The KKK and its Founding Connections to Jewish Organizations by Jesus in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern [score hidden]  (0 children)

The final redpill is that the Jews themselves don't exist; the existence of the Jews is itself another Jewish trick.

Colby Covington Defeats Tyron Woodley by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

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

The problem with this stuff is that it creates a defensive narrative which is patently false, that we're in power and need to defend the system from these outsider subversives or something. The exact opposite is the case, we are powerless and they own every institution.

Well I completely agree with your assessment of our situation here, but we were in control at some point in the past, it's just that the subversion already happened and the old regime is already dead. I don't think it's such a stretch for normie conservatives, aware of subversion, to come to realize that it happened years ago and that nobody in power is really on our side.

Normie conservatives are also overwhelmingly white, so I side with them for that reason too.

Imagine if we were in power as National Socialists and we had a massive faction of our controlled opposition calling us subversive jewish supremacist zionists who are trying to overthrow the state. This is exactly what you're saying if you talk about communists/jewish subversives/cultural marxists etc.

Well it's not what I'm saying - to extend your analogy, it would be like if we were in power as National Socialists and a massive faction of our controlled opposition claimed we got there by a "long march through the internets" utilizing weaponized Pepe memes to subvert established Jewish power.

All the narratives surrounding these things create a twisted narrative which only harms nationalists, the 'long march through the institutions' is the prime example of this. That shit NEVER HAPPENED, people don't just accidentally give away their power or somehow have the rug pulled from underneath them by some massive secret organisation or some shit. The people in power WANTED these ideas spread because they benefited them.

Liberals absolutely do this. Controlled by the cultural pressure from the media, how many white billionaires have dedicated their fortune to charitable anti-white causes (diversity and equality initiatives, helping blacks in Africa), instead of helping their children (let alone white people more generally)? The people in power wanted these ideas spread, but not because they benefited them, but because they believed them.

The "long march through the institutions" absolutely happened and ideas that could have come directly from the mouths of the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School are being espoused by mainstream media pundits. Part of this is still going on; while the power in academia and media has somewhat metastasized the average (conservative) normie still wouldn't agree with ideas from critical whiteness studies and the like - that's changing rapidly.

You're absolutely right when you say that conservatives defending the "attack on Western civilization" (e.g. Proud Boys) are misguided because "Western civilization" is already dead and now refers to a corpse infested with parasites. But what remains of what leftists call "whiteness" is now under attack in the same way; the remaining institutions and cultural norms created by and for white people that have not yet rotted away are being targeted. They can't be saved, but the instinct to save them and the analysis that they are under attack is correct.

Colby Covington Defeats Tyron Woodley by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

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

The way I see it, "capitalism", or the sum total of all industry in competition with each other, is merely a tool that our elite wield that is more effective at achieving their political and social goals. In a sense the DR3 "anti-racist" conservative normies are correct - if you want to destroy whiteness, exile anyone who acknowledges racial differences, dissolve the nuclear family, erase the world's borders, and promote degeneracy - there's nothing better to achieve those goals than international capitalism.

But "capitalism" isn't an ideology in itself; it leaves a void to be filled by religious conviction. In our Christian (and more segregated - owing to being less technologically advanced) past, this actually worked out well for white people. But our modern-day religion is the "woke" religion, which is rooted in anti-whiteness, equalitarianism and Marxian conflict theory. It intellectual roots can be traced back directly to the (overwhelmingly Jewish) thinkers of the Frankfurt School, who could be described as post-Marxists.

It is very important also to point out that the state is larger than ever - there is no traditional society that had even close to our ~50% of GDP spent by the government. This spending is largely spent on non-white immigrants and old white people who didn't have enough children to take care of them in their old age. This money is extracted from predominantly middle-age whites who now need both husband and wife to work just to get by. Can a traditional society exist with over 50% of GDP spent by government? I don't know the answer; all I know is that it has never happened before. Hoppe makes a good argument that high taxation and high redistribution encourages high time preference, and therefore disincentivizes planning for the future by forming a traditional family, staying away from vice, upholding morality and so on, and incentivizes instant gratification and hedonism. It certainly fits with historical evidence.

The simplest way to see it is as both left and normie right being two heads of the same beast, and since they both espouse the virtue of "equality" (especially ontological equality of the "divine spark" variety), I count them both on the left. And yes, Jews play a disproportionate role in both heads.

Colby Covington Defeats Tyron Woodley by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

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

I don't have beef with boomers who blame everything on "the commies" because ultimately a large number of Jewish subversives were and are communists. Communism/equality is also the excuse currently used by anti-whites to justify their anti-whiteism. So it's really not too far off from the truth to blame it on the communists.

National Justice Party- Founding Speech by Mike Enoch by cisheteroscum in debatealtright

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

A great speech; I liked Right Reaction's breakdown of it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KE3vlyEUVg

Steve Sailer: White-Counting - Taki's Magazine by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

Only by building. Those on the right must realize - we have next to zero institutional power, and little hope of subverting what power exists. The old civilization is basically already dead. We must build institutions that can take over when the current power structure falls (as all empires do).

Steve Sailer: White-Counting - Taki's Magazine by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

Sailer covered this:

Of course, most of the NYT’s 922 powerful positions are held by older people. Among American residents 40 or older, 69 percent are non-Hispanic white. And many of the nonwhite residents are not citizens (in fact, some are illegal aliens, although we aren’t supposed to care about that).

So, probably a little under three-fourths of the American citizens in the relevant age range are white, and they hold four-fifths of the powerful jobs.

If you look at gentile whites only, they are under-represented in the relevant age range.

Ay Tone, why dey celebratin'? by disidentHR in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What if we just don't think religions have agency?

Firstly, Jews are an ethno-religious group; not all of them even believe in God.

Secondly, the left in general believes strongly that religion has agency, especially when you are blaming "evangelicals" for Republican stances on abortion or sex education. Why don't the beliefs of Jews in power affect the decisions they make?

By the grace of Allah, Globohomo is secularizing the Middle east by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The counterjihad movement's main point is that Islam is bad because they're not liberal and homosexual enough. They fully submit to the moral framework of the GloboHomo Gayplex.

On Moldbug's Descriptive Constitution of the Modern Regime by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

Back in May/June he started doing the rounds on podcasts, giving interviews and promoting his new book that he's releasing in chapters.

Is there a master race? by WatchOutThere in debatealtright

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

From an evolutionary point of view all that matters is survival, so according to the first definition it doesn't matter how they pass on their genes, just that they are doing so. (I would also consider Toxoplasma Gondii to be one of the "superior"/successful organisms.)

The second definition would cover the fact that they "didn't do it themselves," but it's hard to pin an exact definition down with that one.

"A woke person is just a White supremacist that feels guilty" - Tim Pool by sproketboy in quotes

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

It's true that those who are truly woke have a viewpoint that could be characterized as "white supremacy"; they believe that:

  • Western civilization is inherently white civilization
  • Western civilization is inherently dominant
  • Race, and its intersection with other identities, should be the central focus of political discourse
  • Meritocratic systems lead to white people being at the top
  • Non-whites are inherently ill-suited to Western civilization, so to accommodate them it must be radically changed

(Note that this is a more extreme position than most people characterized as "white supremacists", who would be likely to disagree with the second and fourth statements above).

Their other beliefs are not exactly "white supremacy"; they believe:

  • The dominance and superiority of whites is a bad thing [Tim's point above]
  • Race is purely a socially-constructed phenomenon with no biological basis
  • All morality is culturally relative, except for "oppression", making whites inherently morally inferior
  • The only reason for whites' superiority is this "oppression" - essentially "superiority" is equated with evil
  • They themselves define "white supremacy" as not supporting the tearing down of Western civilization - by their own rules, they aren't "white supremacists"

Is there a master race? by WatchOutThere in debatealtright

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

One natural gauge of what constitutes "superiority" is who is most capable of passing on their genes (and memes) into the future. Clearly while Europeans have had great success in the past, and an overwhelming amount of modern ideas, technology and art descend from Europeans, the number of Europeans is dwindling while the number of Africans is increasing, and the comparative influence of non-white culture is growing. By this metric, those with the highest birthrates are essentially "superior" making Sub-Saharan Africans the superior race.

Contra leftist cultural relativists, I think most races have a pretty similar idea of what constitutes a successful civilization. So that could be another definition of "superiority". If the West falls, as seems likely, it can hardly be said to be a successful civilization at that point. But that will have come amid racial replacement of the West. We have to ask, "would any other race have produced a civilization with as much success?" - and I think a reasonable answer is no, and another is that the Chinese could give it a good shot. I don't think there's a black superpower on the horizon but I could be wrong.

Leftists and non-conformity by tantamle in debatealtright

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

Best description of leftist psychology ever written.

Also see The System's Neatest Trick by Ted in which he goes into more detail on this point that leftists are really upholding the system when they believe they are rebelling against it.

