- Joined
- Nov 3, 2019
Didn't see this stream from Aug 31 posted. I'll edit in an archive when it's done.
Ryan Faulk / The Alternative Hypothesis / People's Veto / @thealthype / Stodles / FringeElements - Gay 1/16th Black Autistic Race Realist, Foot Fetish Weeaboo, Trollshielder.
- Thread starter Feline Darkmage
- Start date
Didn't see this stream from Aug 31 posted. I'll edit in an archive when it's done.
Princess_Frosty
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 23, 2019
Some random input from the last few months of posts. Sorry for the sperging/effortpost.
He did here, https://www.bitchute.com/video/qkNrd-fJWOc/ however due to bitchute being shit most of this older stuff simply doesn't load for me, and this particular video I can't find a mirror of. It was originally hosted on youtube but removed because there was some misinformation on some of the Richard Spencer Drama that Ryan corrected. But a brief summary of the video is that Charlottesville was very stupid, he'd warned people of doing what he calls "retard rallies" and that Richard Spencer was an idiot. He also went on to question to what degree he really was a white nationalist and broadly denounced it as it stands today. He finally admitted that his running theory that white nationalism wasn't an ideology, but rather a natural inclination that is suppressed out of you via media and programming. I think he referenced the Irish just basically giving up their country and that if they didn't have the willpower or motivation to help themselves then fuck it.
He also went on to say that when questioned about if a brown person who was essentially conservative, high IQ, productive, and in general valuable to society was to want in on a first world nation that he'd be OK with a sort of brothers in arms, and on the flip side of that coin that traitor whites, those who were low IQ, criminal, and left leaning and looking to undermine the society they'd need to be kicked out. And so admitted that race wasn't the determining factor here, but rather other measures of quality like that of IQ and criminality and basically political leaning. These things still do correlate broadly with race, but there's also variance inside of race which is important enough to care about.
It was at that point he started to favour the notion of first-worldism which is essentially a preference for these kinds of qualities, high IQ, low criminality, high trust and a certain amount of homogeneity. There's articles about first-worldism on the alt hype website. The videos shortly following this were mostly pro Trump and admittance that his posiiton at that point in time was kind of just an extreme conservative and that "functional battle lines" in the US was the D/R two party system. Although his views have changed again since around Trumps first election.
I think him and Sean Last have genuinely dropped WN, they're both (especially Ryan) people who have changed their views radically in the past due to understanding data better and making arguments from evidence. I think they both know that any kind of WN or WN adjacent rhetoric at this point is just LARPing, it'll never be a serious movement that affects change. But if you stick a more clinical approach towards arguments for things like why IQ matters and can explain differences in racial outcome, you can still undermine the left wing narrative that inquality is due to the bad white men.
Regarding race and things like IQ, the problem with this discussion is that it has been very polarized, a lot of the WN who accept the more scientific/data based evidence (and many don't, they just cherry pick things to fit an ideology) either make out race and IQ to be far more concrete than they are which is when you get purity spiraling, one drop rules etc. But then the other side is flat out race denial and IQ denial, which is equally stupid. The most accurate view in my opinion, and the best way to convey these ideas, is to simply concede that race is just taxonomy and there's no truth in taxonomy, something Ryan has always done, and instead show that what people consider to be "race" (self identified) actually correlates with genetic clusters almost perfectly. That is to say if you cluster DNA based nothing on a computer algorithm that's designed to create N number of clusers, where each cluster are maximally similar to itself but maximally different to the other clusters, you get a 1:1 correspondance to the classical races, if you set the numbers of clusters to something like 7 or 9.
And of course IQ and various other phenotypes differ between those clusters. You can't attack this on prescription of what the races are, because race in these studies is always self identified, and the computer doesn't know the races before hand, it's doing it blind. Then you have the basis of saying that while race might just be a taxonomic preference, it does correlate with something real (DNA) in the same way that the colour "red" correlates with certain wavelengths of light, there's a fundamental underlying reality that correlates with the "socially constructed" taxonomy. And that helpfully does away with the "race is just a social construct" people.
