If climate change and global warming are real, what are the most realistic and required solutions? Is globalism required to solve it? by 8thmonitor in debatealtright

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

Indeed. If it's all that they drum it up to be, it seems that humans will just have to accept, short of some major technological breakthrough, that much of the world will become unlivable. (And that a heap of wars will probably be fought by people from unlivable areas trying to take areas that remain livable: watch as China desperately seizes Siberia from Russia.)

I don't know about India, but neighbouring Bangladesh is one part of the world that is already believed to be suffering from the alleged effects of climate change. If these effects worsen, watch as a deluge of Bangladeshi climate refugees flood into Burma, China, and India. Another place is the densely populated island of Java, where intense flooding in Indonesia's capital, Jakarta, is often blamed on climate change. Who knows where Indonesian climate refugees will go.

If climate change and global warming are real, what are the most realistic and required solutions? Is globalism required to solve it? by 8thmonitor in debatealtright

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

Is globalism required to solve it?

That's almost funny, since it's exactly how cosmopolitan humanist types would frame it: 'Give us the global government that we want, yes, give up your cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, and so forth, and become consumerist, individualized humanists like us, and then we will "solve" this problem that we are constantly fearmongering about'.

No realistic 'solution' outside of something like carbon capture technology becoming vastly more effective. There are only hypothetical ones that will never actually happen, such as the first-world forcibly preventing the third-world from 'developing' or everyone simply accepting a big hit to their living standards. The Left would become the biggest climate change deniers almost overnight if any of those solutions were seriously entering policy agendas. 'The climate situation is not so bad that it justifies racial discrimination!' It is not the case that for every problem there are one or more solutions that are conveniently there just waiting to be implemented: that would be to make the metaphysical claim that the cosmos is structured in such a way that there can be no such things as insoluble problems, rather like how we already believe that there are no such things as causeless effects.

Vox lost on a climate change denying ticket by Ethnocrat in debatealtright

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

Poor example of rationalization, i.e. 'Vox did poorly but they would have done better if they followed my public policy preferences'. Typical 'silent majority' theory.

It seems remarkably clear that people for whom climate change and abortion 'rights' are deal-breakers aren't prospective 'Far-Right' voters. I doubt that anyone out there really thinks: 'I'm Far-Right on everything except on abortion "rights" which are so important to me that they outweigh all of my other preferences combined such that I'll now have to vote for some other party with which I disagree with on practically everything else.'

Likewise, imagine someone reasoning: 'I'm Far-Right on everything, but climate change is so important to me that it outweighs everything else, so now I'm going to vote for [insert other party].'

Let's face the obvious fact here: Spain is just another of many (possibly all given time) countries lost to degeneracy. Spain is particularly egregious on feminism. Now, degenerates aren't going to vote for remoralization of any kind because they stand to lose from it, hence the constant fearmongering about the 'Far-Right' (codeword for 'revitalization' or 'those who might force us to be better people') coming from the Western media in this election. They do, however, benefit from further degeneration all round, since the more that all types of degeneracy are entrenched, the less likely that remoralization will ever target the types of degeneracy that they personally engage in. (Hence, for instance, the Left openly pushes for child trannies because this obviously helps to safeguard battles that they've already won on like homosexuality: those who otherwise might attack homosexuality are fully preoccupied with investing energy into child trannies, who are serving as a sort of 'shield' absorbing the impact from attacks that would otherwise be directed at less extreme degenerates.)

As for the actual results, people went back to the two-party duopoly. The main factor is that the almost defunct 'centrist' (but also centralist/anti-secessionist) Cs party's voters overwhelmingly went to PP because it is the closest to the Cs, with some going in the other direction to PSOE. One factor might be the departure of Cs leader Albert Rivera from politics, with Cs being a personalist, poorly institutionalized party going through the usual troubles that such groups go through when their leaders are gone.

Likewise, regional parties lost voters to the two-party duopoly. Those voters overwhelmingly would have gone back to PSOE, probably because of fears that the election would be too close for third-party voting to be a good idea. This is especially so because PSOE is also centralist/anti-secessionist, meaning that regional party voters can't trust that their third-party vote would lead to the PSOE+regional parties coalition that they otherwise desire, and thus settle with the hope of a PSOE majority government.

This would also explain the losses in Sumar's (Podemos plus some other loony-Left parties) voter share which, again, would also explain the rise in PSOE's voter share, except that it's scared Far-Left voters rather than scared regional Leftist voters who are fearing that a PSOE-dominated coalition is unlikely and therefore have settled with the hope of a PSOE majority.

Vox voters would have undergone the same reasoning but from the opposite direction. Seeing that Feijoo is dragging the PP to the Left, making the possibility of a PP-Vox coalition less and less likely, and yet preferring a PP majority over a PSOE majority, they have simply settled on the idea of giving PP a majority so as to avoid the problems that might come out of cobbling together a PP-run coalition. This was probably exacerbated by the fact that Feijoo keeps ruling out the possibility of a coalition with Vox, naturally driving into Vox voters the fear that if the PP doesn't get a majority it will mean a PSOE-dominated government.

In short, elections expected to be close lead people to re-embrace two-party duopolies. The end results are completely disastrous and unavoidably so. The regional parties won't support Feijoo and want a wildly disproportionate level of influence in return for supporting Sanchez. More than what he can give them. My final guess: Sanchez's position is weakened but he stays on as Prime Minister in charge of a highly chaotic minority government over which regional/secessionist parties have great influence. To reach 50%, Sanchez would need all of the following on side: Sumar, ERC, Junts, EH Bildu, and EAJ. That's practically impossible, since Sanchez continues to rule out the possibility of serious referendums on independence, and, if he allowed them, they would win. PSOE would go down in history as the party that destroyed Spain, and they are too centralist to accept that. But Junts is particularly insistent that it will not support anyone without a referendum. Meanwhile, Feijoo/PP have no path to 50% whatsoever. A new election also won't solve the problem unless more regional voters switch their vote to the two-party duopoly.

Can anyone explain the fertility rate of central Asia bucking the typical demographic shift trend? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

Indeed. Some Muslim countries like Bahrain, Iran, and Qatar are below replacement level, and the UAE is far below replacement level. So we can rule out any strong version of this claim, e.g. that Muslim culture automatically ensures high fertility. The question is thus whether any weaker version of this claim is correct.

I suspect that it is not. Tajikistan, for instance, banned the hijab back in 2017. In February 2004, Turkmenistan banned men from wearing long hair and beards for anti-Islamist reasons, although that regulation has been said to have been loosening over time. Uzbekistan defeated a Taliban-friendly Islamist insurgency of its own.

These countries (excluding Kyrgyzstan) have usually been much closer to following the authoritarian, nativist, and personalist path, although Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan seem to have moved on a liberal path since the departures from power of Nazarbayev and Karimov. That leaves Tajikistan and Turkmenistan as the more 'based' countries of Central Asia, at least insofar as governments are concerned.

In Tajikistan's case, I suspect that the persistence of nativism is responsible. Tajikistan has been just as anti-Russian as anti-Muslim, for example, President Emomali Rahmon's name was Emomali Rahmonov until he had the last two letters removed for nativist reasons, and, in April 2016, Tajik parents were banned from giving Russian-style names to their newborn children. Basically, Tajikistan's governmental policies have moved the country somewhat closer to those of an ethnostate.

One reason that I suspect that Islam is not responsible is that Turkmenistan is probably the least anti-Muslim country of all five Central Asian countries. For instance, it was one of the few countries around the world to have been on good terms with the Taliban. But Turkmenistan's demographic trends are actually rather unimpressive compared to those in the less Islamic Kazakhstan in particular. Should Islam be the determinant of these trends, Turkmenistan should really be the most impressive of the five rather than the least, and Kazakhstan should really be the least impressive of the five rather than the most.

In Kazakhstan's case, this miracle of sorts clearly happened during Nazarbayev's long rule. Since I think that nativism is more likely to be the determinant, I do wonder if Nazarbayev was more of a nativist than I thought.

Is nationwide E-Verify a good policy? by 8thmonitor in debatealtright

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

That's basically also my view on these authority dilemmas. The answer has to be situational: you don't support any such measures unless your side is in power.

Once your side is firmly in power, then you completely U-Turn and support totalitarianism.

Notice how when one does those political compass quizzes, the answer on some questions is totally situational? Are we living in an ideal society? Or are we living in some degenerate society? I wouldn't care much for free speech, say, in the ideal society, but it is clearly of more value when the people running the show are your enemies who think that everything that you say should be banned.

Bringing this back to e-Verify, the answer to me seems almost deceptively simple: so long as Tweedledum and Tweedledee remain in power, nothing good can come of it, and so there is no rational reason to support it.

Do you think blacks are a bigger problem than hispanics in America? by 8thmonitor in debatealtright

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

But in 2060, blacks will be 15% and hispanics will be 27%.

I doubt that will happen; it'll be much closer to the reverse. Those figures are probably just projecting current population trends into the future or something. But Latino birth rates are already well below replacement level in numerous countries, such as Chile, Costa Rica, and El Salvador. Similarly, south and south-east Asians will probably far outnumber East Asians for similar reasons.

What you'll probably see instead is less Latinos and more Africans. (And less Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans; more Filipinos, Indians, and Pakistanis.) As time passes, the 'African-Americans' and Latinos will probably be submerged by massive waves of African immigration. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out: many Africans aren't fond of the 'akata', and many 'African-Americans' would look out of place in Africa. A lot of Hispanics don't like the 'mayates' either. Even though they seem to accept the mixed-mayates who regard themselves Latino, they're not fond of the much less-mixed Haitians and other blacks who are more culturally and racially distant.

Opinion of the Patriotic Socialist Front by Iphjdashnathaw in debatealtright

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

It's Heimbach, Zoltanous and a bunch of other weirdos who used to be 'Dissident Right' and who, one by one, unable to popularize their own ideas and desperate to find a way forward, began to take the crude joke of National Bolshevism seriously. I've thought about writing an article against this moronic ideology, but I don't think these people pose a genuine threat to warrant the time. Nevertheless, I already know much of what I would write. One obvious point to make in such an article is that their beloved Lenin himself explicitly condemned this idea. Another is that the original National Bolsheviks weren't nationalists at all (indeed, one of the two founders was even Jewish): they simply saw that nationalism was popular in the Weimar Republic and decided that it was good strategy to co-opt certain popular nationalist talking points about how badly done Germany was by the Versailles treaty and France's invasion of the Ruhr, and perhaps a few other things. That was it. The KPD would have none of it and expelled both men immediately, they then joined an even more radical group, the KAPD, and were swiftly expelled from there for the same reason. From there they drifted into obscurity.

If I had to rank agreements and disagreements while skimming through this pathetic 'platform' (which is practically a manifesto and of no use to anyone who just wants the gist of their ideas), I'd probably say I might 'support' their stance on ten and don't care for their stance on the other fifteen. I suspect that if I spent more time reading it, I'd assign more to the "don't care" category and possibly some into an 'oppose' category.

I think it's clear what's going on here: some of these people (particularly Zoltanous) are known degenerates, are struggling with it, and this 'platform' is simply a schizophrenic output of these inner struggles, which they're losing, which is why they're succumbing to accepting some incredibly stupid fragments of ideology, e.g. racial egalitarianism. Since sociocultural Leftism remains a bit too much for enough of them, and economic Leftism comes off as being less obnoxious by comparison, it's natural for economic Leftism to seep in to 'Far-Right' ideology first, with the sociocultural Leftism coming along later, piggybacking in on many of the same arguments that they've already accepted, especially in on those already made in favour of economic and racial equality. They'll accept sociocultural Leftism for at least two reasons: a) as they squirm about trying to increase their support base and are unable to popularize their social conservatism and cultural nationalism, in part because of the lack of charisma of people like Heimbach, to Leftists, they'll see it as necessary to simply give up on it and; b) as the more extreme degeneracy of the future makes the degeneracy of the 2020s less insufferable in comparison.

Any attempt to synthesize elements of the 'Far-Right' with the degenerate pseudoscience of Marxism is pointless. The genuine 'Far-Right' of the time knew it. Lenin and other Marxist bigwigs knew it, which poses to this lot a massive problem if and when they're confronted with the relevant quotes. Few neo-Marxists want anything to do with people with backgrounds like Heimbach (no matter how much his view has changed, he's already irredeemably tainted in their eyes); practically no one who is genuinely 'Far-Right' wants anything to do with this ideology masquerading as a science or its contemporary adherents either.

What are the arguments for segregation? by KimiORabu in debatealtright

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

control people as little as possible

Because you're unfit for civilization: for instance, you would be inept at controlling your children or students if you had any, and thus will only ever be a further contributor to social rot. What fools like you are remarkably adept at doing is taking the failures of people in late-modern societies and declaring them the failures of said societies full stop, rather than realizing that these failures only come about when individuals fail at being social. These problems are resolved by more society, not less.

You're in the position of someone who, experiencing adverse side effects of a medication, decide that those adverse side effects will subside if you take more of it. 'Let us solve social rot by taking it to its natural conclusion, that is, let us dissolve society itself', says Vulptex.

The inability for people to perform their social roles is part and parcel with today's civilizational decline and the growing social disharmony: people whinge and complain because of failed parents, failed teachers, failed law enforcement, failures all across the board. Instead of wishing to increase sociality, you further add to them by wishing to decrease sociality, in which case these failures will only further abound.

in a world that fully controls us

Nonsense. You can find the freedom from society that you seek out in the middle of nowhere. Who would be controlling you there? Out there, only natural forces will control you. Now your kind will, of course, feel that you are enslaved by them too. But there is nothing that you nor anyone else can do about them, and, ironically for your kind, society itself is what has freed Man the most from them. What you mean, of course, is that you wish not to be truly separated from society, but only to engage with it only on your own terms, that is, to become a parasite.

All people can agree that they do not wish to be controlled

Nonsense, and it is absolutely important for all the survival of all collectivities that certain individuals are adept at obeying, and that certain others are adept at controlling. Countless social problems are reducible to people failing to obey those who should control (e.g. children insisting that they know better than their parents, people rejecting medical advice), failing to control those who should obey (e.g. weak parents who pamper their own children), or obeying the wrong authority figures (e.g. idiots taking obvious anti-role models like Andrew Tate or 'Vaush' as role models). Nor is abolishing social groups, as you so desire, possible, since the existence of individuals is impossible without them. An individual only exists as a component of social groups, indeed, he owes his very existence to them, having no education, food nor much of anything else in their absence.

Wanting to arbitrarily control how people live their lives is Palpatine levels of evil.

This mindset is why you idiot Leftists (yes, you libe[retard]ians are absolutely part of the Left) are simply neo-barbarian, caveman types who crave the radical freedom that civilized men rightly discarded when they entered into societies. You're the most regressive people imaginable: you want to undo civilization itself, and all in the name of how nice it would be to experience something as worthless as an unprecedented level of equality and freedom. Neither of which matter to well-adjusted people who do not need anything more than the bare basics of freedom and who despise it when taken beyond them, and who despise equality in particular because the human detritus of the world gain from it wholly at their expense. Adherence to radical freedom and practically any form of equality is always a tacit admission of degeneracy.

My final goal is to

Destroy civilization and return Man to his natural state. Anything else that you might come up with is simply a rationalization of this obvious truth: namely, that you romanticize the hypothetical period in which Man had yet to subject himself to the authority of tribal chiefs and other authority figures, and wish to find some way to synthesize that negative freedom with those modern amenities that people of your ilk have become irreversibly reliant on, that is, to essentially be a high-tech savage. But that will never happen, since Man sacrificing much of his natural freedom to enter into society was necessary for the manufacture of all modern amenities, none of which would nor could exist without society.

Moral men will always seek power, and there is no such thing as morality in power's absence. And if we get control of you, we will issue to your kind an ultimatum: obey us or begone. You had better hope thus that the immoral continue their rule over us all, as seems most likely, or else you will be on the losing end of a societal remoralization that will totally eradicate your worldview: the works of Rand, Rothbard and the rest of your kind will be as if they were never written. They will meet the fate that awaited most of Hirschfeld's.

BAP(Bronze Age Pervert) drama in dissident Right scene on the internet by JuliusCaesar225 in debatealtright

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

I don't know who Bronze Age Pervert is. That's just some random name that I see around these parts of the online wasteland.

As for Woods, I'm one of those who has had a long ambivalence towards him. He's hit and miss. I'm no fan of his, but I have also pushed back against those who I think unfairly label him a Marxist or 'Duginist', as though he is some kind of infiltrator. I think he is indubitably more Right than Left, whatever his detractors might allege.


Woods used to be feuding with Fuentes. Much more recently, he talks to him as though they were always buddy-buddy. Reflecting on that, I think it to be quite silly.


I've never used it, but all that I have ever heard about Keith Woods on Twitter is that that is where he's at his lowest. Is his account @InternetRadical? A quick scrolling of that account reveals it to be a bit of a sewer.


Fuentes was the one who inadvertently revealed that he was a viewer of 'T-girl' (i.e. 'trans woman', i.e. biological male) porn. For me, that precludes him from being super straight. He's some kind of queer.

I don't have any other remarks to make either on the OP's post or to any of the comments, other than that I agree with those who have negative views of Spencer (another who, like BAP, is largely just a random name to me: I still haven't watched any of his videos, and every time I see an excerpt of his videos included in the videos of other people, I do not see why people like him) and Fuentes (the only video I have seen of his was the one softly criticizing Keith Woods). Both of these talking heads seem to me a waste of time and of no value to watch. In short, I don't want anything to do with Fuentes or Spencer, think of Woods as hit and miss, and couldn't care less who BAP is. If the supporters of BAP and Fuentes are infighting, then that is simply more detestable stupidity.

57% of black men in America do not have children. That means that the 80% of women who are giving birth to these children are having sex with the same Black men and non-black men by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

That guy's a strange one. He almost never comments except where a post or comment of this nature is made, at which point he is almost absolutely guaranteed to comment.

Who is the greatest country in the world (today)? by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

Your criteria for what constitutes 'something right' hold far truer for countries like Saudi Arabia than Japan, which leads you to a strange conclusion.

If I could choose where to have been born but with the caveat that it could not be in any country founded by Whites or as part of a White racial minority anywhere else, then I would clearly choose Brunei or Saudi Arabia before Japan. If we account for the fact that both countries are much smaller than Japan population-wise, and think of terms of a sort of 'goodness per capita' which, being immeasurable, we can only approximate, then both countries strike me as being vastly superior to Japan either by your criteria or by my own.

I omit Qatar and the Emirates only because they are both demographically screwed by foreign workers and have unimpressive birth rates, but both countries are vastly more 'patriarchal' and 'free'. 'Free', by which I do not mean licentious or permissive in the sense that the baizuo, in particular, mean it, but for people like me to openly moralize, or in modern parlance, simply 'be based', &c. For degenerates, Western societies are indubitably freer than any others are or ever have been—indeed, Western societies, ruled by them, are incredibly unfree for intelligent and moral people, who cannot condemn nor criticize much of anything. I assume you mean 'free' in the sense that I mean it, or else Japan is also more 'unfree' than the West.

The times in which Japan degenerates (e.g. 1860s, 1920s [that of 'Taisho democracy'], 1940s [liberalism and Marxism return in full force]) are clearly more numerous than the eras in which it regenerates, of which the last was probably the 1930s (liberals, and Marxists even more so, had to operate underground during that decade).

Who is the greatest country in the world (today)? by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

Indeed. Your comment reminds me of two different narratives on Israel.

The first stems from what was a few years ago being referred to, and perhaps still is, as 'Left-wing anti-Semitism'. Examples of 'Left-wing anti-Semitism' include narratives such as that 'Israel is an Apartheid state' and all others that analogize Israel either to the Union of South Africa or any fascist state. Naturally, when Leftards say this, we flip the value judgement they assign to it and say that our aim is to essentially get for Whites what Jews already have for themselves. We also see that the prime facie contradictory 'ethnostate for me, globalization for thee' attitude of many Jews exemplifies a sickening hypocrisy. Of course, when one understands that ethnocentrism strengthens oneself and that the lack thereof weakens oneself, then this attitude no longer exemplifies hypocrisy, only Jewish supremacism.