Has the left abandoned the "ALL white people are racist" narrative? by tantamle in debatealtright

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

The social justice literature calls these liberals who believe they aren't racist, "good whites," and they are immensely frustrated with them. In fact, it's those people they spend most of their time calling racist. From the linked article (Source: DiAngelo, Robin. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. Beacon Press, 2018, pp. 4–5.):

None of the white people whose actions I describe in this book would identify as racist. In fact, they would most likely identify as racially progressive and vehemently deny any complicity with racism. Yet all their responses illustrate white fragility and how it holds racism in place. These responses spur the daily frustrations and indignities people of color endure from white people who see themselves as open-minded and thus not racist. This book is intended for us, white progressives who so often—despite our conscious intentions—make life so difficult for people of color. I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. I define a white progressive as anyone who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less racist, or is in the “choir,” or already “gets it.” White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because, to the degree we think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure other people see us as having arrived. None of our energy will be going into what we need to be doing for the rest of our lives: engaging in ongoing self-awareness, continuing education, relationship building, and actual antiracist practice. White progressives do indeed uphold and perpetrate racism, but our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain to us how we do so.

DHS to label white supremacists as the 'most persistent and lethal threat' to the US: report by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

There are two things going on when someone is said to be a "white supremacist":

  1. The consensus among the general public is that a "white supremacist" is somebody who believes that white people are all inherently superior to non-whites because of their genetics and skin color.
  2. The academic definition whereby anyone with remotely conservative, capitalist or even liberal views who doesn't want to tear down society, is "complicit in white supremacy"; for example Donald Trump or any one of his tens of millions of supporters.

The reality is that nobody fits the description of (1) which is really just a straw man against nationalist ideas. But academics and leftist media pundits apply the definition (2) to normie conservatives, causing them to disavow the "real white supremacists", which they'll do a quick Wikipedia search to confirm. That's us.

I did come to a realization, though, regarding why leftists would associate even liberal meritocracy with "white supremacy". It's because they themselves believe that white people are superior (at least relative to the standard Western definition of achievement). While people on the right are very careful to say, "nobody is superior, we're just different," or "even if there are average differences, we should all judge people as individuals," or "every group should be proud of their own," I think some leftists are true believers in white superiority. They just think that the definition of "superior" ought to change, because they think that defining it in terms of how good one is at math, or English, or physics means white people will inevitably end up on top. Leftist Fredrik deBoer makes this point explicitly in his book The Cult of Smart, which Andrew Sullivan has termed "bell curve leftism".

Ann Coulter tweets links to Unz review by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

I think that there's a good chance a number of Reddit mods are Chinese and Russian agents, yes. You're probably right to say that ADL/JIDF types have the largest influence, but if I were Chinese, I couldn't help but notice the "baizuo" phenomenon and simply help push it along; it is obviously in Chinese state interests to do so.

Ann Coulter tweets links to Unz review by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

I wouldn't downplay the amount of Chinese influence on Reddit either, there's probably plenty of Chinese as well as Israeli (and Russian, for that matter) shills all over Reddit. An anonymous forum like that is probably where social media influence groups, whether governmental or corporate, spend most of their time and effort.

Police shoot unarmed autistic 13 white kid multiple times, gets barely any attention in the media by JuliusCaesar225 in debatealtright

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

We should stick to cold, hard logic when analyzing cases like these. The facts are on our side, after all. The facts are definitively not on the side of those claiming some "epidemic" of police brutality.

In this case, I'd suggest doing research on media bias in cases like these; Sean Last has done some great research on racial bias in police shootings, and Zach Goldberg has done some great research on media bias - this graph is particularly relevant in this case.

Police shoot unarmed autistic 13 white kid multiple times, gets barely any attention in the media by JuliusCaesar225 in debatealtright

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

I'm actually with you on this one. The moment the right steps out of cold statistical analysis and into emotional fear stories it loses its credibility. They see what the left does in terms of spinning a narrative, and try to replicate it when they don't have control of the media institutions. It won't work.

I always try to "steel man" my opponent's position in cases like these. It's very obvious that a principled leftist would view this as an important case of police brutality that adds weight to the hypothesis of careless, murderous police who don't value human life. He would also note (quite rightly) that a single instance of brutality against whites does not disprove the existence of bias against blacks.

So why is he wrong? Well, a cold look at the data suggests that the main reason blacks are targeted disproportionately is because of differing crime rates. The data also suggest that the vast majority of police interactions don't result in tragedy, and of the ones that do, the vast majority involve an armed suspect. We're talking 10s of people, of which maybe a couple die due to "bias" of some sort. Contrast this with the billions given to Black Lives Matter in order to further the goals of critical race theorists, which involve sweeping cultural changes and the erasure of European tradition, wealth and culture. And for what? There is no "crisis" of police brutality; there's no peculiar uptick in any graph. What there is, though, is a massive surge in media coverage of police brutality, and the right helps push this along simply by covering it.

Ann Coulter tweets links to Unz review by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

True enough, it was founded by one, though. I am probably leaning toward Twitter's incompetence as the best explanation. I think they'd censor us if they could.

Ann Coulter tweets links to Unz review by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Twitter has turned out to be the mainstream social media site with the least censorship, and also the only one not run by a Jew. It's still absolutely terrible on there, don't get me wrong, but they at least have some semblance of enforcing actual rules instead of naked political censorship. (Or maybe it's just that they're incompetent and can't catch people's many sock accounts. Who knows.)

Ann Coulter tweets links to Unz review by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Michelle Malkin appeared on Radio 3Fourteen/Red Ice TV earlier this year - do you think we could land Queen Ann an interview?

I think Coulter is fully redpilled by the way. I remember Vincent James pointed out a tweet she made (quickly deleted), in response to Michael Cohen's lies he was convicted for, which said simply "Cohen." I'll leave you guessing what she could have meant by that.

Reddit admits that their latest subreddit purge was a failure; only 18% decrease in "toxic comments" by ISaidWhatISaid in censorship

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

That was because it was giving a platform to hate-filled ideology.

The word "hate", in this context, is used specifically to demonize anti-egalitarian thought. It doesn't really have anything to do with the emotion of hatred. In your case you've searched the archive for the worst examples, and only your first example shows any sign of expressing the emotion of hatred (comparing non-whites to animals) - I agree this post should be removed, but it's hardly representative of right-wing ideology. Banning entire communities on the back of posts like this is open to abuse which we know is rampant.

Reddit let it exist for years but they kept breaking rules promoting hate. I guess that's pretty hard considering its genocide is in the alt-right playbook.

The rules against promoting "hate" are really egalitarian dogma; if you look at any site's terms of service the rules against "hate" are simply a long list of identities and how you basically can't generalize them negatively (and effectively therefore, not positively either). It doesn't prevent a long screed about how much you literally hate Donald Trump, or how you hate Nazis so much you want to punch them. Since left-wing thought is egalitarian, and right-wing thought is anti-egalitarian, rules against "hate" are explicitly the exact kind of ideological censorship I was talking about.

For The_Donald, Their #1 rule was banning any form of dissenting opinions for years before they were forced to change it. Anyone who questioned trump ideology was banned with troll reasons like "get gud", "libtard mad." or "SJW"

The moment they were banned from Reddit they changed their website's first rule to banning dissenting opinions again. It still is like this now so tell me if it bothers you when the right-wing communities censor and ban dissent.

The_Donald is an outpost of right-wing thought in a sea of leftist censorship. Don't forget the degree to which Trump supporters were censored on reddit; simply posting on The_Donald was enough to get banned from other subreddits. I think if we can't have free and open discussion, we should at least have censorship going both ways. If one side is doing the majority of the censorship, and the other clings to free speech alone, that asymmetry will mean the censors win.

There is also a matter of what is being censored. If pornography is censored, as on saidit, I don't mind at all. Or if opposition to Donald Trump on a forum dedicated to his supporters is censored, I can at least understand. But when factual statements ("hate facts") are banned from discussion on an ostensibly neutral "politics" subreddit, or when an ostensibly neural platform bans entire groups or unpersons people because of their politics (you can't even praise certain people on Facebook), we're talking full-on malicious, dishonest, ideological censorship of ideas that are extremely popular among the general public like covid-skepticism or anti-immigration. That's a whole other level to censorship that eclipses anything communities like The_Donald have done.

If you argue that racism is inevitable in a multi-ethnic society, then every "racism scandal" would count towards your argument by bruker in debatealtright

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

This may be a good strategy, but I can't abide lies. Most of the time there is absolutely no evidence that any racial motive existed at all.

The real reason to separate the races is because of the reaction to events that look like they could be racially biased. People will cry racism anyway, so how can we possibly hope to eliminate it when the facts don't matter? Police are mostly not racially biased, certainly not to the degree claimed by black media pundits ("hunting us down in the street"), and yet they want to completely de-fund them anyway. It will never stop - like a drugged man attacking a hallucination, their quixotic fervor will lead them to tear down every institution in search of the mythical racists.

Reddit admits that their latest subreddit purge was a failure; only 18% decrease in "toxic comments" by ISaidWhatISaid in censorship

[–]AFutureConcern 38 insightful - 2 fun38 insightful - 1 fun39 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think it is working as intended. This is just a ploy by them to further turn the screws.

