Where can I find more active white nationalist online discussion forum these days?

AFutureConcern · 2020-11-22T19:43:04+00:00

If anybody knows another hot white nationalist chat spot I'm all ears.

I broke down the state of alternative platforms here. Notably, Voat, Poal, Stormfront, 8kun & Gab have some activity of the sites that you haven't mentioned.

AFutureConcern · 2020-11-22T19:34:02+00:00

Yes, exactly. I think people need to change their mindset from "all these companies want to do is make money" to "all these companies want to do is push their agenda". Having power and reshaping society is the goal of having lots of money anyway; it's the root of their desires. If all they wanted to do was turn a profit they wouldn't engage in the level of censorship that they do.

AFutureConcern · 2020-11-08T16:19:06+00:00

The difference is that the system today has a vastly larger amount of power. The majority of people are glued to their smartphones and absorb media all day, every day. In 1914 most people formed their opinions from their real-life experiences, and groups could form and freely associate. Today, freely-associating groups can form on Facebook but they'll be shut down the moment they pose a threat to the system. In fact, with Trump out of the picture, even milquetoast right-wing populism will be purged from online spaces, as already happened to r/The_Donald.

I fear that the level of technology may mean we soon are past the point of no return, and the system will have control forever.

AFutureConcern · 2020-11-07T09:43:51+00:00

We have to destroy the republic in order to save it

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-30T19:54:31+00:00

Why not? Globohomo will homogenize all peoples and cultures eventually - what makes you think it hasn't already started on Islam? Islamic theocracies are turning away from some of the stricter laws like forbidding women to drive, and in the west we see promotion of trans lesbian Muslims in gay rainbow hijabs. Islamic theocracy, properly upheld, is a bulwark against globohomo (it's still not great for white people, though).

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-30T19:50:33+00:00

At some point actions end up matching the rhetoric, much as "conservatives" parroting lines about diversity and equality actually enact those things in policy - even if you're just lying, the people who join your party are attracted to the party line, so the next generation will have far more true believers. So centrists having to parrot right-wing talking points to curry favor can only be good for us.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-23T20:59:21+00:00

Of course, I'm mostly just memeing, but there really is a pattern to be noticed of pretentious French philosophers spewing absolute crap that gets taken way too seriously.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-23T20:50:24+00:00

Let me just check his Wikipedia real quick, yep - there it is:

was a French philosopher

Every. Single. Time.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-23T19:59:42+00:00

Yeah, it's just the most plausible explanation for withheld information is that the Trump campaign (or Trump supporters) kept it until now. Same reason that the "Russia Russia Russia" conspiracy theories are stupid - most "operations" to elect Trump will be run by the campaign itself, and its billions of dollars.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-19T16:04:11+00:00

Yes, but the methods of subversion he describes are very relevant to today. I personally never took people sharing him to mean that Russian communists are still subverting our society, but rather that he described simply the methods of subversion (that were used in the West by the Frankfurt School).

Related video by Academic Agent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niiF8hCSrYQ

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-18T09:37:35+00:00

Right. If they can convince people that WWII veterans were Antifa fighting for diversity, that multiculturalism built Europe, and that ancient Britons were actually black, they can convince people of anything - that Jesus advocated for sexual liberation and transgenderism, and that Plato was a real big fan of liberal democracy which is what he revealed in The Republic.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-16T18:04:04+00:00

Ultraorthodox Jews tend to stand apart from your typical Jewish bankers/[social] media owners/Hollywood execs in that they 1) don't have much institutional power and 2) they are opposed to Globohomo at least for their own communities. It's actually the half-Jewish liberal cosmopolitan who is most in favor of Globohomo because he's truly rootless in a way that the Ultraorthodox are not. For this reason I've often heard them say things that sound "based".

The caveat of course is that they will oppose antisemitism and donate to such causes because they are still very ethnocentric. Since most people opposing Globohomo are "antisemitic" to some degree according to their definitions, this has the inadvertent effect of contributing to the decline of their own communities.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-14T16:10:37+00:00

It's not so absurd to suggest that Jewish record label owners deliberately promoted avant-garde music from minority artists. They do that today, proudly.

