all 72 comments

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (39 children)

If National Socialism was tried out by America instead of Germany we would be having this discussion on a terraformed Mars.

No. Mars can't be terraformed and even it could be, it would be pointless. Newton's laws of motion and human biology preclude space travel and colonization. Space exploration is Reddit shit. The final frontier is earth and money shouldn't be wasted on such foolish ventures.

The most that could ever come out of space is mining asteroids for metals, ammonia, or natural gas.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

How do Newton's laws of motion preclude space travel and colonization?

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

Inertia. If you were going at 10% of the speed of light you would need 600 years to reach a star system 40 light-years away. 200 years of acceleration, 200 years of cruise speed, and 200 years of deceleration.

Contrary to what you see in movies, in real life, you can't accelerate from rest to near light speed in a matter of minutes. Even if the propulsion system was capable of that, no pilot would do it because the G force would crush him to paste.

Whenever you accelerate, decelerate or seek to turn the trajectory of a moving object, you need to apply force. And there's a sharp limit to how much force a human body can take. You can go to the wiki pages of any modern fighter aircraft and you'll find that the maximum g-limit is 9g.

Because over 9g the pilot tends to blackout. The maximum g a human body can take is 30g. A US Lt. Colonel in the air force volunteered for the experiment and he could take 30g at max. Even then it caused his eardrums to burst and he suffered internal bleeding and organ damage.

And even a sustained force of 8g would kill the crew overtime. Many pilots get stiff necks and other muscle problems despite rarely ever hitting 9g and only flying for 150 hours a year.

And the real problem in space comes from debris. At .1c, even a small pebble-sized object would hit you with the force of a mini nuclear bomb. Imagine it this way: If you were walking slowly and bumped into a wall, you wouldn't get hurt. If you were running and hit the wall, you will be bleeding. If you crashed into the wall at 1000 km/hr, you'd be reduced to paste.

And space is littered with such debris and there are asteroid fields always lying about. A spaceship would need to maneuver around these things. It can't ram into them at .1c speed. The problem is that due to the law of inertia, it would take enormous amounts of force to decelerate or change trajectory.

Even if your radars picked up the asteroid belt 100,000 km away, at .1C, you'd only have 3.33 seconds of warning. At half the speed, it would only be 6.66 seconds. In 6.66 seconds, if you were to decelerate from .1c to a ''mere'' match 1 at 352 m/s, you'd need to apply a 459,637 g force.

Forget your body, your ship would be torn to bits. And due to the law of angular momentum, the faster your speed, the longer your turn radius is. You'd notice this with your car. The faster it is, the longer it takes to turn around.

So for these reasons, it's completely impractical to try to build a space empire or for humans to try to reach potentially habitable worlds outside the solar system. If humans ever set foot on a habitable world outside the Sol system, it will most likely be due to a fleet of generation ships run by an AI that travels over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Upon reaching the planet, the ships would then terraform the planet and once it was suitable, then culture live humans from embryos.

But all that is pointless from the perspective of Earth humans. Why would you spend tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars on a project that has a minuscule chance of success and brings you zero benefits? European countries for example colonized the new world because it allowed them to jettison excess population, extract resources for trade, and trade with new outposts of their nations.

No such benefit awaits space colonization. And as far as settling mars, I've written an extensive article here before.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

The final frontier is earth and money shouldn't be wasted on such foolish ventures.

And if Earth gets hit by an Asteroid, or the environment becomes too toxic, nearly all life will be extinguished.

Preserving the human species requires spreading itself on more planets, instead of betting on just one.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Without constant supplies from the earth, no other colony can even survive. You can't settle a world with life because its microbes would be deadly to you. You'd need to terraform a planet and there are no suitable candidates nearby. A colony on mars would never be self-sufficient and would die out soon without supplies from the earth.

If an asteroid hits and kills us all, then that is it. Nothing we can do about it. At most, we could build a space station above the earth that's somewhat self-sufficient. All life would certainly not go extinct. Earth has been hit by giant asteroids, blanketed under ice, and bathed in volcanic waste in the past.

Life has always returned. It's just that the old life forms died out. New ones took their place. That is the law of nature. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for tens of millions of years. Only bones remain of them now. Their last descendants are the birds and the Rhino. The same will happen to man and all the other species on earth one day.

To accept this truth is to be truly traditionalist. To argue otherwise and think that you can rise above natural laws is the essence of modernity and Judaism.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Without constant supplies from the earth, no other colony can even survive. You can't settle a world with life because its microbes would be deadly to you. You'd need to terraform a planet and there are no suitable candidates nearby. A colony on mars would never be self-sufficient and would die out soon without supplies from the earth.

Technology is specifically invented to reduce these problems or make them negligible over time.

Go back 10,000 years ago and ask European Cavemen if they've heard of America or can they build boats to cross it? They would have shrugged at the idea even though today, we have airplanes that make crossing continents look like a walk in the park.