Furthermore, we know that "toxicity" is not the reason they are banning these subreddits. They are banning subreddits that are against the SJW cult ideology; Trump supporters, dissident rightists, rightists in general, anybody pro-white, classical liberals, gender-critical feminists. You can say that these groups have an "edgier" sense of humor than other groups but only because their views are against the prevailing narrative. Some of those subreddits like r/DebateAltRight had extremely strict moderation and generally cordial discussion; the ultimate reason it was banned was purely ideological and nothing to do with how "toxic" the comments were.

I don't want people to get complacent. If censorship didn't work, they wouldn't do it. Imagine the popularity of "forbidden" ideas today if they hadn't been ruthlessly purged from reddit, youtube, facebook and others. AI algorithms are coming and are going to do a far better job of moderating forbidden thoughts the moment they appear. They'll scour sites like saidit and effectively purge any thoughts on mainstream sites that look anything like e.g. what I've typed here. Censorship works, and it must be stopped.

Trump bans critical race theory training in the government by jet199 in politics

[–]AFutureConcern 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Lots of places are reporting that he banned "diversity training" which isn't the case. You can do diversity training without the above, you can probably do it better.

He should ban diversity training, too.

The rape of American nature: Bulk of use topsoil eroded by excess agriculture by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

Keith identifies "capitalism" with the system itself, claiming that it requires endless growth, and that this will eventually hit a wall as we run into environmental problems, because capitalists are more interested in short-term profits than long-term sustainability. The issue in my view is therefore the time preference of those in power (it's too high).

This period of unprecedented growth has also coincided with an unprecedented growth in the size of the state. In fact, a major reason given by globalists that we have to bring in migrants from the 3rd world is that "we need them to pay our seniors' state pensions," because social security is unsustainable with an ageing population. If those seniors had not expected a pension, they would have planned more for the future; i.e. lower time preference.

Arguing for social policy, at least in the current climate, is arguing for white dispossession, regardless of if you think it's a good idea "in theory" or not. Most of the "working class" in Western countries are really part of the global elite; median household income in the US is around $60,000 compared to $10,000 world average. And do these social programs that help the poor live a $30,000 income-equivalent lifestyle actually help whites? No - they incentivize those living on the $10,000 world average to come to America for "a better life", subsidized by the taxes of white people.

Economic inequality is inevitable between, for example, whites and blacks, if we aren't going to subsidize blacks with endless aid programs and welfare checks. Well I for one don't want to subsidize population growth for Africans; that sounds like exactly the problem of endless growth that Keith described. The same goes for the poor and unsuccessful in Western countries - too large a social safety net is simply dysgenic in the long run.

Trump Admin to Halt Critical Race Theory Trainings in the Federal Government by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

Not my take at all. The thanks go to a man called Christopher F. Rufo who has been investigating this for months, and who appeared on Tucker Carlson to explicitly ask the president to make this happen.

Whether it's good in the long run, I don't know (I detailed how it's a deeply liberal document above).

Red Ice have been covering Mr. Rufo for the past few weeks, great to see him get results.

Can someone just simply explain what "pilpul" is? by TheWorldToCome in debatealtright

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

Before I read this quote I'd not seen anyone truly express the frustration I feel when arguing with Jews and leftist types. It really captures their tactics perfectly. Perhaps I'll pick up Schopenhauer as well.

A Tyranny Perpetual and Universal? | Essay on the deep state and the coalition of the high and low by Jacinda in debatealtright

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

Heavily influenced, of course, by the philosopher Henri Bergson, who coined the term open society, which was expanded upon by Karl Popper. Popper defined the open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society." The modern enforcers of said neo-liberal rule include one George Soros, who spends $1.2 billion per year through his Open Society Foundations to spread the wonders of neo-liberal democracy to the world.

The Cause Behind Black Violence is Impulsivity by Soylent in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem with proposing something like this to "close the racial gap" is that what you're doing is essentially no different from affirmative action and there is no end to your program.

If medicating people to prevent violence is a good idea, why not apply it to all men? After all, men are significantly more violent than women. Why not give the weak, steroids, or the ugly, facelifts? And once medical science has been employed to equalize all groups' natural tendencies, we'll find something else to differentiate each other by, and you'll go on trying to dissolve that, too.

The real question is, why do you mind that group differences exist in the first place? If we get people to accept administering different drugs to different groups, we've already got people to accept that groups are different, and that's the big challenge in the first place. White people won't accept being discriminated against in admissions forever, and blacks won't accept being drugged to repress their nature forever. If only they'd accept that groups are different, and they could live with group inequality. Removing the inequality doesn't actually solve the problem.

The Cause Behind Black Violence is Impulsivity by Soylent in debatealtright

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

As for the first question, due to issues in the black/minority community, related to poverty or various other reasons, they are diagnosed less regardless of whether they need the treatment. Which means statistically, these current rates looking at what is diagnosed won't do justice to the reality of this issue.

You are unlikely to be able to make a strong case in favor of this hypothesis, in this case. Are there any other lines of evidence that point to higher impulsivity among blacks?

As for the last question, raw impulsivity isn't quantified well so a specific correlation with criminality itself can't be found, however, we can see they are closely linked in general.

Without an explicit definition and quantification, impulsivity is subject to the "postmodern dodge" - redefining the term under your feet so it doesn't apply to blacks; for example, defining impulsivity as "culturally relative" and then "adjusting" for cultural factors, meaning stereotypical impulsive black behavior will not count as "impulsivity".

It does look like the link between impulsivity and criminality is pretty solid, though.

The rape of American nature: Bulk of use topsoil eroded by excess agriculture by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

I agree some people are like that, but it's mostly leftists who are of the "bleeding-heart environmentalist" type. In fact, Mother Nature will always triumph in the end. I'm just trying not to incur Her wrath; hell hath no fury...

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.

— Pentti Linkola

The rape of American nature: Bulk of use topsoil eroded by excess agriculture by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

The technological system is the biggest threat.

Capitalism is a name given by communists to the desire of everyone from the elites to the middle-class to retain what wealth and power they have, instead of embracing communism. Those with wealth and power retaining it is good - it upholds order. The issue is who those elites are, and what they believe. A large number of them are Jewish, but almost all of them are liberals.

Liberalism is the idea that we should be free individuals, free of social constraints. This is an idea appealing to many - why shouldn't I be able to take drugs, as long as I'm not directly harming others? Why can't I produce pornography, and people can watch it if they want? The reason for many social rules is not always immediately obvious. The reason women were not educated as often as men, for instance, only becomes apparent when you see the plummeting birth rates in countries where women get university degrees. So unfettered liberalism eventually comes crashing headlong into reality, because while people may be free from social constraints, they are not free from physical constraints.

Technology is the mechanism by which we free ourselves from physical constraints. With rapidly advancing technology, liberalization does not have time to fully unravel before technology can solve its problems. For example, the acceptance of homosexuality and sexual hedonism more generally has led to an increase in sexually-transmitted diseases, whose negative effects have been wholly offset by advances in medical science. Similarly, the dysgenic effects of birth rate differentials between native, high-IQ populations and immigrant, low-IQ populations, and even the corresponding anti-meritocratic diversity-hiring practices, will be offset by the computers that will be doing our thinking for us. Technology is by definition against nature; in fact it is the only thing that gives us reason to separate the "natural" from the "unnatural" in the first place.

For this reason I identify the technological system as the biggest threat.

The Cause Behind Black Violence is Impulsivity by Soylent in debatealtright

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

What are the rates of the impulsivity-linked disorders (ADHD, Bipolar, BPD, ASPD) among the black population versus white?

What is the correlation of impulsivity with criminality, and which types? How closely are they linked?

Trump Admin to Halt Critical Race Theory Trainings in the Federal Government by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

Some points in favor and against this news:

For:

  • Critical Race Theory is explicitly anti-white, banning it must be good for us
  • It bans suggesting "that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil"
  • It "divert[s] Federal dollars away from these un-American propaganda training sessions"

Against:

  • It's deeply liberal ("We can be proud that as an employer, the Federal government has employees of all races, ethnicities, and religions.")
  • It panders to minorities ("The President has a proven track record of standing for those whose voice has long been ignored")
  • It's decelerationist (retarding), in that CRT is really so insane that it wakes people up when they learn what it's actually saying
  • It confirms to adherents of CRT that they were right all along and Trump really is a racist white supremacist who is oppressing them (though, they'd say that anyway)

DHS to label white supremacists as the 'most persistent and lethal threat' to the US: report by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was never about this:

  • Have consistent moral standards based on rules and definitions
  • Investigate reality to see how those standards apply to the world
  • Take the most likely action to see results according to those moral standards and the evidence

It was always about this:

  • Believe firmly in egalitarianism and liberalism
  • Denounce those investigating or describing reality as racist because it contradicts your religious faith
  • Construct a narrative by any means necessary in order to prevent people reaching conclusions that contradict your faith

DHS to label white supremacists as the 'most persistent and lethal threat' to the US: report by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

Devil's advocate counterpoint to the obvious reaction here:

Many people on the right claim that "whites are waking up" and that the left, in becoming overtly anti-white, will provoke a reaction such that "they have no idea what's coming". If that's right, are not the anti-whites in the government correct to label "white supremacy" as the greatest terror threat to their anti-white regime?