One thing I have learned about music tastes is that many people (myself included) seem to pick up their tastes from what they've consumed; meaning "people can like what ever they want" is not actually true - people like what's put in front of them, for the most part. Pop music is popular because it's what's produced and promoted, and while public attitudes do guide that to some degree (catchy hooks and rhythms become popular), things like the message in the lyrics or the simplicity of the piece just get tacitly accepted.

Music is absolutely a vector to promote poz, though I do agree with you that "Jews inventing Jazz" is at best an exaggeration of what is more likely a selection process on which artists became popular.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-14T15:54:56+00:00

Ah, I have to go through this again. Shame that Jim Goad made the same mistake, but it's an easy one to make.

Suppose blacks & whites were perfectly equally likely to commit rape, and didn't discriminate based on who they raped. Say that 0.1% of each population is a rapist, and commits a rape at random.

Then there are:

~50 million blacks * 0.1% = 50,000 black rapists
~200 million whites * 0.1% = 200,000 white rapists

The rapes occur at random, with 1/5 of our population black, 4/5 white, so there are:

50,000 * 1/5 = 10,000 black-on-black rapes
50,000 * 4/5 = 40,000 black-on-white rapes
200,000 * 1/5 = 40,000 white-on-black rapes
200,000 * 4/5 = 160,000 white-on-white rapes

So assuming blacks & whites are perfectly equal, the total number of interracial rapes is the same for blacks and whites. Therefore there is no need to correct for the population when looking at interracial rape (or other crime) statistics. The raw number is good. i.e. 64 to 1 overstates the case.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-08T21:50:58+00:00

The biosphere will collapse long before that. It's already collapsing. We've lost 70% of all wildlife in just 50 years!

Ecological collapse is honestly the biggest whitepill out there. The only way this system's going down is by force of nature. I suspect it's likely that the system will still survive, though, but it's our only real shot.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-06T21:12:58+00:00

Your argument is actually more general. According to any utilitarian model, no matter what you desire, it will eventually be available in a synthesized form through the acceleration of techno-capital. Say you want your people to be happy; the future will provide brain implants and drugs without side-effects. Say you want to eliminate poverty; the future will eliminate scarcity of food and shelter. What the future will not do is preserve any tradition or meaning whatsoever. The bonds that tie family, nation and race will be dissolved, and the foundations of tradition will be evicted, by high-energy techno-capital.

The only thing that works against this is a dedication to tradition itself; to blood and soil - a direct repudiation of "progress" itself and an assertion of our bio-spirit.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-06T19:08:26+00:00

The censorship is what red pilled me on this issue to begin with.

Me too. In fact I'd go so far to say that the censorship is the issue that pushed me to the dissident right. I had no idea how people with very reasonable views were suppressed. As the censorship continued, the denial and fabrications of "hatred" were just too much; even moderates were getting silenced and I decided at that point to deliberately seek out the "extreme" content. Well it turns out the "extreme" content doesn't exist - and even those on the supposed "far-right" are for the most part pointing out the insanity of the left and complaining about the censorship.

There's truth to this to be sure, but the difference now is that they are doing this in the age of the internet, when its nearly impossible to censor everything, and trying to makes it obvious to others what you're doing.

I'll caveat my other point, though, by pointing out that censorship only needs to be done to reduce the connectivity of networks. With suitable measurement of dissident communities, and the influence they have, the elites are able to engineer mathematical formulae to optimize for minimum dissident network size. They pick certain accounts and ban them (e.g. Stefan Molyneux, not exactly Alt-Right), with surgical precision, to fracture the right-wing networks and minimize their impact.

Case in point - you can write whatever you want, here or on Ruqqus. But the number of people here is far less than even the "quarantined" sub back on Reddit. So the censorship's been achieved even if we're technically not completely shut down. Moreover, userbases that were centralized on YouTube, Twitter, Reddit and Facebook with a large number of casual eyeballs observing them are now banned and split between Saidit, Ruqqus, Parler, Gab, Minds and probably hundreds of similar platforms (including smaller ones like Poal, Voat etc.). They're winning, and even if we can regain some momentum the censorship will just get even worse to counter it.