If Humans settle another planet, our expectations would naturally evolve with them. And it would certainly turn into a competition if the idea of planetary real estate blows up. You don't think Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk salivate at the idea of becoming mini-monarchs on foreign planets that are outside of Earth's government? That's literally the story of how Brazil was founded after Portugal was invaded by France in the 1800s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_the_Portuguese_court_to_Brazil

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You don't think Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk salivate at the idea of becoming mini-monarchs on foreign planets that are outside of Earth's government? That's literally the story of how Brazil was founded after Portugal was invaded by France in the 1800s.

You are applying earth analogs to interstellar scales. Just because they would like to do those things doesn't mean they will. Again, there's no law saying that you must be able to do x because you did y despite people doubting it. This is very star trek like thinking. Where is the unified field theory after 70 years?

And all this is fantastical thinking. No government could possibly spend tens of trillions on such out-there projects. A government that did spend such copius amounts on space exploration would be overtaken and defeated by a government that spends those trillions on industry, infrastructure, education, and the military.

The US and China are a rough approximation. The US had the most prosperous and advanced economy in the history of the earth from 1950-1990. Yet, they squandered that unimaginable wealth on wars for Israel, bringing democracy and gay rights to Afghanistan, and dumping trillions on blacks, single moms, and other loafers. It pursued a fantasy that brought no return even on the time frame of 50 years.

China invested its energy into infrastructure, education, industry and it is on the brink of surpassing the US.

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

You are applying earth analogs to interstellar scales.

But Earth is part of the interstellar universe. We literally don't exist in a vacuum and it only makes sense our definition of scale will evolve when Man continues to explore the universe. Just like how Europeans use to sail around Africa, Asia or the Americas before having the right tech to venture inwards.

And all this is fantastical thinking. No government could possibly spend tens of trillions on such out-there projects. A government that did spend such copius amounts on space exploration would be overtaken and defeated by a government that spends those trillions on industry, infrastructure, education, and the military.

The Cold War pitted two superpowers against each other in the race for Space, but only one of them fell. You can guess who (the USSR).

The US and China are a rough approximation. The US had the most prosperous and advanced economy in the history of the earth from 1950-1990. Yet, they squandered that unimaginable wealth on wars for Israel, bringing democracy and gay rights to Afghanistan, and dumping trillions on blacks, single moms, and other loafers. It pursued a fantasy that brought no return even on the time frame of 50 years. China invested its energy into infrastructure, education, industry and it is on the brink of surpassing the US.

You're making my argument for me. The U.S could have been even more powerful had it spent more money on Space research instead of donating it to Israel, black welfare and countless Middle Eastern wars.

And part of China investing in education/infrastructure/industry is obviously just a side step away for going into Space. Follow the news, and they've been sending rovers to the Moon for example, and they have plans to land a man on Mars by 2033.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/24/china-plans-for-first-manned-mission-to-mars-in-2033

All these are what White nations should be doing.

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

Again, there's no law saying that you must be able to do x because you did y, despite people doubting it. This is very star trek like thinking. Where is the unified field theory after 70 years?

Star Trek could get away with that kindof thinking because it is science fiction. You CAN go faster than the speed of life, IF you are smart enough, IF you are daring enough. The most explicit example of this was in Star Trek 5.

''What you fear is the unknown. The people of your planet once believed their world was flat. ...Columbus proved it was round. They said the sound barrier could never be broken. ...It was broken. They said warp speed could not be achieved. The Great Barrier is the ultimate expression of this universal fear. It is an extension of personal fear.''

In real life, however, it doesn't work that way. When Columbus discovered the new world in the 15th century, no educated person actually believed the Earth was flat. Likewise, no scientist ever said that the sound barrier couldn't be broken: After all, bullets routinely broke the sound barrier, and so did all kinds of other things. And as far as we can tell, the speed of light is as fundamental as the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass. It is extremely unlikely that any future scientific advances will ever enable this law to be broken.

 

As far as the unified field theory, you bring up an important point. I am by no means an expert in this subject, but I believe that the field of physics (particularly the standard model) may be caught in a scientific dead end. Not unlike the field of medicine was in a dead end before germ theory. Modern physics is unable to verify its own foundational assumptions, and practitioners are required to take them on faith.

As for the claim that the large hadron collider actually proved the existence of the higgs boson? They spent billions of dollars on the most extensive scientific project ever, and the entire framework of the standard model was dependent on it. They were going to find it whether it was there or not.

[–]Popper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I think it's no good to compare sailing to the new world to traveling thru space, the distances are way different. Going to mars would be like if the ocean was 1 inch long.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It's all relative.

Cavemen had no understanding of Space, so telling them there's a big unexplored continent on the other side of the world would have sounded just as alien or crazy. And it still took them thousands of years to finally build ships and navigate the oceans before successfully touching down in America or the coasts of South Africa.

Based on today's science, going to Mars is obviously a bigger challenge. But in 500+ years, I expect the gap to shrink and it would be no more harder than riding the Bus to a different part of town.

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

it's simplistic and naive tho to expect one thing is possible because another thing was.The other guy was mentioning how space travel would realistically need to be done with AI who then clone humans once it gets to whatever planet after thousands of years. Yeah that is realistic, and yeah it's in 500+ years. We'll all be dead tho.

[–]MarkimusThird Positionist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We'll all be dead tho.