Heads up. All of ruqqus is down. by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

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

Let's hope so. This site must be feeling the pressure, too. https://nobodyhasthe.biz/, linked in the sidebar, is also down (though it never really had any traffic).

Don't forget - when leftists talk about white supremacist extremist terrorists, they're talking about us. (When conservatives/normies do the same, they are talking about an imaginary enemy that only exists in the media).

And the government is targeting us.

How can you hate someone for being gay or a different skin color? by ayotollahsinIran in debatealtright

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

I will reiterate once again, because most people are blissfully unaware of this point:

"Hate speech" and hatred are completely separate, unrelated things. We here engage in "hate speech", and what emotions we are feeling are irrelevant to that classification. I don't hate gays or blacks, for example. (It's of course easy to hate those who falsely accuse you of being full of hatred, and therein lies the Kafka trap).

"Hate speech" refers to anti-egalitarian speech, especially speech that is collectivist rather than individualist. So, for example, claiming that black men are more violent and that they are therefore responsible for violence in America counts as "hate speech" - even though it is true that despite making up only 6% of the population, black men commit around 50% of homicides.

Here are some examples to give you an idea of the distinction between "hate speech" and hatred:

"Hate speech" (but not hatred):

  • "Black men are more violent than white men"
  • "Women are more neurotic on average than men"
  • "Jews are massively over-represented in positions of power"
  • "Acceptance of homosexuality leads to further moral degeneracy and the destruction of society"
  • "IQ differs between the races and explains much of the variance in outcomes"

Hatred (but not "hate speech"):

  • "I fucking hate you with every fiber of my being and I want you to die"
  • "Punch fascists. Actually no - I hate them so much we should just genocide the lot of them."
  • "I hate all people equally. I hate every last person on the planet, every bird, every beast, every tree and every rock. Hatred constitutes my very being."
  • "I hate anyone who likes Marvel comic book movies."

Important thread: Yuri Bezmenov was never KGB and was a CIA stooge to spread anti-Russian propaganda by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

Yuri is describing a very real process

Yes exactly. I never got from people sharing Yuri's videos that they meant "it's the Russians" - on the contrary, I took it to be a factual explanation of the methods of subversion which are being used by communists today. Much like an old video explaining how a magic trick works, we can apply the knowledge of the trick even if it's a new performer - even if it's the old magician's son.

Demography is Destiny - American Renaissance | Jared Taylor writes about the problems caused by diversity by Jacinda in debatealtright

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

Why? You think looking back to a time that has been made redundant by the world political situation, technology or any other host of factors isn't ineffective? There's a difference between holding Traditionalist principles, being a vitalistic right wing revolutionary, and being an impotent reactionary. That difference is the difference between the Fascist and the Reactionary.

No, I consider reactionary thought to be simply a rejection of the Whig view of history - not the desire to revert to a prior state, but a belief that either at some point in the past we took a wrong path, or that we are on an inevitable path of decline. I suppose by my definition many fascists would count as reactionaries. For me, technology absolutely is the factor that makes your description of reactionary thought inapplicable to the modern age, but I also think that without significantly scaling back technology humanity is doomed anyway. I definitely believe that the ascendancy of technology is a "wrong path", and in the political sphere the ascendancy of liberal democracy is a "wrong path" also. I think if you squint, both technology and liberal democracy look like the same thing which is a progression toward freedom from constraints; in technology's case, material constraints, and in liberalism's case, social constraints. A progression toward freedom from constraints may also be referred to as increasing entropy; an increase in disorder over time. For these reasons I call myself a reactionary.

Really? So in 80%~ White Britain the elite can completely ignore White interests but in 13% black America the elite are compelled to listen to black demands? How'd you figure that one? The elite don't listen to anyone's demands, they manufacture groups' demands to meet what they want then pretend to make concessions. The 60s is full of this, a bunch of jewish CIA and media ops masked under the guise of black movements and the like. How do jews get everything they want in America as less than 2% of the population and Whites get literally nothing at about 55%?

I have to say, I really have no good answer to this. You're right.

What they found was that policy changes were driven entirely by elite opinion and to a lesser extent by special interest opinion. According to them average citizens preference had almost no effect on policy change. Whether the average citizens 90 percent opposed a policy or 90 percent supported a policy, it still had about a 30% chance of happening.

I remember this study but I forgot how extreme the conclusions were. You make a compelling point and you've changed my mind on this. Maybe it is not so unreasonable to say that the opinion of the public matters not one bit.


Do you think, then, that demographic replacement is not quite the killing blow to Europeans that many others make out? That instead, both cultural decline of our societies, and mass migration, are both a consequence of lack of racial consciousness among whites? Don't you think that mass migration and miscegenation are causing a general loss of ethnocentrism in all races but Jews, and this is the reason mass migration is pushed by the elites, to maintain their power?

Demography is Destiny - American Renaissance | Jared Taylor writes about the problems caused by diversity by Jacinda in debatealtright

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

Yes but is that because the masses are the difference or is it because the elites were replaced?

It's because the elites were replaced, you're right. They are the ultimate cause. The masses are just a tool they are using.

Culture-Retarders (hold back the culture from developing by clinging to old ideas IE reactionaries)

I disagree with this characterization of reactionaries of course but I will leave it there...

Of course a 100% white country would be better, but the real problem is who holds power. A 99% white country where the jewish 1% holds the power is more doomed than a 75% white country where the Culture-Bearing Europeans are in power.

Yeah we agree mostly, we're just arguing over the magnitude of the effect. Once you get below 75%, you can no longer honestly say you live in a white country, and even whites in power would have to start listening to the demands of nonwhite groups. To restore the nation you now have to talk about repatriation which many people don't want.

I think where I disagree is that since we do live in a liberal democracy, that's what makes the demographic shifts more important where they wouldn't have been for past empires. Of course, the elites are not all elected, but to suggest that the political class are not at least somewhat constrained by popular opinion is silly; of course, they do have the power to shift that popular opinion, but the way they've chosen to do it is through demographic replacement.

2+2=5 is catching on among the "woke". Good Lord, when you're taking your direction from the villain in George Orwell's 1984, how on Earth can you claim you are on the side of the good? by Chipit in politics

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

You're exactly right - we have common assumptions and don't go around introducing weird bases and the like without saying so. Lindsay goes into exactly this in detail - he points out they want to erase any stable meaning of words or concepts, so they have the say in what things mean, i.e. it's bigger than just mathematics.

[Original Research] The State of Censorship & Alternative Social Media (Updated) by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

Thanks!

Demography is Destiny - American Renaissance | Jared Taylor writes about the problems caused by diversity by Jacinda in debatealtright

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

In a way you are correct - demography is simply counting up the number of people, and it's only liberals who claim that all people have equal worth (an utterly ridiculous notion as I'm sure you'll agree).

On the flip-side, demographic shifts are unambiguously changing the structure of our society and the world. The decline of the West coincides with the decline of white Europeans as a share of the population.

Demography may not be the only factor, but it is a pretty significant one, in determining destiny (not the current state of affairs, but what will inexorably come to be). You mention Asia; the population of China is why it is predicted to become the world's largest superpower in the very near future. You mention Africa; the racial consciousness (relative to whites) that blacks have does not prevent them being a "stone age dump", and the coming population explosion of Africa (relative to the rest of the world) is a real concern given the resultant migration patterns it will likely induce. You mention Jews; do Jews' high IQ scores, cunning and willingness to lie not have as much to do with their success as ethnocentrism?

I think instead of blanket statements (demography is/is not destiny) it's better to build a model of social behavior that can predict trends with accuracy. If we did it it'd be a heck of a lot better than what leftists could come up with, since they deny basic truths. So it'd take a combination of racial consciousness, IQ, economic situation, level of diversity and so on. All of these factors together predict the fate of nations.

What Evidence Exists that Rittenhouse shot into a crowd? by EuropeanAwakening in debatealtright

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

I don't go to reddit anymore, but it sounds really bad over there.

Here's the worst part - among centrists who understand that the left are going crazy, they still claim that "both sides spin a narrative" when it's the right who are trying desperately to cling to truth and the left keeps lying over and over. The first egregious case of this happening on reddit was the Covington Catholic kids, where a false narrative of "racist smirking white boys" was the only approved one except for r/the_donald (now banned).

I pretty much take the opposite side of all these cases, because it's usually the safe bet. I don't even want to think about how warped the mind of the average reddit normie is. They think Ahmaud Arbery got shot for no reason, George Floyd dindu nuffin, Michael Brown said "hands up, don't shoot," Trump's a fascist, censorship doesn't happen, racism is everywhere and Kyle Rittenhouse is a cold-blooded killer.

If the police are so “racist”, then get the government to train them different! by Fetus_inhaler in memes

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

This caved-in head Wojak is the wrong response to what's happening. The complaint is not about police "brutality". They don't really care how many people are unfairly treated by police. They only care that blacks are arrested far more than whites. To them, since we are all a priori equal, there is no reason except racism that blacks would be arrested more (and therefore treated unfairly by police more).

