Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 15, 2023, 09:15:20 pm »

Our enemies are completely wrong about Tolkien being a rightist. He was part of the Romantic movement arguing that the Renaissance should never have happened, which we agree with. In LOTR, Orcs represent the Industrial Revolution:

https://medium.com/literally-literary/isengard-represented-the-industrial-revolution-because-tolkien-hated-technology-6ed05430ecce

Quote
In Middle-earth everything is in decay. And a new force is rising: the force of darkness. It becomes apparent, not only through orcs and Uruks, but through a will to supplant the old world. The method: modernization.

In both the movies and books we see Isengard, the home of Saruman the White, go from forest to factory. Why: to build an army for the dark lord Sauron, who is coming to claim the world. Where trees once rested, swords and armor are being forged deep in the earth. And in the midst of this is the enemy. Their tool of destruction is steel. And flames.

And the forest pays the price. Numerous trees are cut down and burned. Tolkien is showing that in order for this new, mechanical world to prosper, it must abolish the old one completely.
...
the villains of the story (Saruman and co., Sauron) are associated with machines.
...
Tolkien’s views reflect a hard look at modern society. England’s Industrial Revolution, the culprit, had lasted from 1760 to about 1870, creating a brand new system of labor, trade, and transportation. Rural life was fast declining in the wake of urban cities and factories. With the Industrial Revolution came a new wave of hazards as well: pollutants, sewage problems, sanitation, workplace injuries, and a plethora of various diseases.

whereas Hobbits represent an idealization of a clearly pre-Renaissance lifestyle, as I pointed out here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/wmds/msg100/#msg100

Quote
(recall Tolkien's description of Hobbits: "no understanding of machinery more complicated than the watermill, forge bellows, and the hand loom")

This is how Tolkien wished Britain could have stayed instead of becoming the British Empire. I agree with him. Do not confuse Tolkien with his illiterate Eurocentrist fans (including Hood):

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6p3eke/in_tolkiens_work_orcs_represented_industry_and/

Quote
Tolkien was an author traumatised by industrialised 20th century warfare, and there is definitely something of the industrialised military in his the portrayal of orcs - and especially of his portrayal of the orcs in Isengard.
...
However, the authors and tabletop gaming pioneers following in Tolkien's wake didn't have the same theological compunction
...
such writers fundamentally identify evil with stupidity and savagery
...
Warhammer Fantasy Battle came to the tabletop, depicting orcs and goblins with bows and axes contrasted with humans and dwarfs with pistols and cannon

The difference between Tolkien and his illiterate Eurocentrist fans is the same as the difference between Hitler and neo-Nazis. The irony is that Tolkien himself confused Hitler with the neo-Nazi portrayal of Hitler (and hence disliking the latter thought he disliked the former).

Also, in real life:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_and_race#Opposition_to_racism_in_South_Africa

Quote
Tolkien's son Christopher, training in South Africa, expressed concern about the treatment of black people at the hands of whites, and his father replied:[T 12]

As for what you say or hint of 'local' conditions: I knew of them. I don't think they have much changed (even for the worse). I used to hear them discussed by my mother; and have ever since taken a special interest in that part of the world. The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain & not only in South Africa. Unfort[unately] not many retain that generous sentiment for long.[T 12]
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: December 15, 2023, 08:04:25 pm »

J.R.R. Tolkien

Quote
One of its most interesting aspects was overlooked. The television series lingers over the fall of Númenor, the greatest civilization of man. A beautiful city with traditional architecture (made of white marble that drives journalists and academics crazy), the show stripped it of its mystique to fit its ham-handed political messages. The city as full of xenophobes worried about “elf-lovers” taking their jobs. However, Númenor is an important symbolic setting for Tolkien, about a people that is deceived into abandoning true religion for the worship of temporal power. In his letters, Tolkien linked this story of a collapsed civilization reclaimed by the sea to Atlantis. He admitted he was haunted by “the legend or myth or dim memory of some ancient history.”