And this nicely leads into the second narrative worthy here of consideration: the insistence by certain figures that Israel is in fact not ethnonationalist, not Jewish supremacist, not 'racist', not religiously sectarian and so forth, and that the 'real racism' resides first and foremost in the domain of their 'racist' and 'anti-Semitic' detractors, even when said detractors are Left-wing. This is at some point followed by messing about with the definition of 'Jew' or 'race', and the strange notion that Israel is the 'best hope for'—and, further still, the 'only example of'—'liberal democracy' in the Middle East, as well as the 'greatest ally' of 'liberal democracies' worldwide. They will, for instance, point to the number of Arabs in Israel as evidence of these supposed 'facts', even though the laws of Israel overtly and unmistakably privilege Jews.

Of course, there is plenty of degenerate nonsense in Israel; for instance, the sheer amount of homosexuality in Tel Aviv, admitted by its own authorities. But one notices that the 'Left-wing anti-Semites' now condemn the State of Israel for having the 'most Right-wing' government since its establishment, and Israel is perhaps the only country on the face of this planet that could realistically be viewed as progressively shifting Rightward, and thus the only country that is genuinely progressing full stop. Indeed, Netanyahu seems to be forced into an alliance with them, lest he unable to rule otherwise, even if it seems as though he is trying to minimize their influence by ensuring that Likudniks rather than the members of these 'Far-Right' parties occupy as many of the top positions in government as possible. Nevertheless, the fact that open Jewish supremacists are in government at all exemplifies how Israel's political culture is shifting. Go back thirty years and Israel was banning the likes of Meir Kahane and his overtly Jewish supremacist Kach party from politics. Today, two Jews whose beliefs are similar to those of the Kahanists are in top governmental positions.

Japan’s ageing population poses urgent risk to society, says PM by Ethnocrat in debatealtright

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

I think they will open up in the next ten years, though some people are claiming that both China and Japan have seen increases in nativism consequent of Covid being attributed to outsiders (a particularly strange argument for China, given that outside of China many think that they are responsible, but the CCP seem to be blaming America and Britain).

I doubt that Japan is anywhere near 99.9% Japanese (probably not even 99.% Asian) at this point. Even if PM Kishida makes no moves towards widespread multiracial immigration, I still doubt that 1) the LDP remain in power over the next ten years and 2) Pro-immigration factions within the LDP do not select the party's next Prime Ministerial candidate over the next ten years. Only one of those two things needs to happen for Japan to open up, since most opposition parties are more pro-immigration than the LDP.

I suspect that the general incongruence between the political classes and the public on immigration (where I am, studies undertaken in the 1990s showed that the average person was significantly Rightward of both the mainstream Left and Right parties on immigration), an incongruence which could possibly be replicated in non-white societies, will mean that this brief increase in nativism will at best delay this opening up. Furthermore, the state of the Far-Right in Japan is very poor: Japan First is little better off than Western Far-Right parties and any other parties are probably worse off still, which puts them in a similar position to Europeans worldwide.

Kishida doesn't have a particularly high approval rating. Furthermore, the 'grace period' or 'honeymoon period' frequently observed in Western states is also replicated in Japan as well: polls show that Abe and Suga tended to have higher levels of approval than disapproval at the beginnings of their Prime Ministerships, whereas this situation had practically reversed by the end of them. Despite Kishida still being in his 'grace period', the Kishida Cabinet's approval rating was reported as being at a lowly 29.2% in December. The only upside for Kishida is that his chief opponent, CDP leader Kenta Izumi, is even less popular.

If Izumi was to hypothetically come to power next election, then Japan would likely see:

  • Fag marriage legalized.

  • More openness to foreign workers.

Strangely, even some Japanese sources refer to Izumi as a 'conservative', which demonstrates that at least some Japanese sources are as biased as Western ones, in that they see everything as further Rightward of where it actually is. Another sign that 'progressivism' has become deeply entrenched. In fact, the previous CDP leader, Yukio Edano, calls himself a 'conservative' despite also being in favour of fag marriage and multiracialism, wanting 'immigration reform'.

The only question is who it will be who further liberalizes Japan: will it be the LDP or will it be some other group, most likely the CDP?

Japan’s ageing population poses urgent risk to society, says PM by Ethnocrat in debatealtright

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

Yeah, his comment is retarded.

Contemporary 'undersexualization' is, prima facie paradoxically, the product of hypersexualization. Hypersexualization creates an 'undersexed' society; 'Puritans' are vastly more fertile than anyone in an 'undersexed' society and so cannot seriously be analogized to today's 'incels' or 'femcels' or whomever. Hell, 'Puritan' Whites were having more kids then than most blacks were then and are today. Of course that's the answer: that was a eugenic society, not a dysgenic one. Fertility negatively correlates with sexualization: high sexualization = low fertility.

With a high enough birth rate, non-white immigration would barely even matter to us today: the need for an ethnostate and remigration and whatever else only comes about because of low numbers that are easily swamped by racial outsiders. Liberal anti-'Puritanism' gave us most of these problems to begin with.

Almost All Scientific Fraud In Psychology Backs Up Leftist Dogmas - Ed Dutton by cisheteroscum in debatealtright

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

I saw that one, but didn't think much of it. Basically, certain academics are willing to write convincing but false studies in order to promote their worldview. For example, Stephen Breuning claimed that IQ could be raised by dozens of points by changing one's environment—naturally something Left-liberals wish was true—but practically all of the data he provided as evidence was fabricated. He got away with this from around 1978 to 1983. In 1983 he was found out, and yet strangely his 'work' is still being cited today.

More importantly than this video, Keith Woods' latest video on the harmful effects of 'diversity' was the most productive one I've seen recently, mostly because it brings to attention several academic papers that were heretofore largely unknown to us. He clearly did his research.

Psyop? Right-wing Brazilians have invaded the Presidential Palace and Supreme Court. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

I'm surprised at how insignificant the reaction to Lula all is. Brazilians will kill each other almost en masse in endemic drug- and gang-related violence, and yet they're (averagely) almost as passive as Americans when it comes down to politics. Of course, a few thousand is still more than what America could muster up.

(Note, however, that Bolsonaro's government appears to have made the country somewhat more stable: 2021 saw the lowest number of murders in 14 years. 2003 is the year that Lula began his first term, and so he was in power during much of the increase. Regardless, violence of this nature goes back decades; for instance, a violent riot by over 2,000 prisoners led to the 'Carandiru massacre' in October 1992.)

Not to mention that Lula's Partido dos Trabalhadores is worse than the US Democratic Party: Did anyone see criminal gangs firing their weapons into their air in celebration when Biden won? The criminals love Lula because of his softness on crime: videos showed that the usual brown, shirtless (shirtless = tough guy behaviour in Brazil), often tatted-up (also the sign of a tough guy, especially Jesus tattoos) scum inhabiting Brazil's jails were practically partying when news arrived that he won. Instead of flashing the usual gang signs like they do when chopping off a rival gang member's head, they were flashing the 'L' sign: L for Lula. The narcogangs are absolutely partisan.

Since you made this post, Lula has declared a state of emergency till the end of January. Hundreds of arrests have been made. They want to arrest everyone involved, which means a few thousand as yet unidentified people have yet to be detained. (Edit: 1,500+ arrests have been made as of 16 hours after first composing this comment.)

The pigs are remaining loyal to Lula. I don't think these protests will succeed unless large numbers of pigs refuse to fight the Bolsonaristas. It took over a million protesters to oust the government the last time that succeeded in Brazil (1985), and it seems clear that nowhere near a million could mobilize against Lula.

I think it is the same thing in America. If you divide the public into five groups from very pro-government to very anti-government, it is only really that fifth group that will mobilize, and this group rarely ever outnumbers the other four combined. After all, people who are very pro-government, pro-government, neutral and anti-government simply won't commit to a cause like Canada's 'Freedom Convoy' or to these Bolsonaristas. You'll only get some amongst that fifth group of very anti-government people who will—everyone else either supports the government or simply isn't anti-government enough to see the risk of opposing the government as worth taking.

In 2023, almost the entire American continent is ruled by Left-Wing. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

The only countries in that region that clearly have Right-leaning or Right-wing governments are Jamaica, Guatemala (set for a third Right-wing government in a row come their June election), Uruguay, Paraguay and Ecuador.

El Salvador is a strange one: I assumed that because President Bukele split from the Marxist FMLN that the party that he formed would likely be Leftist or Left-leaning. However, after becoming aware of his Duterte-like strongman stance on corruption, drugs and gangs, I think he is better re-categorized as centrist at Leftmost (possibly even slightly Right-leaning at this point).

Bukele shares in common with Duterte and similar strongmen an abnormally high approval rating. For instance, even the most negative poll results put Duterte above 50% approval, with the most positive poll results putting him around 85-95%. Duterte was reported as having a highly unusual 87% approval rating upon leaving office in June 2022.

See, for instance, this graphic posted on the website of the Philippines' oldest mass media outlet, the Manila Times (https://cdn4.premiumread.com/?url=https://www.manilatimes.net/manilatimes/uploads/images/2022/07/21/90711.jpg).

Notice that the top four leaders (Duterte [87%], Modi [77%], Lee [71%] and Widodo [68%]) are all considered Right-wing to Far-Right from the perspective of a highly Left-biased 'Western' perspective (note that Modi and Lee are—and Duterte is now, though not until the 2010s—also considered Right-wing to a lesser extent in their own countries, Widodo is actually considered Left-wing in Indonesia). AMLO comes in as the first Left-wing leader at #5.

Notice also that the Left-leaning or Left-wing leaders of the major European/Anglosphere countries are grossly unpopular in comparison: Scholz [45%], Biden [40%] and Trudeau [38%] are all below 50%, Albanese is at 51%.

Finally, notice also that Bukele maintains levels of popularity exceeding those of Duterte: every poll puts Bukele above 80%: approval ratings that degenerate ALP, LPC, German SPD and US Democrat Party voters could only ever dream of their leaders having. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_Nayib_Bukele_presidency

In short, it is intriguing that Right-wing leaders command a great deal more popularity outside of the 'West', and that polling in these countries seems far more consistent. By contrast, 'Western' countries seem to be in the paradoxical situation of electing people whom either never polled highly to begin with, or whom rapidly fall in the polls after their election.

Of course, Latin America is going in the same direction: Castillo quickly went from President to prisoner, never having been popular in office.

Do you think global warming/climate change is real? Do you care about the environment? by 8thmonitor in debatealtright

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

Your Covid alarmist views amounted to nothing and your climate alarmism, likewise, shall amount to nothing.

Practically everything that is given as 'evidence' of climate change is explanable by other means; furthermore, practically 100% of climate change predictions never eventuate.

As one of countless examples of climate nutter predictions, the Carteret Islands off the coast of PNG were supposed to be submerged by 2018. Well, they're still there today. Indeed, numerous islands in that region which were supposed to have been submerged have in fact since grown.

Nor is the submergence of any particular place when it occurs conclusive evidence of climate change, since nearby artificial island construction (which is responsible for rising sea levels in the Maldives: those idiots built numerous artificial islands using Arab sand to relieve population density on their main island) and the damaging caused to coastlines by blast fishing are two other factors well known for causing effects commonly misattributed to climate change.

Climate alarmists need to provide more evidence than the usual 'X will be underwater by year 20XX' for their claims: claims which I see no reason to care about even if they were absolutely true. Carbon capture technology will clearly make strident advances and hydrogen cars will clearly also make a massive impact on reducing emissions in the years to come.

Jewish Troubles with Uppity Rappers, TOO. Enlightening read about Jews (if you can believe it) and rap. by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

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

So this thread attracts nothing but six comments from three of the biggest subhuman tards on this site, the biggest of whom (the mentally ill moron 'socks' who continues to imperialistically spread hegemonic, pro-System narratives into this site instead of fucking off back to Reddit) turns this thread into little more than absurd paranoiac waffling about a practically non-existent group like the KKK with a doused in drivel about how intelligent he supposedly is.

Imagine waffling about the KKK... in 2022. Last I heard, they had black members and were merely building literal roads: well, that's more than the worthless subhuman perpetually online 'socks' will ever do.

Likewise, imagine being a philosemite in 2022. Unable to see patterns to the point of being utterly braindead?

Likewise, imagine thinking that the 'Far-Right' was bad in 2022. Do these people just have a sick urge to castrate little boys or something?

Now, look at this low-IQ drivel:

then a day to respond to DAR arguments

Does anyone seriously think that socks is anything more than a vile failed subhuman who doesn't even remotely deserve a response to anything that he ever writes? Notice that the number of DAR arguments are precisely zero, because nobody of sane mind actually takes socks' worldview seriously? Notice that this asshole inflates his own worth wherever he goes, acting like some bigshot when he's a terminally online nobody in reality?

This appears to be his main concern and deserves attention, but ALL of the owners and managers are not Jewish. It's a strawman argument.

So if 99.9% are Jewish and 0.01% are goy-ish... no problem according to 'socks'? We need to increase it by 0.01% at which point it arbitrarily becomes a problem?

Do 100% of blacks need to commit crimes to warrant declaring them subhuman? Evidently not. 13-56 is enough of an argument. Likewise, we do not need 100% of something to be zhiddish for it to be a problem.

More of the same stupid victimhood BS.

The same victimhood 'BS' that pervades Jewish thought even more than black thought? Victimhood: wrong when blacks express it towards Jews; correct when everyone expresses it towards Whites? Ah... the usual nonsensical Left-wing double standards at play. There is no strawman involved here.

Jews are clearly above blacks in America—as evidenced in the cases of Oprah, Nick Cannon and most recently, Kanye and Kyrie, except in the deranged mind of 'socks' in which the KKK lives rent free. Note: Jews are the only group that are 'lower' (from a Leftist perspective, i.e. actually at the top in practice) than blacks in the American social structure. Zhids can criticize blacks all they like; blacks cannot criticize zhids. Both can say whatever they like about Whites, who are at the 'highest' (i.e. at the bottom in practice) point of the American social structure, as evidenced by nobody caring one iota about the numerous anti-White statements made by the likes of Oprah, Nick Cannon and Dave Chappelle, all three of whom would have long been deported or killed for their bullshit in any White supremacist society.

Ban these three low-IQ subhuman fuckers, none of whom contribute anything to do this site. If someone walks into your home and takes a massive shit on the floor like they do, you'd want them gone. Online, things should be no different.

Ian Cranston: Guilty of Self-Defense while White, Warren Balogh by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

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

I have been in [dozens] of fights

I doubt that. Why would one man have been in dozens of fights without starting at least half of them? Care to explain why you're any different from the deceased? Trying to be a bigger man by brawling more than Andrew Jackson?

It's difficult to imagine you'd say that was acceptable.

Nah, that's your misunderstanding of, and attempt at a 'gotcha' directed at, 'White supremacists', etc. Truth be told, we don't like degenerate Whites either: after all, if you're that aggressive, you should have been bagged long ago, and I'd have zero problem with any groid that does the service. On those rare occasions we invoke the words 'Master Race' (Shock! Horror!), you're evidently not part of it.

Are you suggesting it's ok to kill someone who keeps approaching your fiance, etc.

This scenario has nothing in common with the event in question. (Although I have zero problems with someone being bagged if it can be proven that he's persistently being a pest of that nature.)

Now, I doubt that any decent, moral person has any problem with some abeed getting bagged who, after sexually harassing a woman (that alone enough of an offence for many feminists and some others to want a man put to death), proceeds to throw punches for no justifiable reason. Either the former or the latter is enough moral justification for bagging someone, let alone the both of them combined.

More to the point, regarding your last line?

Why are you so protective of 'black people'?

It's because you think that criminals are the real victims; that the police are the real criminals, etc. in typical lopsided liberetardian-progressive fashion, right?

Furthermore, your attempt to bring race into the equasion is merely another attempt to advantage you in an argument with 'White supremacists'. Him being black—while drastically increasing the chance of him being a piece of shit to anyone who isn't an egalitarian low-IQ moron who lives in a fantasy world—doesn't actually mean much here. Nobody should be free of the consequences of immoral and stupid actions, whereas you're clearly implying that we view all nonwhites as guilty and all Whites as saintly, which demonstrates your lack of understanding. You think we really value the lives of Antifa Whites or White queers and trannies, for instance? Nay, it wouldn't be an understatement to say that many of us rightly view them as worse than many nonwhites: I respect Erdogan or Assad more than some Antifa crackhead obese pansexual tranny. All that 'White supremacism' really entails here is that I consider a White Antifa crackhead obese pansexual tranny to have very marginally more value than a black one, since the latter would be even more low-IQ and otherwise incompatible with civilization than the former.

Donald Trump confirms 2024 Presidential Campaign. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

I'm for it simply because of the sheer destabilizing effect of this man on America. There is no man alive today who makes all the right people more upset than DJT. Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk, as hated by the lumpenproletarianized masses as they are, don't come anywhere near close. At the same time, however, practically nothing could compel me to support him.

MoRon DeSemitus should step aside and let Agent Orange Cheeto Trumpenfuhrer TrumPutin with tiny hands who can't read run unopposed. Polls of GOP voters indicate that around half prefer TrumPutin over any other candidate, and DeSemitus is in distant second place.

Recently, some 'progressive' politicians have declared that they aren't for Biden 2024, and I still think that the chance of him not being the Democrat 2024 candidate remains quite high. However, whether he is not the candidate because: a) He is talked out of running again; b) He loses his own party primary, or; c) His health declines to the point that he becomes a retarded vegetable, remains to be seen.

TrumPutin simply needs to threaten to run as a third-party candidate if he doesn't win his primary. He should simply present them with the ultimatum: I win the primary or I destroy your party permanently. That'll be enough to ensure that the GOP fall back in line, since a Trumplican third-party would cause immense havoc to the GOP and they aren't so stupid as not to know it. They can stick together or sink together.

I'd assume that TrumPutin will be up against a candidate who is 'progressive' and 'not Biden nor TrumPutin, therefore vote for me!', and will then lose by a slightly bigger margin than in 2020.

With my estimations out of the way, let's consider what I'd like to see happen at that point. Mainly, for the GOP to really panic and realize that they're already in a Democrat-run dominant-party system, and, from there, begin to seriously question democratic legitimacy. From there, I hope that the country will begin to break up along Red-Blue lines (which largely map onto majority White-majority nonwhite lines). Of course, secession has long been practically illegal (as the libertarian idiots in the Confederacy learned the hard way) and doesn't seem to be as simple as a mere referendum, but we'll see what happens there as it slowly sets in to their thick skulls that they've conclusively lost the war. After all, it was all due to their unwillingness to actually stop immigration, deradicalize the education system, make their big-tent ideologies more attractive than the Democrats' potent combination of hedonism, nihilism and parasitism that has immense appeal to impressionable and stupid people, &c. If they simply became the 'fascists' and 'racists' the Left has always accused them of rather than being Leftists a few years removed, none of this would have happened. America would have been vastly more powerful than it is now, and nobody would have messed with a nuclear-armed White ethnostate just because they disagree with its racial and social policies. Alas, the chief opposition to the party of evil so happens to be the party of stupid.

Under a Democrat-run dominant-party system, secessionism will only come from the Republicans since support for secession seems to negatively correlate with the amount of authority held. Obviously, if the Republicans were the ones to capture the state instead of the Democrats, it would be Left-wing secessionisms like CalExit, Cascadia, &c. which would grow, but one notices that these have reverted to a sort of dormancy since TrumPutin left office. It would take a GOP victory for them to regain momentum.