It's not about abolishing the police completely - it's about abolishing the current system and remaking it. It will be remade in a way that deliberately targets white people for crimes they commit, while reducing charges for the crimes black people commit. For example, making it no longer a felony to assault a police officer, while changing the definition of self-defense so white people can't defend their property from rioters and looters. Rebuilding a "police force" to target "white supremacists" (meaning - ordinary white people who don't hate themselves), while turning a blind eye to black gang violence because to deal with that would be "racist".

George Floyd’s Brother Ends $14.7 Million GoFundMe Memorial Account…One Day Before Release of 3-Month Old Toxicology Report Revealing Floyd Died Of Overdose by Vigte in news

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

It's going to fund critical race theory education and anti-white discrimination, though. If you're white, it's going to be used against you. And if you're not, critical race theory is not exactly healing race relations.

George Floyd’s Brother Ends $14.7 Million GoFundMe Memorial Account…One Day Before Release of 3-Month Old Toxicology Report Revealing Floyd Died Of Overdose by Vigte in news

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

An ambulance was called, because they recognized he probably needed help. (This fact alone is enough to conclude that it wasn't intentional homicide.)

Wanted to ask people here: Who do you think did 9/11 and why? by Jesus in debatealtright

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

Same here, or at least I see no real reason to doubt it. All that talk of thermite, explosives, missiles is so stupid and misses the point entirely.

The real story is what narrative emerged from the attacks, and what did it lead to? A never-ending war in Afghanistan, the "war on terror," and a severe restriction of the freedoms of ordinary citizens - powers granted to authorities that are now being used against us. Instead of attacking the policies, idiot conservatives try debunking the supposed "reason" for the policies (so the towers were taken down by explosives, global warming isn't real and vaccines don't work), which was never the real reason in the first place, while tacitly accepting that if it were real, the measures would be justified.

Why Civic Nationalism is a Fraud by Jacinda in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of the rhetoric from the far right about civic nationalism is wrong. Just because something isn't eternal doesn't mean it was a failure.

It doesn't, of course, but if you allow something to be destroyed you have failed. One can argue that civic nationalism prior to the collapse has not failed, but not if it is adopted as a purported preventative measure.

The majority of human history is in a sense multicultural states and empires. Even today the world outside the West are not just homogeneous nation states. Do you think Russia is a nation of only Russian slavs? Or Iran is only Persians? Even the Persian ethnic group is one that is a mixture of different races which is why a Persian can have a wide range of phenotypes.

Not multicultural in any sense like we have today. There was no taboo on "racism" for the majority of human history, and so groups could form identities and tribal allegiances. Leftists tend to vastly exaggerate the degree of diversity in historical societies. Travel to any village in medieval Europe and everyone there will look the same.

We could formalize this, of course, with an explicit definition and measurement of multiculturalism. For example, mean distance from grandparents' place of birth. You know what the results would be - the graph would form a hockey stick just like the population graph over time.

Israel is not ethno-nationalist. Jews come from all over the world but there is no conflict between the white or brown Jews.

Israel is exclusive about who they will let live in the country, based on ethnicity. This is something civic nationalists do not support. And I'd double check there is no conflict - it wouldn't surprise me if there were.


I think the main thing about your argument here, though, is that you're missing the point. The point is that race correlates to culture, and so the only way to be a civic nationalist is to accept the reality of race anyway.

For example, you may not care "what people skin color is so long as they agree with our values," but the reality is that skin color is a pretty good proxy for "values" anyway, at least among non-whites, who overwhelmingly vote for the left. All European nationalist movements have a very tiny nonwhite contingent.

The other issue is that nonwhites simply aren't buying civic nationalism whatsoever. They have a racial consciousness of their own (since it is not rendered taboo).

For example, blacks commit more violent crime than whites. This could be true of any racial group in principle, but in our world it's blacks. We're not going to change this without changing the culture you ostensibly wish to preserve, so, it will remain so. But blacks have a strong racial consciousness, and they really care about their higher incarceration rates. So you'll continue to get protests, until your culture is destroyed.

The Iron Law of the Globohomo Gayplex by cisheteroscum in debatealtright

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

Fantastic post - well-written, researched and argued. The Globohomo Gayplex has been given many names over the years - "The Technological System", "The Cathedral", "The Globalist Cabal", "They" - but I must say that "Globohomo Gayplex" has a certain ring and humor to it that makes it my favorite.

To add to your list of examples, one that fits the law but is not in our interest -

ISIS: Radical Muslims intend to break off from the system and form a caliphate. It has lots of support from Muslims who travel across the world to join it, and who commit suicide attacks in its name. Does it benefit leftists to have an Islamic theocracy? No, they are very fundamentalist and socially conservative. Does it benefit globalists? No, they oppose rule by capitalists and usurers, and favor theocratic rule. They do want a global caliphate, but by conquest, not homogenization. Does it benefit Jews? Of course not - many Muslims hold opinions about Jews that would make even most people here blush. ISIS posed a very real threat to the Globohomo Gayplex, and so it had to be stamped out with full force - which is exactly what happened.

Kenosha Riots, All Three Rioters Shot By Kyle Rittenhouse Have Violent Criminal Histories by suckitreddit in news

[–]AFutureConcern 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Some pointed questions for you:

  • What specifically is "fundamentalist" regarding this article's content, comments, or this platform more generally?
  • What is "disturbing" about fundamentalism? Are leftist fundamentalists "disturbing" when they burn down cities in service of their ideology?
  • Why would you consider fundamentalism a "sickness"? (If the fundamentals of Islam are correct, why shouldn't we try to form the caliphate?)

Kenosha Riots, All Three Rioters Shot By Kyle Rittenhouse Have Violent Criminal Histories by suckitreddit in news

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

I'd say "every single time" but his other behavior in this instance is decidedly non-Jewish. Jews don't usually go around assaulting people in the street or shouting, "Shoot me, nigga!"

Working class whites' opinion of BLM now net negative in all four key Rust Belt states. by Ethnocrat in debatealtright

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

And they aren't going to organize any time soon because the vast majority of them are liberals, and anyone who could convince them otherwise is now banned from social media.

What term best describes your ideology, and why? by VarangianRasputin in debatealtright

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

Well, I actually meant projecting civilization's longevity faaar beyond one human's life. By tech extending it I meant stuff like asteroid redirection and either a solar expansion limiter gigastructure or migration somewhere else.

I see, I don't know if these things are actually possible without technological explosion.

Yeah, tech arms race is pretty bad, hard to tell how to prevent it from leading us into oblivion. The tech I'm mentioning is relatively simple though

I don't think a "solar expansion limiter gigastructure" is "relatively simple", lol. But maybe there's a possibility of a space-faring technology-lite future, like Frank Herbert's Dune.

What term best describes your ideology, and why? by VarangianRasputin in debatealtright

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

This is a very good point and it's why a lot of people simply embrace technological change. I don't think that slowing down is possible, though. There is no stable state where technology just stops with smartphones and otherwise things keep on going as they were. You can already see - a shock to the system such as coronavirus causes all sorts of change routed around technology. There is a stable state with more primitive technology.

Would a technological society out-compete a non-technological one? In terms of survival of the species, probably not - the birth rates in developed nations are significantly lower. But the technology replaces the people in such a society, and its resource consumption and production goes way up. So it probably would out-compete it, and eventually subsume it.

For this reason the problem is very difficult to solve. We need global collaboration to stop technological growth, in order to stop global collaboration. I don't know the solution - but a promising one is acceleration; I think a large number of people already feel that something is wrong with what social media is doing to our society. If tech accelerates us into full-blown societal collapse it could spawn a new religious movement to rid us of the technological system.

The problem could turn out to be insoluble. We may be inevitably headed towards technological singularity, which will destroy humanity. But take heart! I don't see any alien civilizations in our skies. Maybe singularity is impossible, and collapse inevitable.

What term best describes your ideology, and why? by VarangianRasputin in debatealtright

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

I'm a neoreactionary monarchist. Essentially, I agree with the neoreactionary analysis of power - that we live effectively under a social justice theocracy, and democracy is a complete illusion; it's impossible to give power to the people because power is conserved. Better to have an emperor than a pope with a mass of woke acolytes. I also wholeheartedly agree with the neoreactionary identification of leftism with entropy; leftism is the decay of culture, traditions, institutions and so on over time.

I'd say I'm a parochialist rather than a nationalist, though it's really the same idea at a different scale. I think relations between people are of increasing imporance, from Self > Family > Community > Nation > Race > Species > Life.

I think technology is leading inexorably towards deterritorialization, which is a fancy academic way of saying "GloboHomo". I want to stop this and I think severe restrictions on technology will be needed to do so. Never mind the continued existence of the white race, the human race and even life itself may be subsumed by the technological monster if we don't do something.

Must-watch Amren video on race and crime and media constantly ignoring white victims of blacks by FoxySDT in debatealtright

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

Good video.

I have a nitpick - he says at 7:25

[I]f you do the calculations, you'll find that blacks committed 560,600 violent crimes against whites, and whites committed only 99,400 crimes against blacks. Because there are nearly 5 times as many whites as there are blacks, it means that any given black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around.

