Jump to content

General American Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Honestly i'm just tempted to drop this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL_vIqMiHK0 and run away because this guy is actually way more fair and nice to sargon than I would be.


But I'm only about 4 out of the 17 videos and just....this is gonna be a long haul of watching these videos but also responding to them in a measured way between personal responsibilities, family, and overall life in general.


Oh, and Temp, buddy, my man, my.......internet stranger.


I have problems with sargon, tim, and lauren. The others you listed i'm not gonna watch because they seem...fine.


I'll be honest, I could care less what you think about Sargon, so much as the arguments or how the evidence is presented. I honestly have problems with some of your linked sources as well, so I'll say that makes us even.


Though I will admit, I myself have mostly left him in terms of actively watching his more recent content anyway, his analysis of Michael Wolff's book to me seemed a bit off the mark, especially for someone who used to be a Pro-GG debater. Styx is my most active source ATM for socio-politics given that I find him to be currently on point for a lot of things and makes sense. I mostly credit him (Sargon) with being one of the first content makers to introduce me into the wider community. That was back in GG days.


I will also say I appreciate the fact that you're taking the time to go through at least some of them, and am curious as to what your responses will be.


As for kraken, again I'll abscond reply blocks just to save us space:


Well let's see, you yourself described Antifa as standing up for who they view as oppressed minorities, that they don't support freedom of speech for everyone, that they believe hate speech is a thing, and in all of their actions that I have seen, they very much treat people in collectivist terms. Under what logic could they possibly see that destroying a random person's private property would be anyway beneficial to their cause beyond striking a blow to their wider and more abstract enemies, even if said individual doesn't have any stake in the conflict at all?


Thus, they obviously see the world in collectivist terms, they don't value individual rights, and that they see no distinction between people once they've branded them into one camp or another.


Its not even that collectivism is inherently bad, there are such things as both Individual and Collective Human Rights as defined under the UDHR. I mostly stand by Individual Human rights, because I believe most of them are far cheaper to enforce, require less oversight (by and large, if applied properly), and do not discriminate between groups of people, but even I will admit that some collective rights should exist if the country can afford to enable them with an equal standard.


But are you kidding me on the second bit? You yourself described Antifa as being all about shutting down talks where "Nazis" speak at! That was Antifa at King's College! They shut down the talk between Sargon and Yaron. Yaron describes himself as a Jewish Objectivist, therefore, the logical conclusion is that they view him as some kind of Nazi sympathizer. Or are you saying they were just there to kick Sargon out as a "Nazi Gatekeeper" even though he's not a Nazi either?


What evidence need I cite beyond your own self-described previous words on what you claim Antifa to be?


Ah, but there is the distinction. The entire Alt-Right are not White Supremacists, if they were one in the same term, why was the term Alt-Right created at all? Which again goes back to how we've been confusing our terms. Some groups within it are, but others are not. Its just like every Far-Left member is not inherently an Anarchist or a Communist, some brands of Libertarians could arguably be defined as Far-Leftists and their ideas are completely different.


If I were to post up how many different Far-Left groups outright draw upon Marx as an ideological influence, would it be right for me to just call them all Communists, even if they don't describe themselves in those terms?




1: I proved that they were fallible, that (The SPLC at least) inflated their numbers using an example that wasn't in the US (Bissonette) to demonstrate an increasing number of deaths when in reality it would have been less year after year, and that they are susceptible to political leanings and are biased on various subjects as a result (in the case of Pepe).


Do you even know what the context of the adoption of Pepe as a White Nationalist symbol or racist meme was? The fact that Trump posted up or retweeted, I cannot even recall which one it was atm, some Pepe meme, and then Clinton's campaign called it out, and then groups like SPLC and ADL marked it as a Hate Symbol. They literally did it after a political opponent's campaign called it racist, and it wasn't even the KKK Pepe Meme CNN would later show as an example. (If you want to see the Pepe Meme Trump retweeted at the time, and which started all of this shit, you can see it in the video I linked earlier under Sargon which I marked out specifically on the subject, funnily enough, it matches none of the Memes ADL uses as examples on their page)


It was hands down the single most ridiculous thing I saw the entire election, because it showed me just how out-of-touch with the modern internet generation these people are, and how incapable of research they must be (unless they knowingly did so, in which case they think we're all fucking morons who'll just blindly obey them).


Even then, the statement that Pepe the Frog is inherently a White Nationalist symbol or racist meme is the most ridiculous fucking thing an organization can post up, even if he was used in such a context (which lets be honest, the odds are he has been used in at least one instance as such, likely others). Pepe is one of the most widely used memes across the world, to the point where he's basically become a everlasting meme due to his versatility, and is used for dozens of different situations and analogies and parodies of countless things by countless different people for endless reasons. To claim that he is inherently a singular symbol of anything beyond that he's a silly frog, and the emotions he represents at a given time, is to completely misunderstand what the hell he is as a meme, which was a status he's basically held for a long time in regards to his meme status.


So he's used by the odd White Nationalists? Big fucking whoop, I guarantee you, he is just as easily co-opted into White Genocide memes! That's how fucking versatile he is! He's co-optible into anything! Doesn't make it news it anyone who knows these things, but I don't see anyone pointing out that obvious logic.


I'd argue it also means they don't understand Memes either, because if you cannot understand Pepe, I doubt such a person can understand other Memes.


I'm a watcher of a Streamer with thousands of viewers whose chat uses hundreds of Pepe memes every single day in chat, I post Pepe memes in chat. Are we all White Supremacists? Fuck no.


The creator of Pepe is also a moron who thought he could copyright Pepe again and seize it from the internet's hands even though copyright laws completely disagree on the basis. Pretty sure he fucking lost on that one. To claim that he had any say or control over how Pepe has been used ever since he became a meme is to completely misunderstand how memes work as well, because he effectively has no control.


As for ADL, the fact that they take 4Chan and 8Chan seriously is a warning bell almost as bad as the "infamous hacker known as 4Chan" moment of the MSM. Reddit, I hope requires no explanation as not being filled with Racists, so I'll defend the others. These forums EXIST to piss off politically-correct moral busybodies on ANY subject you can think of. Its shit-posting, its professional trolling, its baiting people who they know will flip out so that the Channers can all laugh at how seriously outsiders take their antics.


Which is exactly what many of those memes they show are designed to do. They're designed to evoke that reaction so that people flip out, and the creators laugh at how everyone thinks its being serious in any way.


I did cite evidence, you just don't believe it because I didn't post a direct link.


But like before, I'll direct you to my videos I posted for Dash, go through them, specifically the one where Tim Pool was lied about by the SPLC, which is an incredibly recent case as well, to the point where they were forced to delete their page on him. Real classy and professional for an organization that claims to deal with such serious business.


2: What? I didn't attribute it to "popularity" as you call it, I stated that the definition of the term had changed in terms of what was being considered to be a "Mass Shooting" in order to be capable of incorporating more shootings in general under the term, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with popularity, its a change in definition.


But here, you want proof? You can check my quote on the Wikipedia page on of Mass Shooting, top of the page, since you seem to use it so much. Its a direct quote off of it:


". . . The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition[3][4] of the term "mass murder". However, according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law in January 2013, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting with at least three victims, excluding the perpetrator . . ."


So there, the legal definition did become lower in terms of how many people are involved for it to be considered as such. Does that not inherently show an effort to inflate decreasing numbers of said events?


3: After first wondering why you put these ones up with next to no context, I figured out why.


I suppose I was incorrect about the ADL and the "Okay" sign, that was a lie perpetuated by Hack media outlets, but was totally correct on the SPLC. (In defense of Styx's original video, he was still half-correct in that the Legacy did push this, he was just wrong the ADL part like many others who saw the original article. It still doesn't just change the fact that the only reason they talked about Pepe was because it became a political issue.)


But hell, the Archive of the original article, in Tim Pool's second post you provide, explicitly claims that he went to Iran in 2012, and that he was an "Alt Right Journalist" (which is funny, because I find it hard to believe that even the term "Alt Right" would have been used to describe anyone from even that long ago except as a retrospective at best).


You're proving me right in that these guys don't know what the fuck they're doing when they're writing some of this shit. They had to be called out as being completely lying about the situation on MULTIPLE individuals before they just scrapped the whole article.


In essence, going towards proving my point of how the hell you're supposed to trust them on more serious stuff when they do shit like this?


But oh yes, just an "error" that they not only completely made up that he went to Iran and call him an Alt Right Journalist, not to mention screwed up on so many other individuals that they pulled the entire article?! That's more than just an "error", and error, you edit and make a disclaimer about the edit or an addendum. You don't pull the entire article off and then decide not to re-post.


So he chooses to defend the ADL from bullshit claims? That's his business as an independent journalist, he goes after all kinds of bullshit claims of all kinds of things, doesn't mean that he actually uses ADL as a constant reference or that I should care to even if he does.


4: If you care to listen, I can explain it. Suffice to say, what you saw aught to be ample proof enough to suggest GG went through a bombardment of media bullshit, and has made me skeptical of most media sources (particularly official outlets and various sources like Huffington Post, Washington Post, Buzzfeed, Jeezebel, The Guardian, the list can go on and on for those types of outlets) since I know they have lied, and will lie or simply refuse to do in-depth research into various stories, or even more simply, refuse to show the sides of the story fairly. The phrase "Game-drop" came into effect eventually because so many of these outlets basically started using us as bogeyman for everything that is hateful on the internet, its how bad it got, they also constantly contradicted their narratives over time.


5: You're going to fucking quote to me Wikipedia, as evidence, when I'm paraphrasing the man's words from the very books the man himself wrote?! And even better, you're using an unsourced and uncited sentence from Wikipedia as your evidence!? (Nearest citation within that block of test is a text on the city of Rome, btw, for an entirely different sentence) Fuck off with this bs, you're insulting my intelligence as an Undergrad History Major now.


Your quote doesn't even really contradict what I said, he did lose faith in the Socialist Party after WWI (which was when they actually gained political power in Italy) because of how they operated within a Capitalist system rather than to try and tear it down. I stated how he saw Fascism as the natural evolution of Socialism, and that he transitioned from a Socialist into a Fascist. Again, he disagreed with their strategy, which where he broke ranks with them and formed his own iteration.




1: You think I trust Wikipedia on this subject? No way. Besides, you're missing the point of what I asked for if you're just going to cite me a general page of Obama's entire Presidency, which is no real comparison right now. We can do that once the Presidencies are finished.


I want you to list me the promises Obama made, and how many he managed to keep, or started working towards within his first year in office.


