BANNED USER: waging culture war repeatedly after multiple bans and warnings
Lepidus
No bio...
User ID: 1547
Banned by: @Amadan
"many people here do actually have an unarticulated, possibly subconscious, belief that this is the case." - There's nothing subconscious about it. I believe this is the case, and am willing to defend it explicitly.
Whitey bad, white woman racist cuz she won't look at me. Whitey did slavery, he lied and put papa in jail, he owes me money. This is not complicated, and doesn't require acceptance of some batshit academic theory. Your insistence that this kind of thinking is not common among blacks is utterly baffling to me. Have you ever been near lower class blacks; talking amongst themselves about racial issues?
Furthermore, specific racial contempt is hardly relevant given how they treat each-other without needing any ideological excuses for it. The question is can my child walk the streets in a neighbourhood where they are around without fear of being hurt. I don't care why someone threatens me and those I care about, just that they do.
"or is unfair to whites" - Mainstream and even supposedly radical MAGA GOP figures will almost never say this. Instead they'll talk about how it's unfair to asians, or latinos, or how it's bad because it implies negative stereotypes about Blacks. Rufo had to put it all Leftist policies within the label neo-marxist critical race theory so that he could defend whites without actually mentioning them.
The Munich speaking event deplatforming a few years ago. When Munich EA cancelled his invitation in response to threatened protests, mainstream EA was pretty unambiguously disturbed by it.
In East Germany the church was allowed to remain under only limited molestation, and to have it's own an associated political party, provided it proclaimed that actually Christians are perfectly loyal communists. I wonder how many people actually ended up believing this. It can even be supported biblically, but was clearly not the source of the East German Lutheran's professed values. No Christians had not been loyal communists, until the powers that be told them, and then they cited their faith to support it. The fact is the average evangelical Christian was perfectly fine with racial identity and segregation until power told them they were wrong. Evangelicals found a way to overlook the historic Christian opposition to abortion, and correspondingly the Southern States had the most liberal abortion laws until after Roe v. Wade. Belief in the morality of inter-racial marriage was at 4% when the laws banning it were struck down. It only reached 50% in the 1990s.
The use of Reaganite as a slur on the racial front bugs me. He tried to kill disparate impact theory (ie. the theory under which the government enforces affirmative action) but was overriden by congressional republicans, tried to stay friends with apartheid South Africa (the party led by McConnell I believe, overrode him again), and had some pretty based quotes. "To see those monkeys from those African countries - damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Then again, he did screw up on amnesty for illegals but that seems more justifiable.
I'll be damned. EA might just be the one left-leaning space that will survive wokeness in perpetuity. The response to the Hanson deplatforming was inspiring, and support for Bostrom actually seems pretty strong at the forum. This might even be a good thing for them. As they get tarred as a den of reactionaries, woke sympathetic people will become less interested in engaging with them, and the entry of future enemies into their ranks might decrease.
Also, despite Jared Taylor being on the let's recruit Jews side of the white nationalist divide, 2 of his 3 examples of white self-hatred are Jews.
They are and I don't entirely blame them. Liberalism contains most of the smart and capable people in the white race, while conservatism contains many of the dumbest. People are failing because they are being discriminated against by evil people/systems at least makes some sense. Conservatives' "blacks are natural conservatives, but are kept degenerate because liberals give them too much shit" borders on the most batshit take imaginable. It's hard to blame someone for choosing a consistent ideology that's blatantly wrong on the facts, when any moment that they look around to get the other side, they get insane ramblings and a reification of those blatantly wrong facts.
Someone somewhere tweeted that in a hilarious irony white nationalists are gonna go extinct for the same reason as liberal whites eventually will, their undying devotion to people who hate them. That majority whiteness seems to be a pre-condition for the kind of relatively free individualistic western society, does not mean that there aren't a lot of spiteful whites who must be excluded or supressed for anything decent to exist. Why should their neurosis of self hatred be excused simply because it's one that whites have a greater predisposition to?
It's madness.
I'm thinking of a meme along the lines of the virgin Scott Alexander (don't tell anyone I said this) vs the chad Bostrom (Blacks are stupider..!).
