Plagued The Alt-Right

This is what the DE's actually believe:
american_progress_by_edelhert89-d91yr6v.png
 
What's with the gold fetish
It becomes even more absurdly humorous when you remember their enemies (the Jews) have alleged obsession with gold, too.

Theoretically could there be a government run by intellectuals which thus likes intellectuals (think plato's republic)
Plato was a nobleman's son and never did work in his life. He got into Socrates after being bored of riches.
Republic is heartless in places (the intellectual government uses slaves to do any work deemed too low for smart people - any) and hopelessly naive in others (the answer to the 'who watches the watchmen' question is to make the watchmen feel superior for doing this job).
An I.Q. government could work if we either had slaves or robots automating 90% of the work, so the rest 10% can focus on wasting time talking about Big Things and maybe writing blogs.


About Asalieri - he's a guy who literally stole lolipops from children. He's wanted by Interpol for stealing something like 50k from a children's fund. He scurried somewhere in Greece AFAIK.
The fact that he poses like LaVey in every picture really proves the point he's not right in the head.
 
While a dictatorship is not necessarily evil, and in some situations damn well necessary (I'm talking necessary as in "If you don't fucking listen and do exactly what I say we won't survive long enough for us to discuss this again" survival situations) It is not the most preferable form of government. Anything that relies merely on one man suffers from the quality of the man in charge. We remember the absolute authorities that did well because they had absolute power despite them being within the minority.

These fuckers make me sick and any genuine revolution would be wise to dispose of them early as an intellectual contagion.
 
These fuckers make me sick and any genuine revolution would be wise to dispose of them early as an intellectual contagion.
Nah.
Revolution never makes things better, and diversity of thought is the best kind of diversity you can have - killing people who merely think differently is a bad idea.
... but you have my blessing if you want to kill Aurini ;)
 
This is what the DE's actually believe:
american_progress_by_edelhert89-d91yr6v.png

What's ironically funny is that the guy in the middle (the tattoo covered guy with the gun) looks like a stereotypical skinhead. Also why is it that these conspiracy theory artists all have the same Ben-Garrison-esque style of art that looks like a political cartoon for a newspaper?
 
Gonna have to disagree with you there. Some do.

Arguably, it wasn't a "revolution" in the sense generally meant with something like the French Revolution.

The vast majority of government was done by state governments at the time of the Revolution. Those state governments still existed after the American Revolution, and the legal systems and mechanisms of keeping order were left almost entirely intact.

The only real difference was that a distant, out of touch colonial authority, that did little but collect taxes while doing nothing of use for the country, was removed from the equation.

I think it was ultimately revolutionary in that the establishment of a constitutional authority essentially rewrote the manual on governing a country, to the point that virtually every country in the world later adopted at least the trappings of constitutionalism, at least those that did not (like England itself) actually partly inspire American constitutionalism.

So a revolution of that sort can succeed, but it requires some actual plan for what happens afterwards, and the plan has to make sense. It also has to spare the functioning elements of civil society, as the American Revolution did.

"Smash everything because RRRAWRRRRR" is where most fascists and anarchists and people shouting "REVOLUTION" are coming from.
 
Ladies and Gentlemen, Michael Anissimov, one of the Dark Enlightenment's figureheads.

https://storify.com/weev/the-meltdown-of-mikeanissimov

TL;DR weev equates Anissimov to Chris-Chan (both of them got obsessed with women named Julie, went into a meltdown, sent dead threats to people they don't like, both used to be heavily homophobic and transphobic until they go Haggard, and made complete dumbasses out of themselves)
 
Ladies and Gentlemen, Michael Anissimov, one of the Dark Enlightenment's figureheads.

https://storify.com/weev/the-meltdown-of-mikeanissimov

TL;DR weev equates Anissimov to Chris-Chan (both of them got obsessed with women named Julie, went into a meltdown, sent dead threats to people they don't like, both used to be heavily homophobic and transphobic until they go Haggard, and made complete dumbasses out of themselves)


And this is the biggest name of the movement.

Autism all the fucking way.
 
I still can't get over the fact they're actually described as "disaffected computer programmers".

If you're a disaffected computer programer , in Silicon Valley, no less, then I submit, you aren't a very GOOD computer programmer.... that's like saying "Disaffected Manhattan Fund Manager" , the very occupation comes with a LOT of clout and privilege (actual privilege, mind, not the bullshit SJW kind) that it's nigh impossible to be shut out of society's perks unless you're actively antisocial.
 
What's ironically funny is that the guy in the middle (the tattoo covered guy with the gun) looks like a stereotypical skinhead. Also why is it that these conspiracy theory artists all have the same Ben-Garrison-esque style of art that looks like a political cartoon for a newspaper?

Because most of them are political cartoonists at heart: Stupid, talentless, obsessed with imaginary enemies.

Also, people hoarding gold for a societal collapse are only one step above zombie apocalypse preppers.
 
For those who may not know, (and don't mind going to rationalwiki), they have a pretty good write up on the basics of what it is, and why so many socially inept geeks and anti-government types find it attractive to the exclusion of, pretty much everyone else.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bitcoin

That article is abjectly shitty and repeats all kinds of nonsensical "the only thing that happens on the Internet is horrible crimes" type clickbait articles as "sources." I don't mean I just disagree with it. I mean it's terribly written, poorly sourced, and ridiculously biased.

The actual Wikipedia article is much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
 
Back