ＲＥＶＯＬＵＴＩＯＮ ＩＳ ＯＶＥＲＲＡＴＥＤ
Crypto-Centrist Transhumanist Nationalist.
Type-19 Paramilitary Cyborg. Wanted time criminal. Class A-3 citizen of the North American Union. Opposed to the Chinese Hyper Mind-Union, the Ultra-Caliphate, Google Defense Network, and the People's Republic of Cascadia. National Separatist, enemy of the World Federation government and its unificationist allies.
Blogs Topics: Cyberpunk Nationalism. Futurist Shtposting. Timeline Vandalism. Harassing owls over the Internet.
Use whichever typical gender pronouns you like.
Not all content will have sufficient warning tags.
For the record, I’m fine with cutting off a chunk of land for the Black Nationalists, too. I expect it to go about as well as the White Nationalist land, but again, so long as no one goes there involuntarily, it isn’t my problem.
Keeping people that hate each others’ guts physically apart from each other is in fact superior to killing them, since they might eventually chill out but killing is permanent. Additionally, if it turns out someone has been separated that should not have been, they can be moved again later, whereas no one can be unexecuted. It isn’t that I think killing is never justified, but you lot huffing a hero fantasy about “killing Nazis” are too eager to kill and too detached to actually notice when you’re attacking dudes who are not Nazis.
It’s already well-known that at least one dude who was never at and was in no way attached to the march or white nationalists got doxxed as a “Nazi”.
What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority
has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of
white identity politics.
Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized
electoral politics.
I realize the issue of Confederate statues is probably stale by now, but I have thought of a take that is probably you: replace Confederate statues with Union statues to remember the Civil War and take pride in the United States' historical military prowess
Nah, actually I was thinking that there are lots of other southerners we could choose from for replacement statues, specifically ones that weren’t all “rah rah slavery” and so on. Some of them could be a lot more modern, others from before the war, and so on. U.S. founding fathers from those states would be the ideal option for many of them - it reaffirms membership in the US, still has lots of historical weight, and so on.
They shouldn’t be more black than the proportional share of the population, though.
The goal here is to provide an alternative, positive regional identity for the white southerners that is not rooted in the racism inherent to the Confederacy. (And the racism was inherent - at least one governor or whatever went on about how yeah, this was about slavery, and yeah, this was about “the inferiority of the negro race” and so on.)
History is big. There is a lot that can be chosen from when we decide what to emphasize. There are many people, with many stories. With this, we could step sideways.
(The exception is generic confederate soldier statues, which should stay. After all, the side that wins the war usually thinks it’s the ethical side, since most factions fighting a war think they’re the ethical side, so removing them just means legitimizing the idea of removing monuments to soldiers of losing sides in general.)
However, I don’t think the capital-L Left, in broad strokes, wants the southern whites to have a positive southern identity. I think it wants to crush them in order to celebrate itself and its righteousness.
It doesn’t like the founding fathers, either. It doesn’t like the United States of America.
It could celebrate the power of the very ideals this nation’s founders espoused as the source of some of the very power that overturned the cruelty they allowed at this nation’s founding. But most of those people were white men, so they won’t.
Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. I called our legal team and told them what we were going to do. I called our Trust & Safety team and had them stop the service. It was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company.
Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. I’ll be posting something on our blog later today. Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power.
This guy has managed to combine “we need to think ASAP about the kind of precedent we’re setting with decisions like this” and “but for the moment, let’s fuck over Nazis,” two sentiments that are seem like no-brainers but which you somehow don’t expect anyone with Newsworthy Opinions to be able to hold in their mind simultaneously without exploding
“The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe. That was the tipping point for me.”
That actually seems like a reasonable boundary there. Claiming endorsement is not quite the same thing as just being hosted.
if you post someone’s address, job, full name, personal details, anything that’s doxing, there are only two things that you want people to do to them:
1) really mess with them to an insane extent, like ordering gay porn, perfume samples, religious books and hundreds of pizzas sent to their house and try to ruin their personal lives/get them fire
i get this but there has already been one instances from last week were people got the wrong person and it could fuck up his whole life for something they didn’t do
two people that are categorically NOT nazis got accused of being nazis by some half cocked dipshit on social media.
also fucking with nazis or trying to get them fired is categorically A Bad Idea.