This is misleading because blacks interact with far more whites than whites do blacks. The number for comparison is the percentage of attacks as a percentage of all interactions. Since there are as many interactions of blacks with whites as whites with blacks (same thing), you just compare the raw numbers. So in a given interracial interaction, with what probability will the black attack the white compared to the other way around? The answer is blacks are 560,600 / 99,400 = 5.6 times more likely.

Where's the rendezvous? by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

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

Everything the dissident right has been saying the last few years has been proven right in spades this year.

The problem is that everything the dissident right has been saying forever has been proven right in spades every year. There still hasn't been an "awakening" among normies because they are colossally misinformed about what we believe. Your average normie thinks a typical "far-right" man is filled with irrational hatred of black & brown people and Jews. When he hears us speak he thinks we're hiding some nefarious "hatred". When our predictions about the sexual revolution leading to more degeneracy come true, he doesn't praise our predictive ability, he instead condemns the fact that we ever thought "degeneracy" was bad to begin with!

Let's say pedophilia becomes normalized within the next decade. Some leftists are already making the case that pedophiles who don't interact with children should have their "natural inclination" respected. What will be the mainstream response? Will it be, "Well done, rightists, you predicted that we'd normalize pedophilia and here we are - you were right and we were wrong," or will it be "The far-right have always had an irrational hatred of those who are different. We must crack down on pedophobia in online communities."? If it is truly normalized, the first response makes no sense. The second response is far more likely.

Sorry to be a blackpill against your whitepill but I myself am not very optimistic. Not least because things are different in the modern era thanks to technology and the already mongrelized populaces that make up the Western world.

What exactly is wrong with Tommy Robinson? by pimpdaddy_69 in debatealtright

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

He's not even subverting anything. He's openly a liberal Zionist. The only reason he's viewed as on our side at all is because the media portrays him in such a crazy way, as if he's this radical figure. He literally doesn't like Muslims because they don't like gay people and sometimes young Muslim men take their faith seriously instead of submitting to GloboHomo.

Some interesting Yiddish provers from a Jewish account. Notice a pattern by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

Twitter isnt yet Jewish controlled, as Jack Dorsey has refused to sell thus far, but Paul Singer now controls something like 20% of its stock and is trying to get Dorsey ousted. Jews also have a lot of leverage over Dorsey by virtue of media attacks and control over ad companies and companies that advertise.

It's not Jewish-controlled, but it doesn't matter at this point. Dorsey just donated $10 million to Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, which was launched by Ibram X. Kendi. Kendi is extremely anti-white, and believes that "there is no such thing as a not-racist idea," only "racist ideas and antiracist ideas." He believes effectively that any idea that perpetuates white well-being is "racist" and wants to replace these ideas (and policies) with "antiracist" ones, being a totalitarian affirmative action covering every corner of life.

Is there a way to get a better version of the old reddit archive? by probgoingtohell in debatealtright

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

Unzip the archive somewhere. If you're on Linux or Mac OS, then open a terminal window and change directory to that location. If you're on windows, then open a PowerShell window.

A full command-line tutorial is outside the scope of a saidit comment, but man grep on Linux or Mac OS should give you a help file, and help sls will show help on Windows. You can search for "grep tutorial" or "powershell select-string" to get help online.

Here are a couple of motivational examples:


Search for lines containing "AFutureConcern" in all files below the current directory, with 2 lines before and 3 after:

Linux, Mac OS

grep -r AFutureConcern -B 2 -A 3

Windows

ls * -r | sls AFutureConcern -CaseSensitive -Context 2,3

List the names of files containing either the word "replacement" or "globohomo", ignoring case:

Linux, Mac OS

grep --recursive --ignore-case --files-with-matches --extended-regexp 'replacement|globohomo'
# or simply
grep -r -i -l -E 'replacement|globohomo'

Windows

ls * -r | sls 'replacement|globohomo' | select -u -exp path

We're back! by RedPillDessert in WhitePillCafe

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

Good to have you back! I'll spread the word. A .win is not a bad idea, I think you should do that if you can.

Is there a way to get a better version of the old reddit archive? by probgoingtohell in debatealtright

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

I use command-line tools to search the archive. It's not the best but it gets the job done. All the posts and comments are in plaintext html, so a simple grep -r AFutureConcern is enough to get the comments for a user.

Where's the rendezvous? by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

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

putting The Unabomber on our banner at ruqqus is beyond reckless

Ted Kaczynski, affectionately known as Uncle Ted, wrote what may be the best description of leftist psychology ever written, and has a lot of fans, not just within the dissident right. He has a fundamentally anti-technology stance - he's not a white nationalist and has even spoken about how he doesn't necessarily oppose progressive ideas like women's rights, gay rights and so on - just that he thinks these are a distraction from the real problem which is technology. He exemplifies the diverse range of thought found among dissidents, outside the mainstream liberal consensus.

You weren't concerned that he's sitting there right next to Hitler? lol

Is George Soros basically the Jewish fall guy? by probgoingtohell in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

does he actually have a part in the whole subversion thing?

George Soros funds the Open Society Foundations whose mission statement is:

The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and inclusive democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens.

Note the "vibrant and inclusive" dog whistle which is code for the Great Replacement, and "democracies" which means spreading liberalism and exaltation of the weak to the world.

The open society is a term coined by Henri Bergson and later expanded upon by Karl Popper. Both Henri Bergson and Karl Popper were Jewish.

Karl Popper defined the open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society." In other words, it's a liberal individualist project fundamentally opposed to nationalism. In a word - globohomo.

This globohomo institution has a $19,590,570,302 endowment, and a $1.2 billion annual budget. It spends (to name just some of the subversive areas it invests in):

  • $137 million on "economic equity and justice"
  • $112 million on "equality and anti-discrimination"
  • $74 million on "justice reform"

George Soros is therefore absolutely a subversive Jewish billionaire, implementing a globohomo vision of society dreamed up by Jewish philosophers.

Ruqqus seems to be the livelier place compared to Saidit. Is moving there as a primary discussion forum a good idea? by meatball4u in debatealtright

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

This sub is shadowbanned as well: https://saidit.net/subs/notall

I think we need methods to prevent fracturing. Federating comments is a potential solution. Can we set up bots to share comments around? What technical solution would it take to have a "unified" DebateAltRight across saidit.net, ruqqus.com, nobodyhasthe.biz, voat.co, poal.co, etc.? I mean, post on saidit and someone can reply on ruqqus, and everyone can see the conversation on nobodyhasthe.biz.

Twitter now blocking all Bitchute links by Erasmus in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The internet was largely ignored by those in power until the 2016 election. "Meme magic" really was real and the unprecedented ability to spread right-wing memes throughout the internet made them uncomfortable. Huge sums of money were donated to "the resistance" to stop any nationalist thought rising again, even tepid all-bark-no-bite civic nationalism from Trump.

They know what they are doing. Mid-wit level discourse on censorship focuses on "the Streisand effect" and other surface-level critiques. The people in charge of censorship at YouTube, Twitter and pro-censorship groups like the ADL and SPLC have all the data they need to accurately map out the network links between dissidents, and to measure the effect of their censorship on the discourse.

Do you think it's a coincidence that they banned Stefan Molyneux, an anarcho-capitalist who's not really alt-right? No - he was very popular, and formed a central node in the network of the right. From his twitter profile you'd always see /ourguys/ in the comments.

They have rightly seen that BitChute is a growing platform that provides a hub for dissidents to share ideas and comment below the videos - just like YouTube 4 years ago. So they engaged in the following process:

  • Research BitChute, find damning examples of "hateful" speech that normies would find objectionable
  • Run articles in mainstream media complaining about this "hateful" website so people's first impression is tainted, even though BitChute is a free speech platform, open to all
  • Pressure big sites that feature many links to BitChute to consider blocking or suppressing those links, citing the mainstream media articles [you are here]
  • Pressure payment processors, domain registrars, web hosting services - anything you can find, really - to drop BitChute, putting as much pressure on them as you can from as many angles as you can, citing the articles each time
  • At this point the user base of BitChute will become "concentrated" with dissidents; nobody wants to run a gaming channel on a platform that's censored everywhere. Use the fact that BitChute now exclusively contains dissident material as the basis for further smears, and repeat until it's irrelevant.

Twitter now blocking all Bitchute links by Erasmus in debatealtright

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

Twitter now blocking all Bitchute links by Erasmus in debatealtright

[–]AFutureConcern 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Every year the censorship gets worse and worse. I know it's going to continue but my heart sinks every time it happens. They won't leave us alone until we are completely silenced or dead. We can't even have the middle ground of a free platform, let alone widespread adoption of our ideas.

Woke Leftists Argue that 2+2=5 by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

Correct - James Lindsay breaks it down here.

