Mike Peinovich / Mike Enoch & The Right Stuff (therightstuff.biz) - Lazy Podcasting Clique, Pepe the Frog Fetishists, Doxed by /pol/, Fed Honeypot for Gullible Neo-Nazi Conspiracy Theorists.

[Neodanthril]

Alex came across as much better informed than Myles

Thanks for finding the posts! I read the exchange on here previously and I must disagree that McNabb came out on top of that exchange. But I'm not going to get pissy about it.

 

[hotsaucegreen]

These guys unironically argue on the internet.

 

[Rick Nekieta]

These guys unironically argue on the internet.

Are you referring to the Telegram spergery of the TRS crew and those adjacent to them?

 

[Ishtar]

People often imagine the life of a bull to be glamorous and sleazy, but what it often is is awkward, convenient and contains some measure of guilt. The fact that it wasn't merely a steady affair but a formal cuck/bull arrangement makes it even worse. You just know that Sloke thought of him as his house nigga, and probably looked down on him to some extent while wanting to keep him around. Mr. Black man probably had to put up with a lot of dumb shit for regular access to that proud celtic pussy.

Die for the Fourth Reich or live long enough to see your racism turn into a race fetish I guess. I don't understand guys like him, if you're going to go that route why do you want to see Black dudes banging White girls instead of yourself/White guys banging non-White girls?

It makes no sense.

The entire arrangement of these sorts of relationships are...in some ways honestly about satisfying the husband's humiliation/voyeaur fetish, or they are a gateway to homosexuality. I've heard accounts of women pressured by their husband's to become "hotwives". The goal of the husband either being the above fetishes, or it gets him in contact with cock(albeit in a kinda dip your toes way-a sort of soft embrace of latent homosexuality-using one's wife as a sort of scaffold to jump off to being the one sucking dick.

The racial element here is intimately tied to the sexual pathology-a black man having sex with your wife is humiliating, which if you have certain fetishes-excites and stimulates you, or maybe your just gay.

I could go on, but the psychology of these arrangements is almost always about satisfying the husband's fetishes or a way of getting comfortable with M/M sexual contact. Being a "racist" is no defense here.

You're right though that in these arrangements-the bull's position is kind of awkward, the husband is play acting as the weak, humiliated figure-if they are aware of it, then...they aren't? If that makes sense?

Some times-either the bull or hotwife just gets tired of it and leaves, or they together form a genuine connection-the cuck is thus genuinely cuckolded(often to their shock and surprise).

 

[CrunkLord420]

Mike & Co. are still gay and lame. They're also old. Sad.

 

[hotsaucegreen]

Are you referring to the Telegram spergery of the TRS crew and those adjacent to them?

Both I guess. The whole show is about what Mike did on Twitter and they are always in these big feuds.

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

Both I guess. The whole show is about what Mike did on Twitter and they are always in these big feuds.

When does Mike join Bluesky?

 

[Neodanthril]

If you don't "give a fuck", then shut the fuck up and stop countersignalling those who do?
DontCareGang sure puts in the work.
Nobody believes that you seriously just don't care when all you can do is scream endlessly about how you TOTALLY JUST DONT CARE GUYS!
Never mind that its such a retarded position, there is zero moral or strategic value to having it.
This is the core conundrum with you people. Are you retarded, or do you actively simp for jews? Tough call sometimes.

 

[Ishtar]

If you don't "give a fuck", then shut the fuck up and stop countersignalling those who do?
DontCareGang sure puts in the work.
Nobody believes that you seriously just don't care when all you can do is scream endlessly about how you TOTALLY JUST DONT CARE GUYS!
Never mind that its such a retarded position, there is zero moral or strategic value to having it.
This is the core conundrum with you people. Are you retarded, or do you actively simp for jews? Tough call sometimes.

I've asked this question dozens of times here, but I'll ask it again.

You know brown indigenes in Canada and the US insist that Whites live on "stolen" land, that presumably-rectifying this injustice means either their extermination or expulsion, or at the very least-the destruction of the US government and tribal nations asserting sovereignty over the landmass again(with Whites as at best guests on indigenous lands).

