BreadTube - The Unofficial ContraPoints Dickriders Club and the culture / drama surrounding the community.

  • Like
Reactions: Josterman, Lobster Cult High Priest, Oh piss off! and 1 other person
Jolyne THICCujoh said:
Doesn't Xand have a girlfriend? Why doesn't he just bang her instead of horny larping on Twitter?
Click to expand...
That's a pretty insensitive comment you just made there. Erectile dysfunction is a problem for millions of men across the nation, and it's attitudes like yours that make people like poor Xandy even more ashamed about their condition.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: GentlemanRetard, Woke Blue Muttlema, Brain Problems and 5 others
I used to be left-leaning but things got flat-out ridiculous during the Trump years.
My biggest issue with Breadtube as a whole is how hypocritical they are.
Loads of them try to act like they're sticking up for the little guy all the while making thousands on sites like patreon and indulging in late-stage capitalism.
They've also groomed a new generation of SJWs that are far more deranged than the ones of old
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Isaac Clarke, Blatant hypocrite, Grand_Ole_Ostritch and 18 others
X-avier cuck said:
I used to be left-leaning but things got flat-out ridiculous during the Trump years.
My biggest issue with Breadtube as a whole is how hypocritical they are.
Loads of them try to act like they're sticking up for the little guy all the while making thousands on sites like patreon and indulging in late-stage capitalism.
They've also groomed a new generation of SJWs that are far more deranged than the ones of old
Click to expand...
That’s why people hear instantly respect Commies/Tankies like Jimmy Dore (despite spitting in Alex Jones face), Infrared, Caleb Maupin, Aaron Mate, and Jackson Hinkle. Who all are Dumbfucks in the way of Stalin but at least they won’t put up with degeneracy on their own side. Compared to the leftists who try to be ivory tower in the vein of Lenin and Trotsky.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Keep Yourself Safe, NormieCasual, lemmiwinks and 7 others
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Woke Blue Muttlema, Brain Problems, Josterman and 3 others
Puck said:
Its gonna be so funny when he gets cancelled for "misogyny"
Click to expand...
Or this xand.PNG
 
  • Optimistic
  • Autistic
  • Like
Reactions: Racism2, Shaka Brah, Scarmaiden and 5 others
DirtyHegel said:
yeah, granted I would argue Authoritarians/Statists in general have an Inferiority complex. Right Wing Authoritarians believe that Authority from Tradition is legitimate, Monarchism is traditional ergo it is Legitimate. Age doesnt make something good, Traditions Merits should be judged rather than simply conforming to Tradition. I am a Southern Nationalist Anarcho-Capitalist myself, but I can criticize the South while still being proud of it, the CSA was bad as it exploited fellow Southerners and the KKK was bad as well for attacking Southerners as well. But I still am proud of the South and my Heritage, I still believe the South should be independent from the Imperialist US, who only was against the South due to wanting to exploit it and nothing more. Conservatives however cant criticize Tradition I notice and have to simp for it at every turn instead of critically thinking about it,
Click to expand...
Define "inferiority complex" when you talk about authoritarians/statists in that general brush - then, afterwards, explain the differences between totalitarianism and authoritarianism; ultimately I agree with your take on authoritarians having an inferiority complex, don't get me wrong, but let's not act like the entire drive for structure comes solely out of an inferiority complex - totalitarianism is ideologically motivated, authoritarianism being individually motivated; the latter being individually motivated is, of course, derived from some sort of personal complex...that's just common sense.

"Tradition" is fluid and changes over time - what was 'traditional' to the colonial whites of the West was far from traditional to the whites of the varying classes of the medieval eras, and so on and so on; tradition merely adapts to a given time and the appearance adapts to the given time - the 'similarities' that traditions from varying times can hold are in behaviours alone: knowing how to fucking act decently, knowing how to uphold structure around you, knowing the meaning of 'society', knowing the meaning of 'fellow man', knowing the meaning of 'nation' - all of these things are behaviours that constituted and created traditions as we know them; tradition itself means absolutely fuck all and striving to preserve any tradition of 150 years ago in the form that it presented itself 150 years ago is absolutely impossible and not only a pipe dream, but a self-destructive pipe dream.