I liked Obama, but even I notice there seems to be a big difference in how much is actually moving between the two Presidencies in the similar spans of time. I could be wrong though and my memory might be off. That's why I want the more direct comparison.


Times also doesn't really say he failed to accomplish anything. He has fulfilled a number of those promises, and is in the process of working towards basically all of the ones they listed. As I said.


Are you to say he didn't promise as much? Is that your point of contention?


The only one he hasn't that is on their list, is revoking Obamacare, which the only reason it didn't was due to never-Trumpers within the Republican party, like John McCain, who don't oppose him on principle, but out of spite. And the Republicans themselves failing to come up with an alternative for similar reasons. In which case, he still attempted for a while to do so, as he promised.


2: Let's be real here. This is hardly the most hypocritical thing he's done, even in terms of optics alone.


3: So you're going to pretend that the Democrats are any different? Who did Obama infamously bail out first during the recession? The Banks, many of which caused the damn thing. You don't think they exerted pressure through their lobbyists?


I understand why you're pointing it out, I just don't see the use when I'm pretty sure we both know its not a surprise, nor is it likely to change.


But yes, I agree, such is the situation. I just don't see the point in bemoaning the subject or even bringing it up as an issue when this has gone on for over a century to various degrees in US politics. Trying to change that situation in DC may as well be even more impossible than Gun Control ATM, honestly.


4: There's a few sources that point to this:


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/09/politifact-sheet-donald-trumps-immigration-plan/ (Outlines the points he made, it does not provide the figure here, but it specifically states that he intends to deport immigrants in the country illegally who are convicted of crimes)


Washington Post apparently corroborates this figure, though they theorize on where he got it from it and how its supposedly still wrong:



They also cite specifically, his 60 Minutes interview where he specifically says that exact figure, and uses the words, "those who have criminal records". So there is the original source this all stems from, I'm betting.


(Styx talking about it after the election, and where I found out about it.)


As for overall Illegal Immigrant totals, and some stats related to them, this page from Pew Research is a year out of date, but it still corroborates how even on 2015 figures, Trump's proposed figure doesn't even cover all Illegal Mexican Immigrants, let alone all illegals in general.






1: I was not using it to disprove so much as raising a question mark about aspects of the current man-made theory, is what I was saying about it. How exactly DID it warm up in the Middle Ages, when there was no possible way our industrial capacity could have been responsible for it? And subsequently, why did it fall again? Its an anomaly, and one which I think is of interest to figuring out how our climate shifts and how the Earth reacts.


I never disputed them. Don't claim I did. I simply raised an anomaly, or what others have viewed as anomalies in the data.


2: So what? I know damn well it was caused by us, as do you, I thought it could be left unsaid. I never said that wasn't the case, and besides that point doesn't help your case anyway, because for some reason despite the evidence being so ironclad, you're not seeing as urgent of a reaction to the Carbon Crisis as the Ozone one.


Again, if it is supposedly so self-evident, and has been for a while, why was it not adopted sooner or hasn't even yet been fully adopted wholesale (barring the US, many countries are not going full-bore into it regardless, even though the theories, many of them anyway, suggest we NEED to go full-bore or should have been over 20-30 years ago.)?


But again, I'm not here to debate this. I merely raised this stuff as an example of public skepticism.




Suit yourself. I will say the names have indeed changed, but I still think its mostly a mirror image. IDK, Berkeley suddenly losing its status as the beacon of Free Speech after Antifa trashed it to stop Milo from speaking kinda sealed the deal for me on that alone as an oddly iconic parallel. And the fact that Liberalism has, by and large, become the globalized establishment versus Conservatism, which was the opposite in the 1960s.




Yes indeed, and Stalin was a master at getting other people to take the blame and subsequently be killed or exiled for all kinds of stuff, including his party's policies and stealing off of other peoples' successes (Including Lenin's). He simply found new enemies for the mobs to blame every time. He went down the list too as he used the excuses to steal land for his public farming projects, cleanse the military of all opponents, and all kinds of stuff. He knew exactly how to manipulate it all to his advantage.




I'll refer you again to the videos I linked. For variety, how about you look through Razorfist's and Count Dankula's? Or even some of Sargon's? They all use first-hand film and photos in many respects to show off their points.


I'll note that in my comment, I made a differentiation between what I accuse Antifa of doing, and what I accuse Leftists in a more general sense of doing.




Mocking Illegal Border-crossers? My, my, how strange of a President who is running a Nativist platform who wants to deport illegals and work towards putting an end to illegal border-crossing. That's totally out of character isn't it? Not.


A crazy woman trying to teach her kids to do stuff that isn't legally endorsed by anyone, let alone the President? How is that Trump's fault? Moreso, how is this limited to the Right?


Your point on the set of 8 links in "Meanwhile"? None of those are Trump. If you want to post general Right-Wing (some of it isn't even limited to the Right, or even necessarily the far reaches the Right, btw) shit, guess what? I can post general Left-Wing nonsense, and we'll all get no-fucking-where as we see how collectively moronic each side can be at times.


I hadn't forgotten, there was a lot of campaign theatrics on both sides that made me think that neither candidate was that good of a choice, I still stand by my choice at the time that had I been an American, I'd have burned by ballot out of protest of both. But evidently, what he did was far less damning of a thing to do than to call a vague 1/4 of the entire population of the country "Deplorables" who shouldn't be paid attention to, and then POST-election blame practically everyone for her failure but herself.


Though I will leave this here on that claim as food for thought. Feel free to go to 35:52 for the exact stuff on the moment and subject in question:



Feel free to look through Molyneux's sources on the subject too (and any others regarding the campaign events, if you wish) which he links in his description to a handy page on them all, can you accurately say that Trump was mocking the reporter for the disability, or because of what he wrote and was merely acting as a befuddled reporter? I'd argue that in the absence of actual proof, you're assuming the worst because the media has already primed you to think the worst.

Long is the way; and hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light-Paradise Lost

By the power of truth, while I live, I have conquered the universe-Faust

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes, except that one

Vae Victus-Brennus

Share this post

Link to post

You know what?


I got about halfway through Temp's videos when it all just became too much. The thinly veiled disguise of fascism and mindless hatred of anything left of GOP.


The ridiculous claim that someone's being "balanced" and then proceeds to have a heavily weighted, anti-left talk.


The fearmongering, that makes anyone who isn't wrapped up in it's spell raise an eyebrow or literally laugh at the ludicrous takes. I'm not going to give this ideology any quarter any longer. I'm done pretending that this ideology is even worth taking seriously. It's honest-to-gods lunacy to think that these talking points are anything less than an attempt to peddle old, terrible ideas to an angry audience because the global situation is getting worse and worse. The rise of the far-right is due to opportunistic wolves trying to gain support and power so they can enact their plans: the enthostate, racially pure and ideologically unchallenged.


These are all attempts to sell white-supremacist ideas and anti-left rhetoric that's been supplanted from traditional conservative talking points, but altered to be more extreme and more appealing to the young. It's...sickening, if i'm being honest. They need "the left" to be worse then them, so the far-right can put an arm around you, and go "look, stick with me and together we can keep each other safe," when really they just want to use more moderate people as a human shield. So, because we've all lost perspective here, I'm going to state these facts.


1. The alt-right, by the admission of Richard Spenser himself, is trying to re-brand white supremacy as more publicly friendly. It's DESIGNED to make old, terrible ideas seem new and interesting. The end goal of these white supremacists, is the removal or eradication of everyone who isn't like them. Politically or ethnically. They try to wriggle their way out of criticism and use so many dog-whistles and vague imagery/symbols in order to make their disgusting ideology more passable to the general public. Pepe, IS a white supremacist symbol and trying to claim that it isn't is exactly the reason why the use it. Co-opting benign or not overtly racist symbols in order to make it harder to identify and call out those who would gladly repeat the mistakes of the early 1900s.


2. The alt-right (white supremacists) have Hitler apologists and holocaust deniers all over the place. Sprinkled throughout their ranks are people who try to rewrite the history of the past in order to make their current ideas not seem awful. They either want to ignore the genocide of the past or they want the genocide to occur once more and are willing to do anything to make that happen.


3. They peddle the idea of "Cultural Marxism" to try to justify their actions. A false, anti-semitic conspiracy theory, trying to make people afraid that an invisible cabal of "Jewish globalists" are destroying everything you hold dear. They do this, in order to make their own beliefs seem justified. The world as it is doesn't allow their ideas, so they must lie to themselves and others to create a world were their ideas are acceptable. This term was seen before, though it had a German name: Kulturbolschewismus. And just like then, it was used to scare people and then sell them a terrible, terrible solution


4. Temp and people like him are trying to raise the fear of the "far-left" who will come and turn your country into a massacre ground. They need someone just as worse as them to instill fear into you, to make you scared. But here's the thing, there aren't any "unite the left" movements going on. There aren't weekly stories of communists and anarchists being arrested for class driven murders or bombings of banks. Country clubs aren't getting daily bomb or death threats and if anything, the rich are more powerful than ever. But, there are daily death threats to peaceful synagogue and mosques. We are seeing day after day, week after week, reports of far-right extremists killing people and bombing places


5. No matter what, they will deny and deny and deny. Deflect point after point, valid criticism after valid criticism. The far right don't want compromise. They want YOU to compromise and degrade yourself to their values, trying hard to shift the Overton window so that their ideas are acceptable, rather than unthinkable.


The alt-right (white supremacists) is a group who are not looking to better themselves, they aren't trying to find the truth or a better solution for everyone. They're looking to rule, to control, to make sure that what they want gets done, and if they have to steamroll over everyone else to make sure that happens...well gotta make sure you have the biggest steamroller you can.


They're slippery, sly, manipulative genocide-apologists.


6. The "far-left", that they're trying to make into this boogyman that they can dangle in front of someone to justify their actions, either have far quieter voices or are suppressed. Let me ask you this, how many popular left-leaning channels are there? Who's "the left's" equivalent to Sargon of Akkad? Who's "the left's" Richard Spenser? Someone who peddles dangerous ideologies yet gets invited to interview after interview, talk after talk, then goes on a tirade about free speech whenever someone denies him a platform? "The left" aren't coming to take over your country and force you to live a certain way if they got the power, the far-right, white supremacist, alt-right, hate-mongers are. Besides, "The-left" will tell you straight up who they are and what you want, the far-right will do everything in their power to whitewash, downplay, and muddle their message to make it more acceptable.


Let me put it this way: If you ask a fascist if they're a fascist, they will deny, deflect, obfuscate, and hide their true intentions. If you ask if a communist is a communist, they'll go "Yep! Wanna hear my ideas?"