The question of whether Tolkien’s writing was “for” Westerners is fiercely debated. He famously refused to work with a publishing house in National Socialist Germany after it asked for proof of Aryan lineage. In a letter to his son, Tolkien also called Adolf Hitler an “ignoramus” and accused him of “perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light.” Yet claiming Tolkien for the modern, anti-white Left is like claiming that the anti-Hitler views of Churchill or de Gaulle make them anti-racists. Certainly, Tolkien would have rejected the idea that only certain people are allowed to read or interpret certain stories, but would also have scorned the idea that whites — and whites alone — have no culture to be proud of.

...

Tolkien deeply loved the literature and mythology of Europe, particularly that of the Anglo-Saxons, and was professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford. While the same endowed chair still exists, the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists has changed its name to avoid accusations of racism, and Cambridge is crusading against the very concept of Anglo-Saxons. Anyone who, like Tolkien, admitted to a particular love for “that noble northern spirit” would hardly survive in modern academia. However, his work has been grandfathered in and can be only subverted, not expunged. Tolkien’s work is one of few relatively recent cultural creations that derives entirely from European mythology and even now, despite attempts at subversion and even perversion, retains its beauty. Young readers, especially, should learn why this work has such an impact. Armand Berger’s Tolkien, Europe, and Tradition is up to the task.

Source :

Tolkien: The Homer of the Anglosphere - Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 15, 2023

https://www.amren.com/features/2023/12/tolkien-the-homer-of-the-anglosphere/
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 13, 2022, 07:45:55 pm »

Mainstream journalism finally pointing out the rightist failure to understand BLM that I have been pointing out for years:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/12/opinion/eliza-fletcher-memphis-violence.html

Quote
“Say her name,” they tweet, as though there could possibly be an analogy between Ms. Fletcher’s death, allegedly at the hands of a man whom the Shelby County district attorney has characterized as a lone killer, and Breonna Taylor’s killing at the hands of the Louisville Metro Police Department.

When Fletcher is killed and Abston is promptly arrested, it shows that accountability is already occurring, therefore no one needs to say Fletcher's name.

When Taylor is killed and no one is arrested for years, it shows that accountability is not occurring, therefore everyone needs to say Taylor's name.

Rightists do not understand the above, therefore misappropriate the BLM slogan for their own use.

Quote
“Say her name,” they tweet, as though Black women aren’t **** and killed every single day without making national news.
...
the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation processed the DNA involved in Ms. Fletcher’s killing in a matter of hours because of a rush request by the Memphis Police Department. No rush request was made in the **** case from last year.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/police-rightist-bias/
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 13, 2022, 04:22:46 am »

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1360939/

Quote
A List of Things Leftists Hate

Let's see how well our enemies understand us.....

Quote
— White men (they’re racist oppressors who had the colossal nerve to invent everything)

Yes, they are. (Jews even more so.)

Quote
— traditional family values (they’re sexist and homophobic)

Yes, they are.

Quote
— children (they’re a burden and they’re expensive, too)

We do not hate children. We hate those who violently force children to be born. Children are their victims who had no choice in the matter:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/re-childcare-issues/

Continuing:

Quote
— old people (they’re a burden; “rest homes exist for a reason!”)

We do not hate old people who never reproduced; in fact we respect them with more certainty than we respect younger people who have not (so far) reproduced, since the former have already made it fully past reproductive age without reproducing, whereas the latter might still do so later.

Quote
— conservatives (they’re all racists and haters!)

Conservatives are racists, but not haters. We are the haters (of racists):

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-hate/

Continuing:

Quote
— traditions (they’re corny and old-fashioned)

We do hate tradition, but not because they are old-fashioned, but because they are traditional (ie. intergenerationally transmitted by crushing Original Nobility and filling the void left behind). There is plenty to like about anti-traditional ideas from thousands of years ago.