Basically it's this. He knows Alt Hype is suppressed on youtube and everyone is being rapidly banned everywhere else. He see's Cozy.tv as a place where he can express his views and put an end to whatever optics games are being played, and you can basically mask off and you're safe. He's be way more focused explicitly on things like holocaust revisionism which he'd normally dogwhistle to but never explicitly talk about, which is a shame because I think he's gone way too far down that rabbit hole, it's largely irrelevant today. I don't think he's actually associated or cross-streamed with Fuentes, AF or that clique, he's done his own thing so far, but there is a big cross over audience which is why he's quite popular on cozy.
He did here, https://www.bitchute.com/video/qkNrd-fJWOc/ however due to bitchute being shit most of this older stuff simply doesn't load for me, and this particular video I can't find a mirror of. It was originally hosted on youtube but removed because there was some misinformation on some of the Richard Spencer Drama that Ryan corrected. But a brief summary of the video is that Charlottesville was very stupid, he'd warned people of doing what he calls "retard rallies" and that Richard Spencer was an idiot. He also went on to question to what degree he really was a white nationalist and broadly denounced it as it stands today. He finally admitted that his running theory that white nationalism wasn't an ideology, but rather a natural inclination that is suppressed out of you via media and programming. I think he referenced the Irish just basically giving up their country and that if they didn't have the willpower or motivation to help themselves then fuck it.
He also went on to say that when questioned about if a brown person who was essentially conservative, high IQ, productive, and in general valuable to society was to want in on a first world nation that he'd be OK with a sort of brothers in arms, and on the flip side of that coin that traitor whites, those who were low IQ, criminal, and left leaning and looking to undermine the society they'd need to be kicked out. And so admitted that race wasn't the determining factor here, but rather other measures of quality like that of IQ and criminality and basically political leaning. These things still do correlate broadly with race, but there's also variance inside of race which is important enough to care about.
It was at that point he started to favour the notion of first-worldism which is essentially a preference for these kinds of qualities, high IQ, low criminality, high trust and a certain amount of homogeneity. There's articles about first-worldism on the alt hype website. The videos shortly following this were mostly pro Trump and admittance that his posiiton at that point in time was kind of just an extreme conservative and that "functional battle lines" in the US was the D/R two party system. Although his views have changed again since around Trumps first election.
It's not so much the race itself but how society responds to that. He see's Whites as essentially oppressed and put upon by blacks, paying tax surplus to counter net tax drain from minorities, suffering due to biased hiring policies. In general that there's measured differences in racial behaviour, it's assumed by the left this is due to systemic inequality (due to whites) and therefore everything needs to be corrected in favour of blacks and other POC. I guess broadly in his view it's a kind of parasitical behaviour and so this comment would come across as why is the host so obsessed with its parasites, to which the answer is obvious.
I think him and Sean Last have genuinely dropped WN, they're both (especially Ryan) people who have changed their views radically in the past due to understanding data better and making arguments from evidence. I think they both know that any kind of WN or WN adjacent rhetoric at this point is just LARPing, it'll never be a serious movement that affects change. But if you stick a more clinical approach towards arguments for things like why IQ matters and can explain differences in racial outcome, you can still undermine the left wing narrative that inquality is due to the bad white men.
This is my experience of his videos on the topic, going back years. At best left and right are specific to the period and the norms of that period, a large part of why he supported WN in the first place, because he saw that as basically normal before about 1950, and that something changed which then proliferated anti-white racism. Places like the US and UK having pro white and more harsh anti-immigration laws before WW2 going back to the founding of the USA. I think he has disdain for "left wing" and "liberal" as labels as basically just calling yourself "the good guys" and conservatism is just conserving whatever works at the time.
Regarding race and things like IQ, the problem with this discussion is that it has been very polarized, a lot of the WN who accept the more scientific/data based evidence (and many don't, they just cherry pick things to fit an ideology) either make out race and IQ to be far more concrete than they are which is when you get purity spiraling, one drop rules etc. But then the other side is flat out race denial and IQ denial, which is equally stupid. The most accurate view in my opinion, and the best way to convey these ideas, is to simply concede that race is just taxonomy and there's no truth in taxonomy, something Ryan has always done, and instead show that what people consider to be "race" (self identified) actually correlates with genetic clusters almost perfectly. That is to say if you cluster DNA based nothing on a computer algorithm that's designed to create N number of clusers, where each cluster are maximally similar to itself but maximally different to the other clusters, you get a 1:1 correspondance to the classical races, if you set the numbers of clusters to something like 7 or 9.
