Debate Alt-Right Retards

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

This is accurate but the rest that came after it is pretty dumb lol. Fascists are good at seeing a broken system making people discontent and miserable but they channel that into hating and dividing the other exploited and discontent and only work to replace those elites with the same exact kind of person but they're party approved and any degeneracy they do is still excused. Like Hitler being on meth and having a scat fetish or the entire pseudoscience of "race hierarchies" and all the murder and burning down science research because they were scared of the results.

Don't forget rejecting atomic theory because it was "Jew physics".

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Arguing race is stupid since a black/jew crossbreed would be the most superior race.
Niggers and Jews built America and nigger jews will lead America.

With the power of genetic engineering we can create a master race. I for one welcome the birth of Queen Latesha Goldstein. Fast twitch muscle fibers for strength. A giant ass, a giant brain, and big khazar milkers. We will see this perfection in our own lifetimes.

 

[TitanWest]

The numbers may have changed but America was definitely not solidly white about 20 years ago, at least in my neck of the woods it wasn't.

To expound a bit on what I meant, I believe in the ideal American society had 20 years ago which was to treat people as individuals first and foremost, that's the ideal we're losing sight of and that's bad.

In the 1990's minorities were 25% of the US population. In 2020 minorities will be 40% of the US population. They almost doubled. That's a major change. Look at the 2016 election. Trump won states like Pennsylvannia, Michigan, and Wisconsin by 80,000 total in all 3 states. Those states won him the presidency. So 80,000 people decided the election.

25% to 40% is a massive difference. In the 90's anti-whites were the fringe. Bill Clinton has Confederate flags as campaign material and they deplatformed that anti-white at the DNC. Nowadays anti-whiteness is the norm. Keep in mind whites are still a slight minority. Imagine what things'll be like by 2035. Take a look at most of Southern California. I know people who live there. Imagine being the 1 white kid in a college class and one Latino kid puts up a literal, unironic "White people are evil" presentation. The class didn't do anything except look at the lone white girl in the class and laugh. The Professor even took the anti-white student's side. Outside of college that white girl I know got death stares until she moved to a majority white area.

You weren't around in the 90s? How old are you? Well I was and I can tell you that it was a completely different vibe in American society back then, the best way I can describe it is it was much like the present day, but without all the bullshit, people as a rule were more down to Earth and tuned into reality.

Of course it was. White people were a solid majority. Anti-whiteness was still there, but it was on the fringe. Now it's mainstream and that genie isn't going back into the bottle. There were still tensions like the LA riots and the OJ Simpson trial, but you're right that it was muted. But no longer.

Don't forget rejecting atomic theory because it was "Jew physics".

If you didn't have strawman arguments you would have no arguments. Never heard the term "Jew physics".

One thing I remember about 90s culture for example is everyone was big into their cultural heritages back then, many black Americans were big into African art, African music and clothing and stuff like that and many white Americans of Scotch-Irish descent were big into Celtic type culture, think Braveheart, Riverdance, The Cranberries, Enya etc and we didn't get a million think pieces about how it was racist for white Americans to enjoy Riverdance as we would today, everyone was free to be proud of their cultural heritage regardless of what it was, even white people, provided it was something tangible, like Celtic or Irish culture and not generically "proud to be white" which what does "white" even mean? Today we have so many people who are just so damn proud to be "black" and "brown" and similarly, what does that even mean? "white" "black" "brown" mean nothing.

You're right. Most of the Alt-Right would agree with you. White is simply a census category. Race matters, but the basis of the state should be nation rather than race. White people all over the world aren't a nation nor should they be grouped into a single state. White Americans are however their own nation as are Black Americans. Being a Scottish American is more of a point of conversation than a tribal identity that people actually on. White American, Black American, etc. are far better terms to describe how different groups in the US interact and organize whether explicitly or implicitly. White identity is more implicit for now. You're seeing that change.

