So I've had two different accounts banned by Magnora at this point. Is it time to migrate? Where to? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

There are a lot of problems with this site. For example, the following, extremely inactive subsaidit which only had ten subscribers on 15th November (s/National__Socialism) has strangely been banned a month ago despite its single moderator (u/3rdFuckingAccount) being banned for something that was construed as threatening violence in another sub.

So, it looks like we have a case where an inactive subsaidit was banned for something its moderator said elsewhere. The thread in which he was banned is here: https://saidit.net/s/conspiracy/comments/1svh/james_mason_a_controlled_opposition_nazi_apostate/

Another oddity is that a private, empty subsaidit I have made months ago as a backup somehow has a second subscriber even though access is set to approval only. I suspect these means that the site moderators are simply able to approve themselves into any subsaidit, such that everything in it becomes visible on their s/new (even if it is private, off s/all, etc.)

There was also the problem of this subsaidit being off s/all, that is, until it appeared to have returned to s/all three days ago. The ip2 experience proved that this site can bow to external pressure. The strange thing about ip2 was that it was basically always a private/approval-only community in the time leading up to its banning. Later on, I remember it had became public, and because there was great debate on this site about it, I had a look at it. Yet, it seemed to simply be a meme+trolling community. So, what was it that got ip2 into trouble when it is unlikely anyone external to the group (except, I presume, the moderators) had any idea what was going on in there?

We know damn well that Biden-Harris are going to come for us far harder than whatever happened between groups like HNH/SPLC and 'big tech' during the Trump Presidency. The very reason why we're here is because of that very crackdown, and it would be daft to believe that they won't ramp up their efforts to erase whatever is left of us on the surface web (e.g. surviving YouTube channels) and the deep web (e.g. here).

The Western Democratic Idea has been de-legitimized once and for all by VarangianRasputin in debatealtright

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

Thankfully I never went through the kind of indoctrination you describe in your second paragraph. The government obviously governs (are they called the government for any other reason?) irrespective of how democratic a nation-state is.

Democracy is indeed religiously perceived as a sort of panacea in the contemporary world. It is common to see democracy hailed as a value in the same way as freedom and equality. No longer is it merely a political system. It's a 'value' that will solve every political problem and that only stupid or evil people oppose. Even if democracy has problems, we automatically assume that these are problems with its implementation that can be solved simply by... more democracy. We must absolutely never question democracy as a theory.

This kind of democratic extremism is exemplified by authors like Fukuyama, for whom democracy is not only the ideal system but will also inevitably be the only system. When the whole world becomes democratic, the only problems will stem from poor implementations. So the world just needs to strengthen its implementations of democracy to achieve the elusive 'true democracy'™. Then it will be paradise!

Fukuyama's idea is of course the neoliberal version of Bolshevik delusions about communism. A perfect political system (neoliberal globohomo or Bolshevik globohomo) is inevitable. Political problems are only the result of imperfect implementations of a perfect theory and can be solved by erasing the imperfections in the implementation. The only people who oppose this inevitable development are trying to prevent history from unfolding and cannot possibly win. There will be minor setbacks (e.g. Trump) but we'll make it towards paradise in the end. The same thing can be seen in Islam—problems in the Islamic world are the result of impure interpretations of Islam, the solution is to purify Islam. Just double down on whatever you believe—democracy, communism or Islam—and there will be paradise.

Democracy has practically replaced God. Nobody calls themselves the 'free republic of' or the 'egalitarian republic of', but many continue to call themselves the 'democratic republic of'. As Fukuyama observed, almost everyone justifies their own political agenda using democracy. Socialism is more democratic than liberal democracy. Trump will repair the damage the Left has done to democracy. Biden will repair the damage the Trumpians have done to democracy. And so on.

I think this is one of the many strengths of the 'Far-Right'. It lacks a utopian delusion and only aims at collective survival. That's all we can really hope for—of what use are utopian visions to people living as hated minorities within their own land and with nowhere to 'White flight' to? Yet this is the inevitable reality without a complete U-turn happening within the next few decades. The only thing that matters is finding some way to get that U-turn to happen. Utopian delusions are for the many cowards who cannot stomach the simple fact that civilization is but a thin layer, the existence of which is anomalous and far from being some kind of permanent development. It is less taxing on the mind to take it for granted and assume that the only way that we can go is forward.

TRUMP IS GOING TO WIN THE ELECTION LIBTARDS by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

This. It's pretty obvious most of them think they'll simply disarm the population, punish known Trump supporters and go back to building their progressive-socialist 'utopia' with the 'fascist menace' defeated by the 'brave resistance'.

It doesn't help that practically all 'progressives' are so far Leftward that they are incapable of seeing that they're the extremists as opposed to the other half of America wondering how the hell this lot seem to be ideologically closer to the same Marxism-Leninism they fought against just a few decades ago than to themselves.

On sites like Reddit it would be easy to think that 80-90% of people support the Democrats. Likewise if you observe the media or celebrities. When you're in an echo chamber of that magnitude, you just can't see that a whopping 50% of the population just aren't playing ball, which comes out in the election results. Reddit is currently full of people bemoaning the election result. "Like, even if Biden wins, how did 48% of voters vote for fascist Fuhrer Trump!!!??? I'm so angry and anxious, I'm going to drink away my sorrows tonight!"

I've seen heaps of comments from these same people claiming they'll get vasectomies, migrate, etc. because of this. Well, I certainly support such people not breeding. Hope they don't shit up the rest of the world by migrating, though.

The democrats have clenched defeat from the jaws of victory. Trump will get 289 Electors by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

The fact that Biden looks like he'll easily win the popular vote after all this just shows how far gone America is.

  • You have thousands of Leftist radicals burning everything and constantly fighting with police. Half of America makes excuses for them. The party winning the popular vote won't even mildly oppose them.
  • That same party is led by a man who becomes borderline senile right before the election, as if divine intervention just stepped in.
  • The Bidens honestly look exceedingly like they're blackmailed by China. What's with those videos that appear to show Hunter Biden smoking drugs and masturbating, released by a Chinese dissident group that claims that Biden is literally compromised by China... and that the CCP have plenty more of this to release if Biden tries anything stupid with them.
  • Multiculturalism reduces the lead on Texas, effectively screws up Arizona. Yet instead of rolling it back, we know damn well it's going to continue until it ushers in a Democrat one-party state.
  • And on top of all that, you have this same group threatening repercussions against known Republican voters regardless of who wins.

This election really shows how people are their own worst enemy. If Americans had any sense they'd have thrown California out of the union long ago. The failure to get rid of them threatens to hand the whole country back to the degenerate Left. Who are going to go on to finish creating some dystopia that will make the Soviet Union comparatively look like a peaceful, conservative place.

Anyone who thinks that multiculturalism does anything other than strengthen the Left through the addition of masses of new low IQ voters who skew heavily towards redistributionism is a damn fool. How can the Western Right persist with this colourblind nonsense that can only lead to the long-term entrenchment of progressive-socialism? 'Western values' aren't going to make low IQ people value economic self-sufficiency, work ethic, etc.

Fellow whites by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

Huh? Nobody is attacking you because you're Danish. They're attacking you because you're White.

You know this simply because if Denmark was not White, no one would care if it accepted 'refugees', gave foreign aid and so forth. Just the same way that no one cares if Saudi Arabia deports illegal Ethiopians or other intruders who they are right to rid themselves of, even though by practically every metric they are just as capable of taking care of 'refugees' as any White country.

The British army today can only field a single armored brigade for combat. Europe's incredible military weakness by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

I remember years ago reading that the Nigerian government was giving out contraceptives freely. They see population growth as a threat and not as a strength, typical of governments in the third-world.

This would have been under the previous PDP government of Goodluck Johnathan, sometimes referred to as the 'conservatives'. They dominate the southern part of Nigeria because party politics is essentially a front for ethnic interests. You vote as your ethnic group does. Since then, that government has been replaced by the APC government of Muhammadu Buhari, i.e. the 'progressives'. They dominate the northern (Islamic) part of Nigeria for the same reasons. It is better just to ignore the labels and see them both as ruthlessly corrupt and non-ideological. APC accepted plenty of PDP defectors when they finally came to power and many of those on the losing side wanted to jump ship.

The APC is also a feministic party. As can be plainly seen looking at parts of their manifesto: https://apc.com.ng/manifesto/#1545660160799-a6033305-20dd

Examples "... will put place measures that will ensure active participating of women in politics" "Combat illiteracy among women by providing functional literacy and adult education programmes in local languages" "Make efforts so that women occupy up to 30% in party structures and government."