Society is an organism, it and the organs within evolve continuously and therefore so do the habits, rituals, tendencies and needs of that organism evolve - "tradition" by itself means absolutely fucking nothing.

As for the Union, it existed (and exists) for far more than just politically-enforced reasons, considering the CSA had no economic hope of survival; there wasn't going to be a massive industrial boom in the CSA that'd give it enough sustaining power to remain independent, the reason the CSA was so reliant on agrarian economic prospects was because that was all that was there - industrial growth required foreign investment at the time, and foreign investment in the CSA was nil by the point of the war - the Union by itself is strategically and economically the most bulwark landmass on the fucking Earth, we have literally everything we need here; meanwhile, a CSA and USA divided by North-South lines will ALWAYS find a way to go to war due to economic needs; there was no hope for a prospering CSA, with or without the civil war, it simply wouldn't have mattered - either way, the CSA was destined to poverty, eventual slave revolts, and eventual factionalism due to the fact that various states within the CSA had no concept of a 'federal government structure' and had no intention of obeying orders from on-high if they didn't like them, leading to more violent bickering than we see in the House of Congress today.

Exploitation of the South was..really..minimal - it was a political affair; the existence of the Confederacy made any existing American presidency look weak, complacent, and indecisive - meanwhile, the South was full of farmland and when your industrially-packed landmass is lacking farmland but there's millions of Americans down south with farmland, half of them unsure of whether or not they actually want to remain independent from you, what do you do? You unify the fucking country.

Regarding 'imperialism', the CSA had no disdain for imperialism and had every intention of expanding the CSA were they to survive because they would've fucking needed to in order to actually economically sustain themselves - a population growing that quickly with nothing but farmland to sustain them? "Imperialism" in some cases is simply the requirement of a growing nation. You want a CSA? That's okay, but that CSA would've had to encompass the entire Union - you want a CSA? That's okay, but that CSA would've had to forcefully unify the country just as the Union did in order for survival; as for everything else, that's a wash, considering we know Lincoln had little regard for niggers and the emancipation of niggers.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: RichardMongler, Iceland Heavy, Bayard Rustin and 6 others
Evo said:
Define "inferiority complex" when you talk about authoritarians/statists in that general brush - then, afterwards, explain the differences between totalitarianism and authoritarianism; ultimately I agree with your take on authoritarians having an inferiority complex, don't get me wrong, but let's not act like the entire drive for structure comes solely out of an inferiority complex - totalitarianism is ideologically motivated, authoritarianism being individually motivated; the latter being individually motivated is, of course, derived from some sort of personal complex...that's just common sense.

"Tradition" is fluid and changes over time - what was 'traditional' to the colonial whites of the West was far from traditional to the whites of the varying classes of the medieval eras, and so on and so on; tradition merely adapts to a given time and the appearance adapts to the given time - the 'similarities' that traditions from varying times can hold are in behaviours alone: knowing how to fucking act decently, knowing how to uphold structure around you, knowing the meaning of 'society', knowing the meaning of 'fellow man', knowing the meaning of 'nation' - all of these things are behaviours that constituted and created traditions as we know them; tradition itself means absolutely fuck all and striving to preserve any tradition of 150 years ago in the form that it presented itself 150 years ago is absolutely impossible and not only a pipe dream, but a self-destructive pipe dream.

Society is an organism, it and the organs within evolve continuously and therefore so do the habits, rituals, tendencies and needs of that organism evolve - "tradition" by itself means absolutely fucking nothing.

