BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 87d 05h 40m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
Yeah, yeah.
From Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and the Frankfurt school adjacent work on prejudice and later mass propaganda, you have the academic underpinnings of the modern anti-white paradigm. As documented in detail by Kevin MacDonald and Andrew Joyce, these were jewish intellectual movements. Their influence is not just felt in various adjacent fields but their lies are still explicitly taught as fact in many.
To make a long story short, the majority of people have no conception of where the world they live in comes from, why it exists how it does or who made it to be that way. Black people just disproportionally appear in advertisements because... They just do! It's not as if there was a giant jewish academic movement centered around deconstructing 'white prejudice' through mass propaganda. That would be insane.
Academics in social sciences think racial categorization in humans is a social construct because... They just do! It can't be that there was a giant jewish academic movement centered around deconstructing biological distinctions between humans. That would be insane.
On top of that there exist large political movements driven by jewish intellectuals on both sides of the political isle that center around either explicit or implicit jewish interests. The Civil Rights movements and Marxism on the left, and the Neoconservative movement on the right. Both sides have supported mass immigration, of course.
It's hard to argue this, as jews have a very high nose for their own excellence. Anything bad that happens as a consequence of their self centered advocacy is just collateral damage in the wake of their righteous ethnic ego. If they even dare admit as much to themselves.
The feelings of blue collar workers are not invalid just because they are not in the top 1%. I don't understand where that contention comes from.
They're not looking at engineers or sports stars going 'life is so unfair, this economy is a joke, how could these people make more money than me'. They are seeing prostitutes publicly sexually denigrating themselves on camera and making millions and it revolts them on some level.
If your argument is that they should not feel what they feel because of a wage comparison between clue collar workers and prostitutes then you are missing the point of the contention. Because it's not just about the money.
How about, you are Indian, think you are Indian, see others as Indian or not Indian, and act with indignance and arrogance at the mere suggestion that European people should not be ethnically replaced by infinity Indians.
To that extent I have no opinion of Indians other than they are not my kind. They work toward their own benefit and see themselves as worthy of whatever privilege they can find in any country they reside in. And that's enough for me to not want them. They, similar to every other ethnic group I can gripe about, have no reverence or care for preserving the native populations. To that extent, like jews being parasites that weaken it, and browns being locust that devour it, you would be a symbiote that slowly but surely outnumbers the organism you engage with until there's nothing left but you. Not overtly hostile, not overtly threatening, just a slow inevitability of numbers.
But those descriptive differences are all irrelevant to the ultimate point that none of these groups care about the existence or wellbeing of the organism they are interacting with. They, theirs and their needs always come first. There's no understanding of where the natives are coming from, no recognition of what they've done and overcome. It's just an infinite struggle session of browns fighting tooth an nail for any privilege they feel should be granted to them. With no recognition or respect for the needs of the other.
I genuinely hoped that Indians were just westerners with brown skin. That they could emotionally intuit and understand the importance of recognition and respect for the continued existence of other peoples. But no, Nationalism is for Indians. Ethnic pride is for Indians. India is for Indians and so to is every other country in the world. And if you disagree, how could you! Don't you understand the plight of Indians!
It's just wild to me. I can't imagine ethnically replacing another group of people. Yet the majority of the planet seems to think it's OK if they do it to others. There's just no thought or care.
That's who the blue collar workers are comparing themselves to when they see news about the latest OnlyFans sensation making millions in a week or Bonnie Blue sucking off a small township. It's not just about the money but how you get it.
I don't think it should. There has always been a large portion of the red tribe that's seeped in outlandish conspiracy theory. They have to go somewhere.
Even then, the things they believe are, to me at least, no more outlandish than believing infinity immigration is a good thing or that evolution in humans stopped at the neck.
There are also a ton of Youtubers who don't do Patreon. I think her popularity makes sense once you factor in the Qanon market. There might very well be bots, but there are also a lot of conspiratorially minded Americans...
