@KulakRevolt's banner p




20 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 07 00:56:43 UTC

Writes at https://anarchonomicon.substack.com/

Writes weird Twitter Threads @FromKulak

Rides motorcycles... poorly.


Winner of Motte Post of the Year 2019


User ID: 905



20 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 07 00:56:43 UTC


Writes at https://anarchonomicon.substack.com/

Writes weird Twitter Threads @FromKulak

Rides motorcycles... poorly.


Winner of Motte Post of the Year 2019


User ID: 905

When Jews stop being 20% of Harvard grads they can stop being 20% of the conversation.

It's absurd to think that a group of people that over-represented in elite circles and receiving more foreign aid than any other country on earth would not be a major point of discussion.

Do you hold any other ethno-identity interest group to this standard? Or is this an issolated demand for rigour?

Did you ask Black Lives Matter, Ukrainian Nationalists, Zionists, or Quebecois Nationalists to narrowly define Blackness, Ukrainianness, Jewishness, or what it means to be quebecois?

THE ENTIRE POINT of ethno-nationalism is that the core of the ethnos gets to define and redefine and redefine again the meaning of the ethnos so as to advance their interests the exact same way the wokes redefine "oppression"

"How do you define whiteness? What about all the edge cases?"

You define it exactly the way that maximally benefits the core white ethnos that no one contests is white, and then you redefine as new more precise definitions come about that can more readily benefit the core of the ethnos.

This isn't hard. Ethno-tribalism is the OLDEST ideology in human history.

To the extent White Nationalists won't answer you it's because they know the game is to play 20 questions and keep digging down til we're debating the definition of the word "is" when no Irish nationalist, black nationalist, or Polish Nationalist was ever held to this game of defining exact haplogroups. Everyone knows what a pole is, everyone knows who an Irish person is, everyone knows what a white person is... To the extent someone was an edge case it was on THEM to show profound unyielding loyalty to the cause to prove that they were truly part of the group, not on the group to come up with narrow definitions that escape every exception.

"How do we know this won't be applied perniciously or cruelly? How do we know you will be consistent at all?"

You don't. That's what sovereignty means, he who decides the exception. Just as the Supreme Court gets to torture the meaning of words to contort your rights whichever way they feel fit, and mixed race and jewish millionaires get to torture the meaning of "oppression" to grant themselves more and more privileges and punish dissent even harder, the white nationalists will define and redefine white however they choose whenever they choose so as to protect the core of the ethnos and advance the interest of unambiguously white people.

The only way marginal cases can protect themselves from being redefined as "NOT WHITE" and deported is to continuously make themselves assets to the white ethnos, the exact same way on the left white "Allies" have to constantly be the most fanatical advancers of the cause or be attacked and destroyed.

"how do you define white?"

Whichever way maximally benefits blonde haired, blue-eyed people of north european descent at that exact moment.

Quite literally millions of Black parents have had kids arrested, killed, wounded, or who killed or wounded others in their gun offenses... and not even legally held guns.

meanwhile they do this to one white family, with not even a hint that this would ever be applied evenly to a black parents who do the same.

Pure anarcho-tyrrany and ethnic hatred of the flyover Amerikaner.

Taking your children to a gun range is GOOD parenting in a country with more guns than people and high homocide rates.

Do you want your kids to be raped and murdered for want of any ability to defend themselves from black crime?

You can't really do that when your schedule and business model demands you publish a new 4000-10,000 word article every 4-5 days.

Even if I had infinite friends that I never ran out of people to demand that of, the 1-2 days it would take for them to get back to me with the edits would increase the turnaround time by 25-50%, destroying my growth and maybe my business viability.

Starvation and "beatings" prove nothing.

Those are the conditions that existed in the Gulags in peace time, the conditions that existed in the british concentration camps for the Boer, and the conditions that would have existed in the concentration camps for Japanese Americans if America had lost the war and had its supply chains and rail networks destroyed by bombing.

The Claim of "the holocaust" is that the Germans uniquely set out to kill every jew in Europe, did so on an industrialized scale and with an efficiency never seen before in human, history, and that it is in a category of horror beyond any other genocide to ever exist including the Great Leap forward, Hoomodor, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and CERTAINLY worse than the Soviet mass killing and expulsion of the German Diaspora post 1945.