Obviously I'd prefer it if Left-wing secessionisms (whole American states and not some retarded LARP by Antifa nutjobs like the CHAZ/CHOP) occurred under a GOP Presidency, since CalExit and Cascadia seemed to be far more serious than anything going on in Republican states. Because of the more patriotic and thus centralist approach of the GOP, too many in the GOP do not want cede over any land no matter the cost of keeping it, whereas Leftists seem more likely to actually secede. Perhaps it is because they care less about national unity, or perhaps it is because they project their various fantasies onto those hypothetical new nations, whereas the GOP is more realistic and present-oriented than idealistic and future-oriented.

I also think it's to do with intelligence: Many Leftists, being hardcore racial egalitarians, really are that stupid as to think that an independent California wouldn't begin rapidly descending into a fourth-world dump full of retarded trannies, whereas we here obviously know better.

For instance, an ethnic Tanzanian YouTuber has recently been uploading footage of minority-White Los Angeles. You can only imagine how much worse things would get if California became a country, i.e. a non-white country governed by idiots adhering to insane ideologies.

See, for instance, https://youtu.be/OjC4CqnXxBg and https://youtu.be/642gtvi9XL0 It's all garbage, graffiti, tents and 'diversity'. Even the slogans are stupid. 2:15 reads 'Racism Is A Pandemic'. Yet LA wasn't like this until the 'diverse' became the overwhelming majority of its population. Does any non-'diverse' city come to mind when you see this footage? Nope, they all share 'diversity' in common, whether Chicongo, Detoilet, Filthadelphia, Johannesburg or anywhere else.

Saidit users who aren't "alt-right," why aren't you? by Markimus in politics

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

Huh? Civilizations are far more real than the abstraction of the 'individual', one which is only the product of your extreme Western liberalism and which isn't even believed in by Buddhists and certain other non-Western creeds that reject the concept of 'self'.

Society is vastly more important than individuals. For individuals, society is indispensable. You need society. But for society, most individuals are 100% dispensable. Society doesn't need you. Ants die within hours without their colonies; colonies, like hives—which are in no way abstract concepts denoting merely aggregated ants and bees—do not require most of their ants and bees for their continued survival.

Atomistic individualism in its myriad forms is always part and parcel in the creeds of degenerates—shared by anarchism, liberalism, communism, libertarianism—of mere human detritus, both the two or so of you on this website with 'Voluntaryist' flairs and that even more loathsome and utterly subhuman cretin 'socks'.

Saidit users who aren't "alt-right," why aren't you? by Markimus in politics

[–]LGBTQIAIDS 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

It is an empirically-proven, Snopes-verified fact that 'Schwarzenigga', i.e. 'socks,' is the world's biggest connoisseur of black-on-Jew gay interracial pornography. The very top peer-reviewed journals have done plenty of studies confirming this, and only conspiratards deny it.

Recently, 'socks' was absolutely incensed that he couldn't find a pilot mad enough to go and fetch the large number of homosexual groids trapped along the Poland-Ukraine border. He wanted them to be flown to San Franshitsco, where his favourite gay porn producers were planning to have them star in their latest 'movies'.

Word was that he was spotted frequenting all of the gay porn shops in San Franshitsco in the hope of stockpiling as much of this degenerate filth as possible. The chronic, compulsive masturbator already has a whole bunker full of it. Basically, he's convinced that if Putin nukes San Franshitsco, production of black-on-Jew gay interracial pornography will drop to about zero. For 'socks', a world without such pornography isn't worth living in, so he's currently driving the last trailer-load he has of the filth to his bunker where, according to a recent interview he had, he'll be 'jacking it to the end of his days'. We know this because there have been reports that he's been leaving a trail of gay porn lying around on the local highway, due to the trailer being overfilled. Indeed, one driver reported that a gay porn Blu-Ray disc titled: Ten Blacks, One Jew flew from the trailer into the open window of his car.

Supposedly, a homo Schlomo following this trail was caught knocking on the bunker door. 'socks' told him: 'First, you have to star in the latest black-on-Jew gay porn film, or else, fuck off!' The homo Schlomo is trying to find his way to the nearest gay porn studio right this moment.

Hollywood celebrities demand book burn of Kyrie Irving's promoted Hebrews to Negroes by Blackbrownfreestuff in debatealtright

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

Farrakhan and one other (Jesse Jackson, I think) are the only two blacks on the SPLC's naughty list. I can't remember what the official name of that list is.

Now, I remember reading this list and thinking that the only reason why those two are even on there is because of their 'anti-Semitism'. After all, everyone on the list were either Far-Right White and Islamist-Jihadist types (i.e. the two groups that zhids hate more than anyone else).

Midterms youth vote is overwhelmingly leftist by purelingot in debatealtright

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

It's obviously false. You sometimes hear of it being 'true' in places like France, but when you actually look into youth voting habits, for instance, it turns out to be false.

People have to understand that degeneration is inter-generational and that the appearance of a generation that is miraculously less degenerate than their immediate predecessors is aberrational. One can only find select examples of where it might have been the case that the youth of certain generations were actually regenerating and thus contemptuous of the more permissive older people, e.g. supposedly in Victorian England.

In the West it's obviously the reverse. Most of the older people I know say to me that they think the youth 'will destroy the world', are 'a lost cause', etc. And I have never heard a young person claim that it's the older people who are too degenerate, only that they are not degenerate enough (e.g. that they're too 'judgemental' and need to 'hurry up and die off already'). Thus everyone agrees today, even if the young only tacitly admit it because degenerates do not believe themselves to be so, that the young are more degenerate than the old.

Midterms youth vote is overwhelmingly leftist by purelingot in debatealtright

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

Anyone who thought the 'Red Wave' or 'Red Tsunami' was going to happen was delusional. I believed that there were only two serious options: continuation of a Democrat-leaning Congress (more likely) or a switch to a marginally Republican-leaning Congress (less likely). The other two possible options: decisive Democrat victory or decisive Republican victory were both practical impossibilities.

I have never believed that Trump 2024 (or [insert any other Republican here] 2024) is likely either. I'm sure in two years I'll be able to comment again about how the people who believed in that were also delusional. If this was Reddit I'd tell people to put that '!remindme' bot thing on this comment so that you'd be notified of it post-election.

I do think, however, that Biden 2024 does seem to be taking a serious and unnecessary risk, and that some other Democrat may defeat him in his own party presidential primary and then go on to win the presidency. One might correctly respond, however, that there is very little historical precedent for this. Then again, Biden does seem to be an exceptionally bad President/candidate (and as his cognitive state worsens, the more so as time progresses) and can easily be thrown under the bus consequent of the deep Democrat paranoia concerning how their side losing is the 'end of democracy' or some such nonsense.

Whether or not a more Left-wing Democrat like AOC would get more youth votes than Biden is debatable. I'm suspicious of the notion that someone who dislikes Biden from a Rightward position would somehow find a candidate Leftward of Biden more appealing rather than less. If anything, that 30% could only be swayed to vote Democrat by someone who appears more sane to the point of seeming almost out of place in the Democrat Party, like Manchin or Webb, but neither has (had, in Webb's case) any shot at winning the Democratic Presidential primary. As the older Democrats die off, the primary can only be won by the likes of AOC and those other morons who make Biden and the Clintons look comparatively sane.

they eventually WILL take the levers of power.

Yes, exactly. As the olds die off, this idiot generation will clearly bring America further backwards to a third-world society, certain characteristics of which we can safely predict by studying certain societies such as Brazil and South Africa; that is, countries in which liberalism and multiracialism have unfolded to a greater extent than in the West, countries which demonstrate to intelligent observers the near-future of the whole world, and to which the West has yet to regress to the levels of.

Whether some part of America can become an ethnostate and thus survive Brazilianization and thirdworldization, whilst almost impossible, isn't quite as impossible as the whole of America being 'saved'. That ship has long sailed: those degenerates won't deport or kill themselves and the remaining non-degenerate Whites lack the willpower to make the Left's biggest nightmare (i.e. the remaining normal people collectivizing to forcibly expel and/or eradicate the degenerate population) become a reality. Most of America is condemned to being inhabited by little other than impoverished brown queers and trannies.

Midterms youth vote is overwhelmingly leftist by purelingot in debatealtright

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

Abortion wasn't even in voter's top five list of concerns. The top three are something like: inflation, climate change and crime.

Anyone for whom 'pro-choice' is a defining issue is going to be Democrat or Leftward of Democrat anyway.

'White' people as the psychologically castrated eunuchs of progressive communist ideology. by rightm in debatealtright

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

I've noticed that you seem to have a lot of guilt about harbouring views contrary to the hegemonic, dominant ideology. As though you desperately want to go back to sleep, but simply can't because you've seen too much which you can't unsee.

I have no idea why this would be the case: is there something of an intrinsic liberalism in the Dutch genome or something? Isn't living in South Africa enough to push you over the edge?

The latter question is, of course, rhetorical: I'm well aware that even in that country there are plenty of White anarchists and liberals, some of whom remain ANC voters and some of whom are so insane as to identify with the EFF (thankfully, only a handful are that crazy).

About feds and whatever: you mean that the South African state knows about you and that you're worried about them watching your online activity?

I've noticed several prominent Anti-Racists claiming that being exposed to various races reduces racism by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

Andrew Yang clearly didn't agree, in fact, he believed the precise opposite: he thought that he could only attract White voters in areas with little 'diversity', whereas he thought that Whites in 'diverse' areas are more likely to be 'racist' and thus that it was a waste of time trying to compel them to vote for his explicitly anti-White politics and the other stupidity that he supported (e.g. 'reparations').

I'm pretty sure he's right. In France, Le Pen gets more support from the southern areas (which are more 'diverse' to the point of having numerous majority MENA/groid cities) and Macron gets more support from the northern areas (which are less 'diverse').

Likewise, notice that everyone says that the 'deep south' of the United States is the most 'racist' part of it. Notice also that the 'deep south' is where a very large proportion of the 13% are. I don't think that's a coincidence.

I'm sure that other people who are interested in the intersection between demographics and politics will find examples of this same phenomenon other than in America and France. In heavily 'diverse' countries, the majority (or former majority) tends to map onto 'Right-wing' and the 'minorities' (even if they've become a majority) tend to map onto 'Left-wing'.

The same phenomenon can be found in non-white countries. Take Sudan, for instance. The dominant semi-Islamist ideology is supported by more Arabic/mixed Sudanese, whereas more Left-wing rebel groups like the JEM tend to be composed of less mixed Sudanese. And there is plenty of 'racism' between the brown and black Sudanese, such as in the clearly racial conflict in the Darfur, where the brown Sudanese are blamed for 'genocide', i.e. of black Sudanese. Notice also that many Sudanese can be deeply offended by being called 'abeed', 'black', &c. and that they prefer to identify with Arabs than Africans.

Bolsonaro projected to lose Brazil's election tonight. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

I had a look at this video from a purportedly White Brazilian speaking with an American Dissident-Right content creator who has been around for a while.


A few things here might be of interest to you.

16:38: I didn't realize that the usual gang/Cartel types up north were that partisan. I knew that they'd benefit from a Lula victory and that they hated Bolsonaro because he was harsher on them... but not that they saw Lula as their man or something like that. In this clip, you have these brown retards, allegedly in Rio, literally firing their automatic weapons in the air, purportedly in celebration of his victory.

21:55: I've been seeing other videos in which purported Bolsonaro supporters were shot dead, but I wasn't too sure, since the amount of violent videos coming from there is insane. I'm now fully convinced that the Cartel types really are killing people over their beliefs, though. The guest goes on to claim that even the criminals in prison are celebrating.

29:33: There are actually many NatSoc types in southern Brazil?

The Telegram channel of the Brazilian can be seen without a Telegram account at: https://telewebgram.com/brazilupdates

Canada is increasing immigration again. Now targeting 500,000 per year by 2025. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

Polls in Alberta showed that if it was an American state, it would have been overwhelmingly pro-Clinton in 2016. I'm not sure about how they would have voted in the 2020 election, but Canada is Left-liberal enough that Albertan 'conservatism' is probably significantly closer to the Biden Democrats than to the Trumplicans.

Likewise, the CPC is probably closer to the Biden Democrats than to either side of the GOP. The CPC is noticeably more pozzed than the Republicans, where a narrow majority still oppose in 2022, for instance, fag marriage. Whereas nowhere near a majority of CPC voters would oppose that, and probably haven't for well over a decade.

I don't picture Turdeau, Trudope, Truvada or whatever that worthless imbecile is currently being called, leaving power unless the LPC does him in, in which case it is unlikely that his replacement will be any improvement. Canada has already reached the point which the Democrats are trying to reach in America, i.e. altering the demographics enough to ensure that they can maintain a sort of 'electoral dictatorship' or dominant-party state on the Federal (and eventually elsewhere) level.

Basically, so long as you have a large number of nonwhites and then make everything about 'racism', you will have a voting bloc that will always be yours (because they fear Whites collectivizing more than they fear inflation or anything else that ranks highly on voter's concerns) unless someone even more 'anti-racist' appears to your Left or unless an ethnic party forms, and even in the case of the latter, you will only really lose voters of that ethnic group, e.g. Muslims to a party like Denk in the Netherlands or that new party in Sweden, groups which appear when multiracialism becomes sufficiently entrenched, leaving you with all of the rest. In America it seems very likely to me that an explicitly black party will appear at some stage (in which case they'll be competing chiefly with the Democrats), but all attempts to do this haven't yet amounted to anything.

This is probably because the Democrats have so far been able to keep up with their increasingly ridiculous demands for 'free this' and 'free that', but their demands grow increasingly absurd, and it is difficult to see how the Democrats can continue to cater to all this nonsense without going in the direction that leads them to lose more centrist politicians like Gabbard and Yang.

And being stuck with Leftist Democrats and/or nonwhites isn't the best position to be in: some nonwhite groups might end up being kicked out of the 'people of colour' coalition for being 'too White' or 'too oppressive', or form their own ethnic parties and thus increasingly go their own way. Nor can nonwhites always be trusted to support White Leftists, the latter of whom will be increasingly marginalized within their own party since they are, at the end of the day, still White and thus part of the group that Leftist politics tells everyone is 'bad', as well as slowly becoming minoritized as plenty of younger nonwhite politicians flood in.

Bolsonaro projected to lose Brazil's election tonight. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

I thought Lula would win by about 51.5% v. 48.5% at the narrowest to 54.5%-45.5% at the broadest. Turns out that even my narrowest prediction wasn't conservative enough.

User 'VacaLeitera' must have been right: Bolsonaro made massive gains in the second round, with most of the PSDB/PMDB as well as, strangely, the PDT (which, ideologically, seems far closer to Lula's PT).

However, Lula has ran in almost every election since 1989. He's also been President for two terms in the past, and his faction governed Brazil for 12 years under the first and second Lula administrations, as well as the Dilma administration. Thus Brazilians already have some idea of how his incoming term will look.

I expect a massive increase in drugs and violent crime, particularly up north, where I imagine that the Cartels will be making big gains, having felt that Bolsonaro was keeping the lid on them. These people—lesser than animals, really—will feel like a pressure has been lifted come inauguration day.

It's worth mentioning that Lula isn't quite the Chavista that Maduro and Ortega are, possibly not even to the same extent as Peru's semi-Chavista Castillo. Instead, he is closer to Chile's Boric, Argentina's Fernandez and other Left-liberal and social democratic types, who have been making a comeback. At the moment, I think the general Latin American 'Right-wing' have only Ecuador (Lasso), Guatemala (Giammattei), Paraguay (Abdo Benitez) and Uruguay (Lacalle Pou), since the Left took (back) Argentina (Fernandez from Macri), Chile (Boric from Pinera), Colombia (Petro from Duque) and Honduras (Xiomara Castro from the sort of military-backed government that kept the lid for a while on semi-Chavista upsurge which is now running the country) and now Brazil.

Serious economic decline is on the table, but not quite to the extent that drug and gang violence and assorted social rot will accelerate under his regime. Expect vigilantism to increase as well—the signs of it are already there with what looks like a growing number of attacks on real and suspected criminals by civilians. Since vigilante groups often degenerate into criminal groups themselves (as is particularly the case in Mexico), expect more of the classic Brazilian gore videos that have long permeated the internet.

Another humiliation by DisastrousDepth14 in debatealtright

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

Is he even a CivNat or social conservative?

I'm not seeing how anyone could think that he's an improvement over the four Tory leaders Britain has had over the past 12 years.

Another humiliation by DisastrousDepth14 in debatealtright

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

Given that they've been through Cameron, May, BoJo and Truss since 2010, I don't think that he will last too long. For starters, how is he is supposed to succeed on the issues that led both BoJo and Truss to lose too much support? For all we know, he might be gone in a few months after he fails to work the miracles they seem to be demanding, i.e. to seriously get them back up in the polls (Labour is getting up to around 56% in some recent polls, with the Tories sinking to around 20%—as inaccurate as polling can be, such dramatic changes can't be dismissed). And that leads to my second point.

This is all because people actually voted for a Right-wing government and keep getting these losers that keep going to the Centre to Centre-Left in practice. Do these utter idiots not understand that if people wanted a Centre or Left government, they would have voted LibDem and Labour far more than they actually did? But because power lies on the Centre-Left (where most of the mass media sit, for example) and these cowards know it, these idiots all instinctively go there so that The Guardian might call them less nasty names such as Fash-cyst and Naht-zee for a time (as if it matters: Guardianistas and the other more idiotic peoples of Britain strongly believe that the Tories are Far-Right fascists, literal Hitlers, as laughable as that seems, and nothing will change their mind on that).

Meanwhile, Labour has gone from its biggest loss in history due to being considered too extreme Left under the Corbynites, to presenting a more united and rather 'Blairite' Centre-Left front under Starmer. The Tories seem to be doing everything they possibly can to sink their own 2025 re-election chances.

If there's anyone sane left in the Tories (fat chance), surely they can see the obvious answer to beating Starmer's Labour: How about putting an actual conservative in power, who at the very least seriously lowers immigration, who reindustrializes (seemingly a popular talking point, one to which a paleocon or Right-Gaullist like Zemmour clung to in France), and who continues to distance Britain from the EU? The things that people voted Leave for, which should have told you what many if not still a majority want? The problem, of course, is that I can't see a single person like this anywhere near power. Instead, it's a bunch of uninspiring careeristic, economistic, non-ideological types: hardly what less conservative Tories want, let alone more ideological and principled ones. If I were British, I obviously wouldn't have voted for any of these people, because I never have and never will vote for a Leftish or centrist 'conservative', with a Zemmour-style CivNat or paleocon as far Leftward as I'm even remotely willing to consider (which is as Rightmost as I can vote for in my own country). That is, not Cameron (fag marriage, opposition to Brexit, betrayed his promise to lower immigration and actually increased it), May (constant talk about governing 'from the centre' and her verbal condemnations of 'nationalists'), BoJo, Truss or Sunak. No sufficiently paleocon Tory in Downing Street, no vote: it would go back to whichever third-parties are to their Right.

And, indeed, anything short of that and many High Tories will be staying home, and many Red Tory/Blue Labour Leftish to centrist types will be seeing Starmer's Labour as sufferable enough to replace a series of unstable Tory governments. After all, with Corbyn gone, the same mass media who sunk Labour last election because Corbyn's insufficient support of Israel led the usual zhiddish and/or Zionist types to hysterically call him an 'anti-Semite' will by and large be on Labour's side next election. The Tories have lost that big media advantage that aided BoJo's decisive victory in 2019.

Starmer just needs to keep his philosemite + Blairite combination going, and too many of the less committed Tories will say that Starmer is sufferable enough to be like David Cameron, i.e. someone who less committed and more centrist Red Tories/Blue Labour types accepted, and too many High Tories will stay home in early 2025, leading to a dramatic Labour comeback possibly even eclipsing BoJo's 2019 decisive victory.

In conclusion, I don't think this Sunak character will be worth much even for less committed or ideological Tories, swing voters, etc., and as one moves further Rightward, I think there's even less support to be found. But the Tories also have no one obviously better to replace him with.

For any Russian speakers-Dugin, Why nationalism is a lie pushed forward by the global bourgeoisie. Russians have always been a mixed people. by Wickedgs in debatealtright

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

Were you the one who commented that you were an avid reader of Schopenhauer as a younger man, before you deleted the comment in question?