I'm not convinced. The girls famous enough for the argument that their 'OnlyFans fame will bite them in the ass one day' to be applicable are making more than 50k a year. If not on OnlyFans specifically then on Instagram and other things.
I read it was around 100 dollars. What are you getting at?
Candace is probably the biggest political streamer in the world right now. In large part because of her conspiracy minded take on Charlie's death.
What is not to believe? The top 1% of OnlyFans creators can generate everything from 20 to 100k per month. Factor in prostitution on the side and you can make a lot of money.
Yes, I concede that could plausibly have happened in the case of some women that are old hags at this point and have performed in films that were released on VHS and were later never digitized.
No one remembers the vast majority of pornstars, even those that were digital. Remove the makeup, change the hairstyle and have the publishers start scrubbing your scenes and/or stop republishing them. There's no pornstar purgatory for those girls that could cope with the profession.
Hold up. Who are you specifically referring to in this case? Average blue collar men?
Guys I've worked with. To clarify, some of them do make money, but it's generally not a lot.
The quintessential dude asks: Would you suck a dick for a million dollars?
A lot of people today will never marry. A lot of peoples children will turn out to be screw-ups. A lot of people have no social standing, get no respect, and are at the end of whatever stick is being swung around. They, unlike Bonnie Blue, work very hard and still get no money.
I think what most people feel when thinking of the huge amounts money these women are making is denigration. They see their own lot in life as even lower than that of a prostitute.
Bonnie Blue is the most extreme example, and is only held high since she is doing viscerally disgusting things that people can look down on. I mean, fuck a thousand dudes for a million dollars? Hell no. But outside of that there are thousands of girls making executive level salaries dancing on TikTok with an OnlyFans on the side. Every blue collar working guy is an objective loser in comparison. It's humiliating to know that there are teenage girls shaking their ass on camera for more money than they will ever make. The economy has to be a joke and your participation is the punchline.
To that end, no, most of these girls will never have trouble finding a boyfriend or creating a small bubble of privacy with all the money they've made. It's all cope. They can buy mansions, hire maids, babysitters, tutors, and never work a single day in their lives after grinding OnlyFans for a few years. There are plenty of pornstars that disappeared and their kids are growing up just fine since the old porn has been long buried with the new.
I can't find the article but a fair few years ago there was an Instagram model owning the Red Pillers back when RooshV and all of that stuff was at a highpoint. She wrote, as I recall, explaining how she got invited to Dubai or somewhere similar. She sucked a few dicks, denigrated herself in front of some rich arabs, and a few weeks later she was out with enough money to last a lifetime. She detailed how she set up investments and savings accounts, she bought an apartment near a university where she would start studying and so on. All in her early or mid twenties.
To a red pill 'high value man', this girl is crushing it. She can do whatever she wants. She looks good, is young, has more money than 99% of her peers. There's no argument. She has the power, men gave it to her.
More political violence
From Tim Pool:
Last night a vehicle approached our property and opened fire.
No one was hurt.
Our security team is reviewing the incident and will be relaying the report to appropriate law enforcement
This is the price we pay for speaking out against evil.
One might think back to oft made historical analogs like Weimar Germany, and see the steady escalation of violence between communists and anti-communists and proclaim Weimerica to be just like that. But these acts of violence seem so... Aimless? Random? Poorly thought out? I mean, the degree of distortion that drives one to shoot at Tim Pool. I don't get it. Even the excuses that Charlie Kirk was a fascist theocracy enabler that would genocide the trans felt far fetched. How do you justify the glee of seeing Tim Pool murdered?
If the official narrative is to be believed, a lot of these acts of political violence are coming from ideologically ambiguous social media addicts. Be that the killer of Charlie Kirk, the Trump shooters, the attacks on ICE agents and facilities and more. Gone are the days of a regimented left/right brawl in the streets like we got around 2017. Or a good old cops(presence optional) and robbers BLM riot. To that extent, I think a lot of people have completely lost sight of the media backdrop of peoples lives on both the left and right.