And of course IQ and various other phenotypes differ between those clusters. You can't attack this on prescription of what the races are, because race in these studies is always self identified, and the computer doesn't know the races before hand, it's doing it blind. Then you have the basis of saying that while race might just be a taxonomic preference, it does correlate with something real (DNA) in the same way that the colour "red" correlates with certain wavelengths of light, there's a fundamental underlying reality that correlates with the "socially constructed" taxonomy. And that helpfully does away with the "race is just a social construct" people.
Basically it's this. He knows Alt Hype is suppressed on youtube and everyone is being rapidly banned everywhere else. He see's Cozy.tv as a place where he can express his views and put an end to whatever optics games are being played, and you can basically mask off and you're safe. He's be way more focused explicitly on things like holocaust revisionism which he'd normally dogwhistle to but never explicitly talk about, which is a shame because I think he's gone way too far down that rabbit hole, it's largely irrelevant today. I don't think he's actually associated or cross-streamed with Fuentes, AF or that clique, he's done his own thing so far, but there is a big cross over audience which is why he's quite popular on cozy.
Murenu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2022
I think his issue is that they're rarely consistent at all with regards to objectively quantifying policies, but based on "vibes" and "stigma".
A capitalist is "right-wing", and one may call a libertarian "right-wing" for his laissez-faire economic positions. Now a Nazi is "far-right", which implies a more extreme version of "right-wing", but a Nazi is certainly not a more extreme version of a capitalist or a libertarian—they're on a totally different paradigm. and are typically considered "far-right" for their harsh, social darwinist "survival of the fittest" worldview. Italian Fascism is considered "far-right" despite having corporatist (national-syndicalist) economics, and the neo-Fascist political party CasaPound supports gay marriage and abortion and should at least be considered center-left economically, but everyone and wikipedia insists that they're "far-right" because "(Neo)Fascists are far-right". It's circular logic. It frequently doesn't even accurately describe the stated policies of political parties in practice.
Furthermore, "ethnonationalism" (in-group favoritism) is, to some degree, the natural state of humans. Trying to give that the political label of "far-right" is just devaluing and falls apart under scrutiny. It becomes ridiculous when one is honest.
I think it's just best to drop "left" and "right" and go by worldview and philosophical axioms. It's mental retardation to try and narrowly group things into a "left" and "right" spectrum.
I said this before but it's an issue with how WN is defined. Faulk is okay with non-white minorities in white countries at least if they're well-vetted (which is basically my stance), but they and I are absolutely in favor of keeping whites majority through policy. That's a "degree" of white nationalism—moderate nationalism, I guess. Some people define ideologies as the policies and not the logical underpinnings or mentality, so I guess that's what Faulk meant when he """rejected white nationalism"""—he rejected the more extreme, stereotyped interpretation of it that most people define as "white nationalism".
I think strict racial segregation like we had in the past is obviously needlessly extreme and unnecessary, and having equality under the law is all well and good, but you definitely do not want your ethnic group becoming a minority for more reasons than one.
Last edited:
Princess_Frosty
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 23, 2019
I kind of agree, vibes and stigma being those of whatever period of time you happen to live in, it changes over time.
I tend to prefer the political compass that separates out libertarian/authoritarian from left/right, it makes things a bit more sane and a lot of confusion comes from conflating those 2 spectrums. For instance the Nazi party was the national socialist party and socialism i'd consider to be quite left wing, but the Nazi's are seen as far right because people conflate the authoritarian nature of the Nazis with "right wing". So it's a mess and peoples use of these words often aren't helpful.
Once I'd done a lot of reading about psychometrics, especially those on things like personality as proxied by the big 5, and things like moral views as proxied by Moral Foundations theory, and saw how they correlated with self described left and right wing politics, I really just started to think of left/right spectrum of more a personality spectrum. It fits nicely in a HBD context. I think that's what finally did it for Ryan in the end, acknowledging that variance between races definitely does exist and is significant, but so is variance inside of races. And it's why I generally find the JQ nonsense a scapegoat. What WNs tend to believe is that essentially people are left wing due to media control by (((them))) for a naferious purpose and it's brainwashing people, and that if you remove the conditioning the glorious "right wing" nature of whites will return. It's this hope that Ryan eventually dropped, I think in that same video he references other prominent online figures who he'd considered to have basically rejected the narrative but were still no friends of the WNs.