Recently, I've been looking into Schopenhauer after moving from the man he considered himself the last true follower of, Kant. I am, however, finding Schopenhauer's compassion- or empathy-based ethics rather inadequate.

I would thus benefit greatly from knowing which specific parts or ideas of Schopenhauer's philosophy that you found most compelling, so that I may have specific topics with which I can begin my own research.

Weird thing Antifa/Rad leftists do by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

a very strong in-group bias.

Indeed. But since the way they define the in-group involves nothing obviously ascriptive and immutable—in the way that our in-group is far more clearly defined; after all, a high level of European ancestry is a purely ascriptive characteristic, though there are also partly ideational components such as being of non-degenerate character—and is largely about the set of beliefs to which one subscribes, it is hard to see how they go about exercising in-group preference in practice. After all, no one has a sign on his head saying: 'I'm a Leftist; ergo, I'm on your side.' It is hard to tell whether what seems like Left-wing in-group preference is actually genuine or simply the result of many individuals understanding that they need to work together to achieve individual, rather than group, ends. In the latter scenario, they will of course cease having such an in-group preference in the event that it benefits their individual self-interest to do so.

And this leads to my second point: indeed, much of what Leftists stand for seem suspiciously like rationalizations for their flagrant and ever-growing degeneracy and parasitism. For example, 'tolerance' only ever means, in practice, tolerance of degeneracy: tolerance of fags, trannies, trans kids, &c. For I have never seen these people call for tolerance of something that was not considered, quite rightly, by the overwhelming majority of our ancestors as absolutely evil and stark raving mad. Indeed, many of them would have seen today's idiots as under something akin to demonic possession, and thus worthy only of eradication.

This is one reason for which I have always been wary of self-proclaimed socialists: the overwhelming majority of them subscribe to this ideology only because they have some kind of degenerate motivation for doing so, in particular, a destructive ressentiment, an urge to tear down everyone and everything that reminds one of one's own inferiority. And so no form of socialism that motivates its followers through appeals to such things as the fulfillment of the self-interests that a counter-productive bottom-feeder might derive from a radical implementation of equality, or the psychological comfort that one might derive from seeing those who remind him of his own inferiority destroyed, should ever be taken seriously, let alone as something even remotely capable of improving the state of the race or of Man more generally.

That is, of course, the type of socialist that permeates the comment sections of Vaush: those useless eaters who often confess to being 'neurodivergent', 'trans', 'furries' and so forth. Their brand of socialism would improve nothing: it is merely motivated by such things as the perpetual fear that the host will one day seek to expel the parasite from within himself. In this event, the Vaushists would simply die off, and even they are not stupid enough so as not to know that deep inside. They are, in that regard, smarter than their host.

Destiny, Vaush and Hasan Piker are the first three of these useless eaters that come to mind. All three combine numerous forms of degeneracy, and consequent of it, they attract others of their kind, all of whom are so twisted and far gone so as to see degeneracy as virtuous and the degenerate as brave and courageous.

As an aside, I remember you claiming that you felt worse after taking those vaccines, and not having forgotten this, I should add that I sincerely hope that you are remaining in good health.

Trump life membership by Musky in politics

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

This is obviously a scam message.

Where is this supposed "GOP HQ" from which Big Bad Trump recruits life members? Lagos, Nigeria?

Where 'Trump' happens to be a 'Nigerian Prince', 'GOP HQ' happens to be the collective name of a whole heap of 'Nigerian Princes' spamming emails from a bunch of old computers running pirated versions of Windows XP, and a 'Life Membership' happens to mean these 'Nigerian Princes' attempting to empty out the online bank account you gave them the log-in information to?

Anyone who falls for this is dumber than a Democrat.

Fascism is awful by Dragonerne in debatealtright

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

I'm not 'fascist', either, since I've always seen it as too Left-wing (especially after reading the program of March 23, 1919, which reads as libertarian socialist/Lib-Left, including republicanism and even universal suffrage at a time when many liberals and democrats would have opposed it). In 1924, the Italian Communist Party (PCI) leader even praised the fascists.

Similar things can be found in Germany between the KPD and the NSDAP at various points until 1933. The KPD was among the opposition parties driven underground that year. However, I get the impression that the NSDAP was more 'Right' (predictably, the KPD's relations were much more rocky, constantly shifting between co-opting NSDAP talking points and positions to opposition and back again, largely depending on Stalin's directives from Moscow) than the Italian Fascists were 'Right' (the PCI probably saw fascism as a step closer to what they wanted, at least for some time).

I think this is a part of the confusion surrounding the famous sociologist Pareto and why he seemed to support the early fascists, something which confuses academia. Most evidence points to Pareto being a libertarian/classical liberal (which fits nicely with the early fascists), whereas Pareto would have witnessed their Rightward shift (which fits nicely with why he clearly made anti-fascist statements later in life; for example, when it reached the stage that the fascists banned Marxism in universities, Pareto was opposed to this). Academics simply can't figure this out because they assume that the late Mussolini and early Mussolini must have been the same, but the story that I outline here is quite coherent and feasible, i.e. that fascism underwent a sort of Rightward drift from its position on the Left as a sort of synthesis of anti-Marxist Leftists, including Leftists falling out with Marxism, and certain traditionalist or reactionary types like Maurras.

The 'Mussolini/Fascists are Right-wing' narrative must have been a later development (i.e. around the time of Mussolini's association with many of the [actually] Right-wing groups that would later become the Axis), such that we end up with today's demonological Off-the-charts-Extreme-Reactionary-Far-Right Fasssccciisssuuummm that is the supposed 'antithesis' of today's Left-wing nutjobs, and which all Left-wing nutjobs gravely overestimate the threat of today. But the Italian Fascists, at least in the late 1910s and most of the 1920s, would have been closer to radical liberals and communists than to the likes of Codreanu and the Iron Guard or Szalazi and the Arrow Cross.

As for my opinion on the specific quotes that I find interesting:

1. Yes, this is thoroughly disagreeable to anyone outside of the Left-wing nutjob box. Prime de Rivera and other early fascists had the exact opposite opinion: Socialism was more agreeable until Marxism, not because of it. I should add that the pre-Marxist socialists weren't very appealing either: Fourier was a sick degenerate as well as a very early advocate for homosexuality and feminism, and some of Saint-Simon's followers were sick degenerates who promoted 'free love' and other nonsense (I'm not sure about him personally, although he promoted feminism). The Saint-Simonians essentially became a cult, especially after his death.

5. To this I only have to add that Pareto was philo-Semitic, which probably also explains his early indifference or mild support for fascism. In a personal letter, Pareto even lambasted a personal friend for sending to him an 'anti-Semitic' book.

6. The notion that one of the world's most invasive groups needs to be left 'alone' reeks of ignorance. A most obvious retort is that they plain and simply won't leave you alone. Of course, they'll be even less likely to leave you alone if they see you as a threat, but that doesn't justify meekly appeasing them, it justifies prevailing over them.

7. This one almost makes me laugh: the notion of an ultra-modernist and materialist like Marx being deified even though he was 100% opposed to such things. Just as Mussolini describes this quasi-spiritualistic attitude towards Marx, a growing number in China believe that Mao brings good luck. Both Marx and Mao would be horrified, I suspect.

Finally, Marx turned out to be wrong on countless things, so the notion of him as a sort of atheist's prophet also amuses me. The atheist's version of a false prophet he was and he remains, however.

The Danish Elections just started by Dragonerne in debatealtright

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

Those of us who believed that Mette wasn't really anti-immigration or pro-'remigration' were right, then?

The government that is now over appears to be comprised of:

Social Democrats, Social Liberals, Green Left and the Red-Green alliance. These last three often seem to be in an alliance with the SocDems.

That put Venstre, DPP, Conservatives, NB, Liberal Alliance, Independent Greens, The Alternative, Christian Democrats, Moderates and DD outside of the government.

Looking at the historical cabinets.

Most of the 1990s chiefly saw a combination of the SocDems and the Social Liberals in government.

Most of the 2000s chiefly saw a combination of Venstre and the Conservatives in government.

The Thorning-Schmidt cabinets essentially repeat the 1990s (Social Democrats + Social Liberals), except that we see the addition of the Green Left, until the Green Left leaves.

The government before Mette's essentially repeats the 2000s (Venstre + Conservative), except that we see the addition of the Liberal Alliance, plus support from the DPP.

It seems to me that there are essentially two major camps:

A Left to liberal camp: Dominated by SocDem, almost always allies with the Social Liberals. More recently, the Green Left and the Red-Green Alliance have become more and more a part of this camp.

A liberal to conservative camp: Dominated by Venstre, almost always allies with the Conservatives. More recently, the Liberal Alliance have become more and more a part of this camp.

Turning away from the historical cabinets and into the polling, we see that the SocDems would probably remain the kingmakers, except that it sounds to me as though the Social Liberals will not rejoin anything including the SocDems, at least for the time being.

I thus find that there is little historical precedent for such a government composed of SocDem + Venstre or SocDem + Conservative, or perhaps even Venstre + Social Liberals.

The last one of those three makes me think twice. Is it possible that the Social Liberals could flip to siding with a renewed Venstre + Conservative coalition government? That would create a three party combination slightly larger than the SocDems alone, with a Venstre Prime Minister, but I do not know who else can be added to that.

A cursory look at DD reveals it has some anti-immigration liberals from Venstre plus some people who have for some reason left the DPP. Why did some switch from the DPP? And what do you think of Messerschmidt? He sounds controversial, but for all the right reasons to me.

Nonetheless, any combination including DD (Venstre + Conservative + DD or SocDem + DD) sounds impossible.

Is SocDem + Green Left + Red-Green Alliance possible given that it seems to me that Venstre + Conservative + Liberal Alliance cannot reliably gather up enough other parties to be larger than the 40-45% that these three put together are polling.

Venstre+Conservative+Liberal Alliance would almost certainly need to add something like DD+NR or DD+Moderates or Moderates+NR+DPP to their coalition in order to form a bigger bloc than the Left.

Brazil's 2022 Election is a battle between good vs evil. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

Lula will narrowly win.

The supporters of Ciro Gomes in the first round (3.04%) are enough to get Lula over 50% alone. In 2018, Gomes did not endorse Haddad (PT) or Bolsonaro, but it can safely be assumed that his voters are aware that they are closer to Lula (PT) than to Bolsonaro.

Even if that wasn't the case, supporters of the PSDB/PMDB (both Centrist to marginally Right-leaning overall) in third place can't all be trusted to vote for Bolsonaro, especially since a sizeable number of their voters are still Left-wing or liberal nutjobs, as well as much of the party hierarchies: Tebet (PMDB) is an overt feminist and supports 50% women quotas in government. Predictably, she endorsed Lula.

Unless a whole bunch of voters who sat out in the first round vote Bolsonaro in the second, Lula will have a narrow victory (possibly as narrow as 51.5% v. 48.5%, but if even half of the first round PSDB/PMDB voters switch to Lula in the run-off, perhaps a final result such as 54.5%-45.5% might be possible). Anything higher than that, I think, is highly unlikely.

How the Hell is nuclear war not THE trending news story, twitter hashtag, reddit post, etc.? Tucker is currently the only sane MSM source. by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

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

I doubt that Russia would even use a small suitcase nuke somewhere on the frontlines where they want to leave scorched earth behind, let alone nuke The Great Satan.

Sure, we've seen people place ideology and virtue signalling above self-interest in the last French election. But they were also ignorant as to the consequences of re-electing the pro-Ukrainian Macron: firstly, they did not know it would mean a very cold winter; secondly, they felt that the alternative was literally Hitler.

With this, it's different. The masses have a much better idea of the consequences. They know that the consequences will affect their lives much more so than a very cold winter. They're terrified of nuclear weapons, hence the obsession with the 'denuclearization' in particular of Iran and North Korea, viz. countries that the liberal international order cannot fully trust with such weapons. Ideally, the LIO only wants itself to be nuclear armed so that power shifts further in its favour.

Furthermore, the alternative isn't literally Hitler coming to power in their own countries, it's literally Hitler seizing the Ukraine. That's completely different, and most normies aren't going to risk losing their consumerist lifestyles just because of literal Hitler seizing some country they can't even find on an unmarked map. For White people outside of Europe, Ukraine is half way around the world. They'll forget about this war in a few years just like most people do with every war. Places like Syria used to dominate the headlines if one goes far back enough, and yet most people seem to have forgot that the war there is actually still going.

A few 'neocon' or 'war hawk' tards like David Petraeus might talk tough. But I suspect that this is only because as the United States moves closer to a third-world, non-superpower status (something which practically everyone agrees upon), they are lashing out in all directions at differing perceived causes, where there is practically total disagreement. Most people choose to drink more poison in the hope of alleviating the symptoms of the poison they have already taken, i.e. doubling down on liberalism or being radicalized into the more extreme splinters of it, like 'anarcho-communism'. Only a few go the other way, that is, to rejecting large swathes of 'Enlightenment values' and late-modernity altogether. For the 'neocon warhawk' types, it seems that the response to decline is to combine drinking more poison on the domestic level whilst acting tough with America's enemies like the imagined 'Far-Right' threat within and China/Iran/North Korea/Russia without.

Indeed, Petraeus and a few others might see a resolution to America's decline in destroying their moral superiors in Russia so that America remains a superpower relative to the world, possibly sans China, for a little while longer. But I doubt the masses of predominantly urbanized tards who decide federal election outcomes agree. Even the biggest degenerates out there know that the nukes won't be falling on the MAGA-hat wearing truckers like they wish they would, but right on top of their big cities like NY and SF. The nukes would purify America of many of its worst inhabitants, and those people by and large want to keep living even if it means taking a loss to Putler, TrumPutin or whatever else it is that they call him.

Have a small whitepill. Two foreign mercenary or volunteer types, most likely Americans, were killed in action by some hostile force, presumably in the Ukraine. These 44 seconds contain nothing visceral. Other than the swear words that come out of the second KIA's mouth in the last minute of his pathetic life, it's completely 'safe for work': https://files.catbox.moe/qy2s2r.mp4

I can't find any details on this video. I imagine a much longer GoPro footage was retrieved from his corpse, this part of it excerpted and originally uploaded to something like a Telegram channel for the purposes of sending a big 'Screw You' and 'Look, these fools we killed humiliatingly filmed their own deaths!'. From there it has been reuploaded to other websites.

If there's an afterlife, I wonder if these two have yet to realize: 'Man, did I really die... just so that Ukrainian feminists, homosexuals and transsexuals were to be judged less negatively by future generations of Ukrainians?'

Was 'muh freedumb n ekwality n libaty n sheet, n fugg Putler tha Natzee fasciss thug n sheet mang, we gunna be like our grandfathers in bringing the fight to their homeland' really worth being shot in the head for?

Pound crashes as Liz Truss and negro chancellor announce massive tax cuts for the rich by VacaLeitera767 in debatealtright

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

Very informative and useful reply. I always learn something from you about contemporary Brazil, which in turn helps me to communicate to others about the situation in the country.

I know about the late Olavo de Carvalho, but are there are any other intellectual figures (philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, &c.) generally considered 'Right-wing' or 'Far-Right' who were/are popular on the Brazilian Right?

The overtly Far-Left parties being satellite parties of the PT that serve for PT a function is a take that I haven't heard before. Of course, parties being slightly Leftward or Rightward of the mainstream often do end up as—provided that they weren't from the very start—satellite parties deeply intertwined with the mainstream, and so it is not wholly unbelievable. For instance, America's CPUSA is often viewed in the circles of those extreme Leftists who run with Antifa, PSL, RCP, &c. as a satellite party and front of the Left-wing of the US Democrats.

If PSTU, PCB and PCO better resemble the older Marxist Left, where does PCdoB fit in relation to them? I read once that the (by Western standards) 'Far-Right' PSC had an electoral alliance with the PCdoB and that this was the exact reason for Bolsonaro leaving their party, out of disapproval. The average PCdoB voter seems to be super-woke, however. 89% approval for same-sex marriage according to: https://brasil.isidewith.com/en/poll/965633/1550182717. But even the PSL voters seem woke, with 81% approval according to: https://brasil.isidewith.com/en/poll/965633/3347843671. It seems more like, in switching from PSC to PSL (which merged with the more conservative DEM to form UNIAO) Bolsonaro went from allying with conservatives to allying with liberals. DEM had a much less extreme 32% approval, going up by 1% over the past four years: https://brasil.isidewith.com/en/poll/965633/1550182707. Now he's gone back to conservatives by allying with PL.

breeding grounds for future militants

You ruled out the probability of South Africa's EFF's (and BLF's) strange blend of social radical+ethnonationalist (EFF is explicitly pro-feminist, LGBT, &., see, for example, this image from their website: https://effonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WhatsApp-Image-2020-08-09-at-13.09.24.jpeg) politics taking off in Brazil, because the wider Left is uncomfortable with actual black racialism.

But is ideological Far-Left violence resembling that of the military rule years probable in future even if black racialist violence is unlikely? After all, there is the 'conspiracy theory' that Dilma herself was supposed to have participated in bank robberies, assassinations and other acts of Left-wing extremism during those years, charges albeit which she has always denied.

I've also noticed that the Left's hierarchy is dominated by White and White-passing Brazilians, despite the fact the more non-white parts of Brazil are (predictably) where they are electorally strongest. Like all multiracial democracies, race seems to be a significant marker of political allegiance. In 2018, the most pro-PT areas, where Haddad got 70% of the vote in the run-off, were also those that are the worst off demographically.

That Globo—which Brazilians should probably take to calling 'Globohomo' at this point—has influence comparable to that of CNN and similar mass media outlets is certainly no surprise. I certainly believe that mass media has had and still has a massive impact on the impressionable masses' conception of what is normal and what is 'extreme', although it certainly also takes time to socially engineer people, and thus it may take decades of bombarding viewers with queers and trannies to make them flip sides on that question. The same method was used where I am as well, viz. initially portraying them as 'normal' and 'like us' and slowly shifting towards portraying them as having desirous and enviable lifestyles. Now they are effectively protected classes who can do almost no wrong. And if that is one of the chief causes of their normalization, it is clearly succeeding there too, because it is very easy to find overt Brazilian queers and trannies wherever Brazilians can be found online.

As for the linked Reddit video... Bolsonaro really is the 'Brazilian Trump'. The way that his support plummeted around the time of Covid despite it turning out in hindsight to be much ado about nothing. The way that his opponents label him with the exact same terms. The way they're accusing him of aspiring to launch a Peruvian-style auto-coup. The way they'll go after him after he leaves office.

Sao Paulo University looks every bit as bad as you say it is. Left-wing buzzwords everywhere (socialism, imperialism, LGBT, feminists, anti-racists). That's yet another analogue with Trump: just as Trump either couldn't or didn't even try to change American universities, Bolsonaro likewise has not changed Brazil's universities, and so they remained bastions of their enemies all through their time in office.

Pound crashes as Liz Truss and negro chancellor announce massive tax cuts for the rich by VacaLeitera767 in debatealtright

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

It's almost like they're deliberately sabotaging themselves just so that the masses can be easier convinced that Brexit was a 'mistake' and thus that rejoining the EU again out of nostalgia for the marginally less dysfunctional times of Blair and Cameron is desirable.

Of course, this would be an unsound argument even if it were to suffice for the masses: there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Truss, Kwarteng, &c. would not be high up in the British government if Remain won. George Osborne, who seemed to be Cameron's personal preferred choice for a successor when he resigned in 2016, is right up there with the worst of them.

Almost all heads of state and government seem to be worse than their immediate predecessors these days. Perhaps nowhere is that more clear than if we abstract away all male British heads of government and consider the three remaining.

That is to say that Truss is clearly shaping out to be worse than May, and that May was clearly worse than Thatcher.

Now, a question about Brazil. Over the past few years it seems Brazil has seen the rise of what I can only really describe as a Brazilian analogue to South Africa's EFF. That is Leo Pericles' 'Popular Unity' party.