For context, Candace Owens is talking about global conspiracies and the involvement of TPUSA in the killing of Charlie. This has been ongoing for weeks, and she averages around 1.5 million views per show. That's including ridiculously high live numbers no one else is coming close to. At the same time the biggest mainstream internet personalities on the right have been cozy-ing up to Nick Fuentes. With Steven Crowder now joining the fray of Tucker Carlson and many others, giving him a long and cordial interview.
On the other side, the largest streamer on the left, Hasan Piker, along with many others, have made it a routine to skirt as close as they can around calls to violence. And sometimes not bothering at all. With the government starting to ask questions after the murder of Charlie on the topic of radicalization.
The Wild West days of the internet are seemingly back. With Hitler memes on Instagram instead of 4Chan, Qanon conspiracies having their own show on Youtube all whilst the leftist revolution is being streamed live to millions on Twitch.
Centrist minded people like Tim Pool like to talk about the pendulum swinging back and forth. But inherent to that analogy is the idea that there is a fixed point where the pendulum will stop before swinging back each time. But it seems like that's not the case. The pendulum can swing back and forth, but also faster and farther. And with the antifa being completely unwilling to engage in discourse or compromise, and the right being completely inept and unable to stop their radicalization and acts of violence, 'faster and farther' seems to be where we are going.
So... He can just do that? No alleged legality issues like with the infamous Muslim Ban?
If so, why not pause all sources? Is that not what his voters want?
Outside of a crash, the one avenue I don't see discussed very often for how this can end is for contractors to start building smaller.
Where I live there are two main problems hindering this natural market development: Regulations and lot allocation. Smaller contractors can easily build small in theory. But due to lot allocation, high lot price and regulations, it's not economically viable. This leaves small contractors unable to meet market conditions since a lot of prospective home buyers are priced out of single family homes. Which places the ball in the hands of larger contractor operations that can deal with the situation more easily via multi story housing. So problem solved. Smaller contractors fade out of business.
The 'small' problem with this, and why I think this is the future, is that we are looking at a pretty obvious lowering of living standards. Your future is less idyllic and smaller in scale.
On a certain time scale there is nothing wrong with this. People should start small, build capital in their small home, sell it later and expand into something bigger that can more easily house a larger family. The real issue is more clear when you look at this in a modern context.
Most people don't have families until they are in their 30's. Of those that do, there will be many who had not entered the real estate market until their late 20's. Depending on income, your children will be raised in a small home for the majority of their lives. Any dreams of green grass, a white picket fence and children playing with a puppy will stay as dreams. You will not be giving your children the childhood your parents gave you.
This development, at least where I live in Scandinavia, is already underway. Being marketed as a conversation about how we should orient our lives and a challenge to critically confront our values. Forget about owning a car, a big dog or raising your children. You will see your family 4 hours a day in a mass produced concrete box, stacked on other concrete boxes. Everything will be shrinking. Everything is being outsourced. It may not be the future anyone wanted, but it's the future everyone has been voting for. The migrant who is delivering your half eaten UberEats order has to live somewhere, after all.
These guys were our friends in a war zone so they must make for great neighbors.
Whilst I understand the fuzzy feels of helping those who help you, one would have preferred a sort of quarantine zone or special village for the empires mercenaries.
That being said, I think it's harsh to call Scott embarrassingly wrong based on these events in specific and that quote in particular. For starters, I'm not sure it's fair to assume any hardline position on small scale Afghani immigration based on the quote. He's talking about something else, no?.
But assuming he is, the awful performance of Afghani immigrants in Europe is a fact. So one could perhaps call him naïve on the topic of Afghani 'assimilation' if he can't imagine a reason to be against importing a fair number of them.
To a lot of people, especially those who deny HBD, there seems to be a complete lack of connectivity between real world actors doing things that drive forward history and history itself. It's like they see history as a movement independent of people. That it was preordained or inevitable that certain developments would happen at certain times.