Nigeria also has practically no economy outside of oil exportation (75% of GDP last I checked). Some sources claim that internet scamming is the second highest source of income, comparable to foreign aid, which is the official second highest. So, the country produces nothing notable, and as oil consumption is being curbed because the predominant left-liberal global ideology increasingly sees it as problematic, the country risks losing its only major income source in the same way that Angola, Saudi Arabia and a whole bunch of other countries do.

It is unfortunate that oil has survived for as long as it has in this regard. By propping up third-world economies, it has contributed heavily to the issue of global overpopulation and thus indirectly drives the migration crises. But continued use of oil is simply unsustainable. The fact that so many Nigerians openly call for a military coup to remove Buhari is but one of many examples of how desperate things are becoming. The recent coup in Mali also met wide public support for the same reasons.

What is “White Supremacy”? Ask a White Supremacist Neo-Nazi! by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

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

There is something particularly bizarre about something that would normally be considered an outright invasion (mass immigration of various ethnic others into one's own territory) being perceived as so totally 'normal' to the extent that you're somehow the 'bad guy' for calling it out for what it is.

What's the use, for example, in the Irish opposing the Black and Tans just to submit to the blacks and browns? What's the use in becoming independent from a group who at least are similar to you, only to throw away that independence to various groups, whose very cultures and lifestyles are so different that their entrenchment necessitates destroying yours?

Leftists seem to sincerely believe that 'things are different' and that this once commonsensical logic no longer applies in our cosmopolitan era. What a joke. If the Irish ethnic group disappeared due to effectively being replaced by immigration, how is that morally any different from simply killing them outright? The outcome—the elimination of an entire people and culture—remains exactly the same. A different method was used to reach the same outcome, but it is that very outcome that is bad, not the method used to get there. That would be like Israelis claiming that large numbers of non-Jews moving into their country doesn't have the same effect that killing large numbers of Jews does. What's the difference? Israel wouldn't be a Jewish homeland either way. Ethnic minorities can be even more damaging than occupying armies or WMDs—Hiroshima went from a ruin into a city in the same time that Detroit went from a city into a ruin. Yet almost everyone would say that nukes are much worse than blacks.

Is anyone else having a difficult time not getting their reddit accounts suspended? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

Have PoliticalCompassMemes, tucker_carlson and KotakuInAction2 been banned yet?

I'm not that familiar with any of them, but I've seen the usual types claim that they've been 'overrun by fascists' and the usual nonsense. They'll probably remove all of those in the next ban wave.

I remember there was once a 'CraftingLore' subreddit that was pretty much ours in disguise, even though it outwardly looked like some Minecraft fan group. Hilarious stuff. Groups could easily remain on Reddit if they wanted, simply by organizing off site and moving en masse into subreddits with a particular 'theme'.

Is Voat dead? by Ethnocrat in debatealtright

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

What are our communities on Poal? That site looked by far the least active of Reddit alternatives last I checked around 2 months ago.

The only good thing about here is that the moderators haven't bothered us since they took the sub off 'all'.

Ruqqus communities are growing much faster than Saidit ones. I have a control of a non-political guild nearing 500 members. People just trickle in and I haven't even done anything with it. Everyone behaves. I've observed some guilds grow by several thousand members in around 2 months (e.g. from 2000 to 6000+). The only one I've seen here grow that rapidly was the GenderCritical one banned from Reddit around that time, but activity is already dying out there as well.

I'm glad that most of the Leftists that flooded in at that time seemingly either went back to Reddit or off to new containers like 'Ovarit' (a literal feminist echo-chamber). That keeps them away from the general Reddit alternatives.

Trump tests positive for covid by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

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

Leftists must be salivating right now. They're screeching: "Please die! Please die!"

Here's to hoping for a speedy recovery. Not for any reason other than that I want Leftists to shed many tears when their vile murderous fantasies of Trump passing away before the election don't materialize.

He'll be fine. Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsonaro, Jeanine Anez and at least one other head of state in Latin America have all survived it. And HCQ has been overwhelmingly proven to help, and he's been taking it for months now. Most studies say it either helps or has no effect—only a select few have tried to claim it has been counter-productive... and one of those was later removed from the academic journal it was published in. So he should have an equal—if not greater—chance of getting through it than they did.

He should use it to avoid the next debate, since the 'moderator' is literally someone who has been close to Biden in the past. And when he recovers in around 2 weeks, maybe a few more will off themselves—'the... the fascist... he recovered... he's gunna start World War III and kill millions of non-Whites if he's re-elected... I can't take it anymore!'

"If we ever want to reclaim power, we must create truth that is discontinuous with humanitarianism." by DisgustResponse in debatealtright

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

What an easy win that argument was.

Anyone who has a problem with a particular people existing as a distinct group indeed has a problem with the members of that group. If you didn't have a problem with them, you'd want them to thrive. And that includes them preserving their distinctness. There is no way you can say: "I have no problem with White people on an individual basis, I just oppose their group rights" without seeming to be a flagrant hypocrite.

This Left-liberal clown is using the typical argument that he (ostensibly) has no racial animus against Whites but obviously opposes (because of his radical individualism/deracialization) their group rights. It simply doesn't work that way. To remove the rights of a group is simply a step towards removing their individual rights. We rightly see this ludicrous insistence that we have only individual rights and no group rights as simply the stepping stone that non-Whites and other people manipulating White Left-liberals use to get closer to what they really want (i.e. an envy/hate-driven marginalization and effective mass murder of the 'privileged', a concept which has been racialized such that it has become synonymous with being of European descent).

Let's have a gentlemen's bet between Trump and Biden supporters. by Aureus in debatealtright

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

If Biden wins:

  • Rapid increase in illegal entries from Mexico starting immediately when Biden takes office (January 2021?)
  • Whatever is left of historical Confederate or slaver statues go first. From there the historical revisionism quickly spreads (the Founding Fathers will survive Biden's term and will be some of the last to go, but even they only have decades at most).
  • Gun sales massively increase in response to rightful fears about pushes towards greater gun control. Any/every shooting spree that occurs will continue being used as ammunition to sway public opinion peace-meal to a pro-disarmament stance.
  • Infighting within the Democrats begins almost immediately (probably before Biden takes office, groups like Fox News focus on how weak/divided Biden's govt is, on his dementia or whatever he has, etc).
  • Biden doesn't last a full-term, probably resigns due to pressure from the progressives (someone like AOC might be just old enough to stand by 2024). Both they and the GOP attack him constantly over his gaffes, past comments, etc. (politics will largely be an 'I'm less racist than you' contest, with the GOP focused on 'based blacks', 'Hispanic family values', etc.).
  • Hostility to White Democrats generally increases. The Democrats have increasingly little need for them.
  • 'Cuckservatives' proclaim they'll be able to 'rebuild' the GOP because 'Trumpian populism' somehow 'ruined' it. No one cares and neocon/National Review-style conservatism continues to die out. GOP wouldn't have won in 2016 without Trump anyway.
  • Sites like AmRen, Counter-Currents, etc. probably deplatformed by 2024 (the ones that aren't are probably compromised).
  • COVID continues well into Biden's term, but eventually becomes a non-issue (global herd immunity sadly seems the only way out). Left-liberals have a lot of blood on their hands (travel bans [remember their reaction to Trump banning travel even from Europe?] are 'racist', cracking down on BLM protests is 'racist', not letting people return from overseas is 'racist', etc.) Strangely, nobody calls them out on the fact they're the only reason why this pandemic has gotten out of hand.
  • Opiate problem massively worsens. More stories of whole towns being 'decimated', etc.
  • Trump family leaves the country to avoid being treated like Assange. Perhaps he has enough dirt on key Democrats to be left alone, if not, they're going to have him jailed to appease the rabid mob. Alot of wealthier Americans simply leave—for real, not like those clowns who said they'd 'leave if Trump wins', yet are still American today.
  • Putin bad. Nothing actually happens with Russia other than sabre-rattling. Nonetheless, Russophobia becomes entrenched in American politics.
  • Collective insanity (rename this brand, change that label, stop using that bigoted word, start using this new word, everyone is -ist and -phobic, 'cancel culture') ramps up. More Leftists fall afoul of the mainstream and get salami-sliced out of the Left (hah... too bad for RadFems, etc.) but it does nothing to diminish their power.
  • Groups like BLM act with even greater impunity. This will even include arson, murder, etc. Remember the woman shot in the head recently for saying 'All Lives Matter'? And a lot of people commenting on her Facebook page that she 'deserved it'? That's going to get a whole lot worse these coming years.
  • They'll push for changes to things like the Electoral College (whatever worked to Trump's favour in 2016 they'll want gone).
  • Companies tow the line or go broke, but if they get too woke, they also go broke. This kind of unstable social situation is obviously 'bad for business' and will have obvious economic impacts. The Democrats will do nothing to restore American manufacturing (unlike Trump, who at least put some effort into it).