Perhaps there are signs that the system is failing, though. Already they're having to censor things as innocuous as FBI crime statistics, simply noticing that Jews have disproportionate power, or objecting to coronavirus lockdowns. A lot of people are rightfully pissed. Perhaps as America falls and China rises, we'll see a mad last exercise of power before they finally leave us alone. One can hope.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-06T17:44:49+00:00

Check out Sean Last's blog:

https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020/09/30/on-proposed-environmental-causes-of-the-american-black-white-iq-gap/

https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/08/25/racial-ancestry-and-iq/

https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/08/22/expert-surveys-on-race-and-iq/

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-03T22:36:31+00:00

Certain subsaidits are excluded from s/all (https://saidit.net/subs/notall/); this is down to the whims of the site owners as far as I can tell and is ostensibly intended to promote high-quality posts (according to the pyramid of debate) to the front page. It still shows up if you are subscribed and I'm not aware of any other shadowbanning on this site.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-03T20:40:34+00:00

So I did this with my latest post, and I'm getting more engagement on ruqqus right now.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-03T18:46:47+00:00

I'd make an identical post in both. On ruqqus there's the chance for a post to make it to the front page, not so here since we're excluded. On the other hand there are more users active here.

AFutureConcern · 2020-10-01T06:28:05+00:00

Firstly, "persecute" is a strong word for simply not letting people into our countries, and we're absolutely entitled to do that anyway.

Secondly, some people simply are second-class citizens. People flying "economy" are not treated the same as those in first-class - because they are literally second-class travelers. Similarly, the interests of the native people come first, with the interests of those with less of a stake in the country coming, yes, second.

Second-class doesn't mean we treat people horribly, or that we are mean or violent toward them. It does mean that we weight their interests lower, just like we provide the best food to the first-class passengers on a flight.

(I should also note that it's white people who are treated as second-class citizens in our own countries as it stands; so even the classical liberals are on our side in fighting anti-whiteism.)

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-30T18:08:28+00:00

Ordinarily I find accusations of "entitlement" to be utterly baseless, but weirdly, in this case, it fits. Yes, we are entitled to our own homelands; we are entitled to make decisions regarding immigration - at least on paper. In theory, the public will to restrict immigration should have been respected, to preserve our collective ownership over our lands. In reality, democracy is a lie, and the elite sold us out for their high-minded bourgeois notions of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, equality and diversity. The elite, not grounded in blood and soil, not rooted in the tradition of the nations they govern, saw no value in tradition and heritage, they saw no reason to preserve the very lands they rule over. Hence they grounded their values in "progress"; the expansion of techno-capital and the erasure of "outdated" traditions, ideas and distinctions between peoples - and in doing so, they stole our inheritance that we were entitled to.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-28T16:09:05+00:00

I agree Anglin very often has good takes. He's obviously the anti-optics king but I rarely disagree with his actual arguments. You can complain about this and his lack of tact but is there really an optical way to say, "Jews control the media"? We almost need more people like Anglin just as a foil so the Jared Taylors of this world look more sensible.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-28T16:03:37+00:00

Conservative Ideology is Dead Forever

Good. It's about damn time.

Well let's just hope as it collapses more people join our side and not the anti-whites. Sadly I fear it will be replaced with kosher+ conservatism defending the constitutional right to gender transition surgery as they own the Real Racist Libs who only want to give $400B to blacks.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-27T21:33:10+00:00

Not trying to be defeatist! I just think we need to take decisive action, not simply hope that the problem will go away on its own because I think there's a good chance it won't.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-25T17:20:12+00:00

If only this were true. The sad truth is that many woke corporations are doing just fine. Boycotts don't work and their power is entrenched. In this case, yes a woke company is going broke, but they're losing market share to Google, a larger woke company. If we had a free market where pro-white and anti-woke companies were allowed to operate like anti-white, woke ones the free market may be able to solve the problem, but we don't so it can't.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-25T16:59:59+00:00

Stranger things have happened. Don't give up hope. I agree that a "boogaloo"-style uprising is far-fetched fantasy, but a popular political movement is not totally unreasonable. Our enemies are very strong but not invincible.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-25T16:55:01+00:00

This is true if you think "white supremacy" means "the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society," as it says in the dictionary.