And danger is real, but fear is a choice, one can address real dangers in a logical, rational way without giving too much into the emotions of fear, which make one irrational and only heightens the danger.

For the record, no, I don't think the west should impose our ideals on the entire world, it's not our job to be policeman of the entire world.

You can't simply ignore ingroup preference in a multi-ethnic society. In such a society politics becomes an ethnic headcount. The only way to suppress ethnic division is becoming an Empire or understanding ethnic differences and allowing a system that accommdates them in a peaceful manner. But too many people subscribe to Civic Nationalism for now. When whites become a minority and the system falls apart (In part due to whites becoming a minority) that's when shit will hit the fan. Hopefully we can adopt Balkanization or Federalism in a peaceful manner. But I don't see that happening.

I'm sorry guys, I know racism is appealing because it's something easy to understand, but the one thing I feel very confident in saying is that we live in an almost unfathomably complicated universe, we are just small fish floating in a vast sea, the sheer scope and scale of the "big picture" of true objective reality would probably be something too much for the human mind to actually comprehend.

So therefore racism just seems like something far too simple to me, it sets off my bullshit detector.

Racism means believing your race is inherently superior. I don't believe that - "superiority" is too subjective. We have differences and we excel in different things. What's more important is understanding that we are different and must craft a state that allows those differences to be expressed in a peaceful manner rather than suppress those urges and make them explode.

Also I'm not a "Racialist" either. I'm a Nationalist. Grouping the 10% of the world's population together is only useful in a limited number of contexts like combating international anti-whiteness that affects us all. The main idea is allowing Germans, Italians, Russians, and Heritage Americans (White Americans) to each have self-governance via having independent states or at least autonomous areas within various states.

 

[inexplicable ethos]

the entire pseudoscience of "race hierarchies"

Objective measurement is psuedoscience? Sure, you can say that making an overall judgement on what races are "better" than others isn't reasonable, but you can certainly rank different races on a hierarchical scale in relation to single traits or trait clusters. Biological racial differences are simply a fact and that isn't logically disputable.

and burning down science research because they were scared of the results.

The Left does the exact same thing in the modern West. So has almost every powerful political movement ever, especially in places with some sort of democratic system. The easiest way to win the votes of a general populace is to simply suppress information that disagrees with you.

 

[Feline Darkmage]

Objective measurement we is psuedoscience? Sure, you can say that making an overall judgement on what races are "better" than others isn't reasonable, but you can certainly rank different races on a hierarchical scale in relation to single traits or trait clusters. Biological racial differences are simply a fact and that isn't logically disputable.

There aren't a lot of objective measurements at all regarding race stuff. The most we have is characteristics that much more commonly arise in certain parts of the world. Phenotypes are complex but our DNA is essentially all the same. The differences may be interesting but they are negligible and by no means immutable. We place far too much emphasis on it for social reasons.

The Left does the exact same thing in the modern West.

What "left" is even in power in the west? The neoliberals?

So has almost every powerful political movement ever, especially in places with some sort of democratic system. The easiest way to win the votes of a general populace is to simply suppress information that disagrees with you.

I suppose. That doesn't relate to disputing whether its degenerate or not to violently burn down research centers and deport or put scientists in jail, work camps, or executions because you're triggered. And it is, its super degenerate.

 

[GreenJacket]

This is accurate but the rest that came after it is pretty dumb lol. Fascists are good at seeing a broken system making people discontent and miserable but they channel that into hating and dividing the other exploited and discontent and only work to replace those elites with the same exact kind of person but they're party approved and any degeneracy they do is still excused. Like Hitler being on meth and having a scat fetish or the entire pseudoscience of "race hierarchies" and all the murder and burning down science research because they were scared of the results.

You keep talking about the NSDAP as if that's what I'm trying to emulate. Of course this thread is full of strawmen.

 

[Feline Darkmage]

You keep talking about the NSDAP as if that's what I'm trying to emulate. Of course this thread is full of strawmen.