In tricking the woke leftists into arguing that 2 + 2 = 5, what he's done is expose their tactics for what they are. This is what they do with everything:

  • 2 + 2 = 5 (if you redefine 2, +, = and 5)
  • We live in a white supremacist system (if you redefine white, supremacist and system)
  • We live under an oppressive patriarchy (if you redefine oppressive and patriarchy)
  • Trans women are women (if you redefine women)
  • White people are privileged (if you redefine white and privileged)
  • Black people can't be racist (if you redefine black and racist)
  • Race doesn't exist (if you redefine race and exist)

The lesson is to stop arguing against them as though they are acting in good faith. They'll literally defend 2 + 2 = 5 if it's politically useful. Instead, organize with people who aren't like this.

The Woke Left v. the Alt-Right: A New Study Shows They’re More Alike Than Either Side Realizes - Quillette by Scrubjay in politics

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

They deny it exists and then insist on defining people by it, and using race as a metric to decide on preferential treatment, and discrimination in hiring.

You're right - but they still claim that it's all just "social constructs", in defiance of the evidence. I honestly think the alt-right in power would be fairer to non-whites than whites are treated today. White people get discriminated against and the woke left have the gall to redefine the word "discrimination" so that they aren't.

And want to bring back racial segregation in classrooms.

Mostly this segregation involves separating off the white people from the non-whites. "Diversity" means getting rid of white people, so their segregated space is actually perfectly "diverse". (This is not hyperbole; the theorists probably would count an all-black space as "diverse" because it's against the "prevailing hegemonic white discourse").

It's actually kind of fond of East Asians, they tend to get honorary 'white' passes on alt right subs.

This is just a jab.

I've honestly not noticed them caring much about that as long as they stick to business and don't stick their nose into politics.

Depends on who you talk to. Anti-capitalist thought has a long tradition on the right. But so does unabashed pro-capitalism.

No, the woke want equity, which means something very different. The alt right want a meritocracy, although it's a ethnostate version with women at home.

Equity is just equality+, moving from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome. I think once one accepts equality of opportunity, equality of outcome is not a giant leap to make. After all, do rich children not have a better opportunity to succeed than poor children? If we want absolute equality of opportunity, we have to redistribute the wealth of their parents... but then every parent will have the same wealth (equality of outcome).

The Woke Left v. the Alt-Right: A New Study Shows They’re More Alike Than Either Side Realizes - Quillette by Scrubjay in politics

[–]AFutureConcern 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The woke left and the alt-right have fundamentally different and incompatible world views. Just because both are illiberal, meaning they both want to achieve their political aims rather than "letting people do what they want," doesn't mean they are at all the same.

  • The woke left denies that race exists; the alt-right believes that races are different
  • The woke left denies sexual dimorphism; the alt-right believes the sexes are different
  • The woke left praises diversity; the alt-right wants ethnostates
  • The woke left hates white people; the alt-right loves white people
  • The woke left hates the legacy of European civilization; the alt-right loves the legacy of European civilization
  • The woke left desires equality; the alt-right desires hierarchy
  • The woke left thinks language constructs reality; the alt-right thinks reality constructs language
  • The woke left adopts critical theory; the alt-right opposes critical theory
  • The woke left adopts queer theory; the alt-right opposes queer theory
  • The woke left supports feminism; the alt-right supports traditional gender roles
  • The woke left thinks racism is the greatest sin; the alt-right thinks racism is a social construct
  • The woke left supports abolishing the police; the alt-right supports law and order
  • The woke left agrees with multinational corporations; the alt-right opposes multinational corporations

I could go on and on. They aren't at all alike and horseshoe theory needs to die.

George Floyd Body cam Video Shows he was saying "I can't Breath" way before being put on the Ground. by scrubking in politics

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

They probably thought he was just lying. He already told them:

  • He didn't do nothing (he did)
  • He's not resisting (he was)
  • He has claustrophobia (he didn't)
  • He's getting in the car (he wasn't)
  • He's not a bad guy (he was)

Why is it such a stretch to believe that when he says he can't breathe, that he could?

A massive explosion has just hit Beirut, Lebanon (video) by magnora7 in WorldNews

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

It shows up on subscribed/new for me (once I subscribed to s/altrightwebm), but I can't see it on all/new. u/magnora7 what is the reason for this?

Is Trump the accelerationist candidate now? Democrats threaten secession and civil war if Trump is re-elected by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

I didn't mean "gone" as in, "not present." I mean they're too fargone for reason. They're nuts.

Ah, forgive me, I've been talking to too many leftists.

Hard times are ahead of us, but I don't think Trump will delay them.

Here is a motivating video to accept the hard times ahead.

Is Trump the accelerationist candidate now? Democrats threaten secession and civil war if Trump is re-elected by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

The far left is gone, but I do think normal people will see that we're just totally unrepresented.

Marxist materialists aren't anywhere to be seen, no. But far-leftists are absolutely gaining power - those leftists in favor of equity and reparations for blacks, those leftists in favor of abolishing the family, and those leftists in favor of "queering" gender and sexuality. These are absolutely far-left positions that have been mainstreamed in short order.

The average white man off the street, and including most leftists, already admit that corporations are against us.

For me, I ask this. "Will more people believe we are unrepresented with Biden or Trump in charge?" It's clearly Trump. Now, if he gave us anything and wasn't an annoying impotent jackass, then I wouldn't base my voting on this question... but he is, so I will. It won't convince everyone of what is obviously true, but it'll do more than Trump does in office.

All good points. I really dread what'll happen if Biden wins, though.

Is Trump the accelerationist candidate now? Democrats threaten secession and civil war if Trump is re-elected by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

I'd prefer a president who states that he's going to screw us and then screws us, than a president who gives liberals plausible deniability that they aren't the ones in charge while we get screwed.

I don't know. Leftists as of late have taken to simply lying about everything. Nationwide riots are "peaceful protests." Armaud Arbery was "just a jogger." Cancel culture "doesn't exist." Critical race theory - "nobody believes it." What's to stop them claiming the right is in power because really Biden is far-right and all those capitalists are in charge?

Losing Trump is like that time we lost Rosanne Barr. It's this unhelpful idiotic shit tier person who does not have our interests in mind and for whom the only valuable thing she ever did was make normies a little bit more aware of censorship. Likewise, Trump is every bit as awful as he is fat and the only valuable thing he can do now is go away so that we can at least discuss having no representation and no favorable big names, rather than have some leftist tell us that we're winning and have no right to complain. Honest discourse would be better for us than this fucktard.

Ugh, you make a good point that he is no good for us.

I'm feeling pretty blackpilled about the election now, nobody is going to save us.

Is there a name for this? by justjoggin in debatealtright

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

Is Trump the accelerationist candidate now? Democrats threaten secession and civil war if Trump is re-elected by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

Sure, Trump may be no good, but Biden has openly praised (skip to 7:20) the fact that white people are going to become a minority in America, and we shouldn't want immigration to stop. He's about to pick a woke black woman as VP. Biden will support neoliberal capitalism, so the normies won't deem him far-left, but he's probably going to introduce all kinds of anti-white legislation - actively discriminating against whites in government hiring, in policy, in college and in industry (more than is already the case).

Biden is looking like he's going to win, as well, and I'm honestly not looking forward to it.

Some Questions about the far right obsession with Jewish people by ayotollahsinIran in debatealtright

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

It's no secret the far right consider Jewish people to be the equivalent of supervillains who are coordinating the downfall of the white world. I would like proof of this and no I'm not reading any books.

I don't consider Jews to be supervillains. In fact most Jews are quite ordinary people no different from you or I. But at the top of society, elite Jews account for over 22% of the wealth of the top 100 billionaires, and are massively over-represented in culture-shaping industries such as Hollywood, newspapers, comedy & television scriptwriters. This means Jews have a lot of power proportional to how many of them there are.

People and groups tend to act in their own self-interest. So firstly, elites look out for themselves and their families, growing their fortunes and those of their kin. Beyond selfishness, people tend to act upon moral impetus, which in the case of Jews, means they act in accordance with their identity as Jews.

What is Jewish identity? Well, when polled, Jews (including secular Jews) say that the most essential part of being Jewish is "remembering the Holocaust". Behind that, "leading an ethical life", and "working for justice/equality." What does "remembering the Holocaust" mean for Jews' moral impetus? It means that Jews tend to found, fund and facilitate so-called "anti-hate" organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, and "working for justice/equality" means Jews like George Soros are keen to found organizations like the Open Society Foundations.

Any time right-wing thought gets popular, Jews get scared, because of how deeply they consider their identity tied up in the Holocaust. This means the owners and chairmen of the major news websites start running stories panicking about the "far-right" if even a hint of nationalist sentiment starts to take hold. (Nowadays, you have centrist liberals being called far-right just because they believe in freedom of speech.)

Similarly, the heads of the major social media platforms are scared of right-wing thought, and the moment it takes hold, they implement "hate speech" rules to avoid it spreading further.

Right-wing Jews like Ben Shapiro, while critical of "cancel culture" and in favor of freedom of speech, will become scared and immediately counter-signal the moment any nationalist right-wing thought becomes popular, trying to steer natural rightists into a safe, liberal, capitalist conservatism.