What I personally think is happening is that we have variance inside of white populations, that is partly biological and heritable, that informs your personality makeup and it also informs your moral leanings, and from those you have a natural predisposition towards certain ideas, policies and politics. It's why stances on political issues tend to group consistently into those right vs left dynamics. Your stance on abortion is going to be correlated with your stance on immigration for example, it's because they both have a common source. Personality, moral views and politics all correlate quite strongly. Of course environment does matter, but I think its been overstated how much. People running left wing media orgs like say CNN are catering their product to a target audience, it's why they spew the nonsense they spew. And right wing media orgs do the same to their audience, it's businesses giving consumers what they want.
And my stance too. I'm generally anti-immigration, especially mass immigration but I do favour a kind of points based system if it's done well. This is something Aus uses and in the UK we're mirroring now we've left the EU. Looking at the early draft of how many points you need and how those points are awarded looks promising, it basically cuts off all low skilled workers, but we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. My stance comes more from preferring homogeneity of not just race but of things like IQ, religion, moral views, values and norms, as that tends to bring more stability. The worst places to live are always low in homogeneity, a bunch of mixed people with different values, mashed together in a tight space like a city causes a lot of problems.
On defining WN, going back to what I was saying earlier I think that more moderate versions are basically impossible. If ~50% of whites are going to hold fairly left wing views they're always going to vote in more brown people, this is just in their nature. You'd need to actively suppress that to maintain an ethnostate, and that means authoritarian rule and why WN will always collapse into the extreme version. The Spencer kluxers and even a load of AF guys kinda know this, they're very anti free speech, if they gained any kind of power they'd exercise it to keep themselves in power and their ideas in power, they're open about that.
I always found it a bit weird that it took Ryan so long accept that level of in group variation in whites with regards to political view. I know that he's aware of the big 5 personality model for quite some time and that it correlates with political views. You'd think that would be right up his ally given his HBD background, but he just doesn't focus on that at all, I suspect that too many of the bad WN ideas got to him first. It's hard to imagine, given how data driven he is, that he chalks up people being pro immigration and pro diversity to essentially media brainwashing. It's probably also focusing too much on the past as that being "normal" and today being aberrant, it's obvious why immigration was far less 100+ years ago.
Murenu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2022
Okay fam I don't mean to be that guy but when people say that the Nazis (in practice) weren't socialists they're technically right in so much as what they mean by socialism (and even what I think is a good definition of socialism); they were economically pretty capitalist for the most part under Hitler's rule. They had regulations of course and welfare but they'd at least be considered center-right economically, as in they had loads of private industry that were just constrained on a case-by-case basis towards nationalist goals by the authoritarian government. The Strasserist Nazis who were purged in the night of the long knives were, on the other hand, very left economically. I think the reality is Nazism isn't really defined by its economic policy and if Hitler had actually been more socialist, it wouldn't make him not a Nazi. Hitler also implicitly defined socialism as collectivism/nationalism: “Our socialism goes far deeper … Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.” — Adolf Hitler
The definition of "socialism" is of course a massive can of worms tied to one's political bias, and technically you could argue it's a "sliding scale" (because, you know, mixed economies exist), but whilst on one hand American conservatives have very dumb definitions, I think on the other hand defining it as organized labor that undermines pure capital control over the means of production with the aims of reducing wage slavery, helping workers, and so forth is a fair one. In that sense, in practice, the Nazis were mostly capitalist with some regulations. Italian Fascism on the other hand is widely misunderstood as they were what was called "Yellow Socialists"; that is, Corporatism, which is basically a modernized guild system. It doesn't translate well, as in English "Corporatism" has borderline opposite connotations which if you're politically aware leads to some grossly inaccurate conflations when daft retards from all over the political spectrum learn that Fascism "Corporatist", but Fascist Corporatism is basically National-Syndicalism.