What's there to hide temp? Why are so many of your content creators so unwilling to own up to their ideologies? Why are they afraid to identify as a Nazi if they have the same policies and goals as them? Why does Sargon call himself a liberal if he constantly and sustainable attacks "the left" while giving white supremacists either a free pass or a quarter of the criticism.


I do not accept that the alt-right (white supremacists) are a group of people that should be considered acceptable. I can't believe that we live in a world where these murdering, bombing, harassing, fascist-loving, white supremacists are allowed to have such a strong voice.


We know where their ideas end, and it's a death camp at the end of a railline.


The far-right can bang on and on and on about how communists and anarchists and antifa are coming to destroy everything you love. But if they take power, untold misery will once again be unleashed on this world, and it'll be all our fault for allowing it to take hold.

100% is going to be a cut-rate clown

Share this post

Link to post

Funny, I could say the same about much the content of several of the channels you linked to me, or of the Far-Left and how their extremes have brought about more death, suffering, and destruction upon this Earth than the modern Right, arguably. Especially in modern history. Just change out the Death Camp for a Gulag or a Killing Field, and we have the same result.


Need I name names? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? The Jacobins of the French Revolution? (AKA the original "Left" since they are the progenitors of the term) Many of their disciples and similar kinds of followers or adherents around the world? The list I'd say of terrifying examples is as long as yours. Funny how those "Facts" seem to mysteriously absent from your list.


Yet you hoist the specter of fear on the other end, and watch people who entertain naive and ludicrous ideas, whilst accusing me of the same? How ironically poetic.


1: Like many different Leftist groups also haven't done this? Why exactly are many Campuses apparently the wellsprings of Leftist radicals and Professors who have no qualms about preaching radical ideas either if this were not the case? All political opportunists wish to appeal to the young irrespective of alignment, the ones who've yet to find their place in the world, form their own views, and develop their own minds.


Pepe is not inherently a White Supremacist symbol, he is an extremely malleable symbol for anything that has BEEN utilized by people who may be. But that doesn't make him inherently anything because he can literally be utilized by ANYONE for ANY PURPOSE. To say otherwise is to show your complete misunderstanding of memes in a heavy-handed measure, or that you're willfully lying about what Pepe is as a meme because you hate that someone you don't like just so happened to use him for their own purpose. I don't see you calling Wal-Mart a bunch of Nazi-sympathizers because they indiscriminately serve all customers and don't require a political alignment ID card to peruse their wares, of which I guarantee at least a few probably are Nazis.


That's how ridiculous the premise we're arguing over is.


2: I've seen the same for Communist apologists, or Anarchist apologists. They always think that THEIR revolution will work better than the last, and ignore the human costs of all the past attempts and how none of their states have succeeded, save China (whose economic outlook is hardly communist any longer).


3: Oh, anti-semetic now? I see you jumped on the bandwagon of "all globalism opponents = anti-semites", which is hilarious because in order to push that idea, logically you're admitting that it is primarily jewish-driven and thereby giving said conspiracy theorists all the more credit. I myself don't even believe in any Jewish conspiracy, nor do I hold any particular hatred or support towards anyone based on their religious affiliations. I'm an Unconventional Polytheist myself, one who isn't fond of any organized religion.


But again, I've seen this same shit pushed by the Left, just under different terms which they're more familiar with. The specter of Nazism and Fascism, and all kinds of other "isms" being the key drivers on your side to push for ever greater and greater controls over society just as much as the right. Yet they're so different?


4: I only criticize the Left more heavily because as a former "member", I wish for them to be better than those they claim to oppose. I have no love for the Right, nor any desire for their extreme's goals of ethnostates or genocide, nor more than those similar ideas on the extremties of the Far Left. I would love nothing more than to unashamedly call myself a "Liberal", but I cannot in good conscience when I know how good modern "Liberals" are about maintaining the principles they supposedly stand for.


And no. Because the Left had those years ago and re-affirm their inter-sectional pacts constantly. They stand in solidarity constantly at numerous events or settings, even if their own group has no real specific focus on the subject in question. And their supporters or ideologically disposed individuals control basically every country in "the west" and their media apparatuses, save for a handful. The Left became the establishment, whereas the Right have since become the new rebels of society. The 1960s have flipped, IMO.


No, instead I see weekly constantly Leftist agendas being further pushed by higher powers than mere activist groups, powers that actually do have the power to affect millions, if not hundreds of millions. Youtube banning all gun related content for no reasons beyond political, US politics on a global platform at that? The UK government keeping journalists out for their views? The Scottish Courts convicting Count Dankula over a joke?! Twitter and Facebook rolling out more and more content controls that explicitly seem to go after predominately right-wing individuals or even just centrist individuals in the process? Those are all cases I've heard in this week alone so far, and the media hasn't reported on a damn one of them in terms of MSM media, or if they have, its in a positive light. We're seeing slowly the destruction of the very values which made our societies LIBERAL in the name of protecting that liberty!


I've also seen numerous threats against many figures on the Right, or even just Centrists that mean no harm at all, but you claim are all Nazi Gatekeepers. Don't try and claim your side is full of saints who're above this. Its BS, and you're either lying, or you're naive.


5: Like you don't? Buy yourself a mirror, bud. Look at the extreme groups of your side, and tell me that they don't desire the same things, you just have no problem with them holding such power, I can only suppose because you think that they're morally righteous or trust them not abuse it?


As for myself, I've actually compromised on a fair number of things over these lengthy posts. You guys conversely haven't even given me an inch, hardly (actually that's a bit unfair, Kraken has given on a few subjects just I have for him). The most you gave me was to say that a handful of my sources were "fine" begrudgingly, only to proceed to bash Sargon, the one who admittedly is the punching bag of Leftist commentators.


And my oh my, "genocide-apologists", I'd be careful how you throw that around mate. Those in glass houses best not throw stones, and by my reckoning, the tally of genocides committed by both ends stand fairly even, perhaps dare I say, even leaning slightly more towards your end of the scale than mine if we were to actually make a tally.


6: Really? Again, how strange I constantly see Right-wingers constantly getting suppressed across numerous different public platforms for bullshit reasons?


I would argue instead that the playing fields are separate and that Youtube is a home to the Alt-Media which is mostly Right-leaning, because the MSM is predominantly Leftist, often allowing even Far-Leftists the chance to speak whereas those on the Far-Right never have, and therefore the Alt is naturally going to be everything they are not, predominantly. They are the reaction to the wider situation. Its is the reactionary against the establishment, again, no different from the 1960s, merely reversed in political alignments.


I have seen no end of Left-leaning media coming out of the MSM for years on practically every subject you can imagine, if they do show opposition they only pay token service to it because otherwise it would be too obvious that they're biased. FOX may be the butt of all jokes for how bad it is (which it is), only recently surpassed by CNN, but at least they TRIED to cater to Right-leaning viewpoints as an objective. How many others can say as much that have any similar kind of recognition? I know of none. Brietbart is the only one I can think of, and they don't even compare to how well-known FOX is, I wager hardly anyone knew about them until Bannon got into politics for his brief stint.


Let's see, how many of said Youtube personalities have ever made it onto MSM in anything other than a derogatory mention, if at all? How many Leftist speakers have been driven off of University campuses or brigaded during their speeches compared to Right-wing ones in recent years (I can recall a couple, but again, most cases have been on the right)? How many Right-Wing activists have had the luxury of speaking before the United Nations to at least some small measure of international recognition, a la Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn? Again, I know of hardly any. The MSM only talks about Youtube if Pewdiepie does something provocative, most of the time, if that at all.


And oh how naive you are if you think the Far Left would never abuse its power, or that the administrations that current favour the Left are not already doing so in so many different situations all over the world. You're willfully ignoring history at this point, and the reality of what is going on right now, even in just the UK alone.


Do you even know who Orwell was writing of in 1984 as his warning about who to fear as the next totalitarians? Here's a hint, it wasn't people like Donald Trump.


I'd also say your example is hyperbolic and at best is merely reflective of the Left-leaning bias of our current society that both terms do not promote the same reaction equally. Communist, at least in the "West" has not really lasted as a buzzword into the modern era after it burned out in effectiveness decades ago, whereas Nazi and Fascist has not (though they're also being incredibly diluted now as well). It takes a LOT of social deprogramming and "not-give-a-fuck" attitude to actually shamelessly proclaim yourself to be a Nazi in today's society, whereas Communist? Its far more palatable today due to the dilution, hence why you see more.


Maybe because they aren't (With the exception of The Golden One, obviously)? They see themselves as something that is not a Nazi or a Fascist, and are pissed off that people like you think they are as a means disregarding anything they have to say on any subject where they don't align with the mainstream Left? Or that your side has literally diluted the term to encapsulate "everyone who doesn't agree with me or even mildly criticizes issue x in a manner that isn't seen as acceptable"? Because that is certainly what it looks like.


More to the point, I could ask the same question about how Antifa refuses to call themselves Fascists, because that's what they are, by all appearances and comparisons. But yet nope, apparently they're the ANTI-FASCISTS who just so happen to dress and act like the same original Fascists.


In fact, in conclusion I think that kinda sums up this whole thing, doesn't it? "I could say the same thing about your side and yourself." Funny ol' world isn't it, that two different people can come to completely opposite conclusions based on what they see, is obvious that one merely reflects the other, and both can be quite adamant in their positions? Such is the nature of politics, I suppose.


Horseshoe theory, man, the extremes of both ideologies have far more in common than the moderates of either side do with each other.


I don't care, I prefer it this way over not being able to say anything at all.


But if this is your conclusion, then I'll say that I'm done trading insults at each others' character if you are. This is evidently getting us nowhere, and I think people are tried of this, I certainly am.


Its exhausting, honestly. But then, such is the case for many Centrists like myself, I think.

Long is the way; and hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light-Paradise Lost

By the power of truth, while I live, I have conquered the universe-Faust

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes, except that one

Vae Victus-Brennus

Share this post

Link to post


Look, when it's people peddling similar lies, using similar tactics, apologizing and downplaying the holocaust, and overall behaving in a very fascist way, I'm calling them as i see it.


And I don't agree with libertarians, I have family who voted for Trump, and guess what I don't call or think of them as? Nazis. Because I don't think they are. Hell, I'm not even going to call Trump a Nazi, because he isn't. But he does have white supremacist supporters.


Anyways, moving on to Templar Knight and I gotta say I can't believe it took me this long to realize this.


See, the people that you're talking about, these far-left genocide deniers who look up to Mao and Stalin, who either try to say their mass murders never happened and unironically want that to happen already have a name within the leftist community.