Nothing in "Crusade in Europe", Churchhill's "Second World War", or De Gualle's "Memoires De Guerre" suggest anything of the sort.

Indeed all of them portray the Camps as workcamps for enemy aliens (like the camps for Japanese-Americans) that collapsed and lost life support function during the onslaught of war.

To clarify I never used the word "SubHuman" in the piece.

Only "subspecies of human", of which Whites, or however you like to divide it are another subspecies. (everyone is a member of some subspecies)

My argument is not that we must despise them or hate them, but that whatever empathy and projection of deep kinship "Brotherhood of man" is clearly misplaced, given that, as displayed by the discomfort of the film, many cannot even bear to look on them whilst employing this Euro-anthropomorphism.

Although Thames wants India nuked, I'd argue there is a middle ground between believing on the one hand white people owe just as much care and empathy to brown children as their own and should go full effective altruists sending every dime they earn into the maw of Sub-Continental parasite prevention , and on the other believing that no brown feet must ever walk the earth again.

We can just care LESS for them. We can rank our preferences, place them in a farther circle of concern where they can't affect our lifestyles and environments, and choose to just merely tolerate them without ever accepting them or embracing them.

Our Choices are not between universal unconditional love and absolute exterminationist hatred. We can just choose to neither love them nor empathize with them, just as every single human being to ever exist before the Great Awakening would have assumed you'd feel about people you've never met on the otherside of the world.

Mankind is not a brotherhood, you are under no obligation to love or identify with people across the globe who seemingly despise your every value and aesthetic, you don't owe them a dime, and if you love their children as you love yours then you're a bad parent who hates your children.

Just stop thinking its the end of history and all is one and one is all... and instead think like every other human being for the past 10,000 years and every human being whose lines will manage to survive the next 10,000.

Love Beauty, hate ugliness, love your own, don't care about strangers you've never met.

Your worth as a person is not determined by what you feel in your heart for people you've never met, don't like, are not related to you, and whom you never intend to and certainly don't want to meet.

Hate them if you want to, stop caring, think about it a little and then go to something else, but stop torturing yourself imagining your moral worth depends on your ability to love people whom you clearly don't... all you're doing is alienating yourself from the family, kin, and ethnicities you actually do love.

Why? Did you painstakingly go through the works of Churchill, Eisenhower, and De Gaulle, find that every instance of mass death during the Second World War which you agree happened is mentioned in direct proportion to its share of the total 80 million dead, and note a glaring exception in the case of the Jews?

You do realize it's actually fairly trivial to find the digital version Ctrl-F for every reference of "Jew" "final solution" "holocaust", Etc.

And I did. I checked Unz work.

Eisenhower does actually mention a holocaust in crusade in europe. Specifically a "Bomber's Holocaust", carried out by the allies against the germans. But nothing about a mass extermination of jews, only that when released from the work camps they and all the other prisoners were starving from lack of food, largely because German logistics had collapsed.

Grammarly updated and then started crashing chrome.

I lost an entire draft of an essay because of the grammar editor crashing my computer. So this is just what people will have to deal with. Torturing pendants who can't handle typos is worthwhile if it speeds up my output by 1 article every 2 months. which is more than what I've lost to crashes over the years.

I am in a volume business, not a polish business. There is no solution, there will never be one, and even what works now will degrade to the point where other flaws will creep in. This is the nature of all computer based businesses in a competency crisis and DEI hellworld

Men were executed based on the official version. There was a trial, and none have walked it back and Jurisprudence has not denounced it.

Human Soap and Executions of 20k jews at a time by NUCLEAR WARHEAD were Proven at Nuremberg with US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson acting as prosecutor.

To deny these things proven in open court by an alliance of the best jurists of the US, Brittain, and USSR would be to deny the very legitimacy of any findings of the the Nuremburg court or any judicial system touched by them. It'd be akin to saying that the Allies US, UK, and USSR were an alliance WITH the most brutal totalitarian and deceitful regime in world history, not an Alliance to defeat that regime.

This is Holocaust Denial.