Quote
— facts and truth (leftists must hide facts and truth, which hinder the “progressive” agenda, e.g., racial differences)

We are not progressives. We also have no problem with discussing racial differences:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/

Continuing:

Quote
— religion (but Islam is okay)

All anti-tribalist religions are OK.

Quote
— racial solidarity (unless Blacks and Browns have it/show it, then it’s okay!)

No, we criticize those who self-identify as "black" or "brown". We tell them they should be self-identifying as "non-white". Folkish solidarity is what we want!

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/ethnotribalism-the-computer-simulation/

Continuing:

Quote
— patriotism (how horrible!)

Patriotism is fine if it means willingness to work at what serves the country's needs even if it is less well-paid. Patriotism is horrible if it means perceiving one's own country as the in-group and other countries as the out-group.

Quote
— national sovereignty (how horrible!)

National sovereignty with accountability is fine. National sovereignty without accountability is horrible.

Quote
— suburbs (too White)

Also too reliant on cars.

Quote
— the Midwest (too White)

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/demographic-blueshift/

will solve the problem.

Quote
— classical music (too White)

Also too complicated, and most importantly of all is an oppressor of countless children forced to learn it (and you say we hate children?).

Quote
— heterosexuals (too normal)

We do not hate "heterosexuals" who do not reproduce.

Quote
— guns (they’re very dangerous!)

We wish guns had never been invented, but since they have, the best thing we can do is point them towards the civilization responsible for their spread:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/firearms/

Quote
— small governments (“governments must be huge and must control everything!”)

Governments should not control what people do in private that doesn't affect anyone else. It's rightists who think governments should do that.

Quote
— capitalism (rich White men exploiting Black people)

And adding more and more:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/population-and-demographics/

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/climate-weather-and-climate-effects-2020-and-beyond/

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-a-health-hazard/

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/

to the world along the way.

Quote
— rich people (unless they’re liberal, then they’re okay)

We are not liberals. Rich leftists are preferable to rich rightists, but we still despise them if they live extravagantly or otherwise use their money to further complexify the economy.

Quote
— low taxes (“Black people need our tax dollars!”)

I think there is typo here and our enemies actually mean high taxes. We certainly believe that no one should have more money than is required to live in modest comfort, so all money beyond this should indeed be taxed.

Quote
— Ronald Reagan (“Under his presidency, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer!” aka, zero-sum thinking)[1].

I keep saying Reagan wasn't that bad:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/linda-sarsour-disavowed-by-biden-camp/msg10284/#msg10284

Continuing:

Quote
— Donald Trump (“He’s just like Hitler, only taller! He has millions of robotic, racist followers who obey his every wish! He’s a danger to our democracy!”)

Yes, we hate Trump. No, Trump was nothing like Hitler. And we hate democracy, whereas Trump is a democrat (he keeps talking about how he won the 2020 election).
Posted by: Dazhbog
« on: April 08, 2022, 03:55:44 am »

In order for me to possibly accept your claim that there is no pro-"white" bias, you would have to present at least some cases where "whites" have reported discrimination against themselves in favour of "non-whites", which would then potentially balance out the numerous cases already documented where "non-whites" have reported discrimination against themselves in favour of "whites".

Well, I can at least produce this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-refugee-discrimination.html

Quote
Ahmed Habboubi, a 22-year-old French-Tunisian medical student, said all foreign nationals, including Africans, Israelis, Canadians and Americans, were told to go to one gate at the Medyka crossing from Ukraine to Poland, which would only process four people every couple of hours, while Ukrainians were allowed to pass freely through another gate.

To be fair, many Israelis, Canadians and Americans are non-"white". However, Habboubi doesn't specify that only the non-"white" ones were selected for the "foreign" queue, so we will have to assume that his description includes "white" Israelis, Canadians and Americans. Couple that with the lack of evidence regarding the discrimination of the non-"white" groups I mentioned above, which without evidence to the contrary implies that most of them must have been accepted into the "Ukrainian" queue. In other words, it is at least conceivable that the "foreign" queue may have contained "whites" and the "Ukrainian" queue may have contained non-"whites".