Fascist Italy didn't actually begin to implement this economic policy until well over a decade into Mussolini's rule—starting in the early 1930's—but it was an aspect of Fascist Ideology from the very beginning. Marxists like to focus on the first ~10 years when Mussolini pragmatically aligned with the establishment as if that "defines" Fascism. Furthermore, the political violence during the rise of Fascism that saw some Fascists (not even all, btw, as there were certain factions of Syndicalist-Fasces that disagreed) attacking Italian Socialist Party strikers and rioters? Well, this was not because of their economic positions (even if they would have thought Corporatism wasn't "true socialism"), but because these socialists were "anti-nationalist" In this particular historical context, "anti-nationalist" basically referred to the fact that the Italian Socialist Party was the only Italian political party that opposed Italy's entry into World War I. Whilst this technically I guess benefited some capitalist business owners' interests at the time, blackshirts were certainly not attacking socialists because of the differences between Marxist Socialist and Corporatist economic thought.
The Italian Social Republic proposed even more radical "socialization" policies in their constitution to be implemented if they had won the war, though these were obviously never implemented.
This is an extremely concise, to the point article talking about the "economic periods" of Fascist Italy. Highly recommended read:
https://web.archive.org/web/2021061...ticles/why-it-is-complex-to-defend-mussolini/
I think people are a bit more nuanced on social issues (when you remove Christianity from the equation) than hard-line reactionaries like to believe, but when it comes to ethnic in-group favoritism, historically most people did support and express it to some degree. At least, certainly, there was no consent to mass immigration, the trivialization of European countries belonging to ethnic Europeans ("whites"), and so forth. No one consented to London becoming what it is, the trends leading to it becoming what it was were coerced top-down and opposition to it was marginalized and stigmatized as "racism".
People aren't naturally insane chauvinists perhaps but they're not naturally fully deracinated and cosmopolitan, either, but it seems that some degree of "nationalism" is normal for like ~70% of the population. People may define the term differently, but many anti-racist policies in the UK, Australia, USA and so forth were implemented against European wishes yet still passed. This is a fact. People who claim to support democracy get around this by claiming it was "bigotry" or "prejudice" so it doesn't count or something, but what that even means is not well defined. Unless it means objectively incorrect views (which yes did exist to some degree and were defined as racism), then it frequently penalizes feelings predicated on the same logic of just organically "wanting" or "liking" something when you get right down to it. It's just selective deconstruction.
I guess I'm just not convinced that significant percentages of whites really support mass immigration and anti-white policies organically without some degree of indoctrination, social pressure, and a prerequisite personality type. Faulk goes into this latter point in one of his very old videos where he postulates that the reason why white "leftists" tend to feel "anti-white self-hatred" is ironically as a form of inverted white identity. Basically, in today's culture you are obviously very ostracized for being racist, so white liberals feel worse about bad things white people did in the past because it reflects poorly on them as white people, but conversely don't care as much about blacks selling other blacks into slavery, the Arab slave trade, any atrocities non-whites have done in general because they're ironically still subconsciously perceived as an "other"—the bad actions of non-whites and to some extant non-Christians (Christianity proxies "westerner", so it doesn't matter if they're not Christian) isn't "their responsibility". In a sense, they're fundamentally not universalists at all at least as a motivating underlying factor. The explicit academic reasoning given by woke people for so many of their double-standards—"privilege", "marginalized groups", etc."—are merely surface-level rationalizations that whilst may technically be consistent, aren't the real motivators for the bulk of them. Basically, the underlying in-group favoritism still exists but it's "inverted" as an emotional survival mechanism in today's society. Now I wanna add, it's certainly possible some people could be subject to this emotional condition 100+ years ago where such social pressure did not exist but the numbers would be far, far lower.
Princess_Frosty
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 23, 2019
Waited for KF to come back up and be stable before writing a response to this.
In terms of purely economics they definitely were quite capitalistic, the reason the Nazi party actually came to power so fast was because under their kind of rule Germany bounced back from being bombed to rubble and having massive war crime debt, to being a functioning and healthy society in blistering speed no one thought possible. I'd claim that's only possible under mostly free markets as I'm personally pro free market capitalism. In these sorts of situations it tends to be more that capitalism does it's thing to provide the productivity and growth you need, but then a socialist government steals most of that production and focuses it on whatever it needs at the time, social programs, war, whatever. But most political parties move slowly anyway and when directing a country towards socialism or communism or capitalism, it's going to be a process. So part of this is what happened during their reign of power but part of it is what was the final goal of that party, it's not something that changes overnight. As you rightly point out, Socialism goes deeper than just economics it is tied to other social constructs, which is the entire point, because the reasons people argue for socialism is that it's a better outcome for "the people".