As for the Union, it existed (and exists) for far more than just politically-enforced reasons, considering the CSA had no economic hope of survival; there wasn't going to be a massive industrial boom in the CSA that'd give it enough sustaining power to remain independent, the reason the CSA was so reliant on agrarian economic prospects was because that was all that was there - industrial growth required foreign investment at the time, and foreign investment in the CSA was nil by the point of the war - the Union by itself is strategically and economically the most bulwark landmass on the fucking Earth, we have literally everything we need here; meanwhile, a CSA and USA divided by North-South lines will ALWAYS find a way to go to war due to economic needs; there was no hope for a prospering CSA, with or without the civil war, it simply wouldn't have mattered - either way, the CSA was destined to poverty, eventual slave revolts, and eventual factionalism due to the fact that various states within the CSA had no concept of a 'federal government structure' and had no intention of obeying orders from on-high if they didn't like them, leading to more violent bickering than we see in the House of Congress today.

Exploitation of the South was..really..minimal - it was a political affair; the existence of the Confederacy made any existing American presidency look weak, complacent, and indecisive - meanwhile, the South was full of farmland and when your industrially-packed landmass is lacking farmland but there's millions of Americans down south with farmland, half of them unsure of whether or not they actually want to remain independent from you, what do you do? You unify the fucking country.

Regarding 'imperialism', the CSA had no disdain for imperialism and had every intention of expanding the CSA were they to survive because they would've fucking needed to in order to actually economically sustain themselves - a population growing that quickly with nothing but farmland to sustain them? "Imperialism" in some cases is simply the requirement of a growing nation. You want a CSA? That's okay, but that CSA would've had to encompass the entire Union - you want a CSA? That's okay, but that CSA would've had to forcefully unify the country just as the Union did in order for survival; as for everything else, that's a wash, considering we know Lincoln had little regard for niggers and the emancipation of niggers.
Click to expand...
The constant state of mental inferiority. Totalitarianism means Total Authority of the State and Authoritarianism means Majority Authority of the State.

I would agree that due to the fluidity of society its pointless to try and uphold old traditions, and rather tradition itself, but rather you should hold onto the values of a society and perpetuate them with modern traditions.

I agree that the CSA wouldve never survived, especially the way it economically molded itself. But Southern Poverty to this day can still be traced back to the civil war, with reconstruction basically making the average southerner, no better than recently emancipated slaves, both were so poor they had to take to sharecropping. I agree however the CSA wouldve needed to industrialize, and wouldve been Imperialist, look at golden circle for instance. But the South should still be independent imo, especially today with a built up infrastructure and the South industrialized, we are still treated unfairly, look at Northie interpretations of the South, being the land of retards and incest. Look at how poor we still are and the fact we cant be economically independent and if the US fails, so do we.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Josterman and Lobster Cult High Priest
DirtyHegel said:
The constant state of mental inferiority. Totalitarianism means Total Authority of the State and Authoritarianism means Majority Authority of the State.

I would agree that due to the fluidity of society its pointless to try and uphold old traditions, and rather tradition itself, but rather you should hold onto the values of a society and perpetuate them with modern traditions.

I agree that the CSA wouldve never survived, especially the way it economically molded itself. But Southern Poverty to this day can still be traced back to the civil war, with reconstruction basically making the average southerner, no better than recently emancipated slaves, both were so poor they had to take to sharecropping. I agree however the CSA wouldve needed to industrialize, and wouldve been Imperialist, look at golden circle for instance. But the South should still be independent imo, especially today with a built up infrastructure and the South industrialized, we are still treated unfairly, look at Northie interpretations of the South, being the land of retards and incest. Look at how poor we still are and the fact we cant be economically independent and if the US fails, so do we.
Click to expand...
The South wasn’t able to industrialize cause there were freight restrictions regarding the railroads. Apparently I think it was Birmingham or another city of Alabama that has the type of nearby natural resources to make steel. Birmingham could have become the Pittsburgh of the southern (less successful since it isn’t connected to the Mississippi or a tributary of the Mississippi).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Josterman, Kendall Motor Oil and Shaka Brah
DirtyHegel said:
But the South should still be independent imo, especially today with a built up infrastructure and the South industrialized, we are still treated unfairly, look at Northie interpretations of the South, being the land of retards and incest. Look at how poor we still are and the fact we cant be economically independent and if the US fails, so do we.
Click to expand...
The financial centers of power are still in New England. Atlanta has banking offices but those don't really hold power. Another issue is how many northerners move to southern economic centers and use said economic power to push their culture. The stereotypes of the south are still alive and well in all generations up north. Those that visit get a shock, especially those who meet niggers for the first time. The war propaganda never ended and the wound never healed.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Josterman, Shaka Brah, frozenrunner and 1 other person
DirtyHegel said:
The constant state of mental inferiority. Totalitarianism means Total Authority of the State and Authoritarianism means Majority Authority of the State.