This admittedly doesn't by default imply that these "whites" were excluded to accommodate non-"whites" in a scenario where there is only one place left in the "Ukrainian" queue and the individual doing the selection is forced to choose between non-"white" individual A and "white" individual B. As far as this is what you're looking for, I have to concede defeat for now.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 07, 2022, 09:31:51 pm »

"There are heaps of non-"whites" in Ukraine besides the ethnic groups that have reported discrimination, which, as far as I know, have not reported discrimination (Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Georgians, Azeris, Armenians, Uzbeks, Koreans etc.)."

I will assume this to be true.

"I will treat it as a case of ethnic stereotyping against some non-"whites", but not against other non-"whites", thus not a consistently pro-"white" policy."

Some "non-whites" are negatively affected by this ethnic stereotyping. Other "non-whites" are not negatively affected by this ethnic sterotyping.

However, no "whites" are negatively affected by this ethnic stereotyping.

Therefore:

Total number of "non-whites" negatively affected >0
Total number of "whites" negatively affected =0

How then is such ethnic stereotyping not a consistently pro-"white" bias? (I have never claimed it was a 'policy'. It could be just racists being themselves.)

In order for me to possibly accept your claim that there is no pro-"white" bias, you would have to present at least some cases where "whites" have reported discrimination against themselves in favour of "non-whites", which would then potentially balance out the numerous cases already documented where "non-whites" have reported discrimination against themselves in favour of "whites".
Posted by: Dazhbog
« on: April 07, 2022, 04:30:21 am »

(I have decided to write a new post instead of simply modifying my previous one, so that the thread will show up as 'unread' in your feed and you will notice my reply.)

You are not really arguing that Ukrainian prioritization of "white" refugees is not racist; you are arguing that Ukrainian racism should be excused because it might help us strategically. It should not. Otherwise, next you will be arguing that the chicken /fish/etc. factory owners should be excused because their meat/eggs after being eaten might increase the chances of our non-vegan enemies getting cancer sooner and thus dying sooner.

In effect, what you're getting at is that once we start tolerating evil, speculating that it will benefit us in the long run, we will eventually lose our will to fight evil at all, potentially allowing for infinite evil to be committed, correct? To that extent I agree with you and stand corrected accordingly.

That being said, as for the topic itself, I'm still not buying the racism (as in pro-"white)-angle. There are heaps of non-"whites" in Ukraine besides the ethnic groups that have reported discrimination, which, as far as I know, have not reported discrimination (Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Georgians, Azeris, Armenians, Uzbeks, Koreans etc.). Surely, at least some of them will have fled as well, using the same routes and border checkpoints the non-"whites" that have reported discrimination were using.

Until I see evidence that these non-"whites" were similarly discriminated against, I will treat it as a case of ethnic stereotyping against some non-"whites", but not against other non-"whites", thus not a consistently pro-"white" policy.
Posted by: Dazhbog
« on: April 05, 2022, 06:49:33 am »

Original reply deleted. I have to overthink my stance once more.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 04, 2022, 08:53:22 pm »

"The relevant question when deciding whether a particular policy is racist is whether it benefits the in-group, in this case "whites". Therefore, the policies in question must have been aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites" in one way or another.
You could argue that the underlying intention was to get the "white" refugees to safety as regards the dangers posed by the Russian invasion at the expense of the non-"white" refugees, however, being safe from the dangers posed by the Russian invasion specifically is in the long run not actually decisive in and of itself when it comes to demographics."

A policy does not have to benefit the in-group "in the long run" in order to be racist, or else it would be impossible for incompetent strategists to be racists, which is obviously not the case. For a policy to be racist, it suffices that the policy is intended to benefit members of the in-group in the immediacy at the expense of members of the out-group in the same immediacy, irrespective of what happens later. In the case of refugee evacuations from Ukraine, refugees were sorted into "white" and "non-white" categories and treated differently based on such categories, with those in the "white" category receiving consistently better treatment. In the immediacy, the interests of "white" refugees to reach safety ASAP were considered more important than those of "non-white" refugees to do the same.