As you say, any sensible discussion of this has to engage with the fact these things are sliding scales, often people aren't necessarily tied ideologically to a strict system, they'll move along a scale of implementation and if they find a sweet spot that falls short of the ideal system they may stop. For example my personal preference is small government so I consider myself to lean more libertarian, but on the answer of how small to make the state my general answer is, let's just decrease it constantly over time and see what's best. The practical benefit you get in the moment is a powerful thing, especially if you're at war and need the power of capitalism to fuel your supplies.
I don't know much of note about Italy in this period, so I've booked marked that source and will read through it, I appreciate it.
With ethnic in group preference, that definitely exists, and there's good evolutionary reasons as to why. But I think it's more complex than that, I think it's a preference in a certain direction under certain conditions. If there's a lot of unknowns and uncertainty it triggers hard and makes people want to remain very homogeneous. This is tangential but a good analogy, I did learn through Jordan Peterson's lectures about the state of animals (and humans) that much of the early theory of mind was wrong, that you needed to condition organisms with brains into states of fear and unrest. It turns out it's the opposite, animals are naturally panicked as a kind of default state of behaviour and then are conditioned into a calm state by exploration of their new environment and consistently not running into threats. I suspect tribalism or in group preference is similar. Where I always disagreed with Ryan is with why this started to erode in the early 20th century. Back then immigration to places like the UK was low, the people who moved here were mostly those who could afford international travel, typically rich, royalty or upper class people who knew how to behave and act, it wasn't waves of unskilled migrants. There was no overall votes in places like the UK or US to welcome more non white migrants but a lack of push back against it was like a tacit acceptance at the time. London became what it is, is because big cities lean heavily to the left, often as much as 80% and those people tend to be the most welcoming of diversity, it seems to be just a personality thing. With all the talk of variance between populations so big in the WN space at this time, the in group variance was overlooked. Personality research shows clearly that personality measures like the big 5 predict political stance on immigration and diversity. It's why London is a shit hole of immigration, but a nice quiet right leaning smaller town/village is 99.9% white.
I dunno about the 70% nationalist claim, I doubt that, but even if it was true, I think it would only be because people have different opinions of what constitutes a member of the nation, leftists are fast to include new immigrants into that national bubble. I do think Faulk is right about leftists and self hate, it's fairly obvious to me that modern people that lean heavily left are almost disgusted with themselves, for their privilege, and that they should do everything to both atone for that but also make sure they don't propagate anymore white babies. But also if you look at the work of people like Jonathan Haidt on moral value, with his Moral Foundations Theory (I believe uses the same factor analytic processes that the Big 5 uses), he found that the more left you lean the more you tend to hyper focus on "fairness" as one of the 5 primary moral factors. And of course whites being top of the stack pretty much globally, it makes sense that the more left learning your personality (and political leanings) the more you're going to feel guilt for being the have's in a world of have-nots. Watch Haidt's TedX video on this for a very good 15m primer.
One thing Faulk pointed out when he mentioned morals is that it's just feelings, or rather instincts I would say. All reasons given for your preferences are post-hoc rationalizations about how you feel. It's why I think personality matters so much, because it ties deeply into both your values and your political positions, the correlations there are very strong. And it doesn't appear like you can shift personality strongly at all, it seems tied to genes quite strongly, and so variance in genes of a popuation manifest at all these levels. Biological, then personality temperament, then moral and political. Of course propaganda has an effect, I just think it's overplayed far too much.
In terms of purely economics they definitely were quite capitalistic, the reason the Nazi party actually came to power so fast was because under their kind of rule Germany bounced back from being bombed to rubble and having massive war crime debt, to being a functioning and healthy society in blistering speed no one thought possible. I'd claim that's only possible under mostly free markets as I'm personally pro free market capitalism. In these sorts of situations it tends to be more that capitalism does it's thing to provide the productivity and growth you need, but then a socialist government steals most of that production and focuses it on whatever it needs at the time, social programs, war, whatever. But most political parties move slowly anyway and when directing a country towards socialism or communism or capitalism, it's going to be a process. So part of this is what happened during their reign of power but part of it is what was the final goal of that party, it's not something that changes overnight. As you rightly point out, Socialism goes deeper than just economics it is tied to other social constructs, which is the entire point, because the reasons people argue for socialism is that it's a better outcome for "the people".