If Trump wins re-election (is Kanye West still standing, which would help Trump?) much of this (COVID, opiate problem, deplatforming) will happen regardless. Let the others speculate about a second Trump term.

Book thread by Mr_Tee in debatealtright

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

The first time I looked into Schmitt I came across this, which I thought was a well-written article, also by Johnson and published on his Counter-Currents site. It might be a good place for newcomers to start on Schmitt's ideas, particularly because Johnson writes in a way that shows their relevance to our situation:

https://www.counter-currents.com/2011/02/reflections-on-carl-schmitts-the-concept-of-the-political/

De Benoist's 'Carl Schmitt Today' might not be a bad starting point, either. I found it to be a well referenced work, though a bit drily written. It has its moments—De Benoist gets stuck into some of the Leftist 'neocons are Nazis' nonsense early on.

Basically:

  • Carl Schmitt taught the Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss. They shared letters for a few more years afterwards. For a short time Schmitt was also in the NSDAP.

  • Strauss eventually got to America after Schmitt helped him escape to Britain, there he taught philosophy to some Jews who became 'neocons' (like Wolfowitz).

  • These students of Strauss worked for the Bush Administration.

Conclusion: Therefore the Bush Administration are Nazis.

A hilariously idiotic argument even for an argumentum ad hitlerum (a term coined by Strauss himself, incidentally).

The same people who say we need to "stop with the anti-semitism" are the same ones who will support anti-White rhetoric as free speech by EuropeanAwakening in SaidIt

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

Hilarious. Your view is nothing short of internalized Marxism, namely a deification of 'elites' (by which you presumably mean the bourgeoisie/capitalists) who ostensibly control everything in the same way that non-black 'racists' generally consider blacks to ruin everything. 'Ordinary lower class people' share practically nothing in common across racial lines and the class consciousness/struggle you're advocating is nonsense. Tell me, what is it exactly that you share with people who are of your class but not of your race, as opposed to people who are of your race but not of your class?

It's simply a shared hatred of deified elites, isn't it? You think that you'll 'get something' if you manage to defeat them. You're doing to class exactly what you think 'racists' are stupid for doing to race, and which, incidentally, I think you're stupid for doing to class (especially considering that you will obviously have no answer for the question I just posed). I doubt that, for example, I share anything meaningful in common with you even if we share the same relations to the means of production (i.e. are workers rather than bosses), whereas someone in the 'elite' could hypothetically be my brother or close relative. It's pretty obvious to me who I should side with if the likes of you tried something against such a person.

Bill Nye just ended racism, Alt Right on suicide watch by JuliusCaesar225 in debatealtright

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

The most amusing punishment for White Leftists would be just to arrange with some third-world country to take them in return for money. These people love 'diversity' so much that they want to force the rest of us to accept it and think other people are somehow 'bad' if they don't. So, imagine how amusing it would be if a day came where these people were simply told: 'Pack your bags, you're going to live around 99.99% diversity for the rest of your life, and will never see a racist or White privileged person ever again'.

We have an obvious moral high ground over Leftists on this issue simply because they want to deprive other Whites of a home in order to build some multiracial dystopia in its place. Whereas those who favour 'humanity' or 'diversity' over 'Whiteness' cannot be deprived of a home, because they believe that any/every place is their home. Ergo, if White Leftists are all deported, everyone should be happy—Whites keep their home and Leftists get a lot more 'diversity'. It should be a Win/Win situation.

Of course the real kicker is how such people will fight tooth and nail to prevent such a deportation from ever occurring, even though their only reason for opposing it is because they know at the back of their mind that the 'racists' are right and that living around diversity isn't really a win. Even Leftists aren't stupid enough to think that spending the rest of their lives in 99.99% diverse Africa is a good idea, even though the only reasons for why they think that are... yep, 'racism'. Leftists are such flagrant, parasitic hypocrites that they'd honestly think that there would be something morally wrong with simply telling them to go and live around 'diversity' and away from the rest of us. Yep, they have the audacity to believe that even in spite of the fact that they're practically forcing their descendants to live in the similar practical hell that they themselves desperately want to avoid. They do not want to themselves be expelled to Hell, yet are expelling their own descendants there anyway. How utterly selfish and imbecilic.

Saidit is shaping up well. Don't fuck this up. by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

The only thing that I would say is an obvious problem right now is that the subsaidit is on /s/all. This might be one of the reasons for why the two most 'Hot' threads right now are literally bemoaning 'anti-Semitism' or whatever, although some of our people are also easy to find on the default subs, including in the two threads I mentioned. Basically, these threads are full-blown fights between Leftists who want a 'safe space' that simply accepts their subset of contrarian Leftism which the globohomo mainstream Left on Reddit won't accept, and people who have been here longer, who are generally more Right-leaning because the Right was expelled from Reddit earlier:

https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/5ia4/i_know_this_site_is_for_free_speech_and_all_but/

https://saidit.net/s/AskSaidIt/comments/5ia6/whats_with_all_the_antijewish_stuff_on_this_site/ (the top commenter on this hilariously looks like one of our guys)

So, what's going on? Well, because those fools at Reddit are banning Leftist communities that deviate from the party line on some single particular issue (e.g. feminists who won't accept 'transwomen', queers who think trans are 'erasing' them and other such nonsense) even though they agree on all the rest, they're flooding here. You can see this simply by looking at 'Find New Subs', where a great deal of new subs are obviously the creations of these contrarian Leftists (for example, as of writing this, s/GCmemes is already at 56 members despite being here for 16 hours). In the last two days you also have /s/gc_woc (looks like a fusion of Gender Critical + intersectional, reverse racism [don't talk over wimminz o' colour, ebil wypipo wimminz!]), s/GenderCriticalUSA, s/FemaleDatingStrategy (whose sidebar is blatantly exclusive, stating anything that 'contradicts' their ideology is banned), s/RadicalFeministForum (whose moderator is apparently desperate to have it remain on s/all despite it obviously looking like an exclusive community).

By contrast, of obvious 'Right' communities I can only see a tiny s/Nationalism over the past two days. It's obvious that what is effectively a microcosm of the Great Replacement is rapidly occurring. If you go back further down the list, the same thing can be observed—radical feminist communities are particularly springing up like weeds, and there are a few other communities like s/BlackGirlDiaries (essentially a black femcel community, i.e. black females who view themselves as 'oppressed' because of their race and biological sex and their self-admitted ugliness [for some inexplicable reason, femcels seem to think that it is unfair that men 'don't value them', even though they believe themselves to be flagrantly unattractive and thus are hardly the kind who should be propagating their genes] simultaneously).

We can see how Reddit's purity spiraling or salami slicing is driving the same people who are essentially part of the problem (Leftists angry that they're being attacked by their own side, whose view is essentially 'we didn't leave the Left, they left us'), and who essentially want Reddit minus the mainstream globohomo strand that kicked them out. I think the big question for this site is just how these communities are going to coexist in peace, particularly on the s/all subs. Don't worry about the site becoming Voat (how could this happen when almost every recent new user is probably RadFem, detrans or LGBdroptheT?), worry about it becoming Raddle.

Could America Become Like South Africa? by [deleted] in politics

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

You can add Costa Rica and Argentina to that list.

Back in 1900, Argentina literally had the world's highest GDP per capita.

Nowadays no one would ever think that Argentina was ever much of anything, let alone once being the home of the world's averagely wealthiest people. What happened? Well, at least one cause is demographic change. That is, that large numbers of people left those more dysfunctional countries to Argentina's north (particularly Paraguay and Bolivia) and migrated southwards. And by the 1990s, no longer was it merely Hispanics, but large numbers of people foreign to the continent (e.g. African blacks) who were arriving en masse. Unsurprisingly Argentina—particularly population centres like Buenos Aires—now resembles those same countries that many 'new Argentinians' fled.

It seems that migration will eventually create a sort of global domino effect. That is, that if many immigrants come to Argentina, perhaps more established Argentinians will go to, say, America, to avoid the nonsense they bring. And when many immigrants come to America, perhaps more established Americans will go to, say, the UK, for the same reasons. And when many immigrants come to the UK... you get the drift. What happens when no place is appealing to migrate to? Everyone is stuck with nowhere to go. First-world peoples have to put their foot down somewhere and assert: 'This is our land, we don't want to live like the South Africans, Argentinians, and, look at this long list of people we don't want to be like, so get lost, we're full'.