The elites of every major western European nation have accepted massive populations of migrants despite these being entirely a financial negative, several times more violence and criminality prone than the native populations, and on top of that open hatred for western society and social attitudes that were in every way the polar opposite of everything enlightenment or post-enlightenment. And they've done this wave after wave, with full awareness of the consequences. They did this despite massive public disaproval, with little to no opposition by conservatives.
In America, A black man born to a family in the top one percent is as likely to be incarcerated as a white man born to a family making 36K. The average black teenager in a family making 200K will get the same SAT score as a white child from a family making 20K. Our elites (including the conservative ones) respond by discriminating against whites, decreasing penalties for criminality and burying the race of anti-white criminals while boosting every single case of a white hurting a black.
The nature of America's new creed is so obvious, that even white red tribe normies whose family members are murdered by blacks understand that they are expected to express their forgiveness for the killers to the national press.
AS FOR JEWISH ELITES:
- ''' Wouldn’t this predict that Jewish elite should favor gentile subjects over Jewish ones? '''
In many cases they do. But the important divide isn't Jewish vs gentile, but Western vs foreign. You could make hundreds of millions of people temporarily better off by bringing them to European countries. But they inevitably make European society worse. If a non-ethnocentric Jew does not gain a special willingness to privilege the interests Europeans over non-europeans, being a general lover of gentiles makes them a worse enemy than an ethnocentric Jew, because then undermine your society even when their ethnic interests are aligned with it (keeping muslims out).
The truth (cognitive and criminality differences) is in fact soft-racist using any non-perverted form of human morality.
The woke understand this (not it's truth value, but the logical conclusion if it were true) but their primary loyalty is to the black race so they'd rather enshrine it and it's vices as holy than see racism return. This shared moral assesment is why there was so little resistance from classical liberals to the woke takeover.
Rationalists (the top ones) are too smart to deny HBD (scientific racism), but being [insult against ingroup removed], they see nothing wrong with hurting good people who like them to help bad people (and their asociates) who hate them as long as total utilons increase. They are in fact offended that the woke would think they'd consider doing anything else. We've reached C.S Lewis reductio ad absurdum of total moral relativism, a previously implausible country in which "a man feels proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him". Conservatives are... irrelevant. They conserve whatever morality they are handed down, no matter how perverse and anti-racism as the raison d'etre of America was established long ago. Now they can't resist it, except by reifing it "Democrats are the real racists"!
The link is to one of the Nixon tapes, in which he discusses race with Moynihan.
Why do you believe this?
Because as soon as our elites oficially abandoned racial identification as a legitimite value they immediately transferred their allegiance to racial minorities, advancing their alleged interests with psychopathic disregard for the safety or security of their primary citizens. Nixon for example, dramatically expanded affirmative action, despite being at least tentatively convinced that Hernstein was correct and racial intelligence gaps were genetic - https://youtube.com/watch?v=PwXOEFK6Swo.
''' It may beggar belief, but some humans are capable of extending empathy--even charity!--beyond their racial group. '''
People are also capable of extending charity outside of their family, yet the norm for most people, most of the time, is to extend far more empathy and charity to family members than to outsiders. In fact, most people would seriously distrust a person who told them, hey I care about family members and non-family members equally.
''' Again, you assert that Jews must be unusually malevolent, yet do not provide your evidence. '''
Once again, I think that every elite group is tempted to feel contempt for those it rules, and that the vast majority of it's capacity for benevolence towards those ruled stems from ethnic identification with those ruled.
Got it. Thanks.
Note Urquan that your ancestors would have said the exact same thing about ethnic loyalties. Or rather, it would have gone without mentioning. There is no justification for special familial bonds that does not also encompass ethnic bonds and I suspect a similarly brutal campaign as the one that turned the first taboo, will do the same to the second.
IQ! The fact is your average normie isn't all that interesting, and can be pretty dull and annoying. Now elites are kind of stuck with the normies in their ethny and if another ethny has a similar proportion of normies, forming a common identity is plausible (though difficult). But to form a common identity with another group that has a dramatically higher proportion of normies?