"not evacuating immediately, taking up weapons, getting training and combat experience and storming the border by force of arms in the aftermath (ideally killing more "whites" in the process) is still a more promising path towards that end than evacuating immediately."

Refugees are individuals. Some of them may think like you just described; others may not. Those who do not still do not deserve to be treated worse on account of being "non-white". You make it sound like we are only against injustice when its victims are those who are strategic assets to us. No, we are against injustice even when its victims are strategically useless. Why do we care about factory chickens/fish/etc.?

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg72/#msg72

Because we expect them to join the war on our side if we free them? No! We care because they do not deserve to be treated worse on account of being "non-human"! That is all there is to it.

You are not really arguing that Ukrainian prioritization of "white" refugees is not racist; you are arguing that Ukrainian racism should be excused because it might help us strategically. It should not. Otherwise, next you will be arguing that the chicken /fish/etc. factory owners should be excused because their meat/eggs after being eaten might increase the chances of our non-vegan enemies getting cancer sooner and thus dying sooner.
Posted by: Dazhbog
« on: April 04, 2022, 04:01:16 pm »

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11555/#msg11555 etc. [Evacuation of non-"whites" from Ukraine - Dazhbog]

The relevant question when deciding whether a particular policy is racist is whether it benefits the in-group, in this case "whites". Therefore, the policies in question must have been aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites" in one way or another.

You could argue that the underlying intention was to get the "white" refugees to safety as regards the dangers posed by the Russian invasion at the expense of the non-"white" refugees, however, being safe from the dangers posed by the Russian invasion specifically is in the long run not actually decisive in and of itself when it comes to demographics.

As we have seen, upon evacuating Ukraine, a lot of the non-"white" refugees actually repatriated to their (already majority non-"white") countries of origin (group 1), meaning that for the time being, they aren't contributing to the de-whitening of majority "white" countries. Sure, you could argue that at least they are still alive and might thus be able to once more migrate to a majority "white" country. This however exposes them to increasingly racist migration policies, so it's anyone's guess whether they ever make it to a majority "white" country again. Add to that the fact that even in relatively stable and prosperous states, they are still disproportionally endangered by the effects of climate change, which tend to hit majority non-"white" countries more severly than majority "white" ones, so it's actually anyone's guess whether they even survive long enough to migrate at all! In other words, evacuating this group of non-"white" refugees has effectively neutralized them from a demographic point of view.

Another number went for other EU-countries (group 2). They might end up considerably safer than group 1 as far as war and climate change are concerned, however, their perspective of staying there in the long term is anyone's guess, so there is still a decent likelihood they will end up like group 1 anyway. Add to that that they might still be subject to racial profiling, racist violence and detention, particularly in racist Poland, which they have to cross to go anywhere within the EU. Add to that that gun laws in the EU are rather restrictive, meaning they likely won't have the chance to even defend themselves (and diminish the "white" demographic in the process). All in all, their perspective of negatively impacting "white" demographics upon evacuating Ukraine still isn't particularly good.

Last but not least, a number of non-"white" refugees were citizens of majority "white" countries and Ukraine (group 3). They likely don't face the threat of deportation that group 2 faces, however, all the other problems remain. Their chances of negatively impacting "white" demographics are better than those of the other two groups but still not exactly great.

Had they simply stayed in Ukraine, they would of course have been exposed to the full force of the Russian invasion with a considerable risk of dying. On the other hand, they would have had a rather easy time obtaining weapons and training, enabling them to kill "whites", which already would have enabled them to directly diminish "white" demographics. Add to that that the Ukrainian evacuation policy disproportionally favors "white" females, meaning that the remaining "white" population, which would be dying at a similar rate as the non-"white" population, has a harder time replacing their losses through reproduction, whereas no such gender-based favoritism is evident regarding the non-"white" refugees, meaning they have an easier time replacing their losses through reproduction, which in turn means their population will grow at a faster rate than the "white" population, meaning that at least Ukraine can be successfully de-whitened to some extent.