They're called "Tankies"


That's the word we've been skirting around this entire time, it really does make sense why you have so many objections to the "far-left" if what you're imagining are Tankies. It's been so long since I thought about Tankies, that's why it took until now to start talking about them. You want to know why I ignored them? Because their ideas are really really really bad.


Like, I had already encountered people like this and took one look at them and said, "Wow, I gotta distance myself from these people." and pretty much have ever since I've gotten into left-wing politics. Because their ideas really ARE bad. Just to give an example: they think that a lot of what Stalin and Mao did were "anti-imperialism" even though they intruded onto other's borders and took their resources for themselves or meddled in other countries in order to secure their own power.


And that's just one example. See, most serious thinkers on the left have already encountered people like this, the difference is that we don't give Tankies a platform. The people I watch don't have Tankies coming onto their channels and talking about how great Mao, Jung-Un, and Stalin were. The difference between Tankies and the Alt-right is that for one, a Tankie will let you know everything they're about, don't worry about that, they'll trip over themselves to tell you about what they are and what they want. Where as fascists seem to want to slip by undetected, and if possible turn YOU into a fascist without ever having you think "Wait, am I a fascist?"


Look, let me put it this way: If at some point, there was a growing movement of people online calling themselves say...."Post-Left", who actively attempted to recruit people to their cause using coded language designed to make their ideas more acceptable to the mainstream, I would not stand for the either. If i heard reports of this "post-left" movement trying to court angry teenagers and kids (you know, like Richard Spenser straight up admitted to) and there were "Post-Left" leaders who stirred up violence against people they didn't like. If when asked if they're a communist they say, "Oh, i'm not a Commie, I'm actually a anti-capitalist economic realist" or something like that, if they allude to, but never directly stating what they want, and when their chat records are leaked there's jokes and talks about killing people. I would be worried, and I would be fighting back against them.


If there was a "Post-Left" rally, where the night before they paraded through a college campus holding torches and chanting "You will not control us" and the very next day a member of this "post-left" movement ran their car into a crowd of people and some libertarian woman was killed, who attended because she was worried about the country slipping into a violent communist uprising. Then, later, "post-left" websites were talking about what a capitalist whore this woman was and it was a good thing that she was killed. Then in the months following the election of a candidate they they endorsed there was a spike in violence against people this group demonized. If there were stories, week after week, about how a radicalized "post-left" member was planting bombs intended to kill people, that there were multiple mass shootings carried out by "post-left" members, and there were "anticoms" fighting back but any time they did anything they had their actions overly-exaggerated and were made out to be equal if not a greater threat. Then, I read news articles about how the FBI warned that far-left extremists were attempting to infiltrate both the military and the police: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement I would be worried too!


The problem here, is that none of that is happening on the left. The Alt-right however, ARE doing things like that. We ARE seeing people who are members/supporters of the alt-right movement murdering people. There ARE leaked chat rooms of alt-right members joking about how they're gonna build gas chambers. We ARE seeing a spike in violence against Jewish and Black individuals.


This is why i'm so vocal about the Alt-right. It's not because I don't hate Tankies and think their ideology is toxic and terrible (I do). It's that all Tankies do is sit on their websites and chat boards and not DO anything.


The alt-right very much ARE trying to do something. They're trying to make white supremacists views more acceptable into the mainstream (as Spenser himself as directly said). And they've committed some very violent acts. It's not my left-leaning politics that make the alt-right's ideas seem bad to me. It's that they're violent ideas that WILL get a lot of innocent people killed and already have.


So, to directly talk about your listed points


1. If the "Alt-right of the left are Tankies", which is what I've pretty much argued above me, then are we seeing "Anti-Imperialists" going to college campuses? UHhhh, no. And in fact, you say it's the professors who teach radical left-wing ideas and I've seen the opposite. I've seen a self-identified communist student argue with a professor about Marxism. He was getting mad because the professor WASN'T agreeing with him.


College isn't a left-wing indoctrination facility, if anything, it's where radical-lefts go to find out their ideas are too extreme and not applicable in the real world. Who would have thought centers for education would temper extremist ideas?


And about pepe: Look, when it started, I actually REALLY LIKED pepe. I thought it was a cool little cartoon frog, my old phone is filled with photos of those "Extra rare" pepes that people made. It was great! Then, one day, a friend told me, "Hey, you probably shouldn't do pepe memes anymore, they're being co-opted by the alt-right," and I could't believe it. Though, after he said that, I noticed online i was seeing less and less "rare pepes" and more and more people arguing fascist ideas with pepe avatars...or using that Jewish caricature you see on /pol all the time. And that's when i realized...yeah, pepe had been co-opted by the far-right in order to try to hide their true intentions. Fascists RUINED pepe for me. So i was wrong to call it an INHERENTLY white supremacists symbol, but he's been co-opted by these alt-right people that...well he's a symbol for him. You say walmart isn't nazi-sypathizers because they've served nazis before and you're right but consider this:

Say, that you notice in walmarts a bunch of people with swastika tattoos and shaved heads started shopping their. Then, you notice after awhile, these are the only type of people who shop at walmart, and people like this start saying "Walmart is the store of the alt-right!" well...then I would be saying the same thing.


And that's all i'm gonna say about pepe.


2. These are the Tankies i was talking about. Anyone serious on the left stays far far far far away from Tankies because guess what. The vast majority of people on the left do NOT agree with Tankies, and don't want others to THINK that they do by association. That's one thing I never understood. If Contrapoints or Hbomberguy or whomever had a Tankie on their channel to talk about stuff, I'd never hear the end about how my fav youtubers are genocide apologists and are trying to replace grocery stores with bread lines. Yet, people in the center or the right don't seem to grasp that having alt-right people on your show a lot, repeating a lot of their talking points, and in general acting friendly towards them while hostile towards anyone on the left, kinda sorta makes people think you're an alt-right sympathizer (that is, to have SYMPATHIES for them)


3. Yes, Globalist is heavily hinted slanted towards antisemitism. Especially if someone says "Globalist Elites" or that there's a "Globalist Cabal" because that's used as a dog whistle by fascists to say "Jewish Elites" or that there's a "Secret Jewish Cabal" that controls the world. I understand people who are opposed to the movement of labor into cheaper labor markets (an actual "globalist" tactic). But more often than not, I do see people who say "Globalist Elites" and then go onto say something that's so thinly disguised as antisemitism that if you were to weir the veil everyone could see your nipples.


4. About this, there's a lot to unpack here but i do want to say two very important things. First, is that a lot of the time "the left" seem to only be against things because so often it's viewed as "damage control". Like, a lot of leftists I know are against the expansion of the prison population and the war on drugs, but that was because both of those things didn't USED to be a problem. It's things that would need to be fixed before anything positive can be built from it. And here's something to think about, The Right are only rebels if you think of the Democrats as the authority on leftist politics, because here's the thing i'm guessing you won't believe but: they aren't. Democrats are pretty in the middle about a lot of things. I would argue there's no equivalent to Labor in the US. There's no real leftist political platform in the US. Just a centrist platform that looks left leaning because their opponents have shifted their party so far right.


And "The Right" I would also say is conservative...and conservatives are anti-rebellion. There's nothing really rebellious about many of the right's ideas. It all seems like old ideas given a modern makeover and the only reason there's any semblance of being anti-authority is because there was a Democrat in the office last time. The real rebels I would argue are the people who go up against the Mega-Rich, but that's a different, far more interesting topic.


And about YouTube and guns. A. They're a business, they've noticed a LOT of people dropping the NRA because of this string of school shootings, therefore they don't want guns to be what they're known for. Plus, youtube hasn't been a good friend to leftists either, multiple times people have discovered if they merely have the word "Gay" or "Queer" or "Trans" in the title of their video, it becomes automatically demonized.


And Count Dankula...so, governments who use their power to unfairly target people that they don't like purely because of what they say is bad right? Well what about Desiree Fairooz who was not just once, but twice brought before a court because she laughed at Jeff Sessions? Can you agree that she shouldn't have had that happen to her? Plus, she didn't get in trouble for doing something intentionally and repeatedly for an "edgy joke", she just laughed at something someone said because she thought they were bullshitting her.


Facebook and Twitter have been going after left-leaning content too. It seems to me that Google, Twitter, and Facebook are trying to remove political ideas on the fringe, in order to keep more people on their sites. Even if the election has shifted the Overton window to the point where fascists ideas are seen as "unreasonable" rather than "unthinkable". It seems both of us think that our ideas are under attack. You want to talk about media bias, we could talk about how the BBC, one of the news outlets who're commonly praised for being neutral, photoshopped Jeremy Corybn to have a more Russian hat and then put him in front of the Kremlin.


5. Already talked about Tankies, and how I think their ideas were so bad, I didn't even entertain them. I put them out of my mind for years because their ideas are SO BAD. So, I'm aware who the extremists ARE on my side and have already dealt with how i think about them.


6. Ok, so MSM is predominately leftist. Here's the thing though YouTube and MSM are NOT equivalent. The entire point of YouTube is that anyone can get on and make videos, where as MSM is a professionally run news source more like...FOX. If there was a flood of leftist content on YouTube I wouldn't be trying to make the arguement that FOX is the right's youtube...because they aren't. Youtube is where average people go to talk about their ideas and even if the amount of people making content is the same, youtube can have bias in it too. What i'm trying to point out is that there's a lot more popular far-right content that appears on youtube than even slightly left of center. Some anecdotal stuff, I usually have a hard time finding leftist content on YouTube, usually i don't find anyone new unless they're given a shout-out or one of their videos are mass flagged and the leftist youtube community puts up mirrors of said content. However, just watching ONE sargon video, not only recommended me a bunch of other Sargon videos, but also my homepage was filled with other far-right content. It only went away after watching a bunch of ted talks.


BTW, maybe don't bring up Orwell to talk about the dangers of Leftism when Orwell was a socialist.


Oh, that's not a leap btw, in his OWN WORDS, "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism as I understand it." (and 1984 was published in 1949 so...)


And yeah, communist or communism IS a buzzword. Obama was called a communist repeatedly for the ACA which ultimately was really really friendly for insurance agencies. The word carries a LOT of stigma to it, and funnily enough you listing off communist leaders in an attempt to equate my beliefs to theirs is a perfect example of that.


But like i said, a fascist isn't going to call themselves a fascist. Let's take Lauren Southern for example. She talks about "The Great Replacement" (code word for "white genocide" btw), tried to get onto a boat to deny refugees access to Italy, basically trying to drown them in the Mediterranean, and has many hard-right ideas. She may not call herself or maybe even consider herself a white supremacist, but she is, in action and in the words that she says.