Anti-Semitism: It's not rocket science
The familial relationship takes certain actions of the table and requires others, even when it's bad. You may at times despise a member of your family, think their ideas or values are terrible, have had awful experiences with them... but a bridge remains despite the gaps. You probably wouldn't want him imprisoned, hanged or shot, even under pretty hostile circumstances. On a more general note, there may be countless family members who are not awful people but are simply less capable than you. If they weren't family members, you might have little to do with them and might rarely even consider them in your plans. But because they are, you do. Ethnies are partly socially constructed, but largely racially constrained families, and they contained a weakened form of the same instinct of moral obligation towards the members of the ethny. Elites from the same ethny may see their peasants as retrograde, but they don't normally arrive at the belief that these should be mercilessly crushed, or that public policy should show no concern whatsoever for their wellbeing.
Now take an ethny with a dramatically higher average IQ (10 -15 points) than the members of the society they live in. You have at once, a guaranteed factory of new revolutionary ideas; and no instinctive limiting concern for the vast majority of people who will be affected by those ideas. Now sometimes ethnies merge and form new identities. Most British, Germans, Irish and even Italian Americans eventually came to see themselves as Americans first. But the gaps between your average German and Italian are not remotely similar to the gap between your average Jew and non-Jew. This is without mentioning the massive religious elephant in the room, or the thousands of years of hostility it involved. No one wants to merge with a family that has a comparatively large percentage of loosers to the one they came from. So the Jewish ethny remains separate, and as such it's members pursue their ideological goals without any concern for the damage these impose on the host society. Naturally, eventually people get tired of this and respond with anti-Jewish measures.
Note that this theory of Jewish gentile relations requires no belief in a unique Jewish malevolence in order to arrive at the conclusion that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews will always naturally develop into hostility.
Anti-Semitism: A few random counter-points
It's become a common 'noticing' game in alt-right spaces, to go to the early life section of the anti-white and/or pro-degeneracy figure de jour; and role the mental dice on what feels like a 50% chance of a Jewish family popping up. Kushner's allegedly subversive role in the Trump administration is thought of similarly. At the same time, I keep noticing that a similar pattern seems to have been developing for a while on the other side. Take the following data-points:
Strongest Anti-Immigration Trump Official: Steven Miller (He's now running the only Republican Super-PAC I can remember specifically attacking anti-white discrimination)
Most influential social media right-winger: Libs of Tiktok
Most radical far-right academic: Amy Wax (who invited Jared Taylor to dine with her Law school students)
Also worth mentioning: Roy Unz, Paul Gottfried, David Cole, Darren J Beattie, Amanda Milius.
It seems that the small contingent of genuinely pro-western Jews do some pretty heavy lifting. It would be interesting to look into whether there are any salient factors seperating them from the sea of their left-wing or open-borders libertarian counterparts. Amanda Milius I believe posted something about the dividing line being whether they had been settlers vs immigrants but a cursory look doesn't exactly confirm this thesis.
Have you ever read your bible?
On obeying the ruling authority:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. - Romans 13: 1 - 2.
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. - 1 Peter 2:13 - 14
Now I'm sure most Christians (who bother with theology) have some explanations for why this rule isn't absolute, but I included the exception for the many who might, and who have the explicit wording of the bible to back them up. Since you don't, I think my general argument still applies to you.
On being loved by the world
"its the opposite": So why are you invoking the world's pikachu face when I ask you about your duties as a Christian?
"but he/she/they/it/xe" - I rarely feel insulted by an internet comment but this kind of hurts my feelings.
" Donald Trump on abortion - from pro-choice to pro-prison": This was one of Trump's finest moments. Notice how the willingness to say the obvious seems anti-correlated with personal Christianity. It's not Fundies leading the fight against woke depravity, but de-facto pagans who'd have been libertarians (or communists) in a different world.
I don't understand what more I'm supposed to do here. That's "perverted", is my opinion about a moral vision that tallies up total pleasure and suffering while ignoring whether it's experienced by a good person or a bad person. I believe low IQ and a temperamental disposition towards hurting others are bad traits, and that those posessing them have lower value. Rationalists regularly acknowledge that yes IQ differences exist, read and agree with Steve Sailer, and then mention how knowing all this doesn't change their moral assesment in any way. I suppose "moral mutants" was a bit harsh and I will remove it. My apologies.
More options
Context Copy link