Speak for yourself. I'm of golden age blood, my people live for a thousand years.

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

I would bypass the cloning part, and just upload the human consciousness into a robot body.

Yeah, it sounds sci-fi as fuck, but this is what you need to understand when I say our expectations always evolve.

The Human body was made for Earth, so why wouldn't Humans design new bodies that can take us anywhere else in the universe? It's evolution, but done artificially.

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

I don't think rhinos are descended from dinosaurs

I do think they inspired people to make up the dinosaur hoax.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

dinosaur hoax.

come on man.

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

I wonder what he means by that.

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

So this is where you draw the line on conspiratorial thought? Lmao.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is all bullshit. You're not more informed on this topic than the late Stephen Hawking: https://youtu.be/YzMrNFd4oOk

I see this often with you. You think you're some kind of brilliant expert on virtually every topic. You're not. You're full of shit. And if we disagree with your bullshit you call us "midwits". It's just laughable at this point.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.universetoday.com/15403/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/

People not running an entertainment business beg to differ. I don't care what you think. I never claimed to be a brilliant expert on every topic. You can look at the data and decide for yourself. You have no arguments or data points ever, just one-liners and emotional outbursts like a little girl.

[–]AidsVictim69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In general you can't trust anything on TV regarding physics outside some basic stuff, doubly true for space travel stuff. Even men who know better will give dumbed down bullshit answers when the producer says they need to make it sufficiently "exciting" or understandable to the general audience.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

All of this stuff can be overcome with technology. Your comment is like some person at the turn of the 20th century talking about how impossible it is with the current technology for man to ever cross the ocean in a jet. The G thing is bizarre. You accelerate slowly enough and you avoid the problem. You're not still experiencing high G loads when you reach high speeds in space.

Not saying that we'll be living in Star Trek tomorrow but to analyze these issues merely from through the prism of our present technological situation is short sighted.

I've also posted here about the Alcubierre warp drive which renders many of the problems you cite redundant. Who knows how many amazing inventions people can come up with to get around these problems. Also the cost benefits of space travel are limitless. The idea that there's no profit motive for space travel though an ugly and misguided take I expect from lolberts mainly is ridiculous.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You accelerate slowly enough

You can't decelerate fast enough or turn fast enough to avoid obstacles. The best radar on a moving object ever made is probably the AGP-81 radar on the F-35. It can only see 550 km ahead. Even if you built a miracle radar that could see 100,000 km ahead, at .1c you could not slow down or evade it in time.

You'd only have 3.33 seconds. If you go at lower speeds, if you go "only" at 1% of the speed of light, you'd still only have just 33 seconds. And at that speed, it would probably take you 6000 years to reach a planet that's 40 light-years away. And even then you have complications. Planets and even solar systems are not stationary objects. They are constantly orbiting and thus mobile. You essentially have to achieve pinpoint accuracy in your calculations from 40 light-years away where information is 40 years out of date.

Based on that data, you'd have to set up an interception point. Maneuvering could set you off course and then you'd have to waste even more fuel and time trying to catch up.

At a "slow'' speed of 1% of c, you'd probably require 6000 years to reach the planet. That's not feasible in the slightest economically and it's debatable if the crew of a ship could keep their shit together that long. Or even if a ship could possibly maintain supplies that long.

Your comment is like some person at the turn of the 20th century talking about how impossible it is with the current technology for man to ever cross the ocean in a jet

This mentality assumes that technology can be advanced infinitely. There are natural limits that might not be surpassed. There's no law in the sky that says that because you did air travel, you can also do space travel or break the law of momentum or inertia.

For example, Einstein(or Poincare perhaps) invented the theory of relativity in 1905. Quantum mechanics came into being by the 30s and 40s. There are four fundamental forces of nature: Gravitation, Electromagnetism, Nuclear strong force, and Nuclear weak force.

The latter three can be explained by quantum mechanics, the first can be explained by relativity. One of the greatest goals of physics is to develop a unified field theory that can explain all four and reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. Einstein tried for the last 30 years of his life and failed.

Richard Feinman, John von Neuman, Edward Teller, Stephen Hawking, and countless other physicists and mathematicians of near superhuman intelligence have tried for over 70 years and failed. 160+ IQ geniuses from all over the globe have tried and failed to break this nut. Same with questions like why does time run forward or what form does matter take inside a black hole.

There are laws in the universe that simply can't be broken. Such is the sentence of God.

You can't break the speed of light while having rest mass. You can't travel back in time(in a sense you can travel forward) and you can't know if there's life after death.

The 19th and 20th centuries saw rapid technological advances because the low-hanging fruit had not been picked. It was not that difficult to discover the laws of magnetism or relativity. It's vastly harder in comparison to finding the secret of eternal youth or creating life from inanimate objects.

Science is not like the tech tree on a video game where if you invest money, train scholars and give them raw materials, it will continuously keep advancing.

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

relativity is obviously fake, you can't have speed of light being the same in all reference frames. Quantum mechanics also makes no sense. You can't figurte out a particles position and momentum? Yes you can just get back to the drawing board and figure it out. They basically said something is hard so it can't be figured out as an excuse for they couldn't figure it out. Imagine if I put that on my math test in school, I'd get an F for sure.