You oppose women working, and call it "being turned into men", because it benefits the system to have more workers instead of supporting women making decisions like real human beings. That's exactly like the ideal of "Children, Church, and Kitchen" which was promoted by them and unironically believe "effeminate is bad" and that Jews are replacing huwitey with the browns.

So even if you don't want to be a nazi your ideas are exactly the same kind of divisive horseshit that benefits the power structure way more than it actually meaningfully opposes any of it.

 

[inexplicable ethos]

There aren't a lot of objective measurements at all regarding race stuff. The most we have is characteristics that much more commonly arise in certain parts of the world. Phenotypes are complex but our DNA is essentially all the same. The differences may be interesting but they are negligible and by no means immutable. We place far too much emphasis on it for social reasons.

Sure, although we'd probably disagree on how much of our lack of knowledge in this area is because it's considered politically distasteful to research it versus how much it simply can't be reliably measured. We might place far more emphasis on certain highly visible phenotypes than they merit (skin colour being the main one), but there are a lot of other differences that are haram to talk too openly about. I agree that the differences are not immutable--population level measurements can never be interpolated to apply to every individual in that population--but whether the differences are negligible or not is still up for debate in my opinion. There simply isn't enough research on the subject.

What "left" is even in power in the west? The neoliberals?

Yes. Probably would have been more accurate to say the crony capitalist oligarchy since most Western countries simply swing back and forth between neoliberals being in power and neoconservatives being in power, without seeing any real differences most of the time. It was just an example though.

I suppose. That doesn't relate to disputing whether its degenerate or not to violently burn down research centers and deport or put scientists in jail, work camps, or executions because you're triggered. And it is, its super degenerate.

Degenerate in terms of regression to a previous lower state of humanity, sure. I don't really think that's what most people mean when they use the term "degenerate", and I wouldn't use it here, but I agree with the sentiment that destroying or outlawing objective scientific research is fantastically moronic.

 

[TFT-A9]

You keep talking about the NSDAP as if that's what I'm trying to emulate. Of course this thread is full of strawmen.

>alludes to synthesis of nationalism and socialism
>n-not NSDAP guise

Either you're a fucking LARPing Naziboo or you're an even LARPier Nazbol. Either way you've crossed the sped event horizon.

 

[Feline Darkmage]

Sure, although we'd probably disagree on how much of our lack of knowledge in this area is because it's considered politically distasteful to research it versus how much it simply can't be reliably measured.

The thing is it has been researched. And when it was more thoroughly went over people slowly realized how much it was variable especially in people of the same race grouping. How we think of race is a bunch of extrapolations that was taken from very old outdated 'science' that was pretty obviously cherrypicked to hell and useful exclusively as a cudgel to keep certain people in power.

We might place far more emphasis on certain highly visible phenotypes than they merit (skin colour being the main one), but there are a lot of other differences that are haram to talk too openly about.

What examples? Like muscle mass & athletic ability in african-americans or somlething?

Yes. Probably would have been more accurate to say the crony capitalist oligarchy since most Western countries simply swing back and forth between neoliberals being in power and neoconservatives being in power, without seeing any real differences most of the time. It was just an example though.

True.

Degenerate in terms of regression to a previous lower state of humanity, sure. I don't really think that's what most people mean when they use the term "degenerate", and I wouldn't use it here,

It should be how its used because it's more accurate than using it to describe "people i don't like being icky".

but I agree with the sentiment that destroying or outlawing objective scientific research is fantastically moronic.

Ye, that's good.

 

[GreenJacket]

LARPier Nazbol

You are correct that I'm a NazBol, but I don't think you know what LARPing means.

 

[TFT-A9]

You are correct that I'm a NazBol, but I don't think you know what LARPing means.