With the lengths Jews go to to counter nationalist right-wing thought, one doesn't need to go into any more depth on how migration programs are promoted and funded, or how Critical Theory (which informs Black Lives Matter) was created by Jews to undermine western civilization (to prevent another Holocaust), or any details of Judaism itself, Israel's power, Jeffrey Epstein, Mossad or any other topic. It's clear that through removing opposition to globalism, globalism itself is the only thing that can prevail.

Teacher admits he helped write Common Core to end white privilege by Questionable in conspiracy

[–]AFutureConcern 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

You summed it up perfectly. That's precisely their aim. They would phrase it as something like, "empowering underachieving students to reach their potential" - except that the other result of it is that everyone gets dumber.

Why The Far Right Is As Bad As The Mainstream Right - Brett Stevens by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

I really think you got the wrong read on this guy. He's a reactionary, but he wants to go back before the enlightenment. I don't think he's a liberal at all.

Why The Far Right Is As Bad As The Mainstream Right - Brett Stevens by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

White votards elected the people who did this and then failed to repeal it. White votards adopted Leftism to get more people into their shops and businesses. White votards continue to virtue signal for Black Lives Matter and Antifa despite having no idea what they are talking about.

This is where the critique of democracy becomes obviously liberal - it criticises the voters, democracy and mass participation of politics by blaming everything on those factors, completely ignoring the structure of the US electoral system which has been blocking almost every serious attempt for reform over the past two centuries. You don't have to be a democrat to acknowledge that if it had been left up to popular opinion, the USA would never have ended up the way it has. Something like Hart-Cellar is possible only in a "representative" liberal system like the American one. There's also blame placed on the electorate for thoughtlessly falling for propaganda, but never any blame directed towards the powerful interests which promote and produce that propaganda.

I'm siding with you again on this one. The elites are to blame. Sure, I think democracy (at least as it currently exists) is a stupid system because it fails to empower the people, and where it does, they are merely "thoughtlessly falling for propaganda" - but as you point out, that propaganda is produced by the elites.

You people are like mainstream conservatives. You are just conservative-flavored Leftists. No matter how many grossly “racist” things you say, or taboos you break, you still want the current system with its flaws intact, and that will rapidly encounter the same problems. You will defeat yourselves, but you will also defeat the Right, opening the door for the final Leftist takeover.

This is the worst and most ironic example of projection I've seen in my entire life.

Yeah I think you've got a wrong read on this guy. But still, his targeting of the right in this article isn't exactly helping avoid the "final Leftist takeover".

We do not need more analysis; we know what the situation is and how to fix it, which is to adopt gradually more Right-wing leaders, starting with Trump.

If you want to know what type of mindset leads to the creation of articles like this - here you go. This is it. "We don't need more analysis."

Yeah we need more analysis, but we also need more action. I do agree with him that sitting around pontificating doesn't achieve much.

We take baby steps so that at each step, we prove that our plans are working better than crazy Leftism, and then we push further Right. That works

Really? How?

We need a simple plan, and here it is: push Right. Get involved, and push those organizations further Right. Always vote for the furthest Right candidate you can find.

For an anti-egalitarian and anti-democrat this "strategy" of subverting the GOP against the will of its elites and sponsors is both egalitarian and democratic. I am sure the author is completely unaware of the inherent cognitive dissonance.

It's incrementalist. Much how I don't think there's any contradiction in communists infiltrating capitalist corporations to gain wealth and power before they tear the system apart, I don't think there's any contradiction in a neo-feudalist infiltrating democratic institutions to gain power and influence before he reforges the system as he wills. Not to say it'll work, but you've got to work within the confines of the system you're in to some degree, else you'll never achieve anything.

Why The Far Right Is As Bad As The Mainstream Right - Brett Stevens by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

This is not a criticism of third position ideas from the right, it is a criticism of third position ideas from the first position (liberalism). This is more or less to be expected, because the writer may be an anti-egalitarian, but he's definitely a materialist.

I honestly don't see where the liberalism comes in. Stevens has written extensively about how he considers liberalism to be leftist.

He has also written about how, despite being a nihilist, he can "[reject] solely material existence, including social control, to discover that reality has qualitative dimension".

We know that mainstream conservatives are irritating cucks because they cannot accept that equality is nonsense.

Is this why conservatives are irritating? Most criticism I see of conservatism seems to revolve around its inability to defend its own interests, not its stance on equality. This type of presentation trick is used throughout the entire article.

I personally think conservatives are irritating because they refuse to acknowledge biological difference, yes. For example, a common criticism is that they blame black dysfunction on "lack of fathers" and deny any racial component, leading to civic nationalist-type positions. I do agree that a lot of criticism is not along these lines, but then, this statement by Stevens does strike me as simply opinionated for his particular audience; after all, there's a lot of people who don't consider mainstream conservatives to be "irritating cucks."

Leftism is egalitarianism.

No? Egalitarianism is an important concept within leftism. It is not leftism itself.

He expands on why he thinks this is the case here.

ethnic equality (joining together all Whites as one, ignoring ethnic differences)

Who does this? People who promote cooperation between ethnic groups do not reject biological reality, they acknowledge political reality. Intersectional criticism applies just as well to Americans as it does to Russians. It's obvious that different ethnic groups are different, otherwise they wouldn't be different ethnic groups. Does that difference also mean they have to be disunited? Furthermore, this point of view is highly materialist. It considers reality in purely biological terms, leaving no room for cultural, political, intellectual, moral and emotional factors. Is any nationalist more attached to the IQ score of his demographic group rather than its history and traditions?

Yeah, this was one of my criticisms as well. I think he misunderstands the third position to claim that anyone really claims different ethnic groups are equal. But I don't think he's an IQ nationalist.

socialism (denying class and caste, wanting subsidies like free healthcare, welfare, retirement, and public schooling), unions (reward the bad workers as well as the good)

19th century liberal thinking. Socialism and trade unionism are products of the capitalist system and its excessive exploitation and abuse of the traditional loyalty owed by the masses to authority. You can't roll history back. You can only go forward and resolve the problems that have created these movements. The only way to fix that is a sense of solidarity that can only exist in a just society where everyone has his needs met.

As a reactionary, he really does want to roll history back. He expands on this here - "Humanity went wrong, and we can fix this wrong turn by reversing, going back to where we were before we made this mistake, and then zooming forward along that path. Around here, we tend to suggest the four pillars: aristocracy, pan-nationalism, social hierarchy, and transcendence." He places the blame on the enlightenment.

I do tend to agree that rolling history back is a pipe dream; like piecing together a broken vase, or un-cooking a steak. But I can't prove it's impossible - to be honest, most proposed solutions to our predicament look equally implausible.

democracy (the vote of an insane moron is the same as that of a morally-lucid genius),

Later in the article it becomes apparent that the critique of democracy is not a right wing one, but a liberal one instead.

It's also worth mentioning what was left out from the list of "egalitarianism that has to be rejected". For example, universal taxation, the equal right to engage in commerce, amongst other privileges established by liberals in order to destroy the aristocracy. In other words, the intention here is to reject every form of equality that doesn't explicitly benefit the rich.

Maybe it's a little confused, but I'm pretty sure the author is in favor of aristocracy. I don't know if he does actually support those particular liberal privileges.

For too long the far-Right audience has favored anyone who praises all Whites as equal, both among ethnic groups and between social classes, without noticing obvious hatefacts like some “white” ethnic groups being actually highly mixed with Other, and lower classes being dumber than upper classes. Too much of the far-Right is caught up in the Revolutionary narrative of “the rich people are the bad elites and they are our problem.”

Here again there's this conflation of political unity and "egalitarianism". Every ethnic group is different. This is obvious to everyone, including leftists and liberals. This does not mean that cooperation and unity is impossible. It seems to me that the author of this article just wants more useless IQ nationalism whining. If people from Normandy can be politically united with people from Toulouse as Bavarians can be with Brandenburgers, then why should Frenchmen and Germans be in strict opposition?

At the same time, the correlation between low IQ and working class status is 0.49, which is a weak correlation. If you are working class, it's actually slightly more likely that you're "too smart" for your class rather than not.

Are rich people "bad"? As an anti-egalitarian, the author of the article should know that the upper classes always hold the power. Who, then, ushered in this period of political turbulence and cultural and economic decline? Why did they do that? Is Jeff Bezos the model American?

Here, again, I find myself agreeing with you and disagreeing with Stevens. He simply misrepresents the "far-Right audience" in my view. I don't think many people on the right really think all white people are equal.

As for

At the same time, the correlation between low IQ and working class status is 0.49, which is a weak correlation. If you are working class, it's actually slightly more likely that you're "too smart" for your class rather than not.

I don't think this is actually true. Here's an example - 400 people, 200 are "lower class" (class=0) and 200 are "upper class" (class=1). 200 are "low IQ" (int=0) and 200 are "high IQ" (int=1).

lower class upper class
low IQ 149 51
high IQ 51 149

The correlation between class and int here is 0.49, but if you're lower class you're way less likely to be "too smart for your class rather than not".

Why The Far Right Is As Bad As The Mainstream Right - Brett Stevens by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

Wrong Bret Stephens, this one is Brett Stevens, who to my knowledge is not associated with the New York Times writer.