[–]AidsVictim69 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

relativity is obviously fake, you can't have speed of light being the same in all reference frames.

Why not?

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

thats just retarded, makes no sense

[–]AidsVictim69 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Makes perfect sense to me. The speed of light just tells you the maximum/nearest coordinate you can reach from whatever given point. That coordinate system is not frame dependent.

Relativity has plenty of direct experimental/observational evidence it's not simply abstract untested theory.

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

it's not a cosmic speed limit either just need more force to go faster and faster

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

.1c

Meaning?

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

c is Speed of light.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

10% of the speed of light. C denoting 3x10*8 meters/second.

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

Inertia. If you were going at 10% of the speed of light you would need 600 years to reach a star system 40 light-years away. 200 years of acceleration, 200 years of cruise speed, and 200 years of deceleration.

Contrary to what you see in movies, in real life, you can't accelerate from rest to near light speed in a matter of minutes. Even if the propulsion system was capable of that, no pilot would do it because the G force would crush him to paste.

The effect of acceleration does impose some constraints on the design of a starship and what kindof missions it can handle, but not to the extent to which you imply. If a starship accelerated at a constant rate of 1 G (or 9.82 mt/s), then it would reach a velocity of 1 km/s in 102 seconds. If it maintained this rate of acceleration, it would reach a velocity of 30,000 km/s in 3,055,000 seconds (or 35.3 days). So clearly, it does not represent an insurmountable problem for a starship.

A more serious problem is the aspect of waste heat. An engine that is able to accelerate a (presumably) huge spacecraft at 1 G for over a month will release enormous amounts of waste heat. Once a vessel exceeds a certain tonnage, the amount of energy released from the engines will exceed what is released from a nuclear bomb. Safely radiating this heat away from the starship is not a trivial problem. It would grow more serious if the vessel is using its engines continuously for a long burn.

And the real problem in space comes from debris. At .1c, even a small pebble-sized object would hit you with the force of a mini nuclear bomb.

This is true. Space debris is a problem even for spacecraft in an Earth orbit. At the much higher speeds required for interstellar travel, it would become a very serious problem. The only real way to deal with it is by pre-planning a voyage through parts of space where they will not go through any asteroid belts or meteor fields, and by equipping the starship with a very heavy shield. (Depending on the size of the vessel and the speed it will travel at, these shields can weigh in at hundreds of tons)

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

voyage through parts of space where they will not go through any asteroid belts or meteor fields, and by equipping the starship with a very heavy shield. (Depending on the size of the vessel and the speed it will travel at, these shields can weigh in at hundreds of tons)

Yes, but you can only plan so far ahead. You can't scan for pebbles or smaller debris and there is no radar that can accurately map out asteroid belts millions of kilometers away. Even if it could, the turn radius would be too high and it would require to great a force to decelerate or turn in the first place.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is just a demonstration of your pathetic lack of vision. Our future lies in space. Period. We're hardly spending money on it as it is. It's not a waste. Giving endless trillions to POCs and banks is a waste.

[–]AidsVictim69 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Space fetishization by the right is not much different from pseudo religious scientism by Reddit nerds. The future of white ethnic groups and nations depends entirely on what happens on the social-communal and national levels, not small populations of probably mixed people (the way things are going) living on Mars generations from now.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why are you so hostile and triggered? I never insulted you.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

Doing esoteric debates about philosophy and the true will of Marx and if the Bolsheviks were real Marxists is a waste of time. No one gives a shit about these things.

The modern left doesn't get their talking points from Marx, they get it from Netflix. And Netflix and Hollywood get their cultural orders from the CFR and the CIA.

Don't be like Keith. Don't be a theorycel. Focus instead on the power structure that's destroying the West, how it functions, and solutions on how to defeat it.

Get mired up in theory and you start losing brain cells.

"The primary mover of history is liberalism" - Keith Woods, a man paid money to teach people about politics.

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

As far as I am aware, Haz and Logo claim to be old school Marxists, not modern leftists.

Focus instead on the power structure that's destroying the West, how it functions, and solutions on how to defeat it.

That's precisely what theory is.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

old school Marxists, not modern leftists

No difference. One of the worst cons pulled by the modern left and eagerly gulped by marxnat idiots is the notion of the good old leftist. He was based, a champion of the working class who wanted a better life for the working class.

In reality, the old communists were the ones who spearheaded the feminist movement. They legalized abortion in the USSR. Trotsky invented the term racist. The USSR passed the world's first hate speech laws. During the cold war, ''old school marxists'' spearheaded the push for desegregation, the end of apartheid, quotas for minorities and sexual liberation. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were a strong advocate of free sex as well.

Lenin also decriminalized homosexuality in the USSR. There is nothing the modern leftist does that would've been disapproved by Lenin. And just like leftists today, the bolsheviks were mostly malcontent children of the upper middle class and they too were financed by big capital just like AOC and the young turks.