I would agree that due to the fluidity of society its pointless to try and uphold old traditions, and rather tradition itself, but rather you should hold onto the values of a society and perpetuate them with modern traditions.

I agree that the CSA wouldve never survived, especially the way it economically molded itself. But Southern Poverty to this day can still be traced back to the civil war, with reconstruction basically making the average southerner, no better than recently emancipated slaves, both were so poor they had to take to sharecropping. I agree however the CSA wouldve needed to industrialize, and wouldve been Imperialist, look at golden circle for instance. But the South should still be independent imo, especially today with a built up infrastructure and the South industrialized, we are still treated unfairly, look at Northie interpretations of the South, being the land of retards and incest. Look at how poor we still are and the fact we cant be economically independent and if the US fails, so do we.
Click to expand...
Yes, and no - authoritarianism is defined by a singular figurehead creating a cult of power around the self; the leader is an exalted individual function and the leader is whoever is in play - past that, there's nothing to control the regulations and actions of the leader and his given cronies; totalitarianism, however, is ideologically motivated and enforces leadership as a 'function' of a greater body, and tends to have a regulatory body moreso devoted to the ideology than the leader himself in place, reducing the chance for corruption - both are "total" in exertion, it's just that each have different backing; totalitarianism posits that authoritarianism inevitably fails because the leader is exalted as an individual, the man himself meaning more than the ideology he practiced coming into power; what you said was just a gross oversimplification of very, very different things in terms of political conduct.

A lot of this is less due to some inability for Northern and Southern cultures to mesh peacefully (one can see in other states that they do so just fine, albeit via producing some weird hybrid of the two) and moreso due to the inability for an actual 'all-American' culture to be established and kept for much longer than the initial post-war period of the '50's with the babybooming generation - granted, enormous cultural differences between 'dixie' and 'yankee' were still in existence but some form and image of an 'all-American man' was being created by the media at the time but it simply wasn't prepared for the cultural revolutions and zeitgeists of the coming generations and that's more of a systemic issue that I can rant on for hours and hours and hours as someone who doesn't have much taste for democratic systems in general - the 'all-American' man that we saw of the alleged Golden Age of American history pretty much synthesized elements and moralities of both dixie and yankee cultures and while suburban life in the South had it's own flavour as opposed to that in the north, there was a general mutuality being established - this all quickly banished once those same aforementioned cultural revolutions began to occur, all popping off regionally and reacting to the individual, given cultural histories and traditions around them: you had black revolutionaries all over places in the fucking South, and naturally dixie descendants of those who'd just nearly a century prior put those niggers in chains weren't going to react well to the concept of violent black revolution; all of that was the reason the Klan even had it's 'second wave' to begin with, having been a forgotten force for fuckin' decades up until that point.

I agree with your indemnity towards the north for the sake of hypocrisy and for the sake of the fact the Union failed to uphold any idea of an 'all-American culture', I do not agree with your indemnity towards the Union in general - the Union at this point has gone far, far past the dichotomies of 'north and south' and the myriad catechisms we face today simple do not make for a fantastic rerun of the 1860's in terms of conflict or culture or secession, things have become much, much, much more complex than they were at the time - Southern factionalism wasn't as much a thing back then as it would be today, especially with the wildly huge population of niggers in the South.

I speak to you as someone from the South.
 
  • Informative
  • Disagree
Reactions: DumbDude42, Josterman and Lobster Cult High Priest
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back