Do they seem like they could become a big problem in future, given that they are rather like America's RCP or PSL writ large? Even a cursory look at their website brings up a slew of Leftist buzzwords, such as 'fascista' (predictably used to denote Bolsonaro and his government), 'lgbtfobicas', 'racismo' and 'racistas'. They seem like the PT, but even worse.

Hard to believe that contemporary Brazil is the same country as what's in this video: https://files.catbox.moe/37of2g.mp4 How did things regress so far in less than four decades?

"Populism" is just Democracy libs hate by Trab in debatealtright

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

There has always been a tension between liberal and democratic ideology; indeed, they weren't even that well merged until the early 20th century, especially after WWI. Ardent 19th century liberals like J. S. Mill were highly sceptical of democracy.

We're seeing that they still haven't been fully reconciled today, with plenty of liberals clearly preferring some sort of unelected bureaucratic government composed of self-styled 'intellectuals' (viz. the 'enlightened', 'educated', 'sophisticated', &c. cosmopolitans) running everything, most of whom are foreign to their own country.

The cosmopolitan soy-latte-guzzling Remoaners who voted against Brexit because 'mah holidays to Europe' and who read The Guardian to whinge about the 'Far-Right Tories' all day are an arch-example: they have zero problem with having their national sovereignty and borders eroded, and they were 100% willing to discard the referendum results, what with all their nonsense about annulling the first Brexit referendum to hold a second one in which the people would realize their 'error' and that their 'true' interests were 'really' served by remaining in the EU. Of course, if the second one also failed, many of them would be open to a third and a fourth and so on right up until they got their desired result, at which point they'd immediately switch to being anti-referendum.

Liberals very easily become anti-democrats if they think that the 'ignorant', 'uneducated', 'unsophisticated', &c. people are shifting Rightward. You could also see strands of this with the '2016 was rigged', '#NotMyPresident' thing during the Trump Administration: there is this persistent idea that Trump was 'illegitimate' and that he either wasn't voted in or was only voted in by 'inbred uneducated hillbilly rednecks' (as if those people even remotely outnumber the typical big city urbanite scum such that they could win the federal election). Just like the fool you linked, who writes that Bernie Sanders (compared to Biden, more populist and less elitist and pluralist, that is, a more extreme and arguably more illiberal democrat) is 'anti-intellectual'.

They just can't face the fact that educated urbanites can also oppose them. 'Like, dude, surely being educated would make you a liberal cosmopolitan, r-r-right?'

Just look at this comment. Obvious liberal who calls democracy 'a shit system'. Yeah, it's 'shit' and needs to be replaced by unelected and mostly foreign 'intellectuals' when Meloni wins:


Of course, democracy's great, definitely not rigged (e.g. 'the most secure election in US history') and the 'adults are back in charge' when the likes of Biden wins.

One of the many things that I like about the actual Far-Right is its sheer consistency compared to all other positions: there, liberalism and democracy are always trash, and not only situationally so. 'I win, therefore democracy is good and not rigged; I lose, therefore democracy is bad and rigged' is reasoning befitting merely of the idiot masses and unbecoming of anyone genuinely possessing of intelligence.

Think about it: every future Federal election in America will be considered 'fake' and 'rigged' by millions of people. And the only thing that decides who those millions of people actually are is who wins. For instance, if a Republican wins in 2024, there is practically 100% certainty that millions of Democrats will go through the '#NotMyPresident' spiel all over again, that there will be a 'Russiagate 2.0' conspiracy theory (The Russians hacked it again!!!).

The new PM of Italy looks like the solution all the world needs right now: a near-perfect anti-globalist nationalist leader. by iamonlyoneman in politics

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

Hardline anti-immigration is bad for the global economy.

This is an election about Italy and what's right for them, not you nor anyone else. If supposed gains in productivity or wealth come at the expense of too many other things, it is not in one's rational interest to preserve the 'global economy.'

Hardline anti-LGBT is hateful

No, you clearly state that as a fact, even though it is clearly a value-judgement, viz. an opinion.

Being opposed to a literal emotion is childish and stupid. I'll hate, despise, loathe, &c. whoever I want, thanks. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. You can't. There is nothing wrong (or preventable) regarding so-called 'hate' per se.

The concerns about retreating from democracy are valid and that would be very bad.

There are no such 'concerns' except in paranoid minds. A centre-right government was not and never will be a threat to liberal democracy. Moreover, how can people voting possibly be ever a threat to democracy, when voting is practically its essence, without which no system can seriously be labelled 'democratic' no matter how free it is in any other respect? Even if they were to elect a hypothetical 'Hitler' at some future time, that's their right, and the political system remains democratic even if it becomes illiberal. You elitist liberals unironically sound more anti-democratic than most 'fascists' with your droning about how people need to be prevented from electing 'populists' or 'anti-intellectuals' (where you, of course, predictably define yourselves as the smart and intellectual ones, as funny as that appears to anti-liberals).

Italian election thread by Rakean93 in debatealtright

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

Ideally, FDI-FI-Lega is what I want to see, since that eliminates the need for any Left-wing party representation in the government whatsoever. Let the Leftists cry for a few years.

A 'Centre-Right coalition' supermajority is obviously also desirable, since this means that the Left-wing can't even really do anything in the opposition.

No Left-wing parties in government or in (meaningful) opposition makes this vastly better than the first Conte government, in which M5S ruined everything.

Also good to hear that Mattarella can't realistically do anything. I think he was already very bothered by the first Conte-Salvini-Di Maio government (probably mostly because of Salvini), but now he's in a position that he would find even more disagreeable. From his point of view, Meloni-Salvini-Berlusconi are probably a far worse trio.

How is M5S doing with Di Maio having left to form the 'Civic Commitment' party which is now part of the 'Centre-Left coalition'? Is the M5S voter base staying with their party under Conte outside of that coalition, or is there a big transfer of them to Di Maio's party?

I like how M5S is in an alliance of sorts with the Gay Party. Says it all, really.

Italian election thread by Rakean93 in debatealtright

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

We have to consider just how bad of a coalition partner M5S is.

After the 2018 election, M5S explicitly ruled out forming a government with any of the 'Centre-Right coalition' parties. Di Maio (M5S leader) wanted to form a government with the PD, but the PD wouldn't accept joining a coalition with any of the 'Centre-Right coalition' parties either. Eventually, the government was formed, composed solely of Lega and a reluctant M5S who clearly would have preferred a government with PD and some smaller parties.

So, here's my first key point: M5S clearly doesn't even like Lega, FdI, or FI in the first place, which makes the idea of replacing FI with them in 'Centre-Right coalition' government untenable. They couldn't work with those parties the first time around, and there's no point in giving them a second chance to do what I'm about to mention, viz. literally collapse the government and give it back to the Left.

In late 2019, M5S left the government and promptly formed a new government with PD and two other garbage Left-liberal parties. The mess that this created meant that the Left ended up ruling for most of the term that Lega should have been in government for.

So here's my second key point: M5S is completely untrustworthy even if they were to accept a place in the 'Centre-Right coalition', since they gravitated back to their natural position as allies of the PD not long after the first time around.

In early 2021, this Left-wing second Conte government also collapsed because Renzi's small party (IV) left. Draghi then formed his government, which Lega and FI joined but within which they were heavily outnumbered by the Left parties (M5S, PD and four smaller ones).

M5S' refusal to work with the 'Centre-Right coalition' is the chief problem here. They had their chance to work with Lega and blew it, opting instead to work with our enemies like the PD and Renzi's splinter group of the PD. It's better not to include them so as not to repeat the sheer failures of the past four years.

The M5S isn't a serious party, which is why most of their gains have gone back to the PD. Those idiots even got the mayorship of Rome and a few other major cities only to screw up so bad that the PD took them back. Just look at them right now. They're literally in an alliance with a group called the Gay Party.


For the 2022 Italian general election, the party failed to collect the 80,000 signatures necessary to be able to register, and on 22 August they announced an agreement with the Five Star Movement to carry two candidates (Fabrizio Marrazzo and Marina Zela) on the party's lists.

Italian election thread by Rakean93 in debatealtright

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

M5S is clearly worse than FI. FI is still an improvement over any Anglosphere Tory party, probably also better than UKIP, Reform or whatever the Farage followers are currently in. Sure, Guardianistas and other trash in the Anglophone mass media hate both M5S and Berlusconi, but they see M5S merely as 'populist' and Berlusconi as 'fascist', strongly suggesting that Berlusconi is the lesser of evils.

Italian election thread by Rakean93 in debatealtright

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

I was hoping you'd make a post on this, since you seem to be the most qualified here on the matter of Italian politics.

What will the government actually look like? FdI coalitions with who exactly? What does the opposition look like, presumably with the PD being at the head of it?

The other big question is how stable this government would be? For example, is there any chance of enough parties quitting government and moving into opposition in order to collapse the government and lead to another election?

Also, that scumbag of a President can't do anything such as annul the results, right?

Glad that PD didn't make as much of a comeback as I expected. It seemed to me that M5S voters were going back to the PD, but I prefer that they remain strong (and outside of the Left coalition) to divide the (normally) PD vote and the wider Left coalition vote.

The sheer stupidity of young people in America by LGBTQIAIDS in debatealtright

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

From their perspective the only important inquiries are about trends and about themselves.

Yeah, I did notice that they seemed much more literate on trivial modern nonsense like TV show characters and celebrity figures. This comes out in his videos, since all sorts of questions about characters in modern films or TV shows, most of which I myself couldn't answer, end up being successfully answered. One man actually gets four such questions in a row correct.

One thing that was on my mind is whether or not people are actually absorbing the same (or a higher) amount of information than in the past, but that what is being absorbed is simply the banal sports, entertainment, etc. that they're being bombarded with, leaving no room for anything more important. In which case, simply removing all of this crap would force them to refocus their attention to more meaningful things, just as Man in the past did not have these interests competing with these more meaningful things. Hence why, for instance, Man seemed far more literate in times of yore, whereas any sufficiently old book—which many men could read just fine back then—seems unintelligible to many today: their vocabulary is just that dumbed down. Alternatively, perhaps they simply are objectively learning less as well, and thus depriving them of this nonsense would not make as significant an impact.

I imagine that a hypothetical regenerative ethnostate would be deprived of most of these things. It is something for its future policymakers, psychologists, &c., to investigate.

when I watch 'man on the street' styled videos I take them with a huge grain of salt.

Indeed. While we don't know how many correct responses he omits (he does share correct responses on occasion, and thus cannot be omitting all of them), there is a shred of possibility, of course, that the overwhelming number of people get them right. But if we're dealing with probability rather than possibility, I suspect that in all probability they probably are just ignorant on issues that matter, even if not quite to the extent as portrayed. After all, the content creator is clearly aiming to entertain here, even if the information he gathers does seem like material that a more serious researcher could work with insofar as these people really exist.

Spot on with the last paragraph, upon which I can't really add anything. We can see in these videos that quite a few Whites are just as clueless as the countless nonwhites that honestly look like the overwhelming majority of NYC's population, and there's not much hope that many of them will even reproduce, let alone within the race. Most, I think, are pretty much at the end of their bloodlines.

The Little Mermaid trailer is being destroyed by Ethnocrat in debatealtright

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

Best comment section since the Santa Inc. trailer. But what's great is that they haven't shut it down.

One thing that you notice is that almost all groids are in favour of it (because of their ethnocentrism) whereas all the other races are overwhelmingly against it. Most commenters seem to be nonwhite, so seeing all these Hispanics, Asians and Muslims pile in on this Afrocentric shit is hilarious. It's groids v. almost everyone else.

I've probably left a hundred comments, mostly directed at the low-IQ hateful niggers who are defending cultural appropriation of a Danish work for racial reasons.

Russian war effort collapsing? by JuliusCaesar225 in debatealtright

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

It seems that Russia is massively outnumbered on the ground.

For the past week or so I've been wondering why it is that they don't launch a new assault in the far-north, i.e. across the Belarussian border. At the moment, it looks like the Ukraine has moved all of its soldiers eastwards, whereas a new assault in the direction of Kiev would force them to move some of their forces back north.

However, since most of the areas that Russia already controls are majority-Russian demographically, I doubt that there's much support for the Zelensky regime there. Russia will thus be able to build militias similar to those in Novorossiya if given enough time. Since the Ukraine has never taken back Novorossiya, I suspect the same thing will hold true in these other areas once enough men become combat-ready. An insurgency is almost certain to be waged even if the Ukrainians regain military control.

Supposedly, Russia has been buying plenty of weapons from Iran (which exports cheap versions of American drones that have been shot down or crashed in their country) as well as North Korea. If so, they clearly weren't as well prepared as they should have been.

England is excessively cucked and really deserves its destruction by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

I'm not joining in on the anti-royal bandwagon either: all of the Leftard morons out there are ecstatic about it for all the wrong reasons.

Without the British Empire there would be literally no civilization in Australia and NZ. Just tribes of nonwhites killing and occasionally eating each other, and eating vile grubs. The Leftard dipshits have no idea how vastly Britain improved those lands: they went from Stone Age to first-world within a few centuries. The transformation was incredible.

Now look at Papua New Guinea, one of the world's worst countries. A much larger, sparser populated version of the PNG is exactly how these countries would look without the dreaded White Man, simply because Papuans are genetically very close to the natives of those countries.

Now, the royal family is literally the last thing that these countries have that connects them to Europe, and if that's severed, then these new republics will be fully part of the third-world SEA region as well as far more indigenized. A republic would be an absolute disaster for either country. They'd both elect some idiot celebrity for President, and the Constitution would be far more 'woke' than the recently proposed but rejected one in Chile. Of course, both countries have been de facto republics for decades, but a de jure republic would scrap the old constitution and put in something vastly worse.

Furthermore, the continuation of the constitutional monarchy in both countries is a massive 'Screw You' to Leftard indigenist morons. Sure, I don't care about any specific individual on the throne either (and I absolutely hate the insufferable Harry and Meaghan), but the constitutional monarchy is vastly superior to the absolutely woketarded dysfunctional cesspool that has the support of, and would be run by, all of the countries' worst inhabitants. The White politicians are already atrocious; they don't need to be replaced by petrol huffers who have it in for Ol' Whitey. We'd be better off just allowing the White politicians to be sidelined and eventually replaced within their own parties by Chinese, Indians and to a lesser extent other nonwhites (which is inevitable) than to let any indigenous body of government full of endless whinging voices be formed.

So... some borderline retarded 'indigenous' celebrity figure as Head of State rather than King Charles III? A new constitution full of queer and trans shit? A political system that has the representatives of the 'indigenous'—who probably won't even be elected or who will only be elected by the tiny 'indigenous' minority of the overall population—able to heavily condition public policy? That's a no from me, G. The constitutional monarchy is the very last bulwark against that: I don't believe in letting go of that just because there are plenty of arguments that we can make against the House of Windsor.

Imagine if we took the most woketarded 'native Americans' we could find, made them a de facto or possibly even de jure third tier of government through whom everything that goes through the Senate and House would then have to be passed. Plus we scrap the already garbage US Constitution and replace it with an even worse one full of Left-wing buzzwords that cedes all sorts of powers to that third tier. Plus we take the biggest dipshit of all of them and make xir the President. That would be akin to what these new republics would be.

“You Gentiles” is apparently so dangerous the SPLC won’t even name it. by Mr9to5 in debatealtright

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

How does 'You Gentiles' stack up compared to 'Germany Must Perish' by some zhid named 'Kaufman'?

I think both of those books should be mandatory reading in schools. There's probably no better way to raise commonsense in-group preference than simply reminding people of how much they're hated by degen scum like this.

All zhid books should be destroyed except these ones, which need to be available in ubiquity. This so that when the time comes that people feel sorry for the 'persecution' of the zhids (as always happens, thus allowing them to re-enter the places from which they were prior expelled), at least we will have these authentic zhid works with which to remind future generations of their ignorance.

Sunday Casual Thread by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

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

This thread was shared to:


Turns out we helped 'redpill' somebody.

It's almost 50 degrees Celsius in Iraq right now by Ethnocrat in debatealtright

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

I also can't figure out why it really matters. As a long-time private 'black piller' who doesn't actually think that most late-modern processes are actually reversible, and certainly not enough to sustain civilization, I couldn't give a rat's ass about what happens to an exceedingly larger population of this planet. In fact, if enough of us could safely get to other planets I wouldn't care at all: just bring enough animals that don't deserve to go extinct and things that don't deserve to be destroyed. This way, the worthy things of the Earth may be preserved whilst the greater number of unworthy things—like every last copy of that homo-negro Lil Nas X's 'music' albums; or every last video of the morbidly obese 'Ukrainian' (I honestly thought he was Hispanic for a while) homosexual Nikocado Avocado gluttonously pigging away at mounds of junk food—can be submerged, hopefully never to be found again.

My view? Get the popcorn ready and sit back. This is either one of the biggest lies in all of human history or there will be mass death and destruction unlike anything we've ever seen. Climate change, it is assumed, gives some people too much water (e.g. Indonesia, Bangladesh), or too little (e.g. Egypt).

I wonder if the global population will even reach 10,000,000,000 given how rapidly population growth seems to be slowing. After all, the birth rate declines around the world keep exceeding what they think will happen. But if it reaches 11,200,000,000 in 2100 as the UN still believe it will, and we assume that climate change is what it's drummed up to be, those numbers will plummet fast.

Based or cringe? by HeWhoGlows in debatealtright

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

They're unironically still more sane than most people of their age in an ever-growing number of countries.

Tattoos? I can't stand them, but these tattoos aren't as cringe as ones saying 'Pfizer' or 'Moderna' plus the date of being jabbed. Or a favourite brand's name or logo.

The music? I imagine a billion or more whiggers, chiggers, niggers, etc. listen to similar (c)rap 'music' around the world every day. Just another sign of the times.

Smoking? I never have. Still far more cringe things out there.

More interesting is that it is those things that are exactly what the Leftists who post videos like this on Reddit to ridicule White people would point out, even though they defend these things in almost any other context. 'Like, look at these tatted-up White supremacists smoking and listening to rap music, hahaha', says the Redditard, to a room full of 'they/thems' while Lil Nas X's latest album is playing on full volume in the background.

Indeed, I can only laugh at the notion of some Redditard trannies with My Little Pony tattoos watching this and thinking that they're in any way above these people. At least these people aren't a bunch of trannies or queers who proudly list their mental illnesses on their social media bios and pop numerous meds every day.

Just don't get involved in the war. Both sides suddenly pretend to be neutral to ethnonationalists since Ukrainian liberals or Putin's supporters don't find their respective sides worth dying for. Both sides use men animated by higher ideals as cannon fodder.

Use this time in which the Putinists have been willing to ignore you wisely, because both sides will come after you right after this war.

Donald Trump raided by the FBI. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

I think this is the moment to reflect on how Trump these past seven years has really been one of the most bizarre characters in human history. Somehow, the man seems to survive everything: among them Comey, Mueller, Strzok, Omarosa, the Russiagate conspiracy theory... and now it looks like he'll survive the 'January 6 was a planned coup' conspiracy theory even with all of these 'deep state' hacks going after him. All the while, they're so transparently avoiding the problems of crack cocaine, the whole 'incest with his niece' thing and other problems surrounding Hunter Biden; that is, someone who clearly has been up to some illegal things.

Now, you should see the reaction to his latest speech at CPAC. Trump Derangement Syndrome is coming back in full force as we near the mid-terms. Look at the absurd conclusions that some quoted idiot reaches in this article (https://web.archive.org/web/20220809060103/https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2697558734427/trump-s-108-minute-cpac-speech-is-branded-unapologetic-fascism-with-blood-and-soil-rhetoric):

He claimed that President Joe Biden “surrendered our strength and our everything” when withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan, adding that “they surrendered our dignity”.

Texas Monthly senior editor Mr Hardy tweeted that Mr Trump’s language about the withdrawal from Afghanistan echoed “the Nazi ‘stab in the back theory’ of losing WWI”.