The Bolsheviks were financed by Jacob Schiff of Kuhn Loeb and Max Warburg. The USSR was industrialized by American capital. Stalin noted in 1945 that 90% of Soviet industry had been build with US assistance.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No difference. One of the worst cons pulled by the modern left and eagerly gulped by marxnat idiots is the notion of the good old leftist. He was based, a champion of the working class who wanted a better life for the working class.

You are wrong. The "good old leftist" was not a "based champion of the working class". The "good old leftist" was working class himself. Leftist intellectuals have always been progressive cosmopolitans. The actual leftist workers however are a completely different story.

There is nothing the modern leftist does that would've been disapproved by Lenin.

You are blatantly wrong about this. I am not saying that Lenin was a good guy or that he was "based", but he was extremely opinionated and demanding in regard to left wing politics.

I should also note that no one has pointed at the Old Bolsheviks as exemplary moral and political figures. It is typically the Stalinist and post-Stalinist model that people engage with.

Stalin noted in 1945 that 90% of Soviet industry had been build with US assistance.

This sounds like it's complete bullshit, so you're either flatly wrong or you are using a definition of the word "assistance" that is basically worthless. Elaborate on this and give me your sources, please.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If you're making a distinction between the leftist intellectual and the leftist voter, then you are right. Their voters were generally working-class yokels who got duped. But Logo and Haz would fall under the criteria of intellectuals as they push the ideology.

What part of the left do you think Lenin would not approve of? He was very anti-white and anti-christian himself. He would fully approve of most of what the left is doing down to the sexual degeneracy and censorship which he himself pushed. I guess he might be repulsed by trannies but that's it.

https://capx.co/soviet-communism-was-dependent-on-western-technology/

https://www.americanheritage.com/how-america-helped-build-soviet-machine

http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But Logo and Haz would fall under the criteria of intellectuals as they push the ideology.

I am not too familiar with either of them. From what I have seen, Logo seems to be a typical example of a vapid "intellectual". Haz seems intelligent and practically minded, though.

What part of the left do you think Lenin would not approve of? He was very anti-white and anti-christian himself. He would fully approve of most of what the left is doing down to the sexual degeneracy and censorship which he himself pushed.

In theory he would support all of the different types of "liberation", but he would definitely disapprove of the entire practical aspect of leftism today. Absolutely everything, from the people, groups, their ideas, the institutions they control and so on. Lenin believed in "scientific historical materialism", dual power and disciplined anti-state positions. The leftism of today is, instead, completely reactionary (in the literal meaning of the term), emotional-moral, anarchistic, riotous and uncontrolled. Rather than a determined vanguard, the left today consist in a bunch of servile, lumpen state collaborators.

As to your sources, I honestly did not expect that you would direct me to this libertarian nonsense. A lot of the stuff in that first article is ridiculous, stupid, unsubstantiated bullshit. The rest in all three articles - on which your point about industry is based - is technically correct but misleading. Yes, Western research, technology and design was involved in the production processes of the Soviet state, as it would be involved in the production processes of any state. The only alternative would be an insane autarchic mania. If we take that as our standard, then we could reasonably say that "100% of Japanese industry was built with Western assistance". That would be a technically correct assertion to make, but it would be profoundly misleading. I am disappointed that I had to waste my time looking at literal propaganda instead of genuine information about Soviet industry.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Soviet_Union#Use_of_foreign_specialists

February 1930, between Amtorg and Albert Kahn, Inc., a firm of American architect Albert Kahn, an agreement was signed, according to which Kahn's firm became the chief consultant of the Soviet government on industrial construction and received a package of orders for the construction of industrial enterprises worth $2 billion (about $250 billion in prices of our time). This company has provided construction of more than 500 industrial facilities in the Soviet Union.

Is this convincing enough?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/126832

The Bolsheviks killed the old Russian intelligentsia and the remainder fled to the West. The Soviets simply didn't have the technical knowledge to build a modern industrial state. Without American engineers and technicians building machinery for them, teaching them how to operate it, and transferring technology, the USSR could never have industrialized.

Here's an article from the New York Times in 1930 showing American assistance in building up Soviet industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/1930/11/30/archives/44-american-firms-are-aiding-soviet-list-of-those-working-on.html

Before Communism Russia was the world's second-largest exporter of food. After communism, it became a land of perpetual starvation and poverty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_United_States%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_wheat_deal

Without grain imports from the US, the Soviets would've collapsed far earlier. The Western elites were always highly sympathetic to communism. It's not a coincidence that Marxist thinkers were taught at elite US universities since the end of WW2. Roosevelt's admin was full of flagrant Soviet spies like Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White#Assessments_of_Soviet_involvement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hopkins#Relations_with_Soviet_Union

American and British capital built up Soviet industry. In 1942 the USSR was on the brink of collapse due to having lost its richest lands in Ukraine. Massive American aid kept Russia in the war and allowed her to triumph over Germany. The OSS also helped Mao win in China and David Rockefeller set up Chase bank in red China.

Communism was and still is an attack dog that was loosened by western capital against hostile regimes that would not allow anglo-American finance to plunder their lands. The cold war was not owed to any ideological differences with the USSR. There were no sanctions on the USSR until the 1980s when Reagan's neocons imposed sanctions for invading Afghanistan.