To that extent the sentiment being expressed when exploring alternate realities like this ends up being a sneer: 'You only got there first. If you hadn't been in everyone's way things would have been better for us.'
How does hate even enter the conversation?
Starting from minute 14 or so, in the linked monolog Fuentes goes into his views on the topic. Largely derived from the facts laid bare in this article.
In the end he asks: 'Why is this so hard for people to wrap their head around'? It's a valid question. As far as Fuentes goes, these are not complicated observations. Yet there are entire books on the topic of anti semitism and how it's irrational, pathological this and that... But like SecureSignals points out, they don't deal with any arguments or observations laid out by the so called anti semites. To that extent, the entire premise of anti semitism as a concept is just a framegame.
It's rather comical that whenever the topic comes up, you end up with people asking an endless series of questions as if this is complicated or hard to figure out. It's not.
I feel like the story of progressivism emptying the pews is a little bit too convenient and self serving to be true. Not saying it is entirely incorrect. But I'd also wager that the churches that were first to fall to 'progress' were also in a weak state to begin with, and therefor felt the need to do something. Couple that with the idea that more devout believers are more likely to congregate around a more traditional message, I'm more inclined to think traditional churches are herding devout believers rather than recruiting new ones. And that they persist by dint of the temperament of the radical that seeks them out. But there are only so many of those to go around.
The way forward for the Church always has been to stick to its own message rather than to pander to cultural fads.
I could be sympathetic to this point of view but from my experience observing Christian theology politics, 'every denomination that is not mine is a fad' seems like a common viewpoint when discussing the topic of what the church's message actually is or should be.
I can only plead ignorance and ask if there is some average form or consensus on what the general message of a Church is and whether or not it has changed over time. In my local Protestant Scandinavian church it is generally vague humanist platitudes. Or maybe the humanists just got to me first... In either case I saw no relevant distinction between the two. What is the churches correct message in America?
Is there anyone advocating for this? How successful are they?
As a general retort, directed against no one in particular concerning the gatekeeping rhetoric I usually see around this topic:
There's a historically consistent delusion of Christians believing they are always at the center of Christianity, which always happens to be right here, right now, exactly where they are, leaning towards exactly what they happen to think. Which lends them the power to feel justified to gatekeep many matters of moral and philosophical significance, including Christianity and the church, from outgroup outsiders.
In reality the modal church of 100-200 years ago is so far removed from the modern modal church that there is no real reason to comparatively consider anyone Christian today. Which speaks to the fact that the church is not Christianity, it's the people. Insofar as there will be an influx of church going young men, they will change the church. Insofar as there are groups of people claiming to represent Christianity in the defense of their church and the inevitable change that is coming, they have no firm ground in proclaiming they are doing so as a Christian.
To that extent I'd wish for church leaders and gatekeepers to recognize that this has nothing to do with Christianity. Church politics are people politics. And the people are in a proxy ethnic culture war. There's nothing a pastor can say to a young man that will faze or enlighten him. They've been hooked up to technology far superior to an echo-y sermon. The church is a platform for organization. The church is at war for its life because of a culture war. Take these people and facilitate them and their beliefs towards something useful. It's a conflict the church needs to fight, and it's a fight these people want to join.
On a sidenote, how far removed are the groypers in opinion from Father Coughlin? Will anyone claim to be more Christian than him? Well, you have a few like those coming in. Less intelligent and erudite, but their heart seems to find the same place. To that extent it's hard to gatekeep those who are more similar in spirit to those who came before you than you are. Lamenting that they are not like the Christian church goers of today is hypocritical to say the least.
I was more alluding to the premises you both afford yourselves. RR makes the point that there is already a substantial amount of evidence supporting his premise. To that end his historical just so stories at least serve a supporting role and fit a broader narrative.
As most know, there has been a media battle within the Con Inc ecology. I want to go over some of those developments. If you know the lore you can skip the story so far.