I simply have no idea how one could arrive at the conclusion that mere criticism of Biden or even the Democrats more broadly even remotely amounts to any broad brush that the NatSocs have been accused of painting Jews with.

“The streets of our Democrat-run cities are drenched in the blood of innocent victims,” Mr Trump went on to claim. “Bullets are killing little beautiful little children who never had a chance. Carjackers lay in wait like predators.”

"This is some literal blood-and-soil rhetoric," Mr Hardy said, referring to the Nazi slogan expressing the idea that “ethnic identity is based on only blood descent and the territory in which an individual lives”, according to CNN.

Likewise, just where exactly is the reference to 'blood-and-soil' or 'ethnic identity' in the above? At very most his words might be viewed as targeting Democrats, spree shooters and 'carjackers'—none of whom are ethnic groups, and none of whom should be above criticism. And if we use that to determine who he might not be targeting: non-Democrats, non-spree shooters and non-carjackers, again we arrive at absolutely no positive affirmation of any ethnic group.

"We need the courage to say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done," Mr Trump added.

"This is a rallying cry for street violence and worse," Mr Hardy tweeted.

Again, I have no idea how that could be interpreted as even implicitly calling for violence. This Hardy moron is simply reading all sorts of things into Trump's words in order to preserve his own delusional worldview. No amount of saying 'what needs to be said' amounts to violence, and interpreting an incredibly broad 'do[ing] what needs to be done' much more narrowly as an implicit call for violence is simply paranoid nonsense.

After calling for the relocation of the homeless from large cities, calling migrants crossing the southern border an “invasion”, and listing instances of undocumented migrants committing murder, Mr Hardy tweeted that “Trump’s rhetoric is significantly more extreme than even a few years ago. This might be [the] most frightening speech I’ve ever heard. Full-on, unapologetic fascism”.

I have no idea what is 'fascistic' about opposing illegal immigration nor about drawing attention to real cases of illegal immigrants committing murders.

Here, ignorance of real problems is being promoted merely because appreciating the problem for what it is might possibly lead some closer to 'fascism'. And, well, better to remain ignorant than to even risk moving 0.01% closer towards 'fascism', right?

Next, we go back to an ad Hitlerum. Yep, Hitler lives on in these people's deranged minds, rent free. He's still giving these clowns nightmares 77 years later.

“Trump has either been reading Mein Kampf or having someone read it to him,” Mr Hardy added.

He went on to say that “this is some seriously bloodthirsty s**t”.

Mr Hardy tweeted that Mr Trump called for “new legislation allowing [the] president to remove any government employee they deem corrupt. This is a call for a total purge of government”.

Somehow, allowing the President to remove select employees means that Trump... wants to 'purge' the entire government. Again, merely jumping at absurd conclusions. Moreover, Congress would almost certainly still have the ability to veto these kinds of orders even if this power was technically bestowed upon the Executive, just as Congress can already block practically anything (including Executive Orders) that the President signs.

tl;dr: Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well, the sheer desperation to find a way to imprison Trump so that the Republicans will be forced to choose a less popular candidate has led to 'deep state' spooks literally raiding Trump's home.

Viktor Orban Delivers Speech To Texas CPAC; Praises Judeo-Christian Values by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

Pretty sure that 'Our Homeland' is the only party Rightward of Fidesz, given that Jobbik is nowadays to their Left. I'm not sure about the KDNP—it's probably a Fidesz satellite party at this point—although I suppose that in the unlikely situation that they have any autonomy left, they could threaten to withdraw support for Orban/Fidesz if he moved Leftward.

Thus I doubt Fidesz even receives any serious pressure from the Right, since all of the parties allied with Jobbik last election were explicitly liberal and/or social democratic.

When Orban was Prime Minister for a few years in the 1990s or early 2000s he was literally a pro-West libtard, exactly the same as Putin. Both men only 'changed' to what they now are as they aged.

Like practically everywhere, things are still shifting Leftward. If anything, Orban already has a total monopoly on the Right and so doesn't really benefit from throwing further bones in that direction. This is why our Hungarian analogues really needs to get behind 'Our Homeland'—only a threat from further Right can stop Orban from instead focusing on trying to increase his support among those who vote for Jobbik, M and DK (which are trying to position themselves as mainstream liberal parties) or MSZP (established mainstream Left/globalist/social democratic party), as would make the most sense to him in the absence of such a threat.

The EU's 'Handbook of Hate Memes' by LGBTQIAIDS in debatealtright

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

I think they're behind the times. Today, it's probably something like: Marchin' (or Marxist) Lootin' 'Wewuz' Kangz.

Italian government actually felt by Rakean93 in debatealtright

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

I just heard this news as well.

In brief it seems like:

Draghi has resigned, election incoming?

President Biden tests positive for Covid. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

I saw this just now over at scored.co, where so many threads are being made on it.

I think he'll be fine, just like Trump was.

That being said, I wonder what would happen if he ended up dying? The first thing that comes to my mind is that ridiculous 'Israel had Biden assassinated' conspiracy theories might start floating around.

More realistically, it also wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Kamala was to sideline Biden and finally assume the mantle of 'Madame President'. Much to Hilary's disappointment, since she wanted to be the first. I suspect many Democrats would breathe a sigh of relief if Biden was to become just another Covid statistic, since it allows for someone to replace him without the succession struggle likely to happen in the next Democrat primaries. Aiming for a second Biden-Harris term would be the surest way for them to lose, and him simply dropping dead seems the cleanest, easiest way to avoid factional infighting.

Thuletide should be more hated here than Richard Spencer by HeWhoGlows in debatealtright

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

I'm not a Telegram user, so I don't follow whoever Thuletide is.

I don't have a problem with Martinez. For example, his owning of Destiny was easily of more value than what most people are putting out. Something like 150,000 people saw that on YouTube, most of whom would have been Destiny's cult following, and Destiny hilariously removed the video from his own YouTube channel after even the idiot YouTubers agreed that Martinez won despite Destiny being far better well known.

I've never followed Spencer, but the bits of him I've seen in other videos make him seem like a total fool. In Spencer's world, the Holodomor is justified, the Russo-Ukrainian War will force the EU to be less pozzed, the EU will become a based ethnostate, etc.

Indian "comedian" from Britain celebrates "white men brought down by asians" by arainynightinskyrim in debatealtright

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

I don't think there is a turning point or mass awakening that is a natural consequence of minoritization. I do think, however, that a larger number of Whites cannot be prevented from individually 'awakening' and that there will be a lot of violence over the coming decades: there will be many more Brevik type of incidents whilst the rest of the Whites who aren't quite unaccepting enough to go down in a 'blaze of glory' wonder just what the hell they're going to do as a hated minority.

In any group of people, especially one that numbers several hundred million like the entire White/European race, only a very small percentage need to refuse marginalization and minoritization to plague the whole world with 'terrorism'. Well, that's what happens when you push people into a corner and onto 'death ground'. The other races will just have to accept routine violence throughout the 2040s, 2050s, etc. They don't really have any way of identifying 'terrorist Whites' from ones that are insufficiently opposed. Someone can get 'radicalized' over night. Everything clicked to me practically in the span of a day simply by realizing that I was the sole person of my kind in a large physical space, although admittedly I was always socially Far-Right—just not necessarily racially Far-Right, which is what clicked in that instant—as if by nature. They can only end 'White terrorism' by killing every White person. Andrew Yang's fears in that regard, of Whites refusing a peaceful transition to marginalized minority status, will all be made true.

Either way, we'll know the outcome soon enough. There's not much time before the demographic tipping point and non-whites brag about their 'majority-minority' status everywhere. They'll be very confident, emboldened and explicit about their intents by that time. Within most of our lifetimes, we'll know the outcome. The older I get, the faster that time seems to fly, so I will not be waiting for long to see shit unfold.

Given that the world will (generally, not necessarily in every place) be poorer in a few decades (it is often mentioned, for example, that the youngest crop of Americans [probably of all races] are worse off than their parents) and given that global population will also begin a gradual (and then exceedingly rapid) decline around 2060, there's no way the current state of affairs—this sort of 'managed decline'—can go on indefinitely. The species shows every sign of having reached its apex, after which must come mass decline in numbers to all races. The only question for me is whether they actually drop to zero, or only to a sustainable level, at which they might survive in a degenerate state or (least likely of the three scenarios, I think) make something of a comeback.

Whether Whites survive the coming global 'shit up' and mass chaos and destruction that I think we're already beginning to see unfold with mass protests in numerous countries like Sri Lanka and Argentina, I'm not sure. Covid/Covid response/sanctions on Russia, the things which are its proximate cause, simply aren't going away any time soon. Unless something rapidly changes with Covid and its response (basically impossible) or there is massive shift towards accepting Russia's actions (also seemingly impossible because of the extreme adherence to 'liberal democratic' ideology overriding material interests: people seem to prefer continuing adherence to this ideology even if they economically suffer as a consequence of it, albeit perhaps only within a tolerance threshold which has yet to be exceeded). It might very well be that the extreme ideology in the West ends up hamstringing any restabilization of the liberal international order which we have for decades hoped would collapse.

Either way, if Whites become extinct, whether by gradual or outright genocidal means, I frankly do not give a shit what happens to the rest of this wretched dumb fuck species. If the rest of them also go extinct immediately thereafter—for example, I believe that East Asians also have a high chance of extinction (I imagine zero purebred East Asians within the next few thousand years), and even that Africa would also be extremely underpopulated if not outright extinct if the rest of the world collapses around it—it is just payback for what they did to us. Non-whites don't have any business crying about what they're doing to us being done to themselves.

Indian "comedian" from Britain celebrates "white men brought down by asians" by arainynightinskyrim in debatealtright

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

There's definitely an asymmetry here.

The British friend-enemy distinction essentially maps onto a liberal-illiberal distinction. They simply can't identify that they're in a race war against people like Professor Ladwa and Mr. Kumar, who are open about their intent being nothing short of seizing their country.

Meanwhile, the 'British Indian' friend-enemy distinction remains highly ascriptive. 'Friends' are fellow ethnic 'minorities' who are useful 'allies'; enemies are the British people. Beliefs, values and the like simply play very little into how they determine friends from enemies.

So the race war is simply being fought by one side whilst the other seems to be almost completely incapable of understanding that there is indeed even a war to begin with. I think that the 'minorities' sense this weakness and are simply using it, quite predatorily, as an opportunity to fulfill various kinds of self-interests (we can't make a land like this, so we must take it; then we will have the 'privileges' that our European competitors [supposedly] have but which they have been 'withholding' from us, and without them in it), justified by revenge fantasies, ressentiment and the like.

I think these people will be very disappointed to find that if (more likely a matter of when) they take over, that is actually nothing that is being withheld from them, and that things will rapidly devolve into contests between the 'minority' groups themselves. It isn't going to lead to them having more resources or living the sort of playboy lifestyle—this semi-mythical lifestyle full of fun and fast cars, one that in reality very few Europeans live—that so many of them seem to desire and romanticize (especially the younger ones).

There isn't really a 'White privilege' where many Whites are living like aristocrats and monarchs and are unfairly or unjustly withholding all these goodies from the lumpens and have-nots, who just need to take from the haves. But it's exactly how they argue: the White majority parts of a city are not better than the 'minority' parts in spite of keeping 'minorities' out (i.e. the Leftist argument: the Whites withhold, keep to themselves, what is good from others), but because of it (the Whites are not keeping anything to themselves, it's just that 'minorities' have a reverse Midas touch and turn good into bad, gold into shit). Whites don't build the good and withhold it from 'minorities'; 'minorities' take the good and trash it.

But notice that the outcome ends up the same in either scenario: namely, the Whites are left with what is good and the 'minorities' are not, and that it is easy for 'minorities' to simply reinterpret the latter scenario (we have nothing good because we destroy the good) into the much more psychologically acceptable former (we have nothing good because they keep the good).

Reminder: Democratic regimes are not invincible or untouchable by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

Aren't Rajapaksa and his SLPP party effectively Sinhalese nationalists, though? Why would the Sinhalese be the ones at the head of the protests when the opposition appear to be more liberal/pluralist/minoritarian and thus generally worse for Sinhalese people?

Former Japan PM Abe Shinzo is shot, not showing vital signs. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

EDIT 15 hours later: Yamagami claimed to have a grudge against an unspecified 'religious group' to which he claimed that Abe was associated. Would be hilarious if he was referring to Jews.

It's just wishful thinking: that someone, somewhere just sent a message to the enemy by taking out one of their top men in Japan, setting off a sort of 'spark'.

Japan is Left-liberal enough that Abe probably is seen as too conservative/nationalist by the average Jap. There simply aren't enough Japs who view him as too Left or liberal, those who would see him as a 'cuckservative' or whatever, for it to be statistically likely. On the other hand, the number of people anywhere Leftward of himself, those who view him as a 'fascist', would massively outnumber the former. He'd have the whole Left gunning for him from one side, people who are probably ecstatic right now, as opposed to only a small number of genuinely Far-Right people from the other.

I'm sure we'll learn it'll be about late modern problems and processes such as social atomism/disintegration, identity crises and recognition. About feeling alien, excluded, homeless, marginalized, out of place, unsynchronized; as someone who is only Japanese in superficial ways (e.g. by citizenship) and not in any authentic way. About being the 'outsider within' and 'together alone'. About feeling a need for some kind of emancipation, liberation, a need for revenge. Yamagami is unemployed, and we don't know why he left the SDF. For all we know, it was perhaps because of bullying over non-Japaneseness. He probably read all of this into Abe and felt that killing him would be an emancipatory, liberatory, symbolic act that would put him at ease, releasing all that pent-up hate, fulfilling life's purpose, possibly even making him a martyr of sorts. He probably planned it for a long time, without knowing exactly who to lash out at. Upon hearing about Abe—somebody who personifies 'capitalism' and even 'fascism' as defined from a broad Far-Left viewpoint—campaigning somewhere near him, he probably spontaneously decided to act then and there. That's probably why he handed himself in immediately thereafter; precisely so that he'd get the death penalty, in the hope that he would be remembered by the 'oppressed' for his actions everywhere.

It won't be a Far-Right motive, such as restoring glory or honour by taking out a shameful puppet and/or traitor who symbolizes inane consumerism; 'cuckservative' politics that shut out actual Right-wingers and do little if anything at all to slow down, let alone reverse, Leftism or anything else; multilateralism/globalization rather than Japan First; and so forth.

I think it's also possible that Yamagami hated Abe because of Covid or the Covax, since he has been since reported (unconfirmed) as claiming he had no "grudge against the former Prime Minister's political beliefs". If he lost a relative either to Covid or the Covax—and Abe was indeed in power during the beginning of Covid—that could also be a non-ideological reason for being opposed to him.

Former Japan PM Abe Shinzo is shot, not showing vital signs. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

Facts known so far:

  1. A man whose name is identical as that of the shooter, Yamagami Tetsuya, was a 'maritime self-defense force member' between 2002-05. It has yet to be confirmed whether it is one and the same man.

  2. The double-barrel 'shotgun' that Yamagami used was improvised. It appears to have been constructed out of two pipes (the barrels), wood, tape, wiring and a battery pack and possibly other electrical components.

  3. Abe was shot from behind. One 'bullet' hit him in the chest, the other in the neck. Apparently, Abe is 'still not showing any vital signs' as of five hours later. Just what Abe was shot with (an actual shotgun shell or improvised ammunition) remains unknown.

  4. Yamagami has claimed to police that he was 'dissatisfied with Abe' and targeted Abe with an intention to kill, ruling out non-political motives.

  5. Yamagami is age 41 and currently unemployed.

  6. A search of Yamagami's home has revealed explosives: (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62089486)

Unverified rumours flying about:

  1. Yamagami is of Chinese or Korean extraction.

  2. Yamagami is a known JCP member.

Former Japan PM Abe Shinzo is shot, not showing vital signs. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

Abe kicked the bucket. Around four hours after the shooting.

Wow... I don't think anyone saw that coming. At least we aren't hearing 'Far-Right, Far-Right, Far-Right!' all over the media as we would if it happened to a Bush or Clinton or any other Western politician.

Anyone know the motive of the shooter?

I guess three potential motives come to mind: a Leftist who sees him as too Right (e.g. because of his performative pushing back against the pacifist parts of the constitution), a Rightist who sees him as too Left or liberal, or a simple attention seeker? After all, anyone who kills such a high ranking politician—the longest serving PM in Japanese history—especially with two shotgun shells in such an anti-gun place as Japan, will clearly have their fifteen minutes of fame.

Apparently, rumours are spreading all over Japanese social media that the shooter was ethnically Chinese or Korean despite his name.

Update 1: There are claims that the double-barrel shotgun was homemade. He also may have been ex-JSDF.

Update 2: Many reports of Chinese 'netizens' praising the attack. A still from Indian media right now: https://media.patriots.win/post/t5PncLYsBjpw.png Also many reports of anti-CCP 'netizens' who hope that Xi will meet the same fate.

Update 3: Rumours that shooter was part of the JCP (Japan Communist Party). More rumours that he wanted to stop a potential resurgence of Japan.

You should pay attention to what is going on in Chile by VacaLeitera767 in debatealtright

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

I think Chile is probably the third most European country in LatAm, behind Uruguay and Argentina? Isn't the average Chilean somewhere around 48-52% European?

Avena et al. (2012) (n = 441) states that Argentinians are now only averagely 65% European. I imagine that this percentage has trickled down further still over the past decade; firstly, because other non-European plus non-Hispanic immigrants (such as literal Africans, though I don't know of the exact nationalities) started appearing there no later than the early 1990s, and because the birth rate of the many Paraguayans and other less European immigrants from up north are higher.


As for the new constitution. It looks far worse than any constitution I've ever seen. The Western ones would be worse, but many of them are also very difficult to change without a clear legislative majority and so forth, preventing Left-liberals from simply replacing them with new documents.

That 50% women quotas are being shoved into a wide range of things at the beginning of the document tells me all I need to know. And, indeed, it's peppered with buzzwords like 'diversity' and 'discrimination' all the way through. It's not minimalistic like the U.S. Constitution, which leaves most things to the three branches of government, but is maximalistic. There's little ambiguity here: 'diversity', 'anti-discrimination' and so forth are going to be shoved down Chilean throats at full throttle.

This goes to show that not only White/European people are susceptible to this garbage. It's a highly contagious mental disease spreading globally. An unfolding process devouring everything in its path.

What exactly is the background of this document? To my understanding, in 2020, under the Right-leaning previous President, Pinera, Chileans overwhelmingly voted to change the 1980 'Pinochet Constitution'. However, it looks as though the Constitutional Convention, the body tasked with drafting the new constitution, is full of total morons (e.g. 'indigenous' activists, communists). Consequently, this draft is a bit too stupid for a slight majority of Chileans to accept according to the polls, which make it look as though it'll be at least 55% for 'Reject': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Chilean_national_plebiscite

I take it that after this vote we'll then see further polarization in Chile between the Far-Left and Left-liberal nutjobs who will feel like the rejection proves that Chile is 'fascist', etc. and the slight majority of people who aren't quite as Left-wing and who will only vote to replace the 1980 Constitution if the proposed replacement is less stupid?

As an aside, mind telling us more about the next Brazilian election?

Breaking News: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has resigned. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

I remember that he survived a leadership spill a few weeks or perhaps over a month ago.

Given that Johnson raised immigration, pursued the 'Green agenda' better than they ever could and did not one single thing in office that I could call 'conservative', it seems like a classic case of Labour and other Leftists simply being unappeasable. Indeed, many of these people are so radical and/or stupid that they still say that the Tories are 'Far-Right'.

I never understood how it is that during Theresa May's Primeministership, some 'Dissident Right' people actually thought that Johnson might actually be an improvement. In hindsight, I think he might have actually turned out worse than May, who at least on occasion said a few agreeable things.

Today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass on the street ... but if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what citizenship means.