It was simply a matter of containing an Empire that had grown too big for comfort. The Soviets rejected the Baruch plan and thus set back the agenda of world government. This led to the US adopting a policy of containment against the Soviets.

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

I am not rejecting your point. I am rejecting the meaning you assign to it. Yes, the Soviets made use of Western technology, Western experts and Western research. This does not even remotely equate "90% of Soviet industry" being built with US assistance. I assume that you meant Western rather than American here, since that's what your sources refer to.

The Americans did not build 90% of Soviet industry for free, out of the kindness of their hearts. This is nonsense. If you hire a foreign company to improve the productive facilities of your country then that does technically count as "assistance", yes, but it is misleading, because we are talking about business, not about some bleeding-heart foreign aid project. You are not even considering the implications of what it would mean for the USSR to construct its industry without using Western methods in the early 20th century. We're talking about basic, vital technologies for the extraction, refinement and use of raw materials. You wouldn't even be able to build a single factory without this type of Western "assistance", because the method for producing the steel you need relies on innovations from various Western nation-states. This is why I mentioned that by this standard, you could claim that "100% of Japanese industry was built with Western assistance". Without the knowledge to produce modern roads, steel, building materials and so on the very idea of Japanese industry is inconceivable. But to say that "100% of Japanese industry was built with Western assistance" would be profoundly misleading, because the Japanese still had to organise the creation of their industry, pay for the necessary expertise, then provide the funds, materials and labour necessary to complete their projects - just like the Soviets.

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

it seems odd that we aided USSR at the same time as demonizing the commies during the red scare. Almost like the cold war was phony. That's the point. Not same as Japan, everyone knows we conquered them in WWII and set up permanent bases and no one denies we have aided them since.

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

I am talking about pre-1945 in both cases.

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

yep tho we aided them before and after that

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

stalin didn't say that, anthony summers did, USA funded USSR.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There isn't much of a difference between them. For example, Juncker—President of the European Commission—was involved in all sorts of events celebrating Karl Marx.

Here's what he has to say about Marx (https://archive.is/QdO5L):

Karl Marx was a philosopher, who thought into the future had creative aspirations, and today he stands for things, which is he not responsible for and which he didn't cause, because many of the things he wrote down were redrafted into the opposite

And (https://archive.is/XMX3t):

Marx isn’t responsible for all the atrocity his alleged heirs have to answer for.

Juncker is no different to outright neo-Marxists. Marx had good intentions and dindu nuffin; it just 'went wrong' because of someone, and that someone depends on which Marxist cult one is in, e.g., Stalin for the Maoists, Lenin for the Trotskyites. So if someone else got power instead of Lenin or Stalin the USSR would all have been fine! Those guys are just 'opportunists' or 'agents'. Trust me! Communism is really great and we just have to get it right this time around!

Does anyone think that if someone said 'Nazism is good but Hitler is bad, Strasser should have been the leader and Nazism would have led to a utopia. We just have to get Nazism right this time!' that the average Leftist shithead would suddenly say that there is a 'difference' between this 'pro-Strasser Nazi' and 'pro-Hitler Nazis'? They literally see no difference. We shouldn't bother differentiating between them either. They've just compromised temporarily with capitalism. Voter data still shows that they're highly sympathetic to socialism, but class issues have taken a backseat because of the proliferation of new identities like the multitudinous genders and sexualities. When they've achieved whatever god-awful things they intend in those regards, they'll return to class. This is what people like Marcuse wanted anyway—the proletariat have been bourgeoisified and are incapable of revolution, the lumpenproletariat are the true revolutionary class. But he did not realize that empowered lumpens are wont to prioritize the normalization of degeneracy over the realization of socialism—if they attempt the latter it will only be after they're satisfied with the 'progress' they've made with the former.

[–]JuliusCaesar225 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were a strong advocate of free sex as well

Leftists were always bad but this is false. They were against the nuclear family but not for free love. Marxism gets more degenerate each generation. The Bolsheviks were already a degenerated version of Marxism and gave emphasis to things like racial justice and anti imperialism which original Communist writers showed little interest.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't be like Keith. Don't be a theorycel.

Oh boy, the irony.

Post some more dick pics.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

This is why I think that Keith and Joel, while well-meaning, are actually holding us back from becoming a mass movement. We cannot afford to remain an intellectual elite. Most people don't care about what Evola, Nietzsche or Marx believed, about the metaphysical idealism-dualism-physicalism debate and the 'hard problem of consciousness', or most of anything else Keith mentions. They don't care what Bergson and Deleuze believed, about generative anthropology, or anything else Joel has an interest in either. Keith probably intentionally sticks to these safe topics in the hope of preserving his channel for longer. It's probably also why he's miraculously survived while almost every DR content creator channel who gets to a certain size (AmRen, Millennial Woes, etc.) gets banned. He's treading on thin ice.

