sorted by:
new
hottopinsightfulfun

Destiny vs Mark Debate by Trab in debatealtright

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

A little late to this, but I found this rather frustrating to listen to. Part of the problem is that when you make it about intentionality (re: White genocide), Destiny's own sense of incredulity gets to be the decider. The standard of evidence that he requires is people in power saying: "yup, we are specifically trying to genocide White people; all of the social justice pretexts are just that: pretexts". Anything less and Destiny gets to act like it's a giant conspiracy to connect all the dots. It's disingenuous and frankly stupid. It is much more productive to argue that demographic replacement is happening; it's a policy choice; and we oppose it. Beyond that, the intentionality is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things anyway.

Various thoughts during the debate:

  • Destiny's first argument was complete bullshit (re: internet censorship). If someone argues that Clinton is a lizard, and is subsequently banned, this is obviously not proof that she is a lizard. But that is not the logic of what Mark was arguing at all. He was arguing that part of the intentionality of White genocide can be evidenced by how opposition is censored. In other words, "x is suppressed" is not proof that x is true, but it is proof that x is being suppressed. You can tell that Destiny was being dishonest here because he later went on to say how censorship is a result of market forces -- an argument he wouldn't have made if he didn't understand Mark's actual point.

  • Mark sort of got thunderstruck by Destiny's argument about grooming gangs. I don't blame him for this one bit, but it was unfortunate.

  • This is minor in comparison to the rest, but is relevant to the 'genocide' part. Destiny made the argument that if Whites are being genocided through miscegenation, then nonwhites are being genocided too. Mark did reply to this but not as comprehensively as I think it deserved. That conversation got sidetracked into who is White, multiracial people identifying as the nonwhite part, etc. But IMO the more significant point here is how unbelievably stupid and self-evidently absurd his implication is: that race mixing impacts both races equally. No explanation is necessary -- it's that dumb.

Ridiculous article by Fred Reed - "For Whom the Bell Curves" by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

Completely disingenuous article.

>you don't want your country run by people who hate you and openly say as much? guess you're just jelly bro.

  1. Jews are influential well beyond their numbers, particularly due to their over-representation in mass media (news and entertainment), academia, and NGOs;

  2. Jews are highly ethnocentric and keenly aware of their interests, and their influence is used to further their goals (no, this does not mean they are a monolith, but it does mean that disagreements between Jews are frequently about "What's good for the Jews?");

  3. Their interests conflict with Whites.

If you stop at the first point, the 'envy' hypothesis has some surface-level plausibility, but then you miss the most important reasons for the JQ to be a thing in the first place. Honestly, even then 'envy' is a dumb explanation, unless one thinks that the desire for nation states is inherently about envy. I don't want Jews running the country any more than I want Africans or Asians running it.

By making it solely about the representation levels (instead of the consequences), he's able to more or less imply that that Whites who are sick of Jewish rule are comparable to blacks who want to parasitize off of us indefinitely. It also ignores how we can literally just look at places where Jews were removed from power (one particularly striking example comes to mind!) or simply times when they were less influential than today...and then examine the consequences. Coming to the conclusion that less (or no) Jewish influence is preferable than more has nothing to do with envy.

This stats wiz gave me a bit of a chuckle. by Erasmus in debatealtright

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

You can have pretty much this exact same argument on an international scale. (I think it was Steve Sailer who broke PISA tests down by demographics -- the results are about what you would expect). It's always funny to see shitlibs attacking the U.S. education system and ask them if they're controlling for demographics. Guaranteed "Wow Just Wow" responses -- but it really is the exact same logic as is used in the video. Is the U.S. education actually much worse than (insert random European country) or do we just have a shit ton more Hispanics and blacks?

Incidentally, this doesn't even require race realism in order to be a devastating rebuke of the post-1965 immigration system. Let's say for the sake of argument that IQ gaps are entirely environmental -- we have the choice of bringing in people who will more or less instantly assimilate or we can bring in people that require massive wealth transfers, systemic privileges (Affirmative Action, diversity initiatives, etc.) in order to reach our level. Why in the world would we ever opt for the latter? Let alone how in the real world, we have the latter policies implemented and they STILL aren't at our level.

Free speech in the ideal ethnostate? by beigebaron in debatealtright

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

If you picture a WN USA, you can't simply imagine the U.S. with Whites only immigration, no anti-discrimination laws, etc. There is no escaping the fact that we are dissidents, and what we want is pretty much the exact opposite of what the country is like right now. There has to be an institutional revolution as well (re: academia, media, etc.). This obviously necessitates a confrontation of some kind, and in that specific context...no, the idea of 'free speech' isn't going to make any sense. (This goes hand in hand with what literalotherkin said about culture coming from the top down).

These kinds of questions also implicitly rely on the idea that the current system is in any way legitimate. Particularly in the context of free speech, this couldn't be further from the truth. The only way someone can justify this is by making libertarian appeals to the public vs. private distinction. Frankly, actual censorship is more democratic (at least, to the degree that the censorship itself has public support). Compare two scenarios:

  1. The public votes and says "yeah, we don't think you should be able to say x" (where x could be advocating for replacement immigration, pornography, etc.).

  2. Someone at the ADL makes a phone call to someone at Amazon and gets a bunch of books removed.

If you're a good goy libertarian, the former is tyranny and the latter is merely the 'free market' at work, but most people here will recognize that it's a farce. Power is power. In practice, I cannot think of anything that we would have to censor. Liberal ideas are not a threat without institutional backing. In an 'ideal state', they would not have institutional backing. Censorship is irrelevant at that point except to the extent that it could be socially desirable (such as banning pornography) -- in contrast to the current system, where censorship is necessary in order for the system to exist.

For example, consider 'anti-racism'. We have to constantly be told about how evil racism is, starting with indoctrination at an early age; this is reinforced throughout our culture (TV, movies, advertising, etc.); we have laws forcing people into non-consensual interactions with nonwhites (anti-discrimination laws) and unjustly promoting them (Affirmative Action/disparate impact and the 80% rule)...and this still isn't enough -- political correctness and censorship are used to prevent any challenges to this system.

Compare that to an ideal WN state...the idea that we would need anywhere near the level of propaganda, coercion, and censorship is downright laughable. We wouldn't need to constantly remind people that it's okay to be proud of your ancestors and feel more comfortable around people of your own race or "men are men and women are women". Same thing with race and IQ, the JQ etc.

The black Hitler question is similarly difficult to parse for several reasons.

  1. When a country is run by Jews, they do not do it openly as Jews. They act on their own ethnic interests while making universal moral appeals. If Whites were in charge, there would be no ambiguity about this fact. It would be run by Whites for Whites. Maybe I'm taking this way too literally, but imagining a black equivalent to White anti-semitism just doesn't make any sense. What would blacks be riled up about? "We are a minority and we have less power than the majority". Yeah, and? The actual complaints about racism would simply be laughed off, if they even existed. (Because I'm assuming there would be some kind of separation involved).

  2. Similar to what I wrote above, it also doesn't take into account institutional/cultural power in a WN country. Unlike now, blacks wouldn't be relentlessly incited to hate and resent Whites. While there would always be some envy, it wouldn't be weaponized in the way it is now. Some conflict is unavoidable, but much of it would be taken care of by separation (or at least an end to forced integration) and a vastly different cultural environment.

  3. Again, keeping in mind institutional (including academia and media) power in a WN country, but taking the question less literally...a black Hitler would be either completely irrelevant or, at best, a pretext for further separation or even repatriation. There would be no reason to censor or otherwise suppress him. If anything, there would be an incentive to artificially prop him up!