you that when we do that type of organized self defense violence we do it better then anyone on the planet and that's why we have survived in history. Weak humans and weak groups do not survive.

Yes - this appears to be 'bad faith' on their part, to get me kicked off DAR

I think they are just tired already of your tricky disengenous arguing that you've again shown here.

But someone who disagrees with some of the alt ritght posts here is apparently not welcome to debate the alt right.

You really do like repeating things don't you? You know that NLP trick won't work on us right?

The questions I note above are mainly rhetorical, and I do not expect answers to them

I've given them to you anyway.

I've responded to your posts because I appreciate your approaches to the explanations, which help me understand DAR.

I'm glad you are making some type of effort to understand us but you're going to need to start valuing truth over rhetoric if you don't want DAR members to constantly rag on you.

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

Thanks again. I don't wish to drag the conversation onward with responses, though out of respect for your responses, here are are a couple of clarifications.

The most useful part of the book is probably his analysis of how liberals are formed and how they think.

My view is that this is not necessarily the most important part, but that I agree regarding many of the problems with Neoliberalism, which meant that Clinton and Obama did not appropriately challenge the GOP, and indeed helped the GOP with goals that have abused the 99%, the American Dream &c.

You see my biggest problem when I was a liberal was I thought there just wasn't enough focus on the wealth gap.

Agree 100%. (I was an Independent in 1980, but changed to Democrat in 1984, thanks to the obvious abuses of the Reagan admin, and have remained a Dem. since then.)

It seemed that people at the top were rigging the system but even then I struggled to comprehend who exactly those people were.

Agree 100%. We find those few people in the .01% when we follow the money, as much as possible.

Marx has some arguments that help to understand this but Marx got hijacked by an ethnic group that used his ideas to start revolutions against their enemies and fuck up a LOT of religious and monarchical stability in the world.

I agree.

Marx also failed as he assumed that the social sciences were like the hard sciences and that his conclusions were beyond reproach.

Yes, though this wasn't just Marx, as this has been assumed in many academic disciplines, excluding the arts, since the early-mid 19th century.

Trotsky is an import figure to study. What I find interesting about his plan is that he thought the best way to get the cashless workers paradise was to first pool (by donation or FORCE) all the money in one central bank. That should send up some red flags for anyone.

Yes - and those in power keep most of the money, as we've seen in Russia and China, who launder their money through other central banks. JF Kennedy and others wanted every dollar to match the gold and silver reserves, and I think that's the main reason he was killed (among other reasons).

JQ

Will await more info on this.

Have your read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine?

Yes - I agree it's helpful.

A History of Central Banking by Goodson

I'll have a look. You may also know that Magnora7 shares our concerns about the history of central banking, if you've seen his Youtube interviews.

Stop playing dumb. You just goaded the sub on in the previous sentence of that comment saying that, and I'm paraphrasing, 'dissidents should DO things not just whine'. That's a direct implication for us to write down 'revolutionary' actions in a book socks and now you're acting like you didn't just imply that. This is why I called you sneaky user and I think I'm again being proven right in that assessment. We know your tactics as we see them over and over so be careful with the tricks socks. Be very careful.

We certainly disagree on this. We know that there is plenty of information one can put in a book that will not put anyone at risk. Moreover, supporting the book idea is not a trick or tricky. To think that I am trying to trick DAR verges on paranoid schizophrenia, a term Redditors have used to describe Saidit in general, when responding to Magnora7's earlier notes on year-long milestones for Saidit. That's a mean comment by Redditors, but there is some evidence of paranoid schizophrenia on Saidit.

If you believe that white people do not deserve this sacred right to self defense then you are the worst type of anti white there is.

This appears to be a straw man. I have no reason to dislike white people, or to see a sacred right, or to be anti-white. All of this is rather surprising. We certainly disagree on this way of thinking.

we do it better then anyone on the planet

This may fit within a broader historical quesiton about Western European bellicosity, c. 1000 - 2000, to which there aren't reliable answers. But the key problem in your comment is 'we', but not something to unpick at the moment.

you're going to need to start valuing truth over rhetoric

This is the main reason I've responded to your points. You know that I am focusing here on facts, and truth. I write plainly, and I am not trying to persuade (the essence of rhetoric) anyone to think differently.

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

Just block socks. The faggot admins have said if we ban people they will ban the sub because they're fucking retards. So simply block all the trolls.