To win on the macro-level there needs to be a simplification of the message. Avoid speculation. Avoid unsourced claims whenever possible. Engage more with science and less with philosophy. We need to be much more offensive in the use of these debate platforms, and much more serious about winning these debates. Avoid debating people with small audiences because the return is little if when we win and they gain comparatively more if we lose, and focus on channels with audiences larger than one's own channel—the return is higher when we win and comparatively lesser if we lose. Avoid debating other people on the same side.

I don't even know about that last quote. In his debate with The Distributist he claimed that 'Capital is the prime mover', to which The Distributist disagreed. If he since thinks liberalism is the prime or unmoved mover, then he sounds like he's switched from capital to ideology. Is that from a recent video?

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Most people don't care about what Evola, Nietzsche or Marx believed, about the metaphysical idealism-dualism-physicalism debate and the 'hard problem of consciousness', or most of anything else Keith mentions.

"Most people" don't care about politics either and from among those who do, "most people" make zero impact. Politics is not a question of numbers, especially not of numbers at the expense of everything else. All three of the thinkers you mentioned make this very clear for their readers, in different ways.

To win on the macro-level there needs to be a simplification of the message. Avoid speculation. Avoid unsourced claims whenever possible. Engage more with science and less with philosophy.

All of these things have their place in political practice, but that's just half the picture. To simplify a message, first you need to have one. Similarly, philosophy is invaluable if it is done well. Something important that a lot of people miss these days is that science itself is based on and is a form of philosophy. Without understanding the implications of that, you will always be at a disadvantage when trying to use science, because you would be failing to understand the tool that you are trying to use. When people discuss the nature of consciousness, knowledge, epistemology etc. it isn't just something they do for the sake of it, it is done because these things are important and determine the entire content and direction behind the ideas humans rely on to make sense of the world.

[–]MarkimusThird Positionist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

To simplify a message, first you need to have one. Similarly, philosophy is invaluable if it is done well.

Yep. The people who think the alt/dissident right today is 'too big brained' are hilarious. I'd love to see these guys tackling Hegel and Gentile; or Heidegger and Schmitt etc.

The issue is actually the exact opposite, revolutionary nationalists back then actually read the newspapers, attended the speeches, read Mein Kampf and the other 30~ books on the NS reading list etc. The average member of a shirt movement in the 20s and 30s was well educated on politics and his own movement's struggle. The average alt/dissident righter today is just a conservatard that likes to say nigger, the reason we are unable to get anything done is because our ranks are either too stupid or too intellectually lazy to educate themselves and actually try to get anything done.

The /r/BritishNationalism sub got banned but they exemplified this issue. They were all race realist, pro-white, most were jew aware to some extent. But all of them are basically just Churchill worshipping antifa neocon retards. They have successfully adopted the 'simplified' messaging of the alt right IE the form, with none of the substance.

By the way, Stennes from reddit has translated Rudolf Jung's National Socialism book and is giving it away for free if you're interested.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think that stupidity wouldn't be an issue if there was an organisation with an intelligent strategy directing the efforts of all political forces, but especially today anti-system politics are the most individualist, decentralised and disorganised they have ever been. Consequently any increase in numbers or resources only translates into slightly louder whining.

Thank you for mentioning the translation, I may take a look at it later. It's still hard to believe that most of the National Socialist material is not already translated.

[–]MarkimusThird Positionist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yep, it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation too. This hypothetical organisation can only come to exist once it has some funding, which is going to require many thousands of people to straighten up.

Thank you for mentioning the translation, I may take a look at it later. It's still hard to believe that most of the National Socialist material is not already translated.

Worse yet a lot of it is lost to history too

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

Worse yet a lot of it is lost to history too

Do you have anything particular in mind?

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

Nothing in particular, just random things you see referenced. Half of the reading list from here doesn't exist in English for example, I think a lot of it is lost even in German too.

[–]JuliusCaesar225 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

but especially today anti-system politics are the most individualist, decentralised and disorganised they have ever been.

That is an interesting point. The internet has increased levels of dissent from the current system and its ideology but the dissent is completely unorganized. Pre Internet if you wanted to engage with likeminded others you would have to form some type of group or organization to do so. An organized structure also results in superior leaders rising to the top.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But you're just a midwit though. Caspar said it so it must be true. /S

[–]MarkimusThird Positionist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It's worse than that, I'm two halfwits inside a big coat

[–]JuliusCaesar225 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The simplified message ends up just being shitposting and memeing which far out weighs the intellectual commentary on the Right. If anything it is the former holding us back. It is true the masses are not going to be interested in more complex discussions but that doesn't mean we should reject such things. Fostering a dissident academic and intellectual culture is important to cultivate or you'll never be able to challenge the ruling ideology and its institutions.

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

"Something important that a lot of people miss these days is that science itself is based on and is a form of philosophy."

Hard truth for many to accept, right here.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sure, a perfect science would require a perfect philosophy. However, humans have gotten absolutely nowhere in their philosophical theories and therefore all of their science is based on possibly incorrect epistemological foundations. Science is totally pointless if epistemological nihilism is correct, for example. However, I'm confident that humans will never make any major breakthrough in the remaining fields of philosophy and so they will remain philosophical indefinitely. Spending the last few decades we have pondering how to solve these problems just so that our enemies would benefit from the solutions if we hypothetically did is simply a foolish waste of time.