And about Antifa, they aren't fascists. They really, really, really, aren't. This is like me asking you, "why haven't you denied that Richard Spenser isn't a commie yet?" (and come to think of it i can't recall you ever explaining why some alt-right ideas are bad)

I've talked to antifacists, and while I will admit some of them have some pretty left ideas (though not Tankie Territory before you leap to that conclusion) I'm not hearing a lot about the need for greater control over populations. More just "we really don't think the alt-right should gain a voice and traction because their ideas are terrible".




And here's the thing, we both seem to think our ideas are under attack by various organizations yeah? But i want you to think about this: "If the Mega-Rich had their way, which political ideology would they be more comfortable with, the Alt-Right or Tankies"?


Now, this may seem like a total diversion, but it's a serious question. Because let's face it, these huge media companies are OWNED by really really rich people, and they want to hold onto that wealth. Is it so unreasonable to think that there could be a greater chance, that there's a larger media bias against people who want more economic equality at the expense of the mega-rich, rather than far-right groups who want a more totalitarian government at the expense of people they don't like?


Because honestly, the alt-right is a topic i really DON'T want to talk about. I just feel obligated to because i keep hearing stories about alt-right members committing murders and people come out of the woodwork to defend them or make people who are anti-alt-right seem way more dangerous than they really are.


What I REALLY want to talk about, is how the Mega-Rich are doing everything they can to get all they can from you because...well...I'll just link to this music video:


100% is going to be a cut-rate clown

Share this post

Link to post

I've actually never heard anyone describe such a term as "Tankies", but I can see how it would easily exist. I have no issue with your definition, by and large, so I won't dispute it.


But as for the Fascist or Nazi comparison. Again, I think the difference in how they present themselves is a product of history. Had we actually seen Nazi or Fascist states last beyond WWII to any grand degree, they probably would be far more open about what they'd be about. Communists certainly became that way because you had so many Communist nations come up, and last for a long time. Yes, there was tons of opposition against them in various places, but they also technically ran half the world at one point. You could not simply ignore them, you had to deal with them. Whereas Fascist and Nazi regimes? Very short shelf-life in history. Enormous pressure to eradicate them once WWII got going and ever since by practically all other ideologies, and basically a popularized disdain throughout the world over decades for anything that even resembled it, doesn't matter if you were part of the Capitalist or Communist bloc, both hated them, and they united to crush them.


In that context, it makes perfect sense why they evolved differently as a socio-political movement, so to speak. If you're part of any movement that is universally shunned by practically the entire world, and shunned in such a manner in that you invite very real threats to your safety if you're even SUSPECTED of being a member, you're obviously not going to go around broadcasting to the world that you are part of such a group or movement unless you literally don't give a fuck. For instance, to just use a non-political example. Say you had a society of cannibals. Cannibalism in western society, and many others, is very much a taboo, and one which will see you universally disdained as disgusting if you ever openly advocate for it, AFAIK. Of course said cannibalistic society is gonna go underground, it only makes sense.


But extremists of all kinds today, if they know what they're doing, will ALWAYS try to sell their messages in ways that are palatable to various people. Doesn't matter who it is. I've seen people make arguments for White Genocide, I've seen tons of people converted to ISIS because their recruits know exactly who to target and what to say to them, I know how Klansmen argued their positions to people in their hey-days, and I'm aware of how ethno-nationalists like Spencer peddle their bullshit. The trick? Most of this stuff only works in echo-chamber type locations, places or settings where a person is not exposed to opposition to these ideas which they're being told. Put Spencer against someone who can show how his plan would lead to nothing but a race war at best, and he looks like a war-mongering fool who cannot really respond to such an accusation without owning up to it.


The problem? The current state of affairs over the last (arguably, could be longer) decade has been to promote more and more people becoming secluded into echo chambers of various types. Because the current state of affairs does not promote a setting in which these dramatic views can be fleshed out and ironed out and debated without it looking like condescension. And its gotten worse because it has spread to numerous topics which the unspoken consensus is that there is to be absolutely no debate on a subject because someone else said that its immoral to even discuss the ideas.


The result? You inevitably get more radicals of all varieties, its happened many times when debate has been suppressed. It then just comes down to which ones are bigger, and which ones have more favour in general society's eyes.


That's the situation I think we're in. And I put the blame for this situation almost entirely on the general Left, because they're the political ideology which has held the favour of the establishment for recent years, and whose policies have generally been the ones gradually been favoured over the recent decades. Doesn't mean I'm saying they intended for this to happen, but that in their best intentions to create the more ideal society, they created the very situation they sought to avoid. The Right did the exact same thing during the 1950s when they held establishment power, they fought against change so hard that change came in the 1960s. I know I sound like a broken record saying the comparison over and over again, but I find the similarities uncanny.


Far-Leftists are not scared to admit who they are because they feel they have the self-righteous backing of society or moral righteousness, especially in their causes. And history doesn't necessarily lend them towards feeling otherwise ashamed of who they claim to be.


I would argue we're seeing sparks of political violence of both sides in general, and extreme ideas being thrown around by radicals of both ends. I can claim to have seen similar things from the Far-Left, the Right-wing incidents are just getting more attention because they're the unfavoured right now.


I also wouldn't be too quick to label the Austin Bomber (Who I assume you are alluding to) right-wing, I haven't even heard any agencies claim that, though I honestly haven't kept track the past two days. All I know is that he was a college drop out who was unemployed, didn't openly leave anything saying that attacks were race motivated beyond the fact that the victims were black, and didn't publicly state any ties to any organization AFAIK. If anything, he's just exactly the kind of extremist I illustrated earlier that this situation is leading towards creating, from what I can tell.


Also, so what if White Supremacists supported Trump? I can tell you Anti-White radicals supported Hillary, does that mean the party advocates for White Genocide? No candidate has any say in who they're supported by. Its not like he personally invited the Grand Dragon or whatever the hell the title is of the Klan over to speak at his rallies. He didn't even get a guy like Spencer to do it. These same Supremacists were pissed that Trump WASN'T being a racist in the bills he was passing.


The violence spike? I'd argue its been building since Obama's administration, which didn't help because of how the last election was framed (Van Jones claiming that Trump's election was a "Whitelash" and how widely that got circulated doesn't fucking help matters) in that the media outlets harped over and over and blew things out of proportion to the point where it was literally the most polarizing election in living memory. Under whose administration did BLM form? How many riots and mass protests over racial killings (mostly involving police, guilty or no, but still) occurred under his administration?


My point being that its been building for a while over many different things, and its not necessarily tied to Trump himself. I don't blame him for extremist morons thinking now is their opportunity because he happens to be the most openly nationalistic president we've seen in a while. Especially when he hasn't condoned such actions in office (I know how the MSM tried to say: "Oh he's not ONLY blaming the Right for what happened in Charlottesville! He's a White Supremacist for thinking both are bad!" No, you can think he's naive if you wish, but he's not one for merely saying he sees violent people on both sides.)




1: As I've said before I'd say that depends on your college, and your courses, and especially your Professors. I will be the first to admit that not all of them are the same, as I said before, I got lucky and did not experience much of this in my University, and actually had a good time, but I certainly saw it when I revisited it barely a year later among Profs of different courses, and students of different courses. And I know through personal friends who attend other universities who can corroborate exactly what I'm talking about.


My point on Pepe is that it doesn't matter who he is co-opted by, man. There's no reason for you to feel bad. Pepe is so versatile he can literally be co-opted by anyone of any movement for any reason at any time. I suppose you can feel disgusted that a White Nationalist is using the same thing you use, but IMO if you're gonna think that way, then good luck finding anything that they don't use that tons of average people use every single day. There's no point in such thinking, IMO. I'll leave it at that.


2: I would say such a thing is necessary in order to show your audience that these ideas are bullshit or are nonsense, because many ideas are debatable, and arguably to help maintain your own centrism, if you claim to be more towards the center of things. The whole idea about information dissemination is to hopefully, educate or inform the audience or general public on a topic, right? A debate is an extension of this, wherein you hope to educate the public on both sides of a contentious issue, and use arguments to show why one side of the argument is stronger than the other. You cannot do that, unless you actually entertain the argument or talking points of the other side. You merely create an echo chamber or become a preacher otherwise, IMO anyway.


Put it this way. You cannot feasibly pull a Steve Shives or MovieBob and just refuse to engage with anyone you dislike merely because you hate their views. Because then like Steve Shives, you end up looking like a lunatic to everyone outside of the established audience because you refuse to engage with the people you critique, and you eventually stop listening to what they're saying, and you then spout off shit about individuals that is completely false. (Shives did this recently after MythCon months and months ago when Sargon, Armoured Skeptic, and Shoeonhead all attended various events there, motherfucker didn't even attend the event, and Armoured Skeptic made his response video look completely moronic by showing how out-of-touch it was with reality).


The other reason why they talk to Alt-Right members, its actually been stated by many of the people I watch, (Sargon, Dankula, Styx, and to lesser extents Skeptic and Shoe as well) have all said that the reason they talk to many openly Alt-Right members, is because they are at least willing to talk to them and debate them. They can totally disagree on various subjects, but they can at least debate them. Whereas, for some mysterious reason, when approached for debate, many Leftist groups, publications, or individuals refuse to even try and discuss a subject with them. They're not even averse towards talking to Leftist speakers, they've just found that so many of them refuse to even engage with them for one reason or another.


3: Is it necessarily? Or is it just something else that has been co-opted? Or an association made by its supporters to defame valid critics? That's also happened before with various things. But I won't disagree that I have seen it used in such manners.


4: If we're talking official political platforms in the US? You're correct. But that doesn't mean that Leftist politics haven't permeated elsewhere overall. The mass media, across not only the US, but most of the "west", I would argue is Leftist, almost totally if not merely in favour of. And the media has an immense amount of power over a society, as they control what people see and how they see it. They can twist people's minds on various issues specifically by NOT showing certain statistics, or certain events that don't fit what they want people to see. Which has been going on for a long time, and in favour of Leftist narratives, by and large in my experience in recent memory.


There are also wider cultural factors to consider. When was the last time you saw a famous Pop Star or Hollywood Actor who WASN'T a Leftist? Or had a big film that didn't at least try to slightly push Leftist ideas? Fuck, I could hardly recall an instance in an electoral situation where so many of the Cultural elite, all of them various flavours of Leftists, came out in favour of one candidate over another, than the last one.