It means pretending to be hot shit and forgetting that you're actually just body temperature

 

[inexplicable ethos]

The thing is it has been researched. And when it was more thoroughly went over people slowly realized how much it was variable especially in people of the same race grouping. How we think of race is a bunch of extrapolations that was taken from very old outdated 'science' that was pretty obviously cherrypicked to hell and useful exclusively as a cudgel to keep certain people in power.

Has it, though? You can say that we shouldn't base assumptions on old discredited research; sure, that's valid. But what you CAN'T say is that because we found later on that variations within races are greater than we thought, that must mean there is negligible variation between races.
You might even be correct about that, but my problem is that as far as I know we haven't seen specific proof of it. What I want is for racial differences to be something that it is completely acceptable to research honestly without having to preface any study with "WE ARE NOT RACIST, PLEASE DO NOT THINK WE ARE RACISTS FOR RESEARCHING THIS" and changing methodologies to avoid getting the political hammer brought down on the researchers' public image. I'm no professional, but I am a huge fan of taxonomical and genetic research. I would love to see the differences (and similarities) between human races studied as thoroughly as the differences between animal subspecies mainly because of the possible insights in can offer into the history of human evolution. Not just which populations came first and who moved to where from where, but what exactly it is about our different evolutionary environments that shapes us.

What examples? Like muscle mass & athletic ability in african-americans or somlething?

I don't mean the kind of thing that is heavily joked about and widely accepted already. No one is clamouring to stop someone from coming to the conclusion that East Asians are short, or that Africans are fast runners--probably since visible physical differences are the hardest to deny. A big example in my opinion is mental health differences. There seem to be very few objective attempts to explain why whites and especially ashkenazi Jews have much higher incidence rates of things like schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and many other cluster A and C disorders than other races. Or why clinical depression seems to be much less common among blacks and more common among Asians. We can at least say to a degree that the differences EXIST, but no one wants to study exactly what causes them. Is it partially genetic or is it purely environment based? That seems like information that would be useful to study more sincerely. It helps no one to say it can't be researched because mental differences between races are not acceptable to discuss openly, since everyone immediately subconsciously equates them to saying one race is smarter than another.

It should be how its used because it's more accurate than using it to describe "people i don't like being icky".

Well of course we SHOULD use words accurately, but using meme words to mean their actual definition is always a dangerous proposition.

 

[Dom Cruise]

In the 1990's minorities were 25% of the US population. In 2020 minorities will be 40% of the US population. They almost doubled. That's a major change. Look at the 2016 election. Trump won states like Pennsylvannia, Michigan, and Wisconsin by 80,000 total in all 3 states. Those states won him the presidency. So 80,000 people decided the election.

25% to 40% is a massive difference. In the 90's anti-whites were the fringe. Bill Clinton has Confederate flags as campaign material and they deplatformed that anti-white at the DNC. Nowadays anti-whiteness is the norm. Keep in mind whites are still a slight minority. Imagine what things'll be like by 2035. Take a look at most of Southern California. I know people who live there. Imagine being the 1 white kid in a college class and one Latino kid puts up a literal, unironic "White people are evil" presentation. The class didn't do anything except look at the lone white girl in the class and laugh. The Professor even took the anti-white student's side. Outside of college that white girl I know got death stares until she moved to a majority white area.



Of course it was. White people were a solid majority. Anti-whiteness was still there, but it was on the fringe. Now it's mainstream and that genie isn't going back into the bottle. There were still tensions like the LA riots and the OJ Simpson trial, but you're right that it was muted. But no longer.



If you didn't have strawman arguments you would have no arguments. Never heard the term "Jew physics".



You're right. Most of the Alt-Right would agree with you. White is simply a census category. Race matters, but the basis of the state should be nation rather than race. White people all over the world aren't a nation nor should they be grouped into a single state. White Americans are however their own nation as are Black Americans. Being a Scottish American is more of a point of conversation than a tribal identity that people actually on. White American, Black American, etc. are far better terms to describe how different groups in the US interact and organize whether explicitly or implicitly. White identity is more implicit for now. You're seeing that change.