I really hope this is satirical by Salos10000 in debatealtright

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

Even those milquetoast 'cuckservatives'—who barely ever criticize Leftist extremism in the social sphere—have been taking out the piss out of this specific case of imbecilic nonsense on television. We're literally living in a world where the demarcation between 'comedy' and 'reality' has effectively been abolished.

Funnily, that poster really communicates a sort of indirect and unintentional 'White supremacy'. It's literally saying that Whites are the only people who aren't total pieces of garbage incapable of being trusted to consistently do any of the following: meet deadlines, stockpile resources, maintain a proper family structure, and a whole lot of other things. I mean, it's even taking a more extreme stand on the differences between Whites and other races than I do... but for all the wrong reasons. They aren't saying that non-Whites are bad for not engaging in those things. They're saying that Whites are bad because they are. The correction is thus not for non-Whites to start doing those things, but for Whites to stop and simply live like the third-worlders already mostly do.

So the real kicker, of course, is that if Whites do all those things and that's apparently bad... then by extension not meeting deadlines, engaging in short-termism regarding planning and saving, having broken families, etc. is all good. That's where it becomes the stuff of comedy. In a more sane time, you'd think that this was just some 'racist' having fun making fake graphics, or perhaps some closeted 'racist' about to leave the job doing this as a sort of parting shot. But in our time, we know that they mean it for real.

Genetic components to white guilt? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

I certainly agree in the sense that if we change some attributes of a 'younger Social Democratic woman' (like the current Danish or Finnish Prime Ministers) to those of, say, an 'older Christian Democratic woman', you still end up with someone as damaging as Merkel. I don't even like Marine Le Pen that much, though she's leagues ahead of the aforementioned politicians.

In some ways, Merkel is even worse than the first two. For example, at least they don't actively try to convince people that they're aren't Leftists. Nor do they corrupt conservative parties—the German CDU literally now calls itself 'The Centre'; yep, it is no longer a party of the Right by its own admission. It is Merkel who is responsible for these changes. If Merkel was gone, the CDU could become a proper paleoconservative party, more like the 'far-right' (hah...) AfD, who were effectively the CDU of a few decades ago in terms of policies. Whereas if Marin or Frederiksen were gone, well, what would change given that they would only be succeeded by like-minded Social Democrats? It is borderline impossible for such parties to ever become paleocon, nationalistic or otherwise move anywhere near our position. Whereas at least centre-right party leaders like Wauquiez and Casado moved their parties closer to our position, even if it is just because of the rising popularity of RN and Vox in France and Spain respectively.

Of course, Le Pen's RN is also practically the French centre-right of the 90's anyway (as some have observed, Chirac's platform was highly similar to RN's current one). So it is not only Merkel and the CDU who are doing this, but also vermin like Sarkozy.

Genetic components to white guilt? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

Danes are a good example of how people are often their own worst enemies. They have historically been some of the least conservative people in all of Europe; for example, they practically abolished all anti-porn laws as far back as (I think, and amusingly if so) 1969, setting a precedent that the rest of the world has to varying speeds followed. The party in power at that time even had a name like 'Social Radical Liberal' or some such nonsense that sets off alarm bells in my mind. How anyone—excluding those obvious degenerates whom benefit from such people being in power—could see any appeal in voting for a party with such a ridiculous name is beyond me.

Imagine being stupid enough to believe that a young woman who heads a literal 'Social Democratic' party is ever going to do anything about lowering immigration. Literally a few weeks (at the very most) after winning the election, there was already talk of bringing in more refugees. Meanwhile, the DPP, who actually seem much better regarding this particular problem, lost many votes... many of which likely went to the same SD that immediately backstabbed these utter fools. History repeats itself—more idiots elected, yet unlike the elections in the 1960s, there will not even be a chance to rectify these more recent mistakes.

The presence of such refugees is practically of no benefit to anyone but the refugees themselves. What exactly is so psychologically difficult for Whites to accept that the presence of such people is at best an unavoidable nuisance and at a worst an outright and very grave threat? It seems as though Whites like voting for people who govern for everyone but themselves. Because Whites do not seem to care if their governments favour others over themselves, governments only need to focus on appeasing such others to win elections. It ends up being like a feedback-loop (Whites don't care about their own interests and won't change their vote if they're neglected, all others do, therefore govern first and foremost in the interests of all others, which means bring in more others, which makes the problem more pronounced).

I really hope this is satirical by Salos10000 in debatealtright

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

A positive effect of this utterly imbecilic garbage is that it demonstrates that the idea of White Left-liberal values in some sense being 'universal values' (what White Leftists/liberals have long claimed, i.e. that anyone who adheres to these values are in our 'in-group', those who reject them are othered, labelled 'out-group') seems to have become a casualty of the current Cultural Revolution.

Now, dumbass White Leftists/liberals. Non-Whites don't like your 'values'. And that's great! They're going to keep being 'homophobic', 'xenophobic', and all the rest, and there's nothing you can do about it. Eat shit!

We can also have a laugh at how those things that (probably) should be universal values have also been thrown out with all the rest, for example:

'Work before play'

'Plan for future'

These two things seem pretty intuitive to us, don't they? Shouldn't they be intuitive to anyone that isn't mentally impaired? To Whites, they are indeed deeply embedded within the 'White culture' that anti-Whites so often exclaim does not exist (often snarkily as though they have just stated something deeply profound rather than deeply idiotic). For example, they're practically the moral of the well-known story 'The Ant and the Grasshopper', and are key to what German sociologist Max Weber labelled the 'Protestant Work Ethic'. For Weber, it is this which led to the capitalism/industrialization that led to Europe moving far ahead of the rest of the world during the Industrial Revolution and after. Perhaps it is because they are intuitive to us that we are blinded to the fact that they may not be intuitive to the other races.

Additionally, some non-Whites are calling it 'racist' (big surprise...) because it suggests that, not only are such obviously good things not deeply embedded within non-White cultures (which is a tacit claim that White culture is superior), but that non-Whites are in some sense 'acting White' (and thus cannot adhere to them if they remain their natural selves) if they attempt also adhering to them. Don't you just love it when these blithering imbeciles cannibalize each other!?

Censorship is probably not actually about the bottom line. It's SJWs acting ideologically. by WaltzRoommate in debatealtright

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

Especially when they've undergone a practical 'Talibanization' that leads them to bizarrely believe that they have some sort of 'moral right' to uproot everything about history that they don't like, e.g. to destroy practically every historical statue bar those, unsurprisingly, of Karl Marx and his acolytes. That historical Marxists are noticeably exempt from their attempts to demolish and reshape history is perhaps the most obvious giveaway regarding what these people really want.

What's fascinating is how they have accumulated so much power that their attempts to gain more no longer even require violence. They act with practical impunity, and thus do not even need weapons. Governments won't touch them, because any crackdown on the likes of BLM would obviously be 'racist'. Likewise, they come up with the most absurd excuses for refusing to declare Antifa a terrorist organization. 'They're not organized and have no obvious leaders'. Yeah? A group that has chapters in practically every notable Western city (complete with social media groups and pages, with which they organize their sympathizers) and has obvious chapter leaders? The 'Alt-Right' has no organization (actually, far less than Antifa, given it has no city-wide chapters, and has no equivalent to 'Acab', the anarchist circled 'A', or other Antifa symbols which are ubiquitously found in the form of graffiti, and are evidence of Antifa being practically everywhere) or obvious leader/s either, but notice how the same excuses suddenly don't apply anymore? If a bunch of Cartels or Islamist groups (or even worse, if 'MAGA' or the 'Alt-Right') did a fraction of what those in the CHOP, Antifa, BLM, etc. have done (e.g. mass arson attacks, clashes with police, declaring 'autonomous zones'), it would be considered an 'invasion', as 'terrorism', etc. practically without hesitation.

Censorship is probably not actually about the bottom line. It's SJWs acting ideologically. by WaltzRoommate in debatealtright

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

Provided that capitalism is behind most of this, all that this demonstrates is that capitalists, or at least the current crop of capitalists, are blind and self-defeating. What do you think will happen to wealth in a country full of rainbow-haired feminists, drug addicts, and third-worlders who consume far more than what they produce? You can't have a decent economy without a decent society. Capitalism won't even be able to migrate anywhere, because the situation will literally be the same everywhere in a few decades. The third-world will remain a cesspool, the first-world will also be third-world. The whole capitalist model of 'produce in the third-world, sell in the first-world' will be permanently over.