You could argue then that Ukraine being de-whitened is by far not as important as de-whitening safer, more prosperous and nuclear-armed countries such as France or Britain. Alright, but as the Turkish example demonstrates, having a non-white country immediately adjacent to the EU as a transit point for migrants and refugees already has a huge value in and of itself. Besides, not evacuating immediately, taking up weapons, getting training and combat experience and storming the border by force of arms in the aftermath (ideally killing more "whites" in the process) is still a more promising path towards that end than evacuating immediately.

(It should be noted however that while this eliminates the risks for refugee groups 2 and 3 on their passage to some other country, it won't necessarily prevent group 1 from voluntarily repatriating and becoming demographically useless in the process, so depending on which refugee group is the largest, precautions should be taken to at least discourage them from doing so.)

As should be evident by now, if anything, Ukraine shouldn't be criticized for making it more difficult for non-"whites" to evacuate, but for not outright banning them from evacuating. However, the latter would have made for even worse PR and diplomatic scandals than the path ultimately chosen and would have almost certainly cost Ukraine a huge chunk of the support they desperately need. Ultimately, discouraging Ukrainian non-"whites" from leaving in a subtle manner by making evacuation as difficult and dangerous for them as possible was the sensible way to go, even if it didn't work out in the end.

Regardless of the lackluster result, the policies in question weren't aimed at scoring a demographic advantage for "whites" and consequently weren't racist.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11901/#msg11901 [Racism in Soviet Ukraine - Dazhbog]

The same Soviet officials who enforced racist policies and condoned the lynch mob mentioned in the article quoted also mercilessly **** down on any display of Ukrainianness around the same time. Today, Ukrainianness is in many regards openly celebrated and Soviet sympathies **** down upon, meaning a dramatic shift in attitudes took place, which also implies certain demographic changes. In other words, post-Soviet Ukrainians aren't necessarily the same as Soviet Ukrainians.

The demographics of the city of Kherson in particular (where the massacre in question took place) changed as well (the share of the Russian and the Jewish population declined, whereas the share of the Ukrainian population increased). In other words, the bloodlines responsible for the massacre aren't necessarily as present today as they were back in 1964. Again, post-Soviet Khersonians aren't necessarily the same as Soviet Khersonians.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11936/#msg11936 [Ukrainian politician Vadym Prystaiko stereotypes non-"whites" as "foreigners" that "stick out in a crowd" and wants to "put them in some other place" - Dazhbog]

Prystaiko is ethnically stereotyping for sure, "putting them in some other place" however is at least open to the interpretation that he would endorse banning non-"whites" from evacuating, which, as argued above, might very well de-whiten Ukraine, making them no longer "foreigners" by his own definition. So there is no reason to assume that he is trying to enforce whiteness, subhuman phenotype notwithstanding.

Let me know in case I forgot the odd point from your list.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 01, 2022, 10:15:27 pm »

https://occidentaldissent.com/2022/04/01/tablet-mag-the-new-authoritarians/

Quote
Liberalism 3.0 is at odds with Liberalism 1.0. It is focused on controlling speech and thought. It knows exactly what is good … things like antiracism, racial equity, intelligence agencies, vaccines, veganism, Ukraine or “trans” rights.

At least credit to them for calling the True Left "Liberalism 3.0" as opposed to the False Left which they call "Liberalism 1.0".

Yes, as moral absolutists, we know exactly what is good.