If you believe Israel's occupation is illegitimate on the grounds of it being a colonizing state-then why is the same not true of the Anglo settler colonies? If justice is the destruction of Israel and the Jewish population being exterminated or driven back to Europe/the US, is the same not true in the other case?

I've never seen a TRS flunky address this question at all.

I'm open to takers.

 

[FightenGnome]

If you believe Israel's occupation is illegitimate on the grounds of it being a colonizing state-then why is the same not true of the Anglo settler colonies? If justice is the destruction of Israel and the Jewish population being exterminated or driven back to Europe/the US, is the same not true in the other case?

I've never seen a TRS flunky address this question at all.

It's a perspective of the times we live in. White people, generally oppose colonization and have done so since the end of the Victorian era. They have managed empires up until today, but generally feel invading and annexing another's state to be against self-determination. Call it Americanism, call it moral equality, call it faggotry, w/e. Most people, even on the far right, oppose invading and occupying non-White peoples.

In European countries, it's not really empire building between one another as occupying land or fraternal peoples that a nation believes is historically theirs, but that's another story.

I think it's morally dishonest to ask a White person born in 20th or 21st century West to justify their anti-colonial sentiment by merely being born in a country that was created by White people on land taken from others 300 years ago while Jews today are murdering and conquering land and cheering each other on.

Every time a White person points out something someone does today that is reprehensible, a Jew or non-White points to a dramatized tale of something White people three hundred years ago did just to say "You are worse!". The White person wasn't even born at that time, nor did it go down the way they said it, but they're the bad person because they're White while the people doing the reprehensible thing themselves are not AS bad so they should be allowed to do it.

No, no one is obligated to justify themselves based on something that happened centuries before they're born.

Mike Enoch shouldn't be obligated to support Israel because he was born in the United States.

 

[Ishtar]

The argument anti colonials make is the injustice never ends. So long as White people remain in North America-Indians(the feather kind) aren’t getting whatever justice is their due. That is what “land back” means.

There is of course no statute of limitations here. If you accept this argument-that settler colonialism is illegitimate and settlers must leave(at the minimum), no amount of generations will somehow make it acceptable.

That is the left’s argument and that of Indians in Canada or aboriginals in Australia.

Who yes-absolutely would wage a campaign like Hamas’s if they had the material and manpower to do so.

When you concede to this argument-conquest is unjust, you give the browns worldwide an opening to say “yes it is, and no amount of time passing will remove the injustice, only the removal of the settlers”.

As someone who has actually studied this(that is I’ve been on left wing/anti colonial twitter), you have no idea what moral legitimacy you give to people who want to exterminate Whites if you argue the Jews are in the wrong.

One doesn’t have to be a philosemite or Zionist to understand this.

 

[The Hardest R]

Jews doing the whole “O GAWAD why are all these goys mad that we’re just protecting our land” and then immediately snatches up more territory in the Golan Heights the moment Assad fled lays bare that Jewish lie. The Israel-Gaza War since October 7 has exposed one Jewish lie after another, which is why protests continue to intensify after even all the pressure being applied against them.

 

[Ishtar]

Israel took advantage of the collapse of the Syrian government to reinforce its borders and eliminate any weapons stockpiles that might be a threat now or in the future.

Ruthless and shameless. But clearly an intelligent decision.

Israel obviously is expansionist and it obviously wants its neighbors to be as weak as possible.

That’s…called normal realpolitik. Jews don’t restrain themselves to Christian-humanist principles of how states “should” behave. Indeed most countries throughout history did what Israel does now.

Expand and strengthen themselves at their neighbors expense.

It’s called the law of the jungle. White people were actually winning under said law until relatively recently.

 

[GameratePTSD]

The argument anti colonials make is the injustice never ends. So long as White people remain in North America-Indians(the feather kind) aren’t getting whatever justice is their due. That is what “land back” means.

There is of course no statute of limitations here. If you accept this argument-that settler colonialism is illegitimate and settlers must leave(at the minimum), no amount of generations will somehow make it acceptable.

That is the left’s argument and that of Indians in Canada or aboriginals in Australia.

Who yes-absolutely would wage a campaign like Hamas’s if they had the material and manpower to do so.

When you concede to this argument-conquest is unjust, you give the browns worldwide an opening to say “yes it is, and no amount of time passing will remove the injustice, only the removal of the settlers”.