Or The Pope? We currently have the most Left-leaning Pope in existence (not necessarily a bad thing, but even I can notice the difference) on the throne of St. Peter. That lends towards religious influence, and therefore more social influence, people draw inspiration from his example, and modern religion in and of itself, in terms of secularized respects, is very left-leaning as well. (Completely different story in many places, obviously. But in many secularized nations, most major religious bodies have to at least pay their respects to the socio-political leanings of the area even if they view the subjects as blasphemous in their religious contexts)


That, and OUTSIDE of the US, much of the "West" has been run for a long time by Leftist or Liberal governments of various descriptions, or lite-Conservatives often with Minority governments.


It all adds up to a tremendous amount of establishment power, is what I'm saying.


Also, the Democrats DID try to score with the Progressive Left very heavily last election by how many wedge issues they pushed, and have traditionally been the ones in modern memory to do so (Just as the Republicans have in modern memory traditionally catered to the Evangelicals), to the point where its actually threatening to cause a schism within the Democratic party. Whether or not the Business Dems and Neo-Libs were genuine doesn't matter, they catered to them all the same. But now they have no fucking clue what their platform is beyond "We want Trump out!", a basically bankrupt party, and no real leader yet. That alone should show you how confused the Dems are right now.


Whether or not they are officially, they certainly have become the unspoken leaders of the Left in US politics right now.


I don't know the situation of Fairooz, but if that is the situation, then it is ridiculous. I do know that in court situations you're expected to not look like you're in contempt of court, but that doesn't sound like the case here. I do also have to wonder why the hell anyone thought such a case was worth their time (like Dankula), or if the whole thing wasn't just thrown out anyway. Because here's a question I will ask in response: Was Fairooz convicted of anything, or were the cases thrown out? If its the latter, then I'd say the US Justice system is working as intended and is defending the right to freedom of speech, if not then its completely ridiculous.


I'm not surprised to see people brought up to court for various behaviours of speech in the current climate of Hate Speech laws and for uttering threats and other such things, but I do disagree with convictions on such subjects of speech. I think they're ridiculous, actions are what matter over words or thoughts.


If she wasn't convicted, then I wouldn't say that its the same case as Dankula, but if she was, then I'd say yea its about as ridiculous.


They have been working towards both, yes, but some moreso than others, and in terms of optics, it looks really bad when say, Razorfist gets banned from Twitter for referring to a Heavy Metal Guitarist whose last name is Lynch, and meanwhile you have people posting racism against Whites constantly on pages (maybe not anymore, I haven't checked since I don't use Twitter) because they have a selective view of racist content and not an objective standard.


Or when Youtube makes a deal with The Young Turks, CNN, or other media outlets that are mostly Leftist in order so that they have a monopoly on who can monetize content, yet go after all kinds of Independent and Conservative content makers to the point where they had to openly come out and apologize.


IMO, its mostly they're paying lip-service to objectivity in many cases, and they don't want to go through the effort to actually be objective because they prefer algorithms over people for this shit.


And that's surprising, because from my experience the BBC has been almost totally known for it being very Left-leaning both in its content and hiring policies. But if so, just another reason why I think they shouldn't be publicly funded, and why I don't go to them for information.


5: Good for you then, I think we can leave it there.


6: So you admit that they are separate playing fields.


I will say that in general, it is EXTREMELY HARD to start out on Youtube now for anything. Good luck finding many brand new content makers that aren't propped up by Youtube themselves that actually last, period. Ross himself has talked on this I think quite succiently.


Its also a crap-shoot as to understanding how the hell Algorithms work on Youtube right now. I don't think they even fully know what they're doing.


I know who Orwell was, but again, what type of government do you think he made as a critique in 1984? They aren't Christian Conservatives, I can tell you that much. 1984 was a warning for Leftists as much as it was a general warning about totalitarianism. His quote doesn't deny that he wrote it as a critique of a Far-Leftist Totalitarian regime obsessed with though-policing as much as the Far-Right.


Also Democratic Socialists have traditionally been kicked around by both sides of the political spectrum. It wouldn't surprise me that he had no love of Communists any more than Fascists.


I never said it wasn't, I said it has lost its effectiveness in terms of popular usage. They try to, but come on. You cannot tell me that it actually has the power it did in the 50s and 60s, man. Did anyone actually care that the ACA called Obama out as a Communist? Did it ever come out as a major point of contention throughout his career? No. You're not gonna be beaten out of University because someone called you a Communist. Conversely, you would be if you came out as a Nazi, more likely than not in today's climate.


The fact that political leaders can actually come out as Communists or sympathetic towards their views in different countries (a la Corbyn and members of his shadow cabinet to various degrees) and not be thrown out of office or let go is evidence of this.


I never said I equated your beliefs to theirs, I said you were ignoring genocidal maniacs on your side since you seemed to be calling out all the extremists on the one side, whilst ignoring the others on yours. Pretending that the Left doesn't have its own share of maniacs, is what it looked like. You were acting as if the Left has NEVER abused power over others and caused suffering, that was point I was trying to make. Its no a stigma against Communism. I've read the manifesto, I can debate with Communists, I just don't trust them being in charge or power because their revolution never plays out the way they expect it will, because its not designed for political power, hence why the adjust it.


That's disregarding the context that Italy itself (like many others right next to these various hot-spots) has for years tried to stop Refugees from entering their country in endless droves because they cannot even deal with them and are not being adequately supported by the wider EU? Is Italy full of White Supremacists now? Or the various Eastern European countries that have all tried to stand against the various wider EU policies to various effects for different reasons? I actually watched a full documentary on Lampedusa, a tiny Italian island between Libya and Sicily, which saw 400x its population land on it in the form of refugee boats for months and months during the peak of the war in Libya alone. The locals? Hated the whole situation for various reasons, they wanted the government to step in and stop them from constantly landing on their island and overwhelming them with people who were not of their culture, were not there to settle down, and were causing problems in some cases.


I actually watched Southern's video you're referring to, "The Great Replacement". Are you saying that her views on the subject are wrong? If so, then please explain.


As for the rest of what she does? If anything I view it to be no different than Japan seeking to maintain and preserve their own culture and heritage in the face of a crisis within their own society. Southern is correct in that "white" or "European" society in many places is not being protected, but even further is being given over to being completely disassembled by a variety of other different cultures, while the rest of the world does not follow suit.


Let's even just look at the pretentiousness of Hollywood as an example. In no other major film industry on Earth, to my knowledge, do you see such a continued push for "diversity" that has actually gained such ground. Do you see the Japanese Anime industry taking "diversity" concerns seriously or are they just doing what they want and leaving that business for their NA offices? India's Bollywood? Korean soap opreas? Chinese television? Russian television or films? I certainly don't know of any. Why is that? Surely if "diversity" is so universally better for a culture, and we're living in a more globalized world, why suspiciously does it seem to be that we're the only ones who give a flying fuck about it?


Many would say its because we have no cultural pride anymore. Or what pride we do derive is from helping others find their cultural pride out of penitence for what our ancestors did. And that many pushes towards even feeling happy in your culture is you cultivating hateful ideas.


Don't believe me? Explain the reactions to the "Its okay to be White" posters?


Granted, that instance was specifically concocted by 4Chan explicitly for the purpose of showing off this hypocrisy, but it is an excellent example because it got such a reaction. There was no calls to support Nazism or White Supremacy, there was no symbols of any groups affiliated with such goals, the text itself wasn't even saying that Whites were in any way superior to anyone else. It simply said: "Its Okay to be White." Yet if you were to believe the reactions around these posters, you'd think that Nazi Death Squads were to come storming through tomorrow. You'd have thought that it proclaimed "Death to all Black people.", or that "White is right.". Or that "Only Nazis could think its "Okay to be white"."


That tiny little statement of saying that its okay to be someone in particular, and not even someone that anyone actively chooses to be, (especially when had this poster been made in reference to any other racial group, there would be incident) but is merely born as, and the reaction it managed to evoke, to me, shows exactly that Lauren's beliefs on the subject are justified. There are tons of people out there that hate whites and European culture, don't think that we have any reason to be happy in who we are born as or what our heritage is, and will automatically consider any positive statement made about us racially as a Nazi call or racist cry. (Again, even if a situation regarding any other racial group would be considered as such by these same people).


We don't consider the Japanese to be bad in that they seek to protect their culture, even though as a First-World nation they could very easily take in way more Refugees than they do. Are they enabling racists as well? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that they are inherently doing it to be racist.


Also when Germany just arbitrarily decides to take in millions of refugees and then just lose track of 250K of them, that's totally not irresponsible either, right? Especially not when crime stats of all kinds of different types shoot up as a result? (If you can even find the honest stats, apparently its become racist to even considering tracking crimes committed by people of different backgrounds now, so good luck ever trying to debunk this idea outside of UK and Dutch data)


On the subject of refugees, I would rather help fix their situation in their own homes, than bring them over to another which often costs even more and create a situation that is even better for them than in their own countries to where they don't even want to leave. Because then their own country's recovery will stall, and it defeats the whole purpose of the term "Refugee" over "Immigrant". I personally hate the fact that a Refugee who lands in my country can apparently get everything me and my parents had to work for, for free, and plans are made for integration rather than temporary stability for them to go back home after whatever crisis passes. Not that I blame the Refugees themselves for wanting to take advantage of a good thing, its irresponsible of the government first and foremost. As a government, don't give away what you cannot afford to give away to your own people.


But I strayed WAY off topic and got into way more than I intended to. Back on track.


Well, if you wished me to explain why Alt-Right ideas are bad, its because I inherently don't believe in the idea of race, because it is entirely a subjective term that varies from culture to culture, and was made up in an actual codified sense by early Anthropologists a little over two centuries ago for no purpose beyond justifying why certain people can be discriminated against by creating an artificial category they attempted to bolster with science. We now know that for the most part, there is no significant difference to actually mark out specific races among humanity, and that it is entirely just a subjective process. Therefore basing policies off of race, to me, is a bad idea because there is no basis for objectivity there. How exactly do you make just laws off of an artificial scale with which you measure people by? You cannot without an entire culture of zealots. I also don't believe that being born of a particular background makes you inherently anything, a person can just as easily become a Genghis Khan or a Mother Theresa based on their upbringings and circumstances.


I don't believe that an ethnostate would work in any voluntary sense, nor would it necessarily run any more efficiently other than to generate more useless paperwork, and therefore would require a dictatorship if not a totalitarian state to even be possible, and I oppose such authoritarian ideas.