You can't simply ignore ingroup preference in a multi-ethnic society. In such a society politics becomes an ethnic headcount. The only way to suppress ethnic division is becoming an Empire or understanding ethnic differences and allowing a system that accommdates them in a peaceful manner. But too many people subscribe to Civic Nationalism for now. When whites become a minority and the system falls apart (In part due to whites becoming a minority) that's when shit will hit the fan. Hopefully we can adopt Balkanization or Federalism in a peaceful manner. But I don't see that happening.



Racism means believing your race is inherently superior. I don't believe that - "superiority" is too subjective. We have differences and we excel in different things. What's more important is understanding that we are different and must craft a state that allows those differences to be expressed in a peaceful manner rather than suppress those urges and make them explode.

Also I'm not a "Racialist" either. I'm a Nationalist. Grouping the 10% of the world's population together is only useful in a limited number of contexts like combating international anti-whiteness that affects us all. The main idea is allowing Germans, Italians, Russians, and Heritage Americans (White Americans) to each have self-governance via having independent states or at least autonomous areas within various states.

Obviously anti-white sentiment isn't good and going into the future we have to teach people a better way, which I believe we can, I'm not so cynical to believe that a rising number of "people of color" inherently means more anti-white sentiment, provided we can teach people better ways than the hypocritical, regressive SJW left that is yelling the loudest at the moment.

And yes, you're going to have people naturally coalesce into groups, but the way America used to work is you had each demographic groups, white, black, male, female etc but they all revolved around a shared mainstream culture that was made up of everyone, that balance of everyone having their own personal space and healthy boundaries between them, but still having a shared culture as a group, is the ideal equilibrium for a diverse society and America isn't even the first civilization to work that way.

But what has happened is over the last 20 years, largely thanks to the internet, that shared mainstream culture has been cannablized and is shrinking more and more, people are coalescing into groups too much and each of the groups is being taken over by their own individual fringes, which tells them that their own group is the best and should be the big cheese of American society.

But let's be pragmatic, whether or not "race matters" is up for debate, but either way, you talk about Balkanization, do you have any idea how horrible that would be? You talk about not being able to put Genies back in the bottle, well the dial for American society can only be turned back so far without resulting in disaster not just for America but the world as a whole.

The Alt Right seems to want to turn the clock back to the pre-60s civil rights era, I'd say it's a little too late for that, I hope we can at least dial the clock back 20 years, I fail to see what was so bad about things then and I think the alternative of trying to bring back the pre-60s civil rights era would be far worse for everyone.

Both the radical left and the radical right are playing with some seriously dangerous fire these days and it just doesn't seem rational to me, all anyone really wants at the end of the day is a little respect and America seemed to have learned and agreed on that already, so what went wrong?

 

[TFT-A9]

"white people are terrible because slavery and colonialism"

At least we fucking apologize for that shit. Go try and wring apologies out of the Arabs, Africans, or Asians for the shit they pulled. SK still can't get the Japs to own up fully to the shit they pulled, for god's sake.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Objective measurement is psuedoscience? Sure, you can say that making an overall judgement on what races are "better" than others isn't reasonable, but you can certainly rank different races on a hierarchical scale in relation to single traits or trait clusters. Biological racial differences are simply a fact and that isn't logically disputable.



The Left does the exact same thing in the modern West. So has almost every powerful political movement ever, especially in places with some sort of democratic system. The easiest way to win the votes of a general populace is to simply suppress information that disagrees with you.

Race is a pretty vague term scientifically speaking but if you're going to try to use it it's probably not going to line up to the popular public perception in the US of what a race is. You'd probably end up with dozens of African races and just two or three European ones, for instance.

 

[Shmidty Werbenmanjenson]

Both the radical left and the radical right are playing with some seriously dangerous fire these days and it just doesn't seem rational to me, all anyone really wants at the end of the day is a little respect and America seemed to have learned and agreed on that already, so what went wrong?