As someone who has actually studied this(that is I’ve been on left wing/anti colonial twitter), you have no idea what moral legitimacy you give to people who want to exterminate Whites if you argue the Jews are in the wrong.

One doesn’t have to be a philosemite or Zionist to understand this.

The leftists who want to kill you for being white aren't going to hear you defend Zionism and think "Oh what a principled guy"; you're just confirming their worldview. They already believe Israel is a white supremacist nazi ethnostate genociding brown people, you're not going to make them question the morality of colonialism by giving them arguments they've already heard from Dennis Prager.
If you want to do realpolitik this should be an opportunity to cut off Israel from the Western teat and permanently tar any jew in the West with suspicion if they ever promote what's in "jewish interests". Make "jewish interests" synonymous with ethnic cleansing of non-jews in the normalfag mind. We have zero to gain by well-ackshuallying the antisemites on this one.

 

[Ishtar]

My point is TRS anti Zionism surrenders to the core moral argument of the left/the browns.

If you think Israel is illegitimate because colonialism then what right do you think White Americans have to Turtle Island?

It’s completely incoherent, confused. Because TRS fundamentally accepts the liberal moral system.

(The right argument is colonization is good when White people do it and Jews doing it is bad, because they’re Jews).

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

The argument anti colonials make is the injustice never ends. So long as White people remain in North America-Indians(the feather kind) aren’t getting whatever justice is their due. That is what “land back” means.

It that’s the case I want to see the Injuns have to deal with the Chinks and Pajeets who won’t be as kind to them giving them their own reservations. The Injuns would be begging for the White man to return.

That’s basically what the tribes that helped the Spanish against the Aztecs were doing, they would rather be ruled by Spanish Whites than Aztecs who sacrificed entire villages to their demon gods.

 

[Grog]

Most people, even on the far right, oppose invading and occupying non-White peoples.

Unless, it's Russia doing it, then it's Zased.

 

[Ishtar]

In principle, what is likely to happen regarding "land back" movements in the Anglosphere is indigenes get to control(de jure) large swathes of land, with the White population being slowly reduced to second class citizens-the governments won't be replaced outright, just used as welfare piggy banks, to enrich the "queer indigenous council of liberationists" or w/e

You are already seeing this in Canada, they are trying to make any criticism of the "first nations" illegal under hate speech laws.

Of course-they'd love to slaughter the "colonizers" a la Franz Fanon. But that is not politically or even materially possible(at the moment).

My point in bringing this up, is TRS and adjacent "right wing" outfits by siding with and amplifying leftist decolonial rhetoric empower people that very much want to kill Whitey.

No brown person who says "Whitey lives on stolen land" is going to accept the argument "yeah its true Israel is bad, in what its doing to the Palestinians, but um White americans did the same thing a few hundred years ago, so...you just have to accept it"

I've actually seen some retarded "White nationalists" make the argument "well the arabs were a dense and civilized society, but the indians were dispersed stone age hunter gatherers white people were occupying empty land"

(The argument being colonization is morally justified because the indians weren't particularly numerous or civilized)

No one on the left buys this mixture of weak-kneed colonial sentiment and pitiful anti colonialism joined together.

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

I've actually seen some retarded "White nationalists" make the argument "well the arabs were a dense and civilized society, but the indians were dispersed stone age hunter gatherers white people were occupying empty land"

(The argument being colonization is morally justified because the indians weren't particularly numerous or civilized)

No one on the left buys this mixture of weak-kneed colonial sentiment and pitiful anti colonialism joined together.

Yes and they aren’t wrong.

Plus the civilizations that the Mesoamericas did have either (a) had legends of White men who they treated as Gods and/or (b) they committed countless brutalities (equivalent to what the Kikes are doing in Gaza right now.

Sorry but the Human sacrifices have to Stop

 

[FightenGnome]

The argument anti colonials make is the injustice never ends. So long as White people remain in North America-Indians(the feather kind) aren’t getting whatever justice is their due. That is what “land back” means.

After reading through your post, I remember you, you're the one on the site that is concerned with liberal outreach, and what they think.