In actual practice in the media, though, "white supremacy" means "the belief, theory or doctrine that white people deserve to exist and stand up for their own interests, and explicit discrimination and hatred toward whites should be discouraged." By this definition, the above imgur album is clearly "white supremacy".

The reason that the left has come to term such reasonable beliefs as "white supremacy" is because they have essentially figured out that the right was correct - in a fair, meritocratic, Western system, it's highly probable that blacks and other minority groups will do poorly. Rather than accept, though, that groups have different average abilities, the left decides the entire of society has to be rebuilt in a way that guarantees equal outcomes, which necessitates discriminating against whites. Anyone who opposes this clearly accepts to some degree the status quo, which is why standing up for white people is "white supremacy."

Now for a lot of classical liberals / centrists, this situation is confusing. It seems much like the "soft bigotry of low expectations" to expect blacks and other minorities to do poorly. Surely they must be the real racists! But to a leftist, as well as anyone willing to investigate uncomfortable facts, it's pretty dang obvious that we can expect blacks to score poorly on IQ tests, not show up to work on time, commit violent crime more often and so on. From the leftists' perspective, the view that all races are equal is purposely ignorant and self-serving. The real racism, in their view, is the very belief that high IQ, showing up to work on time, and not committing violent crime are positive traits in the first place. Hence they advocate for abolishing standardized tests, allowing flexible working hours, and freeing violent criminals from jail.

The reality is that we have to accept that groups are different and that we must expect whites to do better than blacks (on average) in the absence of discrimination. It's not enough to have blind faith in liberalism to "bring us equality," we have to accept that inequality between races is the natural (and desirable) result of a meritocratic system. Until we recognize that the anti-white left's observations about the under-performance of minority groups are not "racism", but a simple observation of fact (coupled with anti-white hatred and a misdiagnosis of the cause), we'll never defeat them.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-22T20:57:49+00:00

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

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-22T17:18:23+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-22T06:36:57+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-21T20:58:48+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-21T20:14:37+00:00

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

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-17T17:44:03+00:00

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).

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-17T17:40:55+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-16T16:43:03+00:00

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?

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-16T16:22:20+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-16T16:18:29+00:00

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

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-13T10:29:22+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-13T10:13:31+00:00

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"

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-13T09:37:16+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-13T07:25:51+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-13T06:58:00+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-12T12:47:26+00:00

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

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.
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".

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-10T17:39:08+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-09T16:54:49+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-09T16:47:57+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-09T16:34:22+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-09T16:09:06+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-09T06:51:28+00:00

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.)

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-09T06:21:10+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-08T06:42:48+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-07T06:43:40+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-07T06:21:45+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-06T07:55:29+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-06T07:31:11+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T19:50:11+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T11:11:04+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T10:54:13+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T10:05:53+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T09:52:22+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T09:31:11+00:00

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

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T09:23:12+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T08:57:16+00:00

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?

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T08:45:13+00:00

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)

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T08:31:04+00:00

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

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T08:25:45+00:00

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?

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T08:20:44+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T08:05:37+00:00

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."

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-05T06:42:09+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-01T19:32:24+00:00

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?

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-01T06:17:24+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-09-01T05:54:56+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-31T19:08:21+00:00

Thanks!

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-31T18:54:50+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-29T10:03:26+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-29T09:29:49+00:00

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".

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-29T09:11:18+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-29T09:09:34+00:00

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

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-29T07:33:09+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-28T18:58:18+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-27T19:26:21+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-27T18:50:43+00:00

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?)

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-27T18:46:05+00:00

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!"

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-27T18:25:45+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-27T17:52:32+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-25T05:09:18+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-24T06:47:54+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-23T15:27:27+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern · 2020-08-22T17:24:31+00:00

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.

AFutureConcern