All those plutocrats will literally have to live in fortresses like the castles of old. If they step outside, the masses will kill them because they'll want these fortresses and all the stuff in them for themselves. Just like how the mobs pillaged Ben Ali's palace in Tunisia, that is, how the 'dictator' who has accumulated much wealth goes down in any country once he is removed by popular revolt. It'll be South Africa (the wealthier you are, the more you hide behind security, and the more others want to take what you have) on steroids. There, practically the only bustling businesses now are private security companies. Even De Beers, the Jewish-owned diamond company, went from practically controlling the opposition to Apartheid (funding the 'Progressive Party' within the system, and the ANC outside of it) to being sold off, in less than 30 years. That's self-defeating capitalism, right there.

The ultra-rich only have power while the society+economy is functioning. As soon as those reach a critical level, you'll have a handful of people whose wealth is practically useless against the angry masses. If things get that bad (and I actually agree that they probably will if the current course doesn't change), then these idiots will have effectively committed suicide. I don't think they'll be happily living in opulence like the aristocrats of old, who weren't stupid enough to destroy the societies they lived in through feminism/multicult/anything else you mentioned, like a parasite. That stuff will, in the long-term, screw over capitalism, but not Leftists, who couldn't care less if everyone was poor. Making everyone equally poor is the closest we'll ever get to the 'true equality' that these imbeciles stupidly desire, anyway. They've happily killed millions for it in the past, they'll happily destroy everything before they renounce their cult-ish religion.

Censorship is probably not actually about the bottom line. It's SJWs acting ideologically. by WaltzRoommate in debatealtright

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

This. The 'Left' (as an ideological movement) has become so powerful that capitalism, religion, etc. have all become subordinate to it. If capitalism really controlled the Left, why is it that the corporations seem utterly subservient towards its manifestations, the obvious example being BLM? BLM barks 'dat rayciss' and the corporations can't bend over fast enough to appease them. We even have guys making extensive lists of 'woke companies' to avoid, for we tend to despise the Left so thoroughly that anyone who stands against their hegemonic stranglehold has come to seem heroic. Leftism is a full-blown religion in the West. You can say 'Screw capitalism' and people cheer you on. Yet you'll probably be physically attacked by Left-wing sectarians if you say 'Screw feminism' or 'Screw multiculturalism' in public.

Can anyone come up with a convincing argument for the Left being a 'false opposition' that secretly assists in entrenching capitalism? Even if left-Liberals mount no serious challenge to capitalism's fundamentals, and there are not yet enough Antifa-types to effectively challenge it either, capitalism still seems to be in a crisis situation (look at those surveys which show that a majority of Americans under a certain age prefer socialism over capitalism, for starters).

Egypt is gonna be a disaster for us by Salos10000 in debatealtright

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

The only thing that happens between those two countries is sabre-rattling. I doubt that many people would even know about it in the outside world, were it not for Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 making it part of its story-line.

The past three or four notable Presidents (Sadat, Mubarak, Morsi, el-Sisi) have all had 'war plans' for Ethiopia. One involved airstrikes, another involved paratroopers. A few months ago, Ethiopia's Prime Minister Ahmed also made a comment that Egypt perceived as aggressive.

Ethiopia will indeed need more water as its population expands. Ethiopia is also a large cotton exporter, with cotton being a water-intensive crop. Thus it is not unfeasible that Ethiopia simply decides to retain more water in order to prevent the instability that comes with scarcity. It will obviously prefer internal stability over international relations. Ahmed has made large strides towards breaking up the sort of 'Apartheid'-like system which gave strong powers to Ethiopia's many regions, and is creating a more centralized state in its place. Combine this with his political liberalization efforts and it is no surprise that an attempted coup was already launched last year in Amhara. I suspect that Egypt would easily defeat Ethiopia in a one-on-one fight. Even Israel fears Egypt, whose military is both vast and well-equipped, armed with many American weapons. Were it not for Sadat betraying Assad, it is likely that Israel would have been ended back in 1973. Furthermore, Ethiopia has many separatist groups who can be aided by its enemies. Eritrea also has very poor relations with Ethiopia, and yet as Ethiopia is landlocked, it is reliant on Eritrea for access to the oceans.

But neighbouring countries complicate matters. Ethiopia will almost certainly resort to pan-Africanism while Egypt will almost certainly resort to both pan-Arabism and Islamism. Relations between the Arab League and the African Union, for example, would strike a record low. Some countries, like Sudan, could go either way (they identify as Muslim Arabs but are overwhelmingly racially African).

Djibouti is also something of a factor because of the sheer level of foreign influence there. I believe the French, Japanese, Saudis, Americans and Chinese all have bases there... and not all of these nations will align the same way. Either way, war would probably result in a rapid regime change in Ethiopia, complete with population decline and mass migration southwards into Somalia and Kenya.

Seattle Public Schools will reopen to students of color before reopening to white students by nostromo in politics

[–]ChancellorMershekel 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The problem with using the 'anti-racists are da real racists' theory to explain this phenomenon, is that it relies on the Left having some kind of ulterior motive. Of course, there are indeed numerous ways in which the baizuo can be interpreted as racist.

For example:

  • Non-Whites who don't align with them are in some sense 'mentally colonized', e.g. Biden's 'you aren't really black' comment, 'Uncle Tom' as an effective slur towards GOP-voting blacks, 'coconut', etc. This has the clear, paternalistic implication that the baizuo in some way 'own' or 'know the interests of' non-Whites, and that those who do not support them are in some way 'going against' their own interests. The baizuo thus assigns themselves the power to define for non-Whites what is or is not in their interests.

  • All forms of 'positive discrimination' or 'reverse racism', e.g. 'blacks can dance, Whites can't dance', tend to go unquestioned (though I have also seen both non-Whites and baizuo oppose certain types of generalizations/stereotypes which benefit non-Whites).

  • Status- and virtue- signalling: Adopting the stereotypical 'starving black kid', like those often shown on television advertisements often accompanied by sad music to illicit sympathy, to prove how 'un-racist' you are is something of an insincere reason to engage in 'anti-racist' actions, which arguably is 'racist' in itself, e.g. 'White saviour'.

  • Jew/Muslim dichotomy: The more the Left sides with one, the more they anger the other (e.g. pro-Zionist Leftists must justify 'Islamophobia', pro-Muslim Leftists must justify 'anti-Semitism'). This was one of the problems that screwed up Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn clearly took the Muslim side, Johnson clearly took the Jewish side. The latter side holds more power in the UK for now. There can be no 'anti-racist' position there simply because both sides are mutually exclusive.

  • Deprivation of agency. The baizuo paint a world where Whites have immense agency (i.e. they wield a destructive power so immense that it has damaged non-Whites near or outright permanently) while non-Whites have practically no agency. Thus even if all Whites were extinct, there is no way that non-Whites can truly repair this damage even in a million years, which essentially paints them as weak, stupid, infantile, and as permanent victims, while painting Whites as almighty and powerful.

And now we have this new form that only became apparent with the Floyd/BLM thing - that positive representations of blacks are 'racist' while certain negative representations (e.g. crap artists) should remain. The long-term effect of such an idea is obviously that blacks will increasingly be associated with these surviving negative representations.

Sure, Leftists tend towards being more anti-White than they are pro-(insert non-White group/s here), which explains some of what otherwise seems like incoherence. But I think what is really happening is that the baizuo are losing control of the narrative within their own organizations, i.e. non-Whites are massively increasing in numbers/power within groups like the Democratic Party, and they're increasingly calling the shots while the baizuo are increasingly getting sidelined (let's face it, the Democratic Party is fast becoming the 'immigrant' or 'non-White' party). This demented incoherence probably comes from the overwhelmingly non-White 'progressive' politicians like AOC, Omar, etc. who are less competent than the baizuo and probably have no idea what they're really doing. The madness will increase because the party demographics are changing in a way that will increasingly favour these inept 'progressive' types. I don't think that the baizuo actually even have enough power over non-Whites (they did when there were less of them, and those there were less established within politics) to weaponize them against 'White America' or some other thing that they abhor.

Seattle Public Schools will reopen to students of color before reopening to white students by nostromo in politics

[–]ChancellorMershekel 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Isn't this pretty much 'racism'? I mean, shouldn't White kids be used as the guinea pigs to see if it is safe to go back, so that they are the ones at risk rather than the poor 'POC'?

Anti-racist logic sometimes makes no sense even when one becomes adept at looking through the Leftist 'lens'. It's like how Uncle Ben, a historically successful black rice farmer, is somehow 'racist'. Well, if anti-racists get rid of positive representations of blacks like Uncle Ben, then doesn't that just leave the (c)rap artists like Nipsey Hussle and XXXtentacion, who all live shady lives and have a tendency to be 'shot dead after trying to turn their lives around' before 40? Is that who black kids should be looking up to? Is that who they want everyone to associate 'being black' with?