I think, for example, that I have a pretty ingenious argument for refuting solipsism. I don't bother bringing it into the DR because there is too much of this as it is, all of which only occurs because we've been incapable of progress for decades. By this I mean that the only reason that we are scouring old books by Gentile et al. and fighting over interpretations of them, is precisely because we have not found a way into the halls of power. Literally all of this discussion would cease if we were in power tomorrow. We'd be far too busy deporting nuisances, imprisoning the old regime. We would simply forget about these books for a very long time.

DR content creation is the way it is precisely because of a lack of progress towards gaining power, or towards the establishment of communities. It is simply the result of hoping that within an old book an easy path is found to surpass an increasingly insurpassable wall. We have no need for remaining an intellectual elite because elites that do not convince masses can never hold power. It is simply impossible to convince the masses by being 'too big brained' such that they simply switch off. Keith and Joel may as well be speaking a different language to them. 'Excessive' intellectualism strikes people as pompous and out-of-touch.

Markimus' response ignores the fact practically everything that led to Germany's reversal from the Weimar was already in place to facilitate the NSDAP's rise. Nationalism and 'anti-Semitism' were in Germany long before Hitler was born. The NSDAP would not have seized power as a result of reading newspapers, attending speeches, etc. They seized power because the foundations they needed to seize power were already there, whereas they are totally lacking here today. For example, the NSDAP found it easy to recruit Communists because they were still straight White men at that time. It is impossible to recruit Communists today because they are increasingly none of those things. The army contained plenty of Volkisch types including some of its Generals, whereas the army is fully pozzed in the West. Entire cities like Munich practically belonged to the Right during the Weimar Republic, whereas we have no cities. Then, the rot was concentrated in Berlin, whereas today it has overwhelmed all big cities. There is no way we are analogous to the Weimar. Everything that advantaged the Right back then is simply absent now.

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

However, I'm confident that humans will never make any major breakthrough in the remaining fields of philosophy and so they will remain philosophical indefinitely.

You can't know that, you just decided that on your own. No wonder you think philosophy is a waste of time.

Spending the last few decades we have pondering how to solve these problems just so that our enemies would benefit from the solutions if we hypothetically did is simply a foolish waste of time.

Different people work on different things. It's not like every person with right wing inclinations would suddenly become a philosophy expert overnight and spend his time working on the problem of consciousness. Some people will work on the intellectual aspect of things, others would work on organisation etc. Moreover, you are overlooking something - the system is already benefitting from the lack of solutions. Nihilistic postmodernism is the ideology of 21st century capitalism. The whole point is that "nothing matters, you're just a clump of cells on a rock in space, consume the product and don't believe in anything". I myself am no believer in the ability of "pure philosophy" on its own to "solve" the crisis of nihilism, but every serious, intelligent person needs at least some form of philosophical approach to life. It is a basic necessity for intellectual life.

I think, for example, that I have a pretty ingenious argument for refuting solipsism. I don't bother bringing it into the DR because there is too much of this as it is, all of which only occurs because we've been incapable of progress for decades. By this I mean that the only reason that we are scouring old books by Gentile et al. and fighting over interpretations of them, is precisely because we have not found a way into the halls of power. Literally all of this discussion would cease if we were in power tomorrow. We'd be far too busy deporting nuisances, imprisoning the old regime. We would simply forget about these books for a very long time.

This is a forum for political discussion, not for discussion of philosophy. Philosophy is relevant only insofar as it ties into politics, but a very broad range of works can fall into this category. I also think that your position on philosophy here shows you lack principles. A person with political agency should be able to define himself not only in negative terms, against what he opposes, but also in positive terms of what he wants to create and establish.

It is simply the result of hoping that within an old book an easy path is found to surpass an increasingly insurpassable wall.

It is not about finding an easy path, it is about finding a path that works. The thing is that every aspect of political theory and practice have already been examined by extremely intelligent men over the past century. Trying to reinvent the wheel is not only needless, but also futile, because the people engaging with these problems today are simply far less intelligent and learned than the previous generation. The gap in the quality of analysis and strategy is almost unbelievable.

We have no need for remaining an intellectual elite because elites that do not convince masses can never hold power.

Really? What about the current one?

It is simply impossible to convince the masses by being 'too big brained' such that they simply switch off.

The "big brained" ideas are not for the masses, they are there to convince thinkers and intelligent people, who convince driven and sensible people, who convince the masses. This is how it has always worked.

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

My response ignores nothing lol? The conditions of interwar Germany have literally nothing to do with this topic. Your comments are the ones missing stuff, namely that the people who are part of the nationalist/racialist 'movement' today just aren't even remotely serious. This is what it comes down to, there is plenty of simplified propaganda which is how most people got here. The issue is that the vast majority of people take step 1 and just sit there forever, they don't look to organise, nor are they educating themselves on anything politically. They aren't serious about the struggle, they just like shitposting.

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

yeah theorycelling is also known as obscurantism or a gish gallup. intended to waste our time. Only theory we need is common sense

[–]Richard_ParkerHard-line, right-wing authoritarian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is this about? Twist and shout.