I cannot wait until the powderkeg is set off. I'll support right or left, as long as more people have to run chainsaw and dig septic tanks in snow to survive like me. Hell, land prices would go down, and more people would have to learn some hunting and trapping for meat.

It's a win win for everyone, but especially me

 

[inexplicable ethos]

Race is a pretty vague term scientifically speaking but if you're going to try to use it it's probably not going to line up to the popular public perception in the US of what a race is. You'd probably end up with dozens of African races and just two or three European ones, for instance.

"Subspecies" is a vague term as well, but that doesn't stop the scientific community from applying it to things. Racial divisions all come down to how precisely you want to cluster them. If you sort human populations into five genetic clusters, for example, you can see pretty clearly how races divide up into African, European/West Asian/Indian, East Asian, Oceanic, and American subsets. Sure, there are physiological differences between Bantu Africans and Nubian Africans, but they cluster much, much closer to each other than they do to any other populational subsets from outside of Africa. The level of specificity you need to apply when differentiating populations in a species as biodiverse as humans is always going to depend on which specific traits or genes you're looking at, but it's a lot more reasonable to lump together all Africans than it would be to, say, lump together all people with black skin (Oceanians are about as far from Africans genetically as it's possible to be). The important thing is that you understand what the population divisions are, and you make sure to divide them based on genotypes instead of superficial phenotypes.

 

[Kyria the Great]

I don't know why people on either side just cannot be honest that all they want to do is indulge their evil, lizard brain, or dark side that they want to murderfuck whatever they perceive as competition or hostiles. All this fixation on high ideals is stupid and I would be far more forgiving to the fringes of the Alt-Right and Alt-Left if they would admit that they want to indulge that dark urge.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

"Subspecies" is a vague term as well, but that doesn't stop the scientific community from applying it to things. Racial divisions all come down to how precisely you want to cluster them. If you sort human populations into five genetic clusters, for example, you can see pretty clearly how races divide up into African, European/West Asian/Indian, East Asian, Oceanic, and American subsets. Sure, there are physiological differences between Bantu Africans and Nubian Africans, but they cluster much, much closer to each other than they do to any other populational subsets from outside of Africa. The level of specificity you need to apply when differentiating populations in a species as biodiverse as humans is always going to depend on which specific traits or genes you're looking at, but it's a lot more reasonable to lump together all Africans than it would be to, say, lump together all people with black skin (Oceanians are about as far from Africans genetically as it's possible to be). The important thing is that you understand what the population divisions are, and you make sure to divide them based on genotypes instead of superficial phenotypes.

You massively underestimate the genetic diversity of the old world, in particular Africa but also isolated islands in the general Austronesian area. Granted a lot of this is based on what measures of genetic diversity you care about but it's a lot more complicated than you make it sound. What applies to an African American that is descended from people from the interior of West Africa does not necessarily apply to the aforementioned Nubians, and indeed depending on the measure chosen are not actually closer to each other than they are to you (who I presume are a white European).

In any case this is still being studied quite a lot and we're far from being able to just read someone's potential from their genome Gattaca style.

I agree this is something that does merit research and consideration, just saying it's often not going to line up the way various political movements want it too no matter how hard they try to use it that way, since so much of what we consider our " racial" identity is actually more cultural than biological. Try telling two warring tribes in the Sudan that they're actually very closely related and see how far it takes you. It'll be about as useful as telling an African American they have almost as much in common with the Queen of England as they do with the east Africans they're claiming kinship with.

But yeah " subspecies" is fuzzy as hell and honestly sometimes even "species" isn't nearly as elegant a category as taxonimists would like. Hell there's really not even a point in using it for most micro-organisms.

EDIT: In the interests of fairness I want to point out that I also think @Feline Darkmage is underestimated the genetic diversity of humanity too. Understandably so. Because again, what we consider "race" and what you might want to scientifically categorize as race are often not really the same thing.