On the subject of Antifa being Fascists, I would point out that I have made arguments as to why they are essentially Fascists, or pointed to sources that make the uncanny comparison that could actually stand up as showing how twisted some of them have become. Since you seem to be fine with Razorfist, I recommend you watch the video he made on the subject (which I linked earlier), and kindly explain to me how his comparison is wrong? They also have a tendency yo go overboard, regardless, out of fear for Nazis and Fascists.




That entirely depends on the circumstances, and whether or not the Mega-Rich saw an opportunity for profit in some fashion. I'm sure George Soros would love to see his idea of a Utopia come to fruition, and he's mega-rich in that he can apparently back Gods know how many protest movements, political movements, and parties with his own cash, all them very Leftist in ideals.


Or hell, even prior to modern situations. How many Neo-Liberals are just corporate jag-offs playing at being Leftists or Neo-Cons from a different direction? And they've been around for decades.


The Mega-rich are no more a bloc than any other group in society. Many of them may have shared class interests, but I don't see them conspiring actively on any grand scale either, and there will always be some who support one side or another. Helps that even the make-up for the Mega-rich has become larger over time.


Which candidate exactly got all the corporate and banker cash in the recent US election, and out-funded her opponent by a factor of over 5 times (ten times at its peak), and explicitly catered to Leftist Progressives? Makes one think.


To be fair, yes, I do believe that the Mega-rich, by and large, wish to stay rich, for various reasons. Not all are inherently malicious, but some are.


Which to me makes it interesting if the theory is that they're behind all of this business in the mass media. Because it would mean that most of them openly oppose Trump, or at least want people to oppose him if for no other reason than to keep their minds of other things while they rake in the stacks off of tabolid-esque stories. They want conflict among the lower classes and competitors, they desire a dumb and mindless populace that will fight amongst themselves rather than point out how they're bullshit. (Hell, if you believe Project Veritas, it quite literally is all about the ratings and therefore the money to these people. Which IMO is certainly not a ridiculous idea to suggest.)


But yea, rich corporations or individuals are entirely behind the censorship craze in that they control the advertising fiascos that have been going on and thus the drive for censorship, they are making killings trying to cater their various outlets towards looking like they care about all kinds of issues when in reality they don't to any significant degree, and they will use popular opinion control as a means to back stab each other if they see the opportunity to do so.


Again, I don't see it as any grand Bilderberg or Illuminati world plan conspiracy bullshit where they all sit down and decide exactly how things will go each year, I think they just use their tremendous power to try to effect situations to their own ends, and occasionally their interests align into something that could look like a conspiracy. But they're as competitive and cut throat as anyone else, they just have the power to make such things far bigger.

Long is the way; and hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light-Paradise Lost

By the power of truth, while I live, I have conquered the universe-Faust

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes, except that one

Vae Victus-Brennus

Share this post

Link to post

I feel like not knowing what a tankie is shows how little insight a person has in to leftist political discourse.

Share this post

Link to post
...or the fact that they're smarter than being left wing

or maybe we're smarter than rejecting an entire spectrum on the premise of the ideas being "dumb"

Share this post

Link to post

So here's the thing about Fascist in the modern day, in the past, and in the United States specifically (lest we forget the purpose of this thread). It almost seems like Fascism wasn't around very much for a lot of the US's history after WWII. Before then, there were actually fascist sympathizing factions within the US, heck some people went to help fight in the Spanish War while some companies sent materials.


After WWII, there was no way someone would come out as a Fascist or peddle Fascist ideas, they'd get dogpiled to the ground, after all we just won a war against it. In fact, I would actually argue that basically any political stance that deviated from the norm (in terms of economics) was suppressed during this time. Socialist and far-right alike.


But only now are we really seeing the resurgence of far-leaning groups, especially on the right. Why is that?


Well, I would argue that right now in the US, there's this prevailing feeling of "something is wrong". The American Dream is largely dead to most people, we have an opioid crisis on our hands, nothing seems to be getting better, and people are becoming more and more anti-establishment.


Now, this feeling isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be channeled into unhealthy ways. I would argue that far-right/alt-right groups are one of the worst ways TO channel this feeling. Because here's the thing, every time i try to come to understand the far-right it boils down into this: "deviants" whether that's LGBT people, immigrants, socialists, or whatever, are ruining everything and 'we' need to take steps to stop the damage.


Depending on who you ask, the 'deviants' change and so do the solutions to 'stopping the damage'. Everything else is kinda secondary if i'm being honest. For example, I've seen "blue lives matter" everywhere in the town i'm in, a direct response to black lives matter. But, more than once i've seen someone who shouts "blue lives matter" attack the same police chief for saying that gun control really is the best way to reduce gun violence, not "good guy with a gun".


How does that relate to "deviant"? Honestly, it's buried beneath a lot of seemingly legit reasons, but overall, I find people want guns because they're scared of "deviants". They're worried a Muslim person will suicide bomb a place they frequent, and a gun makes them feel safe. They're scared of black people, because they're "thugs", better keep a gun on me at all times so i can shoot the next "thug" who'll try to rob me. It's a byproduct of this fear of the "deviant".


Fascism takes this fear to the next level. See, the ultimate goal of fascism ISN'T an "ethnostate" not really. It's the installment of a strong leader who'll take absolute power, and use it to suppress the "deviant". If you look from dictators in African countries, to Mussolini and Hitler, there's this strong desire to be rid of "deviants". But who those are depends on fascist leader to fascist leader. For Hitler it was Jews, Gypses, homosexuals, and Communists. They were all the people who "deviated" from what it was to be "german", at least if you listened to what Hitler says.


What really makes these far-right groups, who have overtly white supremacist ideas, Fascist is that hatred of "deviants". That's the connecting thread that you really don't see on far-left groups. I would argue that the biggest divide between those on the left and those on the right are how much one trusts the common person.


Those on the right seem to think that people can't be trusted to do the right thing. This is why the GOP is so against Pot, they're worried people will act out of control, be lazy, be untrustworthy, and society as a whole will suffer because now that it's legal, all these people who can't be trusted will now make a whole bunch of bad choices.


This kinda also leads back into guns, "Because people can't be trusted, and me or my family could be attacked at any second, I need to have firearms so i can protect myself and my loved ones." is the message I honestly keep hearing from people who are unwilling to even think about stricter gun laws.


So what's the solution? Well, if you go far enough right, it's to entrust a lot of power to "powerful people" who'll keep the average people in line. Personally, I think this is why those on the right are for less taxes and idealize Randian super-men. Because those who get power, deserve power, and it's unfair of the common person, who can't be trusted, to take that power away from them.


Those one the right also tend to do REALLY WELL when there's chaos or disorder. The more chaos there is the more people desire order. They more people you see hurt, the more willing you are to give up rights and power to someone who promises to make the violence stop, especially if you're convinced that the violence is caused by "Immigrants, Thugs, and (in a word) 'Deviants'"


I find people on the left are far more trusting of the common person. I mean, communism as an IDEA is how people will only take what they need, and work, and provide for a community because everyone is so nice that they'll just do that. Those on the left are far more excepting of those who are "deviant" than those on the right.


Pot isn't a huge deal because people on the left are more likely to think, "yeah, it's alright if they get high, doesn't hurt anyone."


Being wary of people in power is much more common on the left i think. Because even if you trust the common person, there's no denying that people will hurt normal people in order to get ahead. And those who have power, have more ability to hurt or hold back others for personal or communal gain.


The things people on the left tend to fear are people who are powerful, not those who are powerless.


This is sorta why i don't think of Stalin as a left-leaning person. Sure, he was part of a movement that vilified people in power, because they have the capacity to hurt more people. But once they were overthrown, he may as well have just been a replacement for the people he disposed of. He drummed up fear of "capitalists" and "fascists" to keep people in line and to justify more and more power being given to him. Mao is a different story, basically one of an opportunistic snake who swooped in when it was convenient for him to do so but hey-ho.


The point is, yes, we should keep on the watch for someone who attacks "capitalists" and starts talking about executions of people who are on the top or who helped those on top. But we also gotta watch out that the fear of "the other" doesn't lead us to making really bad choices.


As a country, we need to be accepting enough of "deviants" that we are so scared of our fellow human beings, that we give power to someone who doesn't deserve it. Being afraid that violence could happen at any moment and we need to be armed so we can protect ourselves, doesn't actually make anyone safer, just more able to hurt others.


So, a big question to ask yourself when it comes to figuring out your true politics is "how much do i trust ordinary people, especially people i don't like."


Because personally, even though I don't like a lot of conservative ideas or like things conservatives say, I don't think they're inherently evil. I think that a lot of what seems irrational, is just fear coming to the forefront and being expressed as hate and cruelty. I think your average conservative is afraid, deep down, scared that people they know and love will be hurt by someone who could have been stopped, "If only the Queer was told that how they behave wasn't acceptable, if only those damn immigrants didn't come to my country and ruin it, if only one of the teachers had a gun, none of this would be happening."


I honestly feel a little bad for your average Fox News watcher or Brietbart reader, constantly hearing about how terrible the world is, how "Deviants" are ruining everything, and the people who let the deviants run wild are now stirring up LIES against the one guy who've we put all our hopes and dreams into because he's the only one that understands them.


And for people who are under 30, jeese no wonder the alt-right has a growing following. "Things are bad" is such a strong feeling for people in that demographic. We have so many problems it would take all night to list them out. The problem is, for many of these people, they were given a second part to that feeling, "and it's the 'deviants' fault."


To many on the alt-right, it's the Tumblr SJWs who want immigrants from terrorist countries and who HATE white straight men that are ruining everything. It's the people that they support that are ruining everything, afterall, they LOVE Obama and things are STILL shit!...but what if my views are too extreme and I don't know it? Well don't worry, there are people like Lauren Southerland and Sargon of Akkad who describe themselves as "Centrists" or "Moderates" and they're saying the same thing!


Meanwhile, to those on the left, what we see is people who could wipe out poverty if they REALLY REALLY wanted to, sit on a mountain of cash, buying politicians, not giving a single thought to your average person if not look at them in disdain, and conclude that it's not "the others" who are the problem, it's the people who are sucking the wealth out of everything and everyone who are the problem....but first, we have to deal with this group of people who are saying the same things we heard from Fascist leaders in the 1930s because if their ideas take hold, then people I know and love will die.

100% is going to be a cut-rate clown

Share this post

Link to post
I find people want guns because they're scared of "deviants". They're worried a Muslim person will suicide bomb a place they frequent, and a gun makes them feel safe. They're scared of black people, because they're "thugs", better keep a gun on me at all times so i can shoot the next "thug" who'll try to rob me. It's a byproduct of this fear of the "deviant".

What are you smoking?