If everyone just blocks these stupid kikes and they get no attention they'll give up. They only continue because they think they're succeeding in wasting your time.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're right, we should let our homelands, and only ours, be overrun. We should just disappear. Is that your proposal? Everyone else gets to keep their homelands but Whites, their lands are for everyone.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Man, you are just hilarious!

I don't agree with these folks most of the time, but I don't come at them with snarky comments every time I show up on the sub. I mean, you really do nothing to endear people to your side. It's like watching a Christian shame a gay person then expect them to become straight due to the shaming.

Are you an American?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

you really do nothing to endear people to your side.

What an absolute fraud I would be if I tried that. It's also sad that anyone would take my comments personally. Some basic level of maturity should be expected.

It's like watching a Christian shame a gay person then expect them to become straight due to the shaming.

As I've said to d3rr and others many times, I expect Saiditors to be exactly who they are. That's why I am here: to read their comments, to see perspectives that are very different from those I read elsewhere. Sometimes I point out fallacies, disinformation &c, but this is definitely not to change their minds.

Our identities are irrelevant, which I think helps with discussions.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Our identities are not irrelevant, although I understand the desire to be anonymous on a forum. Who we are as people, our identities both real and manufactured, these are incredibly important to having honest discussions. Now I see why I think you are so duplicitous. You want to hide who you really are under your socks.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Now I see why I think you are so duplicitous. You want to hide who you really are under your socks.

So - it's important that we are willing to discuss our identities? You have to admit that no one - with the exception of one or two people - would agree with that (not even you). According to this logic, you've referred to almost everyone at Saidit as duplicitous.

If you have something to say, say it. Saidit is a place for what you have to 'say', not a place for you to try to guess who people are, or for others to bother you with regard to who you are.

You have a habit of insulting me when you respond to my notes. Consider following Saidit's rules.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Most people will answer with where they are from, socks. Don't obfuscates my point. Most Saiditors will say which country they live in.

Consider being an honest person.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Again, it seems that you think a refusal to answer your question is a form of dishonesty, when it's nothing of the sort. Moreover, several Saiditors know my nationality and where I am, due to a much earlier conversation. But it's truly irrelevant, and I have a right to my privacy, just as you do. It's not fair of you to refer to me as dishonest.

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

I've asked you before, and you've given two answers. One time, you said England, the other time you said Mogadishu. You often make comments that make you sound like an American.

You are dishonest.

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

It doesn't matter, FFS.

And I am not dishonest.

It's apparent that your only interest is to harass me, which is definitely dishonest. Leave me alone. We'll have nothing more to discuss.

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

Waiting for your reply to the other fellow.

[–]Nombre27 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

A wiki may be a better way to collaboratively evolve the draft - InfoGalactic.com, WikiSpooks.com, or eventually our GiraffeIdeas.wiki for projects of all sorts.

[–]AltBaseGuy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I could help with this. Maybe we create a list or database of arguments and counterarguments that are easily searchable, with links already embedded that substantiate the point at hand

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This could be a good idea, but as one or two others have pointed out, conflicts and disagreements could come about easily and severely interrupt the flow of any book or Q&A. I think a sort of wiki or other "decentralized" so to speak database that accurately and as unbiasedly as possible defines and provides conjecture about ideologies, philosophies, and policies that fall into the realm of the Dissident Right and Third Position could be a good idea, if a little bit separated in goals.

I say this because wikipedia and a lot of other wiki sites are openly leftist or are implciitly biased against us. I remember there being a DR-focused wiki site but I don't remember what it was called now and it was small, and is possibly down by now. Something like taht could be extremely useful for redpilling and increasing the knowledge of our userbase/potential userbase significantly.

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

I think a sort of wiki or other "decentralized" so to speak database that accurately and as unbiasedly as possible defines and provides conjecture about ideologies, philosophies, and policies that fall into the realm of the Dissident Right and Third Position could be a good idea, if a little bit separated in goals.

Metapedia exists but sadly the admins don't let people sign up and there's seemingly no way to contact people there so the site is just dead.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Metapedia

Yep, that's the one. I couldn't find it for the longest time. Sad that it's dead though, and a lot of the articles are very underdeveloped (or non-existent), making that an even bigger issue.

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

They had 7 sign ups since may this year, but before that they didn't have any since 2019 so it seems pretty sporadic.

Link for the info on how to register