No, most vaccines went through violent testing on animals, therefore are non-vegan. On this account alone, it is impossible for us as vegans to consider vaccines to be good. But even if hypothetically vaccines were vegan, they are still not good, as the approach of dealing with pandemics via vaccines is characteristically Western:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg4617/#msg4617

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg7753/#msg7753

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg8604/#msg8604

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/vaccination/msg10403/#msg10403

And no, Ukraine is racist, therefore it is impossible for us as anti-racists to consider Ukraine to be good:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11555/#msg11555

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11570/#msg11570

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11608/#msg11608

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11630/#msg11630

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11637/#msg11637

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11656/#msg11656

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11682/#msg11682

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11723/#msg11723

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11749/#msg11749

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11795/#msg11795

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11901/#msg11901

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg11936/#msg11936

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg12061/#msg12061

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/re-duginism-1134/msg12116/#msg12116

Back to enemy article:

Quote
In this respect, Liberalism 3.0 departs from Liberalism 1.0 which was suspicious of state power and Liberalism 2.0 which was suspicious of corporate power. Liberalism 3.0 celebrates authority and grasps for power like a man dying of thirst in a desert. It chafes under restraints. It us intolerant and loves a good witch hunt. It constantly appeals to the authorities to … DO SOMETHING.

Yes, we are intolerant. No, we do not love a good witch hunt. We would prefer no witches existed in the first place. But since witches do exist, ending their existence ASAP is our duty. Yes, we will appeal to the authorities to do something, but if the authorities turn out to be more tolerant of the witches than we are, it becomes our duty to replace them also.
Posted by: guest55
« on: March 27, 2022, 02:43:17 pm »

Well, there goes the rightist argument that immigration increases murder and **** rates in a state:

Study: States With High Murder Rates More Likely To Be Republican
Quote
Republicans love to blame crime on Democrats and liberal policies. Last week during the confirmation hearing, multiple senators questioned Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson views branding her as "soft on crime". However, a new report shows among the 10 states with the highest murder rates in 2020 ... eight of them voted for Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVIQ_Tt0zcc

Turns out the mental and spiritual illness of rightists actually increases murder rates, who would have thunk it!?  :D
Posted by: guest55
« on: March 27, 2022, 02:10:29 pm »

This is a good one! I'd go a step further though, gender is not primarily a capitalist phenomenon but a Western one! This reminded me of an Oliver Malloy quote I posted previously:
Quote
We live in this bubble of ignorance. Most people know nothing about history, or the historical context of the traditions they still follow today. People do things without knowing why they're doing them. — Oliver Markus Malloy

The average Westerner, especially rightists, obviously have absolutely zero understanding of how programmed they actually are. Most of their "thoughts" are not their own.

Let's talk about a question about gender....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ53lVyi4so
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 27, 2022, 09:44:49 pm »

https://vdare.com/posts/will-the-fat-become-the-next-identity-politics-sacred-cow

Quote
It’s not that the fat rank terribly high on the pyramid of intersectionality…yet. But you can imagine that they might someday, and thus you can foresee yourself having your career canceled in, say, 2029 over some fat jokes you told in 2022.

No, the fat have a higher carbon footprint.

So do the muscular, though. Therefore muscular fat-shamers will be considered hypocrites. Only low-BMI people will be considered qualified to fat-shame.

True Leftism is low-BMI supremacism, and ultimately heritable low-BMI supremacism:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/aryan-metabolism/msg7980/#msg7980
Posted by: guest55
« on: December 04, 2021, 07:43:45 pm »

David Brooks Looks At 'Terrifying Future' Of U.S. Right At Conservative Conference
Quote
Writer David Brooks discusses his latest piece 'The Terrifying Future of the American Right,' which details the trends he observed at the National Conservatism Conference in Florida.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo5vaXUNlSU

The True Left DOES want to destroy you, but NOT because we "hate America" but because we LOVE America and believe rightists are UN-AMERICAN COUP ATTEMPTING WESTERNERS in line with the same western colonialists who originally colonized America! If rightists actually behaved as Americans, instead of Westerners, we would have no issue with rightists other than their love for Judeo-Christianity, Israel, and Russia, whom we merely see as more examples of Western colonialism!

One thing is for certain, both false-leftists and rightists are destroying America presently for WESTERN INTERESTS!!! Duhhhhh!!!! OMFG!?!? Can you people be any fucken dumber than you already are, is it even possible?