As you say, any sensible discussion of this has to engage with the fact these things are sliding scales, often people aren't necessarily tied ideologically to a strict system, they'll move along a scale of implementation and if they find a sweet spot that falls short of the ideal system they may stop. For example my personal preference is small government so I consider myself to lean more libertarian, but on the answer of how small to make the state my general answer is, let's just decrease it constantly over time and see what's best. The practical benefit you get in the moment is a powerful thing, especially if you're at war and need the power of capitalism to fuel your supplies.
I don't know much of note about Italy in this period, so I've booked marked that source and will read through it, I appreciate it.
With ethnic in group preference, that definitely exists, and there's good evolutionary reasons as to why. But I think it's more complex than that, I think it's a preference in a certain direction under certain conditions. If there's a lot of unknowns and uncertainty it triggers hard and makes people want to remain very homogeneous. This is tangential but a good analogy, I did learn through Jordan Peterson's lectures about the state of animals (and humans) that much of the early theory of mind was wrong, that you needed to condition organisms with brains into states of fear and unrest. It turns out it's the opposite, animals are naturally panicked as a kind of default state of behaviour and then are conditioned into a calm state by exploration of their new environment and consistently not running into threats. I suspect tribalism or in group preference is similar. Where I always disagreed with Ryan is with why this started to erode in the early 20th century. Back then immigration to places like the UK was low, the people who moved here were mostly those who could afford international travel, typically rich, royalty or upper class people who knew how to behave and act, it wasn't waves of unskilled migrants. There was no overall votes in places like the UK or US to welcome more non white migrants but a lack of push back against it was like a tacit acceptance at the time. London became what it is, is because big cities lean heavily to the left, often as much as 80% and those people tend to be the most welcoming of diversity, it seems to be just a personality thing. With all the talk of variance between populations so big in the WN space at this time, the in group variance was overlooked. Personality research shows clearly that personality measures like the big 5 predict political stance on immigration and diversity. It's why London is a shit hole of immigration, but a nice quiet right leaning smaller town/village is 99.9% white.
I dunno about the 70% nationalist claim, I doubt that, but even if it was true, I think it would only be because people have different opinions of what constitutes a member of the nation, leftists are fast to include new immigrants into that national bubble. I do think Faulk is right about leftists and self hate, it's fairly obvious to me that modern people that lean heavily left are almost disgusted with themselves, for their privilege, and that they should do everything to both atone for that but also make sure they don't propagate anymore white babies. But also if you look at the work of people like Jonathan Haidt on moral value, with his Moral Foundations Theory (I believe uses the same factor analytic processes that the Big 5 uses), he found that the more left you lean the more you tend to hyper focus on "fairness" as one of the 5 primary moral factors. And of course whites being top of the stack pretty much globally, it makes sense that the more left learning your personality (and political leanings) the more you're going to feel guilt for being the have's in a world of have-nots. Watch Haidt's TedX video on this for a very good 15m primer.
One thing Faulk pointed out when he mentioned morals is that it's just feelings, or rather instincts I would say. All reasons given for your preferences are post-hoc rationalizations about how you feel. It's why I think personality matters so much, because it ties deeply into both your values and your political positions, the correlations there are very strong. And it doesn't appear like you can shift personality strongly at all, it seems tied to genes quite strongly, and so variance in genes of a popuation manifest at all these levels. Biological, then personality temperament, then moral and political. Of course propaganda has an effect, I just think it's overplayed far too much.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2018
So what is the farms thoughts on protesting and discrediting College and High School as a way of de-legitimizing the system? Or Ryans Latest stream to long to upload, download it for yourself
www.youtube.com
Re: Why Kanye West is right.
I'm only watching the chat here:https://cozy.tv/althypeDonations:https://powerchat.live/ryanfaulkI have to check these manually, so I can't read and respond ...
www.youtube.com
YouTube to MP4 Converter
Our online YouTube video converter and downloader allows you to convert and download YouTube videos in MP4 format in best quality. It's easy, fast and free. No registration or software required.
ytmp3.plus
Samson Pumpkin Jr.