Anti-racists are da real racists.

Anyone got a full list of anti-white companies and celebrities? by Markimus in debatealtright

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

I've seen a lot of threads like this over the past few years. Indeed, someone started a similar thread on s/politics a few hours ago. A lot of the commenters would be... sympathetic, and some of them already post here.

https://saidit.net/s/politics/comments/59s0/the_great_boycott_a_megathread_on_woke_companies/

I'd just add that Bezos himself praised BLM (amusingly, three of its 'leaders' are self-identified 'Marxists') and claimed that those who oppose it are not welcome customers. It escalated when he publicly shared an email he received from someone who was clearly enraged at his support for BLM. He probably got the reaction he wanted, since the comment section on the particular article I saw overwhelmingly praised him.

Black SanFran politician proposes "CAREN Act" to make "racist 911 calls" illegal by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

This is a good example of the normalization of anti-White attitudes, yet another entry in what should be a fast-growing list of evidence. If some politician proposed a hypothetical 'NIGGA Act', we know exactly how it would be received. Yet here we have something of a very similar nature, except that it somewhat (and, I'm sure, much to the chagrin of feminists) only seems an attack on White women, who would rather point the blame for all things at White men. Not that a hypothetical 'CRACKA Act'—one that would be a clear attack on all Whites—would be received any differently. Some people, especially White feminists, would indeed prefer it, for they could then tell themselves: 'Well, they only really mean White men'. Now, I wonder, are such people, some of whom almost certainly lurk in our communities, enjoying reaping the fruits of the anti-White attitudes that they assist in sowing when they believe themselves to be somehow exempt when 'POC' utter some drivel like 'Fk Whitey'? Enjoy being singled out as a target, 'empowered', 'independent' Karens?

Article with studies claims police are biased against blacks in police shootings, can it be rebutted? by marc_gee in debatealtright

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

It was Andrew Yang, of all people, who held the very politically incorrect view that 'diversity' increases rather than decreases 'racism'. Trying to be a stereotypical 'evil genius' he thus convinced himself that to beat Trump, all he had to do was fool Whites in very White areas to vote for him—supposedly he had 'done all the math' and knew what percentage he had to convince. He outright claimed that Whites were at their least racist (the exact opposite of what good Leftists believe) in such areas, and thus there they would be easier to convince.

So why was Andrew Yang such a thoroughly evil bastard, effectively seeing the world like we do, but taking the opposite side to us on practically every issue? Well, his view was that Whites would lash out as they got closer to becoming a minority, and therefore that this transition needed to be managed very carefully to minimize the possibility that Whites might just go postal on his kind. He is an Asian tribalist, through and through, worried that Asians (specifically, mentioning his own kids) would be expelled by Whites angry about their impending minority status. Fearful of that scenario, he stooped down to ostensibly accepting all sorts of things he probably personally thinks are ludicrous, such as 'reparations', in order to keep this fragile non-White coalition (which the Left desperately need) intact. I suspect he even knows that he's in the moral wrong, but simply doesn't care—the White civilization is too great to risk losing the chance of capturing it. Non-Whites in our societies are too accustomed to comparatively high living standards to seriously accept going back to the third-world. Why would anyone want to give up such a 'privileged' life to live in a third-world cesspool? This is one of the reasons for why they seemingly hypocritically 'want the White Man's world, yet without him in it'. If you found something of immense value created by someone you could easily overpower, indeed, why not take the risk? This scenario is playing out writ large, with non-White 'activist politicians' using the baizuo as an instrument to help provide the rope to hang us all with.

You can see the same pattern in France. Southern France has far more RN support, yet most browns/blacks also live in the south (and they mostly vote PS or other Leftist parties). Living around such people makes one more race-conscious. It's for that same reason that Leftists observe that police are quite 'racist' (thus the whole BLM thing), ignorantly failing to understand that if one disproportionately deals with criminals of a certain race, then one's view of that entire race will become increasingly negative. They're literally problematizing simple pattern recognition.

There's a civil war happening between minorities and woke whites by deAccount in DarkEnlightenment

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

One could see this coming from a mile off. There is no way that a White Left/non-Whites using the Left coalition could hold together in the long term. There is also no way that a non-White coalition can hold together either. They'll go after the imbecilic baizuo and then for each-other, probably leading to something that will make previous Leftist perpetuated genocides look like child's play. They'll be going for far more than just the 'nobility' and 'capitalists' this time around.

One thing I've always found strange about AmRen is how blatantly trollish commenters have been posting there for years. 'a multiracial individual' can often be found commenting in response to the top-rated comment. I remember reading about professional trolling (there are literally companies that do this as a business) and their many tricks, including that particular thing—start an argument with, or say something inane to, the top commenter, to give the impression that only idiots or aggressive persons frequent that site. This guy follows that to a tee, and got himself into arguments routinely with commenters like 'Eternally_Antifascist' (himself hilariously an old Jew who would always accuse him of anti-Semitism) while spinning some likely bullshit story about going for a doctorate, etc. in order to seem more legitimate and less like an obvious troll whose only purpose seems to be to repel other people from participating in the comment section.

I actually think we are in a healthier spot right now with the decline of reddit by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

It's better for everyone.

Far-Left seem to have started up their own community called 'Raddle'. Someone on Ruqqus claimed that the 'Chapo' people set that up, and it is effectively their own Voat. The same person provided a link to a Raddle post to show how violent the comments were (a thread about what to do with 'dissidents', and the comments called for repression/killing). So we now have both sides in their own 'safe space' rather than engaging in aggressive 'brigading', etc. against each other. Remember, AHS were literally posting CP on subreddits they wanted gone. Pretty sure that's illegal. We don't want to exist in a single-space if that's what it comes down to. Segregating incompatible peoples is good—even in schools, any reasonable teacher would simply keep students who keep fighting with each other apart.

Then you have the others, which are more balanced. A few days ago, Ruqqus celebrated hitting its 50,000 registered user count, and the site is around six months old. It also appears to crash a lot less (not as many '503 Service Unavailable' errors) than it did just a week ago. Some guilds (including some friendly to us) have grown by thousands of members over that time.

As for here, it appears that s/GenderCritical (TERFs expelled from Reddit) have grown to 1980 members despite being eight days old as of writing this. So, there is a flood of people coming here as well. The site mod seemed to be worried that the site user-base skewed too 'Right'... but I think the question now is whether TERFs will end up dominating it instead, and whether there will be... 'TERF wars'(?) between Right-leaning users who, being expelled from Reddit earlier also arrived here earlier, and the new wave of TERFs who almost certainly will not confine themselves to their single sub.

Our saidit refugee camp has attracted a solid group of thinkers, where is our next rendezvous? List in order. by paranoid_android3 in debatealtright

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

I believe that this specific site is donation-funded. It would be unwise for any community to build itself only in one place, let alone one that is in no sense permanent. Nonetheless, the rules here seem easy to follow (mainly, obey the pyramid of debate, no violence advocacy), and we are obviously grateful for this place. Some argue that having a presence in many places means that individual communities would be inactive, but I believe that having a presence in as many places as possible is best. This way, if any place one day closes, launches a ban wave, etc., there is little confusion among its members over 'Where do we go?'

I think the main problem at the moment is that 'DAR' (this sub) doesn't actually have a 'non-debate' alternative which is where most activity should be carried. Already we have both the mod and at least one or two outsiders wondering why 'DAR' (this sub) currently looks it should be just 'AR'. Of course, neither our side nor those few who start a debate thread without seeming as though they are looking for a fight actually know of this place. As more Reddit communities get purged (especially more TERF subs and other contrarian Left subs like 'LGBdroptheT' and 'detrans' get purged) more Leftists will come here. Thus the site mod does not have to worry about this site becoming another Voat. Just looking at "Find New Subs" shows that the overwhelming majority of them are nothing to do with us (to me, two of the 20 most recently made look like they're ours, and both have only one member). Also, the fastest growing sub looks to be s/GenderCritical (TERFs expelled from Reddit), which means a massive Leftward shift is happening already.