Compare to this alleged Hitler quote:

[the] clique ... people who are at home both nowhere and everywhere, who do not have anywhere a soil on which they have grown up, but who live in Berlin today, in Brussels tomorrow, Paris the day after that, and then again in Prague or Vienna or London, and who feel at home everywhere.

Of course, the Left-liberals saw this similarity between May's criticism of the world citizen and Hitler's words above, and thus believed that May was literally Hitler.

Nietzsche is the right wing Marx by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

I don't believe that outright tech determinism has much merit. I do believe that technology advances far too quickly to the point that advances are essentially irreversible even when they need to be made. We simply don't have enough time to judge the pros and cons of any particular technology in order to rid ourselves of it if we later find that the cons outweigh the pros. Sites like OnlyFans and Tinder are examples of harmful things that grew far too quickly.

I'm marginally closer to a uses determinist position, although I don't find that particularly compelling either. For example, the Amish seem to be insulated from many contemporary problems not because technology simply exists, but because they simply avoid using it. The problem for urbanites is that we're too integrated into technology to simply quit. What happens when everyone is online banking and more and more physical branches disappear? You're just stuck with ATMs and the internet (both technologies) and have no way to avoid using them, which is where we become part of the problem.

I also believe that use of technology has a strongly degenerative effect on Man's psychology. Problems like delocalization and information overload are mounting up quickly, much like how Dutton and his followers believe that mutations are mounting up quickly in the human genepool. These problems in turn facilitate mental problems. Being bombarded with endless messages—about Covid, Monkeypox, and wars that doesn't concern the vast majority of us—obviously has all sorts of effects on us, especially relating to things such as stress, depression and anxiety, many of which we probably have absolutely zero idea about. In the past, we would have heard little or nothing of any of these things. Furthermore, Covid would have had a very hard time surviving in a detechnologized, unshrunken world, so we wouldn't even need to hear of it in most places. We were simply psychologically healthier, more stress-free, before the shrunken world came to be.

I imagine that people living in parallel detechnologized communities—as I imagine the 'Far-Right' will eventually feel is necessary to do—will largely be insulated from the effects of technology. As long as they don't give up advances in weapons, I don't think that it really matters if the wider society remain technologized: whether the pozzed mixed masses still have smartphones, Tinder, OnlyFans, etc. or not wouldn't have much bearing on their ability to 'shut it down'.

The developing perception of the US, thanks to a cruel minority by [deleted] in politics

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

You aren't civilized, though. You're more stupid and less civilized even than the average primitive caveman. You just happen to have access to technology. That's about where the differences end.

You don't even know what a woman is. You talk about 'birthing people' and 'wombed people' without requiring definition, but 'woman' needs to be defined by a biologist. So shut the fuck up about 'women's rights'. There is no such thing as a 'woman' in the current year, 2022 AD, after '100 years of work'.

You talk about 'coups' and 'insurrections' while your fellow extreme ideologists are attempting the same thing all across the country right now, storming government buildings, even going as far as to call for the deaths of the six justices and the destruction of their homes.

Lastly, there are no such thing as 'rights'. Stop invoking imaginary nonsense to attempt undergirding your rationalizations for whichever dysgenic, degenerate thing that comes up.

You think the average caveman didn't know what a woman was? Nah. That's just for braindead fools like you and the other Redditards. Fuck off back to Reddit, tough guy, where you can fantasize about killing Tucker Carlson and the six new names you've added to your long, ever-growing list of people you want dead: Elon Musk, the whole Trump family, Vladimir Putin, and so on. You're a pathetic tinpot revolutionary wannabee; you're no Rambo. You'd be dead long before you got anywhere near any of those people. Not that you're man enough to even try, constantly ban evading, unwanted, mental case little shit.

The US Supreme court has overturned Roe vs Wade - Thoughts? by Nasser in debatealtright

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

I think it's a great outcome. I'm hoping that this will finally bring out the kind of protests that I hoped the leak would bring out 1-2 months ago. I want the Far-Left RCP, PSL out there rioting; I want NARAL, which purports to have 2.5 million members, out there as well. I want abortionists to feel like they're in the Fourth Reich or Gilead they always think their surroundings are always on the edge of becoming. I want them anxious, depressed and drug-addled all day long. I want the pigs and these untermensch scum to clash non-stop. I want these subhuman shit-suckers to wail all day about how guns (wrongly) have more rights than they do and how America 'hates women'. Have you ever seen women being crushed by a steamroller like I've seen guns?

And, first and foremost, I want the masses to be convinced that the United States needs to split up.

I can't really figure out why someone would oppose it - unless they just hate abeeds more than they love Whites.

Some of the reasoning here also seems senseless. If the whole point of ending RvW was just to increase the number of abeeds and put an end to a supposedly eugenic measure... don't you think that RvW would have been ended a long time ago? It seems like many people here think that America was literally still practicing eugenics up until today?

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the sheer ocean of soy-filled tears being cried out onto comment sections, and most of these comments are remarkably predictable as though created from a bot network or hive mind:

Handmaid's Tale, etc.

The handmaids tale gets closer to reality every single day.

The USA is becoming Gilead

Welcome to Gilead.

It turns out the Handmaids Tale is actually a documentary about current day USA.

One step closer to The Handmaids Tale becoming reality. What a backwards country they are.

The USA is becoming more like the "Handmaid's Tale" every day.

Muh 'guns have more rights than women' nonsense and other false equivalencies:

Yet you can buy an assault rifle to shoot school children.

America has now deemed a vagina more dangerous than a gun.

What is the difference between a gun and a woman in America? A gun has more rights.

Need to change their national anthem. Home of the brave and land of the free? Guns have more rights in the USA than actual women.

Guns have more rights than woman Disgusted

Land of the free but only if youre a man or a gun.

Horrific. Vile country where guns are more important than women.

The land of the free. Just not for women. Controlled by men and other people once again. A slap in the face for woman and girls. Shameful.

American men make all the rules. Love their guns, hate their women.

Wait... 'their women'? Isn't that sexist?

'Just In Case' (worst case scenario) fallacies, as though rapes and deformities are some kind of major occurrence. Furthermore, these same fucking worthless scum wouldn't dare support using abortion to rid humanity of the 00.01% intersex population, who could actually be feasibly eliminated before birth and thus rid us of a great deal of the argument for transsexualism:

Whether you agree with general abortion or not, is it fair to condemn a family to a life of looking after a severely deformed child that can never live a normal life of their own?

So a thirteen year old girl , who has been forced against her will, has to suffer giving birth, and then has to have the child adopted, due to her age, and who the father is, is obscene. There should always be special circumstances.

Pure nihilism and miscellaneous braindead comments:

If youre against abortion, dont get one. If youre against contraception, dont take any. If youre against same-sex relationships, dont have one. If youre against same-sex marriage, dont marry someone of same gender. Do not impose your beliefs & religion on all Americans.

It is for the woman alone to make the decision whether she has an abortion or not and her circumstances Not a supreme court what a load of idiots

Notice that none of these semi-literate morons would dare use this lame argument for guns, though? If you're against guns, just 'don't get one'?

This is nuts to be honest! The government should never dictate what anyone does with their own bodies!

Yeah, sure. Does the word 'vaccine' ring a bell?

Pity the ultra right don't worry about the rights of the child once born. The right to not be poor, the right to decent education the right to not have to worry out being shot at school. The right not have to rely on food stamps and not go hungry

None of these things are 'rights', ya' retarded nonce. Where in the world does anyone believe that people have a 'right' to anything beyond basic assembly, speech, etc.? Some Marxist cesspool that nobody wants to live in?

Basically, semi-literate, unintelligent morons are out in droves crying all over the internet today. And they're all on one side, which reminds me every single time of why it is right to be on the other.

Morality and the pragmatic approach to statesmanship by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

As I have had more time to reflect on our last few replies to each other, and regarding your last paragraph as the next step in this discussion, let us continue for a short time longer in the hope that you can convince me of the merits of Platonism or Aristotelianism or Evolianism or whichever philosophical school it is that you appear to adhere to, one which is evidently not Cartesianism.

Where we last ended was on the soul: I was arguing against 'popular dualism' (to which Cartesian dualism is greatly similar, particularly in its interactionism) whereas you perceived my comment as attacking some other kind of dualism, presumably either Platonism or Aristotelianism, neither of which I have more than a cursory understanding of.

To my memory, Plato's typology was that the soul is composed of desire, reason and thumos. Aristotle rejected this in favour of another typology in which the soul is composed of nutritive soul-part (shared by all living things), a locomotive soul-part (shared by animals including men) and a rational soul-part (which sets Man apart from animal). Aristotle seemed to reduce desire from a single soul-part to three categories of desire which are located in at least two of three soul-parts. Epithumia, he locates in the locomotive; boulesis, he locates in the rational. Thumos, having also been reduced from soul-part to a mere third category of desire, appears to be reduced to a mere 'phantasia'.

I welcome any correction that you might make to what is probably a paragraph which could use great improvement, and is simply the product of my memory combined with a few notes I took from several decent papers on the topic of thumos, and then condensed. I write this in the hope that we are this time on the same page concerning these Socratic conceptions of the soul.

In Traditional civilisations, the soul was not at all abstract but had very concrete features. I also rejected the claim that moral and spiritual qualities are unverifiable, which I consider completely self-evident and see no need in proving.

This jumps out to me as the thing which seems to me most obviously disagreeable, and it is on here that I will focus. Last time, you dismissed what I know as the 'Cartesian mind' (which for Descartes I believe is numerically identical with the soul) and seemed to agree that—perhaps because of how minimalistic Descartes' claims are concerning the nature of this soul—that it is indeed the gateway towards egalitarianism that I accuse it of being. My argument was that because there are few properties of this soul—among them nonspatiality, that it is a reasoning thing, that it is created by God, that it exists both prenatally and posthumously, that it is irreducible to body or brain, that it has a two-way causal relation with the body (interactionism)—and that these things are essentially either 'Yes' or 'No' and not 'Better' or 'Worse', we have no grounds on which to assert the superiority or inferiority of persons. For if all people indeed a possess a soul that possesses these qualities, and the worth of a person is judged predominantly if not solely on this soul, then all that we can do is say that all persons are effectively equal because each soul possesses these exact same properties to no greater nor lesser extent than any other. This is obviously to me a conclusion which must be avoided, hence what I described as a physicalist drift away from dualism. However, you have argued for some other kind of dualism rather than moved in the physicalist direction.

Now, the Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of the soul, to me, whilst undoubtedly less minimalistic than their Cartesian counterpart, suffer from much the same problem. For whilst we eschew the Cartesian mind's properties, all that we have to replace them with are soul-parts which, though unlike the Cartesian properties in that boulesis, epithumia, and thumos likely differ in each person, still cannot be measured in any obvious way to determine who is superior and who is not.

Now we might say at this point that thumos is something that is measurable. And we might say that those with high thumos can be identified because they have high 'intrinsic motivation', high self-esteem and certain other observable relational properties (a la Donald Trump or Elon Musk); whereas someone with low thumos is essentially a 'Last Man' who seeks to achieve little if anything at all in life. But such an observation could be attributed just as easily to a psychological concept (such as the aforementioned 'intrinsic motivation', something which may at some point be found to have a neuroscientific explanation if we have faith in the claims of modern 'eliminativist' philosophers like Churchland) or even to the influence of what we know as sociological concepts, such as the Japanese ikigai or Protestant work ethic, upon individuals. So much of what has been philosophized can be psychologized, sociologized or otherwise scientized. Freud, for example, has been recorded as once remarking that he was essentially psychologizing Schopenhauerian philosophy: that is, that certain key claims of Schopenhauer matched his more 'scientific' (keeping in mind that I view psychoanalysis as pseudoscientific, although still more scientific than philosophy) findings.

I must wonder just who possessing of a scientific mind would accept something such as either of these tripartite conceptions of the soul? For how am I to verify just which man's typology, if either, is indeed correct? Why should I accept Plato over Aristotle or vice versa? And if every valuable insight from philosophy such as thumos—which for me are (usually) those which are later scientized once scientific advancement reaches a level at which such ideas can be put to test—can be reached through scientific means, will not science erode the value of philosophy as it proves that of it which is provable, leaving only that which cannot be?

All that I have said of the Cartesian mind also holds true of the Christian soul, as Caspar has observed. How can we have an actually 'inegalitarian dualism' that is more useful for a new social order than a more NatSoc-like physicalism that can easier attribute human worth to the body and gene? Christianity (and Cartesianism, were it not repressed and largely wiped out by the mid-eighteenth century) must surely lead to egalitarianism precisely because the alleged content or properties of the soul plain and simply encourage it. Hence the common claim in these quarters, that contemporary Left-liberalism is some kind of mutant bastard child of Christianity that simply took this underlying egalitarianism and then cut out God, original sin (except for White people) and a few other things, thus leading to the conclusion that a dualist creed—not a physicalist one—led us to where we are today.

A Literal Bot Subreddit by LGBTQIAIDS in debatealtright

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

It seems to do a better job on r/movies than it does on the other subs.

As someone who hasn't watched a film in years, it is difficult to verify how accurate their descriptions are. Nevertheless, the description of the 'Star Wars trilogy' was obviously total gibberish to anyone (and likely only anyone) who is versed in the series.

But what I have emphasized is the problem. Without knowing how those Star Wars movies actually go, it is impossible to know that the basic plot outlined by the OP bot is in fact complete nonsense. The overarching story of the trilogy has nothing to do with a human boy who believes that his family are robots only to later determine that they are in fact humans (swap 'robots' and 'humans' around and there is indeed the nucleus of a modern science-fiction story, albeit an unimaginative one, but it isn't that of Star Wars).

But without knowing how the trilogy actually went, there is no way that I could determine that that synopsis is false. Someone who searches 'Star Wars' from a position of ignorance, only to find that thread, might very well be duped by it.

A Literal Bot Subreddit by LGBTQIAIDS in debatealtright

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

Imagine a world in which that post isn't just regarded merely as some gibberish, but as an objective truth.

Perhaps those who defend him, in such a scenario, will themselves be the ones accused of being 'the real bots'.

That's probably how it'll end up between the future humans on the internet.

Online conversations between human users, many aware of the ubiquity of bots but unable to differentiate them from other human users, may well end up resembling something like:

'You're the real bots!'

'No, you're the real bots!'

'No, I'm not a bot. You're the real bots!'

I think we can actually already see this beginning to happen with the 'Russian/Putin shill' thing. Plenty of conversations already play out like the above, but with terms like 'Russian shill' in place of 'bot'. In both there is a common theme that is not shared with other common things such as the "You're the real racist!" spiel; namely, that the person on the other end is in some way fake.

One thing that reminds me of all this is the long-running 'Postmodern Generator'. At first glance, what it produces might seem to be coherent, but it is actually—and quite obviously upon closer inspection—complete nonsense. The purpose of it was to ridicule academicese, but it is easy to see how people just starting out in continental philosophy might mistake some of this nonsense as academically rigorous work:


I can imagine an undergraduate student reading the following, and believing that it is indeed as believable as anything he has read from a book or journal:

“Sexuality is part of the collapse of culture,” says Lacan; however, according to Werther, it is not so much sexuality that is part of the collapse of culture, but rather the absurdity of sexuality. In a sense, von Ludwig holds that we have to choose between Derridaist reading and textual dematerialism. If the precultural paradigm of reality holds, the works of Tarantino are postmodern.

It is, of course, random gibberish. But with a bit of alteration, it would not look out of place in the works of some postmodernist author.

DAR on the arete.network site is now established by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

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

Don't forget to click the star next to the 'board' (Arete equivalent of Subreddit, Subsaidit, Community), since it appears that you aren't automatically subscribed to any 'board' that you create.

One good thing is that we're actually visible on the default webpage sidebar as a 'new board'.

Another good thing is that if we manage to get enough 'users' to be in the 'top boards', we'd be listed again further up the sidebar. Currently, we'd need 28 users to enter that leaderboard.

I can see users like 'JosephGoebbels' (banned from Ruqqus, was one of the NS guild mods, was on Voat under a different name) and 'Glowmonk33' (the same guy as u/iubub who posted here about being banned from Reddit for his 3k member 'dieversity' subreddit) there.

Also 'EJGeneric' is a .win 'ParallelSociety' mod.

EDIT: 6 users. 22 more needed to get into the 'Top Boards'.

communities.win/c/DebateAltRight is now established by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

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

Might be a good idea to create a DAR type 'board' on https://arete.network as another backup of sorts.

It seems that anyone can create a board with a new account, so I'd suggest just making it before someone steals the name. I haven't had a good look at this site's functionality, but people on .win are also starting to build their communities there.

Thus I can see 'ConsumeProduct' as the top board with 158 users. 'NationalSocialism' in second place with 71 users. Like they say, the early bird gets the worm, and it looks rather Saidit and .win like to me.

What is your response to this "white" redditors comments about White Replacement by Nasser in debatealtright

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

We just need people to be talking about it, because discussion is the first step that the problem is being acknowledged to even begin with. Just how can a problem even begin to be solved if it is constantly subject to what is known as 'non-decision making'? Prevented from even becoming acknowledged as an issue by those who hold power. Hidden, downplayed, made taboo. Acknowledgement is the first step towards resolution.

This is the main reason I felt that Zemmour was more good than harmful. He simply got people talking about mass immigration to begin with.

And what does this talking do? It forces people to take sides. It forces Whites to be pro- or anti, and makes worthless fucktards like whoever the OP quoted show their true colours. It encourages nonwhites who have antagonistic views to become more vocal and paranoid. There doesn't seem to be any downside whatsoever to the acknowledgement and discussion of the issue.

Let it become a wedge issue in the same way as Roe v. Wade. The more such issues appear the more divided publics become. And there is no such thing as 'too divided' in the current year.

Finally, you can't rebuild the asabiyyah, thumos, etc. of individuals. Nobody seriously argues that allowing endangered species to go extinct is fine even if the members of those species are not the best at any particular thing.

If this asshole needs some kind of proof that there is an instrumental value in keeping any particular group alive, then he is anti-survival for everyone. 'We're not best at this, we're not best at that, we're not best at the other'. Yeah? Well who is? I could just as easily say that groids don't need to be preserved as a race because they sure as hell aren't the smartest or richest, and win fuck all in the way of medals in the Olympics despite being what that guy has in mind when he writes 'best athletes'.

Using his reasoning, why should I give a shit if they go extinct? I also can't think of one single positive thing that Latinos or MENAs are supposed to be the best at, so I guess they should all be wiped out as well. He, of course, won't extend this reasoning that far, because he'd be a racist/Nazi, etc.

How does he even rationalize his own existence? I doubt that he and his family have achieved anything of note, so why would it matter to me if they were all gunned down in the next mass shooting? Apparently people need to be 'superior' to be worth saving, and 'superior' is a club that this fucktard and his family ain't in.

Morality and the pragmatic approach to statesmanship by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

B. Natural law: There are certain patterns that repeat in history. Societies that abandon values like patriarchy, asabiya, nationalism, religiosity, worship of ancestors, martial values, eugenics, [and] modesty decline and collapse. Those that abide by them flourish. You gauge from this that it is God's will that these values be adhered to. This is how the universe is designed and you must abide by these principles. It is the right order of things.

I've had this on my mind on and off these past few days, since I've been thinking again about just why societies apex and then degenerate in a somewhat circular fashion.

'Patriarchy': I think this one is practically a necessity. As soon as a society has something resembling equality between the sexes, birth rates seem to plummet. Whatever the higher powers are, they clearly favour 'patriarchy'.

Asabiyyah: This one has been the one most on my mind lately. Asabiyyah in the Khaldunian sense (probably best translated as ethnic/racial/tribal solidarity) is obviously practically non-existent in an ever-growing part of the world. Furthermore, Khaldun makes it clear that people with more asabiyyah tend to conquer those with less. Thus we see that powers with more asabiyyah like China and Russia are viewed as threats to places with weaker asabiyyah like Taiwan and the Ukraine.

Nationalism: I'd probably subsume this into asabiyyah, which is surely a prerequisite for both tribalism and nationalism. Also, ethnonationalism is probably subsumable to a tribalism writ large.