It is clearly established that everything was 100% planned from the outset, the Wansee Conference executive summary was 100% written in code and everyone in the german government knew it, and they 100% planned a total extermination of the Jews from the beginning, and there are millions of unmarked graves that can't be found because they were perfectly cremated with the fuel the Germans didn't have to run their tanks.

Seriously Watch a video summary of what the official version is and has never been admitted as false or retracted. This Was all Proven at Nuremberg and western governments stand by it, and you can be jailed decades for questioning it in Europe

He was a US Intelligence Officer of the Rank of Lieutenant-Colonel during WW2, wrote the reports on Decrypted Germans Cyphers, briefed Generals...

And he wrote a book about Jewish involvement in Communism and their ties to the Soviet union... Full Putin-esque deep dive on the Germans back to the Tuetonic Knight and the Jews back the Khazaria 800bc- 1952... And he mentioned the holocaust once as an off-handed "And there are still some people who still believe this ridiculous wartime propaganda by jewish lobbyists"

And a half Dozen US Generals wrote glowing reviews saying it was the most important book of the 1950s and exactly captures the truth of the Second world war.

Likewise Eisenhower, Churchill, and De Gaulle make no mention of the holocaust or final solution in their thousands of pages of works on ww2.

You'd think if out of 80 million dead in ww2, 6 million were jews, you'd get like 5-8% of time dedicated to it... just proportionately?

Nope. Nothing. In the 1950s they didn't act as if the camps were opened and the revelation of the greatest crime in history had just been revealed. The Holocaust only entered public consciousness in 1967 after the 6 day when the US pivoted to Israel.

Notably none of those examples needed laws to jail people for questioning them nor were placed at the center of the American civic religion.

Ask what is most sacred in a society, and thats the most likely place you'll find the big lie.

You don't need to worship Newton's laws of motions BECAUSE they are amongst the largest revelation of pure truth in history. They hold regardless of your belief.

Likewise we do not need to worship Alexander or Napoleon for them to be major main characters in our history, revered despite being basically glossed over in our schools.

When it comes to Christ however, suddenly your faith really matters, because unless you believe he rose from the dead he stops being the greatest man in history and instead becomes a Schizophrenic unfairly denied a lawyer who'd put forth an insanity plea.

Thus it's really telling that this historical event and this historical event alone, unique amongst even genocides, it is DEMANDED that schools teach it happened AS MORAL MATTER, that unbelief is the ultimate sin.

We don't treat Holomordor this way, nor the killing fields, nor the plight of the Armenians, Hell in America and Europe you can argue that the Native Americans actually didn't have it that bad, or that slavery was the equivalent of the Russian serfs or just having a job, without being imprisoned in Austria or Germany.

Also notable that they the flyover crackheads had to be chemically altered by hostile pharmaceutical companies and cartels aligned with China to get to their still mostly first world point (those on the streets are an extreme minority), whereas as far as I can tell india doesn't even have a huge drug problem, it's not mentioned on the video at all. And I've never heard stories of big narcotics trades in india.

They're just like that sober

I looked up "India drug gangs" first hits were of Canada.

By contrast Khat in East Africa, Gas huffing in Australia, meth and Alcoholism in Russia, and Opium in Indochina are all well known.

For all Functionalpurposes Truth is inversely proportional to pleasantness.

If it is true and known it is not new information and you won't pay attention to it, it's already known... If it true and inoffensive and unknown, then scientists, academics, and hobbyists have been competing for it for hundreds of years and you're basically trying to out-arbitrage the stock market.

But if its true and violates every societal value then it's going to be suppressed, you can discover troves of new (to you) knowledge by just seeking out the most hateful, unpleasant, immoral sources.

Truth Hurts.

Truth tellers are people who hurt you.

Just wanted to comment I'm really keen for responses to this one.

Seeing made up atrocities arise as a way to score points in the propaganda war and then get debunked in realtime, as well as reading "Iron Curtain Over America" by Beatty really shook my belief in any of the stories of German atrocities. It seemed obvious to me that without the internet "40 beheaded babies" would have just become sacrosanct and in a few decades denial of it would have been criminalized in the west.