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post

Link to post
I find people want guns because they're scared of "deviants". They're worried a Muslim person will suicide bomb a place they frequent, and a gun makes them feel safe. They're scared of black people, because they're "thugs", better keep a gun on me at all times so i can shoot the next "thug" who'll try to rob me. It's a byproduct of this fear of the "deviant".

What are you smoking?


So you disagree with this idea? That people arming themselves is because they're afraid of being hurt? May I ask why?

100% is going to be a cut-rate clown

Share this post

Link to post
I don't know mate, but I sure as shit don't want any of his communist cool-aid.



"You just call everyone you don't like a Nazi"


"Boy, get a load of this COMMUNIST. He's a commie, totally, even though he hasn't mentioned anything about collective work, seizing the means of production, how everyone is equal in many regards, and the nationalization of every service, he's totally a commie, because i say so. Don't listen to him, he's a commie. Commie, Commie, Commie, Commie, if I say it enough times that makes it true right? That's how it works?"


Look, I've already kinda given up any hope of you actually reading and using a small amount of rational thought. But I didn't expect you to be a complete reactionary. Maybe I DO have too much faith in the common person.

100% is going to be a cut-rate clown

Share this post

Link to post

What are you smoking?


I don't know mate, but I sure as shit don't want any of his communist cool-aid.


Truly, pinnacle of discussion, these responses. How can you NOT see that this is the situation of American politics? It's all blatantly obvious, and it lines up perfectly with what he said. Politics is always, at root, the discussion of people's fears and their responses to it. Conservatives fear Liberals becoming communists. Liberals fear conservatives becoming fascists. It's always a balancing act of fears.

"I believe in a universe that doesn't care and people who do." - Night In The Woods

Share this post

Link to post
I don't know mate, but I sure as shit don't want any of his communist cool-aid.

He hasn't been drinking any Kool-aid, you have. The United States ran an extensive and aggressive campaign against socialism during and before the cold war, complete with propaganda, sanctions, subterfuge, and invasive military action. In fact, the effects of that campaign are ongoing and can still be felt to that day. The result? People like you who reject any and all notion that socialism isn't doomed to fail by design, despite not knowing what exactly socialism is. The ONLY socialist states to adequately survive the first world beatdown the United States was dishing out were the extremely authoritarian and militaristic ones, like the USSR and the PRC. Socialist states were destroyed in the making, for example, the military coup in Chile that happened not long after their first socialist leader was democratically elected, that was directly influenced and even orchestrated by the Nixon administration. Catalonia was a functional anarcho-socialist society that came to power and independence following the Spanish revolution and eventually fell after 3 years of war with Spain. American people in particular have been conditioned to hate socialism and communism, because there actually was a point in time where being supportive of socialism was a fucking thought crime. Now, not only have first world anti-socialist attitudes persisted, but they've spread thanks to the commercial availability of the internet. Keep drinking that Kool-aid, though.

Share this post

Link to post

Also I feel like it should be mentioned that Nixon and some of his successors peddled the idea that hippies were pot-smoking absent-minded tree huggers. (Basically the truth from GTA.) In reality, it was more nuanced, and not a lot of people were actually like that. There was also the racial profiling of African Americans as thugs and drug dealers, etc. Additionally, the Nixon administration and its war on drugs had an alternate motive, as expressed in this quote:

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." — John D. Ehrlichman, former Nixon aide, interview with Dan Baum


While that quote has been disputed as to its truth, it does highlight the issues in society which we know are taking place. I'm always talking about the war on drugs because it's a perfect example of how to fuck everything up.



Again, though, refer to the statistics I put up a few pages ago concerning the crime disproportion concerning African Americans, and the subsequent Prison-Industrial complex.

"I believe in a universe that doesn't care and people who do." - Night In The Woods

Share this post

Link to post









To kraken and username, as a gun owner whos live in a country where having a gun is rather a privilege than a right and where also thé laws every time that there a terrorist attack or a similar event, you two should be happy To live if im not mistaken in a country where this right is actually protected by the constitution and by a controversial but effective lobby that is the nra, but you will actually use your brain and do a little search you will ses that during her history the nra always supported some of the biggest gun control laws such as the 1934 nfa or the 1968 gca, the same thing can be more or less said about the united states...


Again if you guys had some brains and do some research you'll see that there was always gun control in the united states throughout their history and even before the country was even founded in 1776, and again as we are speaking there are already more than 20k of guns laws in this country, what does make anyone think that one more will change a thing ?


I dont care in general about your feelings but the level of double standard is high in these two libtard make me cringe the facts that one pretend To be mostly pro gun or love guns yet want gun control for beyond stupid reasons (username) and the others a eu de whos openly admited shooting and owning gun himself is beyond hypocritical and the only thing they are proving is that sometime it is also the gun owners themselve that can be their own worse enemy and thus giving credits To the anti gunner...


Again as a gun owner myself i personnaly think that you two are an embarassment To the gun community, you all talk yet you wont go To any pro gun forum like ar15.com to discuss you concern, a lack of courage if you ask me...


Oh and meanwhile in vermont one of the safest states in the us, home of constitutional carry and the which had some of the most permissive gun laws, has just throwed 240 years of freedom in the toilet by banning bump stock and magazine that hold more than 10 rounds... beautiful really this what happen when you have a democrat majority in both state houses and a rino gov that votes stupid and useless laws by emotions...


Meanwhile in canada...





...and my sincere sympathy for the norwegians guns owners...





When i see all of this, i wonder if it was worth it to win world war 2, because we didn't learn anything from it.

Share this post

Link to post

To kraken and username, as a gun owner whos live in a country where having a gun is rather a privilege than a right and where also thé laws every time that there a terrorist attack or a similar event, you two should be happy To live if im not mistaken in a country where this right is actually protected by the constitution and by a controversial but effective lobby that is the nra, but you will actually use your brain and do a little search you will ses that during her history the nra always supported some of the biggest gun control laws such as the 1934 nfa or the 1968 gca, the same thing can be more or less said about the united states...


Again if you guys had some brains and do some research you'll see that there was always gun control in the united states throughout their history and even before the country was even founded in 1776, and again as we are speaking there are already more than 20k of guns laws in this country, what does make anyone think that one more will change a thing ?


I dont care in general about your feelings but the level of double standard is high in these two libtard make me cringe the facts that one pretend To be mostly pro gun or love guns yet want gun control for beyond stupid reasons (username) and the others a eu de whos openly admited shooting and owning gun himself is beyond hypocritical and the only thing they are proving is that sometime it is also the gun owners themselve that can be their own worse enemy and thus giving credits To the anti gunner...


Again as a gun owner myself i personnaly think that you two are an embarassment To the gun community, you all talk yet you wont go To any pro gun forum like ar15.com to discuss you concern, a lack of courage if you ask me...


Oh and meanwhile in vermont one of the safest states in the us, home of constitutional carry and the which had some of the most permissive gun laws, has just throwed 240 years of freedom in the toilet by banning bump stock and magazine that hold more than 10 rounds... beautiful really this what happen when you have a democrat majority in both state houses and a rino gov that votes stupid and useless laws by emotions...


Meanwhile in canada...


...and my sincere sympathy for the norwegians guns owners...


When i see all of this, i wonder if it was worth it to win world war 2, because we didn't learn anything from it.


Okay, let me just debate some parts of this. First off, 3 years after 1968 some federal agents had shot a NRA member (who was hoarding a large cache of illegal weapons), causing a division between hard-liners, which wanted restrictions of weapons for criminals (by giving everyone else a gun), and the moderates whom were open to restrictions, but not outright of taking away of weapons. And guess which side won? So now we have the current NRA, which gets offended any time someone breathes on a gun the wrong way.


Second off, I have NEVER fired an assault rifle, nor do I own one. I only own bolt actions of low caliber, and pistols, with very few being larger caliber. The restriction of bump stocks and limits of 10 rounds a magazine is perfectly reasonable in my eyes. The 20,000 gun law figure is a hyperbole made by gun-supporters. And it doesn't matter how many laws there are, what matters is the enforcement of them. And why would we debate this on a pro-gun forum, if we'd rather discuss it here? Just because we're discussing it doesn't mean we're about to go straight to the lion's den on that matter.


Third, Vermont is actually not one of the safest states. It has the highest rate of gun deaths of any New England regional states. And what does WW2 have to do with it? As far as I can tell, WW2 didn't do anything for or against gun control, because 20 years later, with the beginnings of live media, mass shootings were starting to appear. Are you trying to say how this is a right to take over a corrupt government? Because honestly, I'd have to say I'm surprised there hasn't already been armed rebellion against the government... Oh wait, no, every single time that's happened the military came in and crushed it, or the politicians just ignored it till the problem resolved itself.


My stance on guns purely reflects the NEED for guns, rather than what people want from them. I would find it perfectly reasonable to limit weapons to semi-automatic pistols, and to bolt action rifles, or maybe a semi-automatic rifle with low magazine capacity. For what purpose do you need 10+ rounds if you're hunting, or if you're carrying for self-defense?

"I believe in a universe that doesn't care and people who do." - Night In The Woods

Share this post

Link to post


use your brain


had some brains




Boy, this is some great good faith argumentation right here.


But besides that, let me just say 1. 20k gun laws really don't mean much on their own. I mean, the content matters more than the amount doesn't it?


2. A question you need to ask yourself is "does having guns make myself safer"? because here's the thing, it may not. Having access to a tool designed to create death quickly may not be the best thing if you aren't in a good state of mind. This could range from suicidal thoughts to anger at a domestic partner


3. If you're referring to WWII i can only assume that you mean, like, if the jews had weapons maybe the holocaust could have been prevented? I mean, if you mean something else let me know but here's the thing. The jews weren't killed because they didn't have guns, in fact, the warsaw uprising kinda proves that. There were literally tens of thousands of jewish individuals who resisted and fought back, which did prevent the holocaust from continuing (momentarily) in warsaw, but A. they killed maybe 700 soldiers, while most of them were murdered by the nazi regime despite their resistance. And B. this is the larger argument of "I need guns so i can shoot at an authoritarian regime" right? Well here's a question: Does that mean you're willing to kill cops? Are you willing to take the life of law enforcement and soldiers?


Anyway, you really aren't doing much except acting like a total embarrassment to people who are actually really thoughtful about guns. I should know, my aunt and her husband own 20+ guns and I got to shoot a semi-automatic rifle while visiting. and when talking to them about gun control they're far more receptive and calm than you are. You're not making a good case, just weakening your position. Maybe don't be so reactionary next time.

100% is going to be a cut-rate clown

Share this post

Link to post

  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.