So what subs here relate to us? Here are all those I can find, excluding those with inactive mods or user bases, and those already on this sub's sidebar:

NRx: s/DarkEnlightenment

Third Position: s/Fascism (s/the3rdposition/ is inactive)

Country-specific: s/altunitedkingdom s/England

Banned from Reddit and with common membership overlap: s/KotakuInAction s/KotakuInAction2 s/shitneoconssay s/DeuxRAMA s/ConsumeProduct

Other: s/AltRight_Memes s/WW2Myths

Ruqqus guilds, same criteria as above (the site still barely works, but membership growth in some of these is phenomenally high for such an obscure site): +DebateAltRight +The3rdPosition +ShitNeoconsSay +BasedDepartment +Coomer +MAGA +DeuxRAMA +milliondollarextreme +ShitLeftistsSay +ZoomerRight +WesternBetrayal +BasedDocumentaries +LeftCantMeme +ClownWorld

Something of interest: Somebody's going around Reddit calling the Alt-Right like a CIA psy-op or something by sineavec in debatealtright

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

No wonder people use that '>' character on places like Disqus for quotations, even though it does nothing to the text that comes after it. Must be a Reddit thing that Redditors use elsewhere because they're so accustomed to using it there for their own quotations and thus mutually understand what '>' means. Thanks very much, sir.

Something of interest: Somebody's going around Reddit calling the Alt-Right like a CIA psy-op or something by sineavec in debatealtright

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

That's one long wall of text. Here's a much shorter wall of text addressing a few things, because I'm not going to read all that.

First, it's someone who is obviously versed in (modern) Marxism. That 'fascism is late stage capitalism' or 'fascism is the reserve army of capital' nonsense originates in those circles somewhere around the 1920s or 1930s in response to the fact that Marxists utterly failed to predict fascism's rise. They came up with this nonsense theory (Fascism is ultra-Right on everything, has nothing to do with socialism) to act wise after the fact and attempt to claim that their two enemies were actually one. However, the Communist Manifesto reveals that Marx/Engels saw the interests of 'reactionaries' (us) and 'bourgeois' (capitalist elite) as being antithetical to each-other. It's simply ignorant revisionism.

They write:

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations … The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature … In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

Above, they make it clear that the 'bourgeoisie' are a globalizing force whose interests 'reactionaries' oppose. The likelihood is that Marx/Engels supported the bourgeoisie against reactionaries, because in 'historical materialism' capitalism and the industrialization/urbanization that resulted from it is viewed as an improvement over 'the idiocy of rural life'. That is, they favoured capitalism over previous systems, but those hypothetical future systems (socialism/communism) over capitalism.

Truth is, the pre-WWI far-Left—who were consolidated in Social Democratic parties (then mostly far-Left rather than left-Liberal)—were in a bind after the proletariat sided with their nations rather than with their class during the war. Marxists expected the proletariat to unite and overthrow the bourgeoisie rather than fight alongside them against working men of other nations. This then radicalized the Bolshevik types who went off and created their own strand of Marxism which became the USSR's blatantly hypocritical governing ideology. Social Democratic parties shifted towards left-Liberalism much later.

As for the whole Evola thing, it's commonplace to see those outsiders who critically study the 'Alt-Right' (e.g. the libertarian Jeffrey Tucker) for the sake of attempting to refute it, attempt to claim that there are numerous 'proto-Nazi' figures who 'Alt-Right' thought can be traced to. Tucker has nothing but venom for Evola (essentially claiming he was an idiotic madman who wrote with 'faux-erudition'). He also derides Fichte (a radical Leftist in his time, Tucker selectively uses a few quotes of his to paint him as far-Right) and Hegel (a careerist liberal-progressive in his time). Others do the same thing with Nietzsche (whose works were banned in Marxist countries because they came to the same conclusion, while American anarchists and some Western Marxists like Foucault instead claimed him as their own), Schopenhauer, Schmitt, Heidegger, etc.

It would be very time-consuming but otherwise easy to write an article refuting his ideological claims. However, I don't know or care about the 'Trump collusion' type of stuff much of his article is dedicated towards 'exposing'. All I would say to such claims, is that Trumpian populism/civic nationalism is practically unconnected to the 'Alt-Right', there was some early enthusiasm from the latter towards the former (exemplified in the 'God Emperor' meme which was largely in jest) that has since ebbed away to almost nothing. There was also a brief time back then when some people embraced the label (put upon them by Leftists) not knowing what it meant, and quickly renounced it (including Trump himself). Remember, these same Leftists claimed that 'Trump is the head of the Alt-Right' and thus that the 'Alt-Right won the 2016 election'... something which we all find laughable and flagrantly untrue. For starters, why the mass deplatforming if we're in 'actually in power'? This guy seems to fall for it; for him, 'MAGA' and 'Alt-Right' are somehow the same.

Who do you want to win in the 2020 US election and why? What do you think the impact of Trump or Biden going forward will be for us? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

I think Biden already promised that he would appoint a woman as running mate. Furthermore, I think Trump may have promised the same thing as a response. In 2016, Trump simply followed what Nixon did and recommended Dole to do (campaign as far-Right as possible to impress the electors, govern as centrist as possible to impress the public). So you can probably rest assured of a female candidate. Furthermore, because Biden is probably perceived as a 'Right' Democrat, you can also rest assured the woman will be a 'Left' Democrat. As for the candidate's race, I think Harris was screwed over by her background with the police—people with police backgrounds are only going to become more and more hated under the current system. Either way, I don't think the candidate's race will matter if they're an anti-White 'progressive' female—she'll still say what 'POC' want to hear. After all, blacks were overwhelmingly willing to vote for Clinton over Trump, and funnily despised Sanders. Just don't be someone who can be painted as anti-Semitic/racist (as Gabbard was) or have been a 'pig' (as Harris was).

I don't see Biden as anything other than a compromise with the White electorate for one last time—it's obvious that plenty of Whites who get that something is 'off' are still ready to vote for him. You can see this with guys like 'John Engelman' (someone who I consider 'Alt-Left') who has been a prolific commenter on and off on AmRen for many years. His argument is literally as simplistic as that the Democrats 'cannot be anti-White' because an anti-White party wouldn't place Biden as its leader. Therefore he will vote Democrat as he has always done. Obviously I find such an argument completely farcical. The Communists who seized power in Hungary in 1919 placed a gentile (Sandor Garbai) as their ostensible head, but it didn't mean that most of the party's high figures (Bela Kun, Matyas Rakosi, etc.) weren't of Jewish extraction. But it will not stop many Whites who are displeased with the party's direction from still voting for them, even though this may be the last time that the Democrats feel that they need their vote. Fools like Engelman will find themselves in for a rude awakening once the Democrats start saying: 'We don't even want your vote, you White POS' come 2024.

Can anything short of divine intervention, save the West and the planet at large? by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

Certainly if one accepts the mainstream view of climate change, the world has already been beyond the point of no return for quite a while. It amuses me suspecting that those pompous anti-Whites will probably end up dying en masse, a bit of bad karma for what they desperately wish will happen to everyone of European extraction because of their supposed 'privileges', etc. Well, let the world burn, let their victory be Pyrrhic. Let climate change inflict upon them the kinds of miseries they'd like to inflict upon us.

The best way to respond to climate angst is simply to interpret all the (perhaps not so unwarranted) fearmongering as simply being indicative of a positive development. Countries like Russia will prosper in a warmer world, whereas most of the problematic regions of the world won't be. The Left and the 'elite' have far more to lose from climate change than we do, which is why they are the ones most wracked with climate angst—they're on the cusp of consolidating their dreaded 'utopia' only to potentially lose it all to something they have little power to stop; indeed, little power to even delay. By contrast, we do not control anything and thus cannot lose anything, we have little other than our lives.

The current far-Left assault pressuring companies to change their names or labels, pulling down statues, deplatforming and 'cancelling' has done practically nothing to shift the narrative away from the Left. They're acting with impunity and the masses are anywhere between supportive to indifferent to it all, whereas they should be reacting with hostility. Well, if that doesn't change anything, perhaps it simply takes an outright apocalyptic scenario, and the mainstream view increasingly is that a climate-change induced apocalypse is inevitable. Perhaps it will arrive soon enough to make a difference.

Who do you want to win in the 2020 US election and why? What do you think the impact of Trump or Biden going forward will be for us? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

If Biden wins, it's easy to see how his term will end up.

He'll almost certainly be at war with the 'progressives' within months. He won't start a fight with them... but they will pick it with him. The idea that some straight old White man is going to rule the Democratic Party in the 2020s is just a joke, especially one with a 'racist' past, with which both the progressives and the GOP will continually attack him. He'll probably be a one-termer—after he's used to get enough of the White vote away from Trump, they'll discard him and the 'progressives' will be the ones at the helm by 2024. They'll probably aim for Puerto Rican statehood or similar things in order to remove the need for a compromise candidate with the Whites by 2024, relying entirely on a non-White coalition to win future elections. That means that anti-White rhetoric will sharply increase—the Democrats will no longer even need to tone it down, in the same way that Sanders warned that such rhetoric alienated White voters who were still needed in 2016.