I keep seeing this sentiment in the notes but don’t fucking do it
don’t feed into their victim narrative.
that’ll just push them further into extremism.
like, do you really think someone racist is gonna change their fuckin mind if they get fired because 5000 “undesirables” according to nazi doctrine get them fired?
do you think they’re suddenly magically gonna get a good attitude towards minorities that nazis have historically persecuted?
getting someone fired from a fucking hotdog job where they’re clearly miserable, probably not making much money in the first place ain’t gonna help.
not bein able to pay their bills will not teach them some sort of lesson, or the kind of lesson that would lead to them not being a fuckhead.
it’ll teach them
“these subhumans want you starving, want you to be unable to feed your families and want you dead”
WELL DONE
YOU JUST RADICALIZED A DUMBFUCK EVEN FURTHER
HE’S GOING TO GO DEEPER INTO EXTREMISM THANKS TO YOU, IDIOT
This is a major problem we as a society have with deradicalization. Like, you can’t exile someone from society and expect them to reform, it just further radicalizes them. People are social animals and need a network of healthy relationships so as to deradicalize. If you cut people off from the opportunity to build those relationships, you’re ensuring that the problem will never ever get fixed
An excellent treatise on why prison doesn’t work. The nazis already are nazis with a network of relationships, likely with other nazis if they were in a gathering with other nazis. Are you suggesting the targets of nazis shoukld sit down and talk with people who literally want them dead. or else to literally do nothing?
You are absolutely right, friend. The government must act to stop this epidemic of ideologically extreme vehicular homicide through every means possible. Driving into crowds is never forgivable.
Therefore every Jihadi and Jihadi sympathizer must be executed. No safe spaces for Jihadis. Their sick and twisted ideology offers no deconversion. The only good Jihadi is a dead Jihadi.
Liberals might protest that Jihadis don’t cause much violence, statistically, but the only voice Jihadis will listen to is violence.
>Thinking that scrubbing the US of it’s historic monuments will end with the confederacy
I have bad news you for you, when the long term demographic trend in America’s cities is bound to become more PoC than of the ethic class that previously owned people of colour.
Unsurprisingly, the same issues raised about the presence of confederate
monuments applies also to the founding fathers of the union, who are
just as guilty for holding the same views on race as those who
attempted to leave the union 100 years later during the civil war:
CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago pastor has asked
the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who
owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not
honor slave owners in black communities.
A bronze statue of George Washington on horseback stands at
the corner of 51st and King Drive, at the northwest entrance to
Washington Park.
Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center,
said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington’s name
removed from the park.
“When I see that, I see a person who fought for the
liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of
white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery,
and was three-fifths of humans,” he said. “Some people out here ask me,
say ‘Well, you know, he taught his slaves to read.’ That’s almost sad;
the equivalent of someone who kidnaps you, that you gave them something
to eat.”
Dukes said, even though Washington was the nation’s first
president and led the American army in the Revolutionary War, he’s no
hero to the black community.
“There’s no way plausible that we would even think that they
would erect a Malcolm X statue in Mount Greenwood, Lincoln Park, or any
of that. Not that say Malcolm X was a bad guy; they just would not go
for it,” he said. “Native Americans would not even think about putting
up a Custer statue, because of the atrocities that he plagued upon
Native Americans. And for them to say to us ‘just accept it’ is actually
insulting.”
The pastor also said President Andrew Jackson’s name should
be removed from nearby Jackson Park, because he also was a slave owner.
He said he’s not necessarily asking the city rename the parks
altogether. He suggested Washington Park could be named after former
Mayor Harold Washington, and Jackson Park could be named after civil
rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson or singer Michael Jackson.
Dukes said he’s not trying to erase history. He said black
people should be able to decide who is and is not honored in their
communities.
“I think we should be able to identify and decide who we
declare heroes in or communities, because we have to tell the stories to
our children of who these persons are,” he said.
He said parks, statues, or other monuments honoring
Presidents Washington and Jackson might be appropriate elsewhere, but
not in black neighborhoods.
“In an African-American community, it’s a slap in the face and it’s a disgrace for them to honor someone who was a slave owner.
Dukes said he has sent letters to Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the
Chicago Park District asking them to change the names of Washington and
Jackson parks. He shared the letter on Facebook.
“I am feeling ambivalent that I would have to walk my child,
attend a parade or enjoy a game of softball in a park that commemorates
the memory of a slave owner,” he wrote. “Therefore, I call on the
immediate removal of President George Washington and President Andrew
Jackson names from the parks located on the southeast side of Chicago.
They should not have the distinct honor of being held as heroes when
they actively participated in the slave trade.”