Once you see the exact same institutions that ran public opinion in the 40s doing it, it becomes very hard to imagine they weren't doing the exact same thing in the 40s when the brazenness of the propaganda was infamous and is even parodied by everyone down to children's movies today.

"Why is this thing I have not read not banned?"

Maybe the answer is that most of those quotation are not me, but me quoting the creator of the film?

If I had to guess... Vietnamese. maybe an Asian/Swarthy-white mix. (like chinese and Greek)

He strikes me as the kind of second gen 90s Asian kid who'd gone full tilt into South Park humour and assimilated entirely into white Canadian culture, but isn't fully white so feels no compunction about Canada's oppressive tolerance and norms around racism.

Ping me when you write this.

That's about my instinct too 50-100k Russian losses, to 250-500k Ukraine.

given leaks, the eternal artillery ratio of both sides, and what I've heard listening to Judge Andrew Napolitano's podcast which has weirdly become one of the most intensive foreign policy interview shows today

I first heard it attributed to Napoleon by Dan Carlin of Hardcore history

I encourage you to look up what happened in Weimar. Women being paid out on their husband's life insurance in a some of money that wouldnt buy dinner for 1 night. Mother's prostituting their daughters to afford food, the elderly starving in the street.

"Inflating it away" would be an effective default on all welfare, social security, insurance, and effective theft of all bank account balances.

It would be just as horrifying and violent an imposition it'd just be the elite and government imposing 100% of the cost on the middle class and poor. Most likely it'd result in civil war

What was Trump's great betrayal against "them"?

Aso best theory I've seen is JFK wasn't assassinated for crossing the CIA but for blocking the Israeli nuclear program... only actor who considered JFK an existential threat not just to the pensions but to their lives

We see a similar dynamic in Canada.

If you look at the polling numbers Pierre Poilievre's conservatives are on track for the largest majority in Canadian history and Trudeau's Liberals might drop to 3rd or even 4th place. It might be a Conservative Ultra-super-majority with a Bloc Quebecois official opposition.

And the Liberals and left seem to be doing nothing about it aside from jiggering the election date 5 days later so their government pensions vest before they leave office.

I torn between suspecting they think they have an apocalyptic event between now and 2025 that will make the polls irrelevant, or that they're just resigned to cashing out and letting the entire Laurentian Elite die under a hostile Alberta led government...

What's going to be the big apocalyptic struggle this election?

I wrote a piece over at my blog about how at this time in 2020 we were already in "2 Weeks to slow the spread", were about 1 month out from the first anti-lockdown protests, and 2 months out from the Summer of Floyd.

It seems obvious to me that all the chaos in the wider American empire concentrates around election years and seems to have the oxygen sucked out of it on off years.. 2020 is obvious, 2016 was only slightly less history changing, and even the 2008 financial crisis was an election year event.

There's a lot of really obvious candidates: Ukraine could go south really catastrophically really quick; the middle-east is speculated to kick-off with a potential Israeli invasion of Lebanon; and going shearly off the numbers the US southern border is one of the largest population transfers in human history with few precedents since WW2 or the even the 4th and 5th century.

But I don't know, maybe it's my mind trying to fit things too neatly to the 2020 framework... it feels like the election hasn't started yet, it feels like there's some shoe to drop or issue I'm missing, something as far from public consciousness as Immunology in Jan 2020, or racial politics in March 2020...

I can feel this massive issue just behind my peripheral vision that's about to draw all my attention and require its own Motte containment thread, and that will devour the media and twitter, for months on end.

I feel like there's this huge world shattering issue that's about to explode and within the next few months I'll be lamenting that I only have 24 hours in the day to read enough about it, convinced that it DEMANDS every second of my attention.... And I have no idea what it is?

-Is Trump going to die?
-Will a Nuke Launch?
-Is China about to take Taiwan?
-Are all those Chinese and foreign nationals on the southern border about to start targeting power infrastructure?
-Is there about to be a financial crisis?
-An "Internet Lockdown"?
-Hot ethnic cleansing in Europe?
-Global food chain collapse? .

Give me your best guess.

What will be the major containment thread at the Motte between now and election day?

I'm deeply touched!