Internet censorship is going to skyrocket. You can almost rest assured that websites like AmRen probably won't survive 2024 (after all, their YouTube channel with 135k subscribers was banned at exactly the same time as the banwave on Reddit). If this happens under Trump, it's easy to think what'll happen under Biden. Many things that are quite innocuous (e.g. 'Alt-Right' online communities) will be pushed increasingly to the dark web.

The gun control agenda will be back in full-force. Gun sales will probably remain high throughout the rest of 2020 (since this instability with BLM etc. looting, sales have increased), and throughout 2021 (rightful worries about increased gun control also usually lead to increased sales).

Some mainstream news sources have suggested (including through interviewing some of them) that there is literally a wave of prospective illegal immigrants waiting across the southern border. They hope that the Democrats will win in order to make their crossing safer, whereas if Trump wins re-election, they'll likely wait several more years before attempting to cross.

They'll be pushing to declare groups like the 'Proud Boys' terrorist organizations, despite the fact that they aren't the ones causing mayhem, declaring 'autonomous zones', etc. Isn't it amazing how they argue 'Antifa can't be declared a terrorist organization because they aren't organized', yet they sure as hell won't apply this same argument to the similarly decentralized 'Alt-Right'? It's such an obvious excuse for inaction against far-Left extremism/terrorism.

Trump and his family will almost certainly be persecuted for all these ridiculous, 'trumped-up' things he's being accused of. They'll probably leave the country, and even then, they're going to treat him like Assange. Without Trump, the GOP will revert back to a boring old neoliberal party—both rhetorically and practically. All those fools at National Review will be cheering this on, denouncing his entire Presidency as a 'mistake' that 'ruined' the GOP, too idiotic to even realize that it's their Reaganite neoliberalism that has no appeal and that has consigned them to history, not Trumpian populism.

Important Article on the Origins Of Critical Theory in the Frankfurt School by AFutureConcern in debatealtright

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

I have heard before that none of the (at least, the prominent) second-generation Frankfurt School were Jewish—including Habermas. Actually, he is probably the only well known one who isn't. Another major one of Jewish extraction is the Freudian psychologist Erich Fromm, who supposedly had a big part to play in the early first-generation, but was practically ostracized and written out of its history after having fell afoul of its major figures.

Only the first and second generations had any real influence. The third and fourth generations aren't that far off of being unknown, and are mostly liberal-progressive rather than radical.

What was it like living in an all white nation that wasn't hostile to whites? by Blackbrownfreestuff in debatealtright

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

The problem with trying to periodize all this stuff (i.e. asking 'when did everything go off the rails?', bifurcating time into 'normal time' and 'abnormal' or 'post-normal' time) is that the more one looks into history, the further back one can see the signs. You know someone hasn't looked at history if they think that the rot only started somewhere as late as post-WWII or the 1960s. All I can say is that 'normal' and 'abnormal' are two ends of a spectrum and that the further you look ahead in time, the more all things seem to shift towards abnormality.

Personally, I'd trace it back to Hobbes being to the Left of Filmer, Locke being to the Left of Hobbes, etc. Fast forward to the modern academics (especially those like Adorno, Marcuse, C. Wright Mills, etc.) and they're many of the ones that people can fairly point to as having spearheaded the decline in their respective times and places.

DebateAltRight Archive, up until the moment it was banned by GetNifty in debatealtright

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

Here are the Saidits (subsaidits?) that I've found (excluding the ones on the sidebar which people can easily find). I'm finding less Ruqqus 'guilds', but they averagely seem to have more activity/subscribers. Only problem there is the usual "503 Service Unavailable" plaguing the site, probably because of all the 'redditfugees'. Mass, uncontrolled immigration isn't even good online:

Third Position: s/the3rdposition/

NRx: s/DarkEnlightenment/

'The Donald' and similar: s/The_Donald_ s/The_Donald s/AmericaFirst/

All others that may be of interest: s/ConsumeProduct/ s/WW2Myths/ s/AltRight_Memes s/AltRight/ s/ChristianRight/ s/coomer/ s/DeuxRAMA/ s/shitneoconssay/ s/zoomerright s/altunitedkingdom/

Might be a good idea for the mods to add some of the better ones to the sidebar—as some are rather similar communities, encouraging traffic between them helps them all grow.

It happened guys. r/debatealtright was just banned a minute ago. by eth0 in debatealtright

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

First thing out of the way quick—I've searched a few names on there and they're missing (and don't appear to be in the 'removed names' either), including the name I used on there.

As for the more important topic, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Sure, they banned a bunch of subreddits with 'ChapoTrapHouse (insert number)'. The last one was something like 'ChapoTrapHouse101'. For all we know, they could have just made and banned those themselves to give some semblance of being unbiased—it's obvious that not all 101 actually had active user-bases. Most likely they were just placeholders to migrate to when their main sub was banned. They probably banned about, oh, two active far-Left subs, practically every far-Right sub and some contrarian Left (e.g. r/GenderCritical [TERFs] and r/rightwingLGBT) subs. Probably just to pacify Trump: 'See, you don't have to worry about bias against conservatives because we banned 101 far-Left subreddits too. It's all in safe hands, we promise, there's no need for more regulations'. Literally all of the other anarchist, socialist and Communist subreddits are still there.

Now, let's consider the following scenarios. What happens if:

  1. Corporate America turns against the Left.
  2. The Left turns against Corporate America.

In scenario 1, Corporate America loses. The Left is so vast that deplatforming them is impossible—they have almost the entirety of the education system and the media sector, for starters. The Democrats would start threatening to nationalize any offending business, and if Biden wins they'd be in a good position to do it. Most of their employees wouldn't be sympathetic and plenty of them would leave, either out of disagreement or because their friendship circles would 'cancel' them if they remained employed.

In scenario 2, Corporate America still loses. A string of women come out and accuse the likes of Bezos and Dorsey of sexual assault, etc. All these guys like Bezos and Dorsey get pressured more and more to resign, and are replaced, usually by women or non-Whites. Eventually, Corporate America is ran into the ground, after 'diversity hires' get to the top of every corporation.

Any business that goes against the Left is toast. Any business the Left picks a fight with is also toast. I don't even remotely see how the Left could be considered subordinate to capitalism. Rich Leftists seem indifferent to it, getting what they can out of the system while it lasts; most other Leftists utterly hate it. Practically all of them believe that capitalism is merely a transitory phase to socialism, and that trying to stall this 'inevitable' progression is literally defending oppression.

Surely such a coordinated, cross-platform deplatforming is the result of people like the SPLC (who seem to 'advise', i.e. decide, everything), and little to do with the tech CEOs themselves. They're just smart enough to know what happens if they're interpreted as insufficiently kowtowing to the Left.

It happened guys. r/debatealtright was just banned a minute ago. by eth0 in debatealtright

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

There's some cretins in that list who definitely shouldn't be encouraged to leave the cesspool that is Reddit, e.g. 'VoiceYourConviction' (that blatantly trollish, openly homo and self-described 'Liberal' who posts Guardianista or Salon-style talking points everywhere) and 'PlagueDoctorD'.

We need to separate ourselves from the Left in everything. We don't need to endure their insufferable presences. We shouldn't be contributing to their ad revenue on sites like YouTube. We've been through with peaceful coexistence for a long time, but the infrastructure wasn't in place to extricate ourselves, so we remained on the mainstream platforms out of necessity.

Right now we're in a full-blown far-Left revolution to go from near-absolute power to absolute power, and they need exercise no violence to go this last stretch in doing what much of the early USSR did at gunpoint. Just look at the last few weeks—a rapid growth in the number of films and books (even things as innocuous as Gone With The Wind) effectively banned, brands caving in to pressure to change their names or logos, even black leftists like Van Jones are being 'cancelled' for the tiniest transgressions, statues being torn down, and mass deplatforming that is far too well-coordinated to be random (YouTube banned AmRen and plenty of other channels at practically the same time as the Reddit bans, Twitch apparently banned Trump at the same time. I'm not sure what purpose Trump would actually have for something like Twitch).

The corporations are totally at the Left's mercy, and they know it. Why else would guys like Bezos express the opinions that he does about BLM, knowing that as a 'rich White man' he'd be one of the first on the chopping block when the far-Left, having absolute power, begin using it to go after people? Amazon, Google... they'd all be crushed like ants if they reasoned that on the present course they're slowly slitting their own wrists, so they meekly submit hoping that they'll somehow be spared.