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2020
Alt hype is currently doing a stream on cozy where he said Nick Fuentes is genetically predetermined to be a homo-sociopath. He's also talking about Ralph so I expect him to be banned
VeeAndro
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2021
How is it that some of Ryan's old vids that I presume were archived are now dead but those Davis Aurini vids are still available?
LannyKanny
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2022
He once wrote a post talking about contacting CSmirrormirror. For those who don't know, this was a channel that mirrored all of Ryan's old videos
Last edited by a moderator:
PLAYERHATER
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2024
Has this not been posted yet?
AltHype/Ryan Faulk = Steven Odle.
Which makes his original username 'Stodles' make a lot of sense.
Registrant Contact
Name:
Steven Odle
Organization:
Not Applicable
Street:
1802 Aviation Way
City:
REDONDO BEACH
Postal Code:
90278
Country:
US
Phone +1.3106669007
this was all 'exposed' years ago in a removed /pol/ thread, archived by 4plebs, and removed by nondmca, but the archives are still up.
AltHype/Ryan Faulk = Steven Odle.
Which makes his original username 'Stodles' make a lot of sense.
Registrant Contact
Name:
Steven Odle
Organization:
Not Applicable
Street:
1802 Aviation Way
City:
REDONDO BEACH
Postal Code:
90278
Country:
US
Phone +1.3106669007
this was all 'exposed' years ago in a removed /pol/ thread, archived by 4plebs, and removed by nondmca, but the archives are still up.
- Joined
- May 24, 2021
One of the archive channels his fans has on YouTube (Alternative Hypothesis Reuploads) has been posting lately. I miss that straw haired lil nigga. Joseph Bronski is carrying his torch in a big way, building on the work Ryan did and doing some great work, but Bronski is suuuuch an arrogant prick. He's got the autism but none of the charisma or charm of Ryan's tism.
PLAYERHATER
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2024
Bronksi was someone he had on his stream iirc, Hype has gone nuts in the last couple of years. (ironical) nazi iconography, and constant jew speak. When he slipped and said he doesn't want to be a trucker anymore (vitamulin stream) i thought he may be beginning to go back to his decent videos, but he hasn't. He still gets around 1.5k/mo via subscribestar. That's enough to fund a gamer lifestyle.
but he excuses himself in his latest stream by saying 'he has been working' and apologises for the inconsistent streams.
Murenu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2022
Yeah his relatively recent holocaust revisionism obsession is invariably discrediting him. His angle of anti-Nazi white nationalism and pointing out how the Nazis had little in common with white identity politics/race & IQ was a winning strategy (as well as just factually correct). It's like he's intentionally trying to sabotage himself and it's depressing.
WarHammer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2021
I did a upload calling out Ryan Faulk and made some counter points on his bad critical thinking skills.
I think I broke it down pretty well. FORGE GANG !!!!!!!
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2024
PLAYERHATER
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2024
He's bisexual. In a stream with Sean Last, many years ago now, someone asked him this and he said he was "done with being gay", Last sounded incredulous with his "What?!??" when he said it. In other streams he's spoke about hopefully having children, but that's harder for me to find without VOSK transcribing all his streams and Ctrl+F'ing the results.
Another thing, which again is basically unsubstantiated on my part, because I can't find it in my archives: he has been with asian men in the past. he's not as against race mixing as he claims.
He used to have a video up called "Fat sauce", a little rant about his McDonald's order getting fucked up, they gave him sauce when he specifically asked for no sauce, and he said something about the brown cashier that served him, something like "I don't know if she's african or indian or something" and describing her as a "delicious looking little brownie"
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2024
PLAYERHATER
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2024
pretty sure it's this one https://youtube.com/watch?v=hKLMRceQoYw
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2018
Has he ever actually said that he is bisexual, or did you take him saying he was "done with being gay" and wanting to have kids as an admission of opposite sex attraction? He might want to have kids and not be gay strictly because of a moral obligation to his principles, not because he likes women. Also, the "delicious looking little brownie" comment sounds like a weird, spergy shitpost, not an admission of lust.
I mean he's obviously attracted to men and has admitted to it numerous times, but I haven't seen anything that really convinces me that he is attracted to women.