Representatives for the mayor did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
For the record, I’m fine with cutting off a chunk of land for the Black Nationalists, too. I expect it to go about as well as the White Nationalist land, but again, so long as no one goes there involuntarily, it isn’t my problem.
Keeping people that hate each others’ guts physically apart from each other is in fact superior to killing them, since they might eventually chill out but killing is permanent. Additionally, if it turns out someone has been separated that should not have been, they can be moved again later, whereas no one can be unexecuted. It isn’t that I think killing is never justified, but you lot huffing a hero fantasy about “killing Nazis” are too eager to kill and too detached to actually notice when you’re attacking dudes who are not Nazis.
It’s already well-known that at least one dude who was never at and was in no way attached to the march or white nationalists got doxxed as a “Nazi”.
I encourage being ABSOLUTELY certain before killing. I admire the “choose the reversible option first” philosophy, but segregation is not right. I’d think you’d have learned that from history.
What exactly do you think prisons are, if not segregating people who have a proven track record of violent or damaging behavior from the rest of the population?
Are you a prison abolitionist by means of death penalty?
And why can’t people live in different places with different rules? I actually support the creation of more city-states as a means of political preference satisfaction in general.
Also, let’s be honest here, Antifa sucks at figuring out who is and is not a Nazi and will indeed claim they are “absolutely certain” in the middle of killing people who are not and have never been Nazis.
At some point, you have to ask, is what you want to prevent people dying, or is what you want to punish those with what you deem to be evil beliefs? Because “put all the Nazis on their own little island” accomplishes the former, but not the latter.
Prisons are bad, but replacing them wholesale with the death penalty is only worse, way too many people arrested unjustly or for stupid things that shouldn’t be illegal.
Yes, antifa is generally bad at identifying actual opponents. You’ll notice I don’t tend to blanket state I support them, for that reason mainly.
I don’t know where you intend to set aside for all the different racists though. The places they want are already taken.
I don’t need to move all the racists, just the most racist of the racists. The most racist of the racists are among the most dangerous.
There are still a number of very lightly-developed areas in the world. They had to truck people in from all over the country just to make that rally. There isn’t going to be something where we need enough land for 100 million people. I don’t think Whitopia would get even one million people.
Singapore is about 720km2 in size. America is something like 9 million km2 in size. So Whitopia and Blaktopia each get about one one thousandth of a percent of the land, each with a 10km corridor for sea access. Doesn’t need to be great sea access either, just enough for a seaport.
(Also a wall would be built around each so that access could be controlled to prevent weird cross-border crime stuff.)
I actually wonder if the Alt-Right changed their message to focus more on exit rather than revolution, how the public attitude towards them would change. Like, if their fundamental thesis was something along the lines of this:
“In order to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, we would like to have our own Amish/Indian sort of deal where we can peacefully withdraw from a society we find repulsive.”
Obviously by and large it would still be offensive to hardcore lefties and true believer progs, but how would it impact the moderates, the average joe? What about the free speech/gamergater/cultural libertarian crowd? Certainly it wouldn’t make them more willing to adopt the alt-right’s white nationalism, but would the idea of giving these people an exit from modernity be seen as more reasonable than them wanting to take over the US and make it a white ethno-state?
What you have to understand is that everyone in politics is incompetent and ideology-huffed. In part, because if you aren’t, it’s hard to derive enough motive power.
So, while “White People Reservation” is an order of magnitude more achievable, and two or three orders of magnitude less damaging than “make the US into a white ethno-state,” they aren’t going to take it up as their rallying cry.
Kinda funny how the reactions to white people concerned about demographic decline has changed from “it’s not real” last year to“it’s not real and by the way you will all die out and that’s a good thing”
The real irony: Race is not going to be destroyed by virtuous queer PoCs bravely fighting against the dark tides of white supremacy.
It’s going to be destroyed by genetic and tissue engineering technology, produced by a mostly (but not entirely!) white and Asian tech industry, fueled by markets in China and Korea, which is going to blow the lid off a number of things people very much want to keep the lid on, wiping out what we currently know as white nationalism along with it.
The entire idea of intergenerational ethnic justice will be undermined.
For the record, I’m fine with cutting off a chunk of land for the Black Nationalists, too. I expect it to go about as well as the White Nationalist land, but again, so long as no one goes there involuntarily, it isn’t my problem.
False flagging is for everyone! Being an idiot who, apparently, cuts himself with a knife he just bought, then makes up a completely disprovable story and wasting police time is this guy’s special thing though.