My counter argument would be that Indians don't want White people to leave the continent, I would also argue that leftists bringing in a bunch of foreigners to settle the land is something they also don't want but leftists are doing it anyway. Amerindians just want more gibs, they don't want to go back to living off the land hunting with bows and arrows.

There is of course no statute of limitations here. If you accept this argument-that settler colonialism is illegitimate and settlers must leave(at the minimum), no amount of generations will somehow make it acceptable.

If we're talking about concepts of morality and restitution, we have no choice but to live in the present. It's too late to persecute Christopher Columbus or Andrew Jackson, and to put them on trial (along with the chiefs who sold their land). We can only live in the present with people who did nothing wrong trying to find a moral compromise that benefits all parties involved. "Doing what's right" not out of guilt but out of moral principle.

Probably something like half of the White population of America didn't even have ancestors dating back to the 1800's, and probably something like 90% don't half ancestry in America prior to 1800. The argument about the Amerindian issue is one between Indians and Non-Indians, not Indians and Whites like the Liberals frame it as, because it makes no sense to blame modern Whites for things that happened hundreds of years ago, and even less sense to blame modern Whites for things they have nothing to do with that happened hundreds of years ago.

Meanwhile, the Jews are aggressively colonizing now in the present immorally. An argument could also be made for immigration though that is more abstract. Certainly many immigrants see themselves as colonizers and have no problem with it.

When you concede to this argument-conquest is unjust, you give the browns worldwide an opening to say “yes it is, and no amount of time passing will remove the injustice, only the removal of the settlers”.

As someone who has actually studied this(that is I’ve been on left wing/anti colonial twitter), you have no idea what moral legitimacy you give to people who want to exterminate Whites if you argue the Jews are in the wrong.

They're retarded though, they refuse to look at the issue objectively. I've talked about this subject with a couple Indians, and the thought doesn't even cross their mind that they owe the British just as much as they believe the British owe them. I would point out that while it's true that Britain extracted resources, they also built institutions, railways, buildings, etc. I supported their notion that Reparations should be paid, but that we should add up the value of everything the British invested into India and subtract all the value they extracted from India and have whoever owes money pay the other.

The Indians I spoke to looked shocked, and would respond with things like "I guess" or "I never thought of it that way".

Some Leftists though will be able to listen to the logic of "Restitution is fine, but no one alive today is to blame, and that restitution has to be fair on both sides".

Israel's situation is morally reprehensible because it's something happening TODAY supported by people living TODAY who have no intention whatsoever to be fair to people living TODAY. It's the moral action to oppose such a thing, and a leftist claiming that's "weak" due to your ethnic heritage or political leaning either doesn't actually believe the principle they claim they do, or are simply trolling you.

If you followed TRS for some time, they've often in the past talked about how you have to hold the Left to their own stated principles. You have to be aggressive with them and put them on the backfoot. You don't agree with them and say "but it's not a bad thing..."

Unless, it's Russia doing it, then it's Zased.

Russia sees Ukraine as a fraternal people which makes it a different story and is in line with modern European sensibilities of fighting over who has the real claim to a land or people. It's not colonialism.

No one on the left buys this mixture of weak-kneed colonial sentiment and pitiful anti colonialism joined together.

The left is made up of wealthy exploitive receivers, underclass mobs, and virtue signaling upper and upper middle class Whites. What do you even mean by "no one"?

I'd blanket consider them to be aggressors themselves if they believe "all White people bad". I'd charge them with wanting to harm innocent people themselves in order to extract wealth for personal gain.

If you provide a coherent argument like the ones I presented above, the virtue signalers would have to passively accept it, since it would reframe them as good and moral Whites. The other groups on the Left would have mixed feelings, Amerindians and Palestinians would likely be fine with it, Blacks somewhere in the middle, and Hispanics/Jews/Fags would be reeing.

Your issue Ishtar is that you care way too much what the Left thinks. I'm not sure if it's due to altruism, that you believe the left can be won over like Eric Striker seems to fantasize about, but you can't save them all. Some drug addled welfare tranny who thinks "she" is owed money by a single 45 year old White man making minimum wage on the justification he is cis isn't going to have a change of heart because of an argument you made. They just want the money and schadenfreude that someone who may have misgender them is now their bitch.

You can't rationalize someone out of a position they didn't rationalize themselves into.