Story so far
On October 27 Tucker Carlson did an interview with Nick Fuentes on The Tucker Carlson show. Sitting at a comfortable 6 million views, it’s one of his most viewed videos. Following that interview, jewish ethnonationalists like Ben Shapiro and Jonathan Greenblatt made the rounds condemning and calling for disavowals. But condemning and disavowing Tucker Carlson is easier said than done.
When the Heritage Foundation released their condemnation video, they distinctly claused out Tucker from their criticism. This, for jewish ethnonationalists, was outrageous. Eliciting remarks from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ted Cruz, and other jewish ethnonationalist stooges. Tucker needed to be firmly disavowed, and Fuentes was not to be talked to or debated, but ostracized and ‘canceled’. Heritage Foundation president, Kevin Roberts, went back like a beaten dog and put up a second apology video saying as much. Still, it was not enough and condemnation articles, calls to resign and protest resignations rained in.
Despite all this chaos, Roberts kept his presidency, Tucker remained unfazed, and Fuentes was only emboldened by the attention. releasing an hour long monolog on the alleged overbearing fact of jewish ethnonationalist influence in American politics and his position on the modern JQ. The jewish ethnonationalist front had to hit back somehow.
Enter Chuck Schumer, proposing a senate resolution to condemn Nick Fuentes and the platforming of him by Tucker Carlson.
Whilst Fuentes is only emboldened by such attention, it might be different for Carlson. It is, after all, harder for a man of credibility and standing like him to shrug off an official disavowal like that. Though it could not have come from a better direction as far as a right winger is concerned, it is still bad.
The Carlson Rebellion
Missing from the firestorm of outrage and shock from the Fuentes Carlson interview is the simple question of... What exactly is Tucker Carlson doing here? Unlike Fuentes, who lives for this type of spectacle, Tucker is, one can imagine, an actual person with connections and things to lose. So why?
In a recent episode Tucker laid out his answer to the Fuentes Question. Young mostly white men are flocking to the extremes, both left but mostly right, because America sucks. Everything from the housing market, job market, education, media, domestic and foreign policy. It's all anti-white. It's all anti-male. What exactly does anyone expect young white men to do? What confident identity is even available to young white men?
To that extent one can sense Tuckers ire towards the establishment and those who shill for it. How is it possible to allow things to go on like this? To ignore it? Telling young white men to be individual whilst every other group is forming coalitions to outcompete them is suicidal and stupid. Why can't we tell them something else? Something they actually want to listen to. Well, that might lead to another holocaust in the minds of paranoid jews so, no, we can't. Young white men just have to die alone and abused.
Say what you want about Fuentes, but Tucker, at the very least, has a proposition that is open to compromise with the ethnonationalist jews on the right: This individualist free market zionism stuff isn't working anymore. Things, as they currently are, have to change. And if the only response to that reality is calling everyone an anti-semite or a nazi then what is even the point of this?
Not to turn this into a pile-on but:
The default premise of your post is that there exists somewhere an essence of parity between whites and blacks. And that this parity is obfuscated by external factors that give the appearance of an essential difference.
Which is in turn why you chastise RandomRanger for presuming an essence of racial difference.
Which is irksome, since most of the gist behind your post had already been responded to by RandomRanger to your "not very well thought out" response.
- Prev
- Next

I don't understand the relevance of the difference you point at. The point is working men look at media where the success of public prostitution is advertised and they respond with a series of doomposting, copes and other dismay. Something about it fundamentally emotionally affects them.
By asking the publisher. Professional porn production is a small world. Most want to keep a good reputation with former or would be actors. There are also laws regarding personal privacy. If you've quit for a few years you can easily make a case that your privacy is being harmed by the publication of pornographic material involving you.
I am sure there are a few kids who have had a hard time because their moms did porn. But there are also a lot of pornstars no one remembers or sees. The notion that they will all be facing hard times just isn't accurate. In fact most of them wont.
More options
Context Copy link