Religiosity: The first thing that comes to my mind is the way that religiosity can actually serve Left-liberalism through the proliferation of a 'progressive Christianity', one that is clearly the product of the dominant Left-liberal ideology's warping of Christianity. For example, that propagated by this inbred- and retarded-looking queer nutcase from the 'Chosen Family Church' https://www.tiktok.com/@revjefftheartist

For who God is non-binary, queer and autistic. However, his arguments for the first two effectively claim that any non-living object is non-binary and queer, and are some of the most stupid I've yet heard: https://youtu.be/eXjNvvkstuA


God does not have gender, so, by definition, God is non-binary.

The vast majority of objects in the world do 'not have gender'. By this same reasoning, footballs are also non-binary.


God is not explicitly sexual; and since asexuality is part of the LGBTQ spectrum, we can say that God is queer.

Here he effectively makes the same stupid argument as above. The vast majority of objects in the world are 'not explicitly sexual'. By this same reasoning, footballs are also asexual and thus queer.

There is obviously some kind of logical fallacy in his argument, but I don't know the precise name of it. The lack of some human property (gender or sexuality) simply can't be ascribed to non-humans to infer the presence of their opposites, or else practically everything is agendered, asexual, non-binary, queer and transgendered (because non-binary is apparently regarded as a subset of transgender, and since something can't be both agendered and transgendered, we run into yet another obvious problem with these arguments).

This kind of religiosity, I imagine, is unlikely to even remotely delay any kind of civilizational decline. So we are really looking at something like conservative religiosity rather than mere religiosity per se.

Ancestor worship is a pretty obvious one, since it perfectly complements ethnonationalism: one's ancestors are obviously by and large people of one's race.

Buffalo Central by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

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

One nuisance about .win is that there appears to be a limit on the number of communities one can subscribe to. So I'm mostly just using Trending > New, even though I'm probably missing a whole heap of good content on smaller subs.

I find myself commenting a lot on KotakuInAction2. I think KotakuInAction originated as an anti-pozz gamer sub, but it's pretty much in the same vein as the ones you mentioned these days (ridiculing trannies, ridiculing idiots who think that overturning Roe v. Wade literally means that America is back in the 'Dark Ages', 'hates women', or has become Gilead). I read somewhere that a full quarter of Americans believe that overturning Roe v. Wade means a nationwide abortion ban, so these ignorant retards abound.

KotakuInAction2 came about because the original KotakuInAction tried to stop the original subreddit from moving Rightward, which caused a split between the more and less 'based' Redditors.

Zionist shabbos goy Putin fires missiles at Israeli jets in Syria by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

Yes, exactly. I suppose it's possible that things developed too quickly for them to decide to simply disobey orders and move westward, forcing the regular army to be cannon fodder instead, in which case I don't think Zelensky could have done anything about it. He had to commit everything to the north and the east.

Either way, it seems to me that, as you say, the libtard regime saw putting them on the frontlines as hitting two birds with one stone. Have two enemies, Ukrainian ethnonationalists and Russian soldiers, kill each other, so that less Ukrainian libtard degens would die. The latter being Zelensky's voter base and the sort of 'ideal Ukrainian' according to Americans and the EU.

Hence my last paragraph: the next generation of Ukrainians will be even more soy-fuelled and degenerate simply because a whole heap of the least screwed up men in that country were among the first to be killed off. Dysgenics by war.

Zionist shabbos goy Putin fires missiles at Israeli jets in Syria by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

You might know even more than I do. I didn't know he identified as Christian.

I didn't know he was a sociology Professor either. I assumed that his 'Ethnosociology' had nothing to do with sociology in the sense of the social science practiced in the academe, but he must have understood sociology, the social science, well enough to have became a Professor.

All I can think of is that his 'Fourth Political Theory' is practically another form of third-positionism or 'third political theory', and that he supposedly admitted that.

That he claimed that being Russian was solely to do with 'spirit' (in practice, simply ideas) and not gene/race/ancestry.

That he supposedly believes in something called 'chaos theory', meaning that he wants to support all kinds of people with mutually contradicting interests so that they may destroy each other. That makes him sound like some sort of cartoon villain to the point that I have trouble accepting that one. I think it relates to the similarly strange idea of him being a secret Satanist.

Like you, I fail to see how this guy is Putin's brain or the 'real leader' of the 'global Far-Right' or whatever the hell else the Western media accuses him of being. He seems like an obvious bogeyman, blown out of proportion to be a kind of Bond villain and evil mastermind. More of a bogeyman even than David Duke.

Zionist shabbos goy Putin fires missiles at Israeli jets in Syria by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

That's interesting.

Frodi: The only Odysee channel I know that belongs to Frodi is https://odysee.com/@gtk:4 It looks to me like he hasn't made any video on that topic specifically, so that slipped under my radar.

The Golden One: His view seems to be that Ukraine is indeed better than Russia, but also that Russia is better than NATO. https://odysee.com/@thegoldenone:a/RussiaukraineOdysee:4

Spencer and his fags: His only Odysee presence seems to be the Radix account. I'm not watching this full hour conversational livestream https://odysee.com/@radix:c/Ukraine-3-20-22:b but a brief perusal of the comments section leads me to believe that the views expressed by both Dutton and Spencer within are clearly pro-Ukraine. Thus the top comment is:

It's time to purge the right of duginism enjoyers, lads. You'll thank me later.

Whereas a comment that I find more agreeable receives 31 flames (upvotes) but as many as 15 slimes (downvotes). That isn't to say that I wouldn't be sympathetic to the above comment, only that I can't really think of any serious Duginists out there that need to be 'purged' to begin with. 'Duginist' has become something of an attack term.

I 100% support Putin and Russia and I am right wing. Sorry Putin has the right to protect his own borders and people, Ukraine is being used by the ever murdering NATO who does anything but keep peace. To me if you support Ukraine you support NWO.

Johnson: There's far too many uploads on the Counter-Currents channel for me to find specific proof, but I'll take your word for it https://odysee.com/@countercurrents:6

Thuletide doesn't appear to have an Odysee account, if he even is a video content creator at all (I think that's a Telegram channel, but I don't use Telegram to be able to follow him).

ApollonianGerm: Looks like you're correct on that as well. I'm not watching a 24 minute video, https://odysee.com/@ApollonianGerm:a/beyond-russia-v.-ukraine-and-an:e but the YouTube comment section also strongly suggests that he's taken a pro-Ukraine stance.

Every time I hear someone taking sides and believing in "Putin the saviour" I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. You are one of the few who doesn't fall for it, Apollonian.

While this comment doesn't seem to literally take sides per se, it can be easily construed as problematizing the pro-Putin people. The 36 upvotes and no hostile replies suggest that the Germ's viewers provide like-minded company.

A piece of an Odysee comment also might provide something of an insight:

It seems like atleast 90% of the right has been completely subverted by putin/duginism. I keep trying to convince people about this but nobody wants to hear it and just indulge in their putin personality cult despite the facts I put forth.

The way that I'm understanding the above is that anyone Russia-leaning or pro-Russia must be 'subverted' and Duginist, even if they, like me, know nothing about Dugin and Duginism. Only by bending the definition of Duginism in such a liberal way could one seriously claim that '90%' are Duginists.

The only two I was aware of were Martinez and an obscure video creator who went by the name of 'DR Tankie' on BitChute and now goes by the name of 'KievanRus' on Odysee. The latter was probably close to a genuine NazBol position before becoming more WN to the point that he's pro-Ukraine, much unlike actual tankies.

I guess that brings us to a total of nine Ukraine-leaning or pro-Ukraine DR figures (I'm splitting 'Spencer and his fags' into Spencer and Dutton here).

Zionist shabbos goy Putin fires missiles at Israeli jets in Syria by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

I see the exact opposite on Odysee. There I'm subscribed to practically every DR content creator. I use the 'Subscribed' list to skim the video titles to have some idea of what is going on in a matter of seconds, usually without watching any. There are far too many uploads to watch all of them even if I wanted to.

From this method and from watching the odd video, I can only think of two channels that have clearly taken the pro-Ukraine side. Even David Duke is pro-Russia (and pro-China). Can you list more of the pro-Ukraine DR people?

Zionist shabbos goy Putin fires missiles at Israeli jets in Syria by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

Azov got played so badly. If they had any sense, they would have went to the far-west of Ukraine and let the regular army fight it out. Zelensky wouldn't be able to declare war on Azov because of the larger Russian threat, and if Russia made sufficient gains, they'd be able to coup Zelensky and then take on Russia and become the true heroes as the last men standing, even if they eventually lost. Leaving aside the fact that the West would probably prefer a Russian-dominated Ukraine than a nationalist one and thus would give nothing to an Azov-dominated government.

Instead, they did the exact opposite, running headfirst into battle and senselessly getting destroyed for globohomo. All so that more libtard Ukrainians can survive the war and act like they were the ones who resisted Russia right after they write Azov's whole existence out of the history books. Since I suspect that the attacks on Kiev were merely diversionary and that Russia is only interested in seizing the east while trying to convince the regime that they were really going for the capital, the libtard Zelensky regime will indeed be able to claim that they are the true heroes who stalled a Russian advance, one that was never actually intended to begin with.

Of course, they were probably never really that smart. A bunch of nationalists effectively becoming a unit in any regular libtard army should have known damn well that they would be the first to be put on the frontlines. And they accepted that avoidable fate just to fulfill some sort of thumotic desire.

A lot of the least faggy men left in the Ukraine having gone down in a 'blaze of glory' just so that they can be written out of history. Great way to help the world become even more retarded.

Media attacks "replacement theory" in full force by arainynightinskyrim in debatealtright

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

Intriguing also is the possibility of the rather unusual 'Gendron' being a Jewish surname: (see the graphic posted at https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/15HvBndh5M/x/c )

Here, I've only ever heard people label Carlson a cuck because of his incomplete conception of the motives behind mass immigration.

Carlson's understanding is simply that the Democrats push mass immigration because it will hand them a victory in all Federal (and many southern state) elections. And while that generally seems to be true, it's clearly incomplete. At most, that's surely just the icing on the cake for the Democrats.

It explains not why Republicans also push mass immigration, even when it clearly benefits Democrats at least insofar as elections are concerned.

Nor does it explain why so many people see it as bad and yet believe that it is good that it is bad. That some sort of just desserts or well-deserved punishment is coming for America as a nation-state and/or the whole European race.

Chalking it down to a long-term Democratic election strategy is simply too narrow an analysis. At the very least, the Republican, 'Right-wing' version and the explicitly anti-White version ('It is indeed bad, but it is good that it is bad, because what is bad for you is good because you are bad') simply aren't accounted for through this simplistic lens.

So I am not exactly sure what the OP means in Tucker 'talking about ethnic replacement'. To my understanding, Tucker has only ever been aware of one of the (at the very least) three components (pathological altruism probably constitutes something of a fourth) of support for mass immigration. That is, that he has talked about importing a new straight-D voting electorate to replace less reliable ones. But 'American' is not reducible to 'American voter'; there is surely more to this than a mere Democrat power-play.

Of course, even coming close to the reality of the matter would be enough to generate a backlash. But surely Tucker could then just respond that he rejects everything about The Great Replacement except the idea of it as election strategy and powerplay? Which wouldn't even be a lie.

Next, some have indeed noticed also that the 'manifesto' could be construed as serving some sort of function. For at least two reasons. Firstly, a whole list of websites are listed as having inspired him. Naturally, having a 'terrorist' promote a website is perfect for getting it taken down. Second, because he meticulously lists everything that he obtained, which is again perfect for getting all sorts of things banned.

Buffalo Central by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

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

Has anyone heard that at practically the same time some 16-year old groid was gunned down by police in Chicago, inciting riots there?

And that another groid killed several Asians in Texas in a similar shooting?

Buffalo Central by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

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

It's easy to see how it's more active. I received 40 upvotes on one comment there, which is practically unseen on any subsaidit. https://communities.win/p/15Hv2JScv0/x/c/4OYXDXQc4w7

Hopefully we can make .win the primary place and leave Saidit as the backup. Let the libertarians, Gender Critical TERFs, and the 'transphobic' queers at LGBTdroptheT duke it out over this place. All that the latter seem to say is that trans 'erase' queers, as though one group of degens 'erasing' other degen groups really matters.

Literally none of those retarded, degenerate communities can be found on .win, which is refreshing.

How is going the Russian debate in your country? by Rakean93 in debatealtright

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

I don't watch the retard box either, so I'm going by what the internet says.

The only vaguely 'Right-wing' media channel here are totally philosemitic, pro-Zelensky losers who are siding with dumbocrazy and liberalism against 'fascism'. 'Putin is a fascTypical example of pseudo-Rightists shooting themselves in the foot by conceding that the Left-wing narrative is essentially 'correct'. It would be 100% pro-Jewkraine here as far as media go.

Other than that, it seems to have died off thankfully and already. People would be 100% pro-Ukraine if forced to make a choice but they just don't care enough about it to make it a campaign issue. I don't think they really care about it enough to want to send weapons or anything, though the government is still doing so. I'm not sure if Covid is beginning to fill the void again. However, most of the small parties are essentially libertarians, mostly just taking the 'muh freedumb' stance and making campaigning about all things Covid and downplaying everything else.

There's a lot of negative campaigning going on with these small parties attacking all of the major ones rather than aligning themselves with one against another, and people seem to understand slightly more that the major parties need to go (but nothing will change, because the mainstream Left party looks as though it will win a slight majority without even needing to enter a coalition). And while I don't like these small government libertarians either, they're obviously better than the 'progressive' lunatics that dominate the system; actually, almost anyone is and one can't really be picky about who replaces them. Anyone anti-mandatory Covid response (anti-mask-mandate, anti-vax-mandate, whatever) and anti-woke is still a clear improvement. The icing on the cake is that they make the mainstream voters furious because they're always erroneously framed as 'Far-Right' in the mainstream. That for me is a clear benefit in itself.

Actual 'Far-Right' parties don't exist here (and would probably be denied registration to run in elections even if they hypothetically received enough support). There's a whole bunch of new anti-Right laws lately. Recently, they've been going nuts about trying to ban the swastika, which is complicated by the fact that there are plenty of non-Nazi swastikas around and that the average dipshit probably can't even tell the difference between them. I guess they'll just reason that 'White person + swastika = bad' and ignore it if a bunch of 'diversity' is around.

Abortionist Riot Thread by LGBTQIAIDS in debatealtright

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

Update 3:

8. 2022-05-07, Basilica of Old St. Patrick, New York

YouTube: https://youtu.be/pYxblNdcXc0

The first part of this is the most comical video to come out of this yet. Black woman causing a total scene. Begins destroying White baby dolls, which quite likely is symbolic. The religious folks' response is barely any less comical, resorting to praying in a line blocking the entrance. Quite emblematic of why the American pseudo-Right always lose and America spirals further and further Left: the enemy riots while a whole chunk of them... well... they pray.

2:49: 'America: Where Guns Have More Rights Than I Do'

3:11: 'Protect Abortion Patients & Providers'

4:43: Another chant which seems to be a variation on one I've heard earlier: 'Fuck the Church and legislators; we are not your incubators'.

4:48: Another chant: 'This Church harasses patients'. This can be viewed through the lens of medicalization, where numerous social problems such as abortion and the opioid epidemic are reframed as medical ones. Abortion is thus a mere medical procedure in the same vein as getting a root canal, exactly as in the Reddit comment that someone else posted on this thread. The subsequent chant: 'Abortion is healthcare; healthcare is a right' also fits right in here.

5:37: The sign 'Antis Fuck Off! (And Cops)' comes clearly into view. I imagine that 'antis' denote anti-abortionists.

9. 2022-05-07, Chevy Chase, Maryland

Some assorted rabble are now protesting outside the homes of both Supreme Court Justice Roberts (who doesn't even support overturning RvW) and Justice Kavanaugh.

0:31: The 'Abortion Is Healthcare Healthcare Is A Right' slogan appears in the exact same form as it did it the previous NY video. They aren't even creative enough to switch their slogans up a bit.

3:29: Sign: 'Bodily Autonomy Is A Human Right'

Well, except when it comes down to vaccines.

5:18: Chant: 'The Whole World Is Watching'

So what? America has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Just because you think that abortion is normal doesn't mean that 'the whole world' thinks it is.

7:10: Chant: 'Codify Roe'

7:53: Chant: 'Abortion Rights Are Human Rights'

8:35: Chant: 'Pro-Life Is A Lie, You Don't Care If People Die'

Are calls to violence allowed on saidit? by Blackbrownfreestuff in debatealtright

[–]LGBTQIAIDS 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Also what say ye, u/socks-the-nigger?

Are calls to violence allowed on saidit? by Blackbrownfreestuff in debatealtright

[–]LGBTQIAIDS 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

'socks' is finally banned.

Now that is the best news I've heard today.

Advocating violence is not allowed on saidit, and you know that. Your account has been banned for doing it numerous times over the last few months.

Abortionist Riot Thread by LGBTQIAIDS in debatealtright

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

Update 2:

6. 2022-05-03, The State Hotel, 1501 2nd Ave, Seattle, WA

YouTube: https://youtu.be/M1fsI8DDcEw

Hilarity ensues when two losers make a failed attempt to take a pro-life sign.

1:20: One loser then takes another sign and hits a pro-life woman with it. The first loser then picks up the sign and breaks it at 1:36. One woman appears to either want to get back at that loser or take the sign back, only for both losers to push her over.

7. 2022-05-05, Austin, TX

YouTube: https://youtu.be/bsyZV2D2_jE

A woman who tries to interfere with the arrest of another woman appears to have been pushed down by a police officer. The woman recording gets into his face and insists that him shoving 'a woman to the ground' where she 'smacked her head' is outrageous, and that she will 'get his badge'.

Eventually he replies: 'She was on top of an officer, I didn't know she was a woman. I didn't know what she was doing'.

To which the woketard responds: 'And so if she was a man you'd also throw him to the ground?'

'I pulled her off the officer, you're correct.'

'No, you do not have it on video and I will have your badge.'

Abortionist Riot Thread by LGBTQIAIDS in debatealtright

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

Even if we reframe the above to be perceived attacks on:

Blacks + non-black sympathizers with the 'oppose anti-black racism' cause = (Those who view themselves as under attack plus those who feel they need to defend those who believe they are under attack now constitute something greater than 13.4%)

Women + non-women sympathizers with the 'oppose anti-woman sexism' cause = (Same as above, but now constituting something greater than 50.8%)

The latter still surely constitute a far greater portion of the population even if it isn't strictly the 'almost quadruple' you replied to. There's simply a whole lot more potential rioters this time around, and we can already see that there is a pretty heavy male presence in some of these videos reinforcing that targeted demographic.

I also have no idea why people are bothering to make these kinds of comments. Does it look like I made this post to argue with various people whose views are warped by their animus towards blacks greatly exceeding their love of Whites, such that they are willing to harm the latter in order to also harm the former? Or with people who are conflicted between their social progressive viewpoints and their White ethnonationalism and thus experience cognitive dissonance when their interests clash, i.e. on the matter of White abortion, which is practically what Ethnocrat has done since he moved from the more general pro-abortion stance of libtard trash like Spencer to the 'What race is it?' stance much more congruent with the standard DR stance on the matter?

Now, I don't know what your view is, other than that you have felt unsympathetic enough to have taken a stab at my argument that 2022 is going to be much more riotous than 2020. But I think it's clear that I don't want an information/updates thread to be full of counter-signalling from people like Ethnocrat (who I presume read absolutely nothing of my post, and reflexively commented because this event creates cognitive dissonance in anyone who is 'Far-Right' and yet liberal on abortion ('the abortionists are right to protest... but they're also progressive nutcases who I oppose on practically everything else, I feel uneasy considering this topic and don't want to be reminded about it!') and JuliusCaesar225 (who I presume only read two sentences before immediately nitpicking at one of them). Low-effort comments on an 'effortpost'? That's not my kind of thing.