Will Torbald

Are these rhetorical questions? You don't know the Fed is owned by jews? Disney? Congress? It's not that if it were run by whites there would be no wrong, it's that it would be their wrong to own. Being controlled by a foreign interest is always worse.

There's the normie jew, the jews as a collective, and the elite jews. The normies, whatever, normal people. They have their quirks like all. The collective, as weird as mormons probably. The elites that control the media/banking/deep state/globalism/nwo is where you start wondering why most of the people in those groups emit echo. But whether they should be allowed in a white ethno-state or something like that is up to the people who are making that really difficult transition themselves. Some say no, some say yes. Most jews are not involved in any weird shenanigans like that, so I wouldn't offer resistance to it for that reason. Removing criminal blacks, muslims, and latinos is far more important. It's when you see the same jews that deny refugees in Israel, but are sending boats and receiving people at the shores of Europe where you notice there inconsistencies with what they preach to others and what they actually do for them. Then there's other jews like Trump's son in law and Stephen Miller where it's like, sure, America First as long as Israel gets to keep his strongest ally. A lot of people would shut up about the jews if they didn't have that double standard like the Trump team did.

There is a solution: Freedom of association. There is a stronger solution: Strong separation into nation states. But you know why blacks don't want that. They can't survive on their own without whitey, but they must also guilt white people into giving them social programs. I will say however, that there is no such thing as an irrational hatred. Most people who have lived amongst blacks have enough empirical evidence to support their disdain. Negating their experiences and calling them irrational is itself an unthinking conditioned response.

Nothing has changed, the media has always been about narrative and propaganda over truth. Always. What happened is that they can no longer hold any legitimacy thanks to the internet and the historic evidence of their constant deception - so instead of growing human decency, they peddle the idea of post truth. But it's post nothing since there was never truth to begin with. Don't keep falling into their narrative.

Maybe you'll realize there are no easy to use lists for the real world. Even high IQ people can be malevolent if they've been conditioned, and low IQ can be peaceful if well raised.

Why the Alt Right exists, in one picture:

The influence of the alt right in the US presidential election was not trivial. The effects of the past 18 months have energized it in ways that were not available 10 years ago. Richard Spencer is financing a college tour after his lecture in Texas went viral. Dismissing them and mocking them won't make them go away, and it gets stronger every day. People are waking up.

The reason topics like this one ought to be of most importance to libertarians and ancaps is that they reveal the biggeat hurdles and challenges of a free society. Some groups just won't make it out of it. Jews have enormous power and will always hold on to it unless taken by force, and blacks will not be able to live in a technologically advanced society based on private property. If you haven't noticed, only europeans and even then only a fractions of europeans give one damn about objective morality and freedom. It's no wonder many people involved in the alt right confess to being ex libertarians who saw no path forward left.

What objective standard would you accept as a measure of intelligence? By all indirect measurements, it's very obvious Stefan is at least two standard deviations above average in intelligence. Just by the fruits of his labor you can tell.

Since those pats in the head, they have been charged with hate crime aggravations on top of the kidnapping, so that's a step forward at least. I won't deny the media does add fuel to the fire, but the mistake I believe is to think it creates the problem. They are just tool of political correctness. The fact is that blacks in their natural conditions have totally different ways of living than non blacks. In the African tribes the women take care of the children marxist style communities while the men wander around the bush looking for a duck or something. It's no wonder that if you give blacks freedom, they turn into lesbianic single mother matriarchies were men are idle and getting into gangs - because that's what they do anyway everywhere else.

I expect white people to get upset, make angry tweets, and then go to work the next day. But the point of inversing the situation and saying that the media would have used it as bait is not really interesting by itself. The reason it's worrisome that white people would kidnap a challenged black kid is because of the history of slavery and segregation in the US. It's not a symmetric issue at all - therefore it's not unfair to make a big deal if they opposite were true. If blacks and whites were equally historically antagonistic, then seeing a double standard would be unfair. That's why calling it "free will" is a problem for those who acknowledge effects in upbringing and race. I am not a physical determinist (that it's all perfectly caused by physical laws) but I do have a large degree of biological determinism. The brain, the hormones, the body is what you are, and the structures that make you also define you. You can't be smarter than your brain, and you can't be more responsible than your capacity for understanding. The people who did this crime are severely mentally impaired compared to average whites or asians. At least a 70 IQ average on all 5 of them. There are children more intelligent than them that we would still say have no responsibility for being minors. But if you still want to believe that these people had free will, then you must blame it on them - not their single mothers, not the media, not the democrats or whatever. That's a different "fault". Of course the police would not go to the people who taught them that whitey is the devil, that's not how the system works (maybe it should be?) - but that they excuse their behavior, condone it, over any other reason.

I've heard all the blaming suspects over what happened with the kidnapped special needs boy except for the real one coming from the conservative voices. It's the dems fault. It's the media. It's the left. But it's never the blacks' fault. They believe in the white oppression theory because they were taught by it. They have 0 agency over their beliefs. Input in, output out. Here comes the left with its narrative and the blacks are victims, not perpetrators. The savages who tortured that kid? Just stupid kids fooling around. And both the right and the left believe that with different forms. Stefan complicit with it included. It's the race baiting! It's the media! - How about ascribing agency to people's minds? You are responsible for what you believe. No one can make you believe in a narrative, only peddle it to you. You are the one grasping it and going along with it. And blacks love it because it gives them an excuse to be violent with impunity. The violence was always there, the racial tension was already there by nature. They are too different to assimilate with the rest, and they never do no matter which society it is. They still haven't in Latin America, the Middle East, or Asia. Still can't even amongst themselves in Africa. Otherwise blacks are only slightly better than animals. If they can't be responsible for their minds, then they don't deserve civil rights, and slavery would be preferable to their current state - being dominated by minds actually capable of responsibility. You know they won't be able to live in their own nations. They will turn it into a hellhole like Haiti or Somalia in no time. That's why you are emotionally invested in multiracial societies - because deep down you know. Arabs, asians, indians, europeans, and mestizos to a lesser measure - they can organize relatively non violently given they're not brainwashed by some radical ideology. But everywhere blacks are left alone, it's Jumanji. Maybe if you stopped babysitting them you wouldn't feel averse to having racial separations.

Sounds like Mosley, tbh. I think you're cutting yourself short with the "satire" tag since it does make sense in practical terms.

Don't. Why do you want to date women?

I think emotional awareness is very important. Often people assume being a rational thinker necessitates supresing your emotions (Plato recommended this, if I remember) but that's not a good idea. Usually our subconscious has already realized what's wrong with an argument before it can explain it with words. That uncomfortable feeling would then be supressed instead of exploring it and finding why it was wrong, but now explicitely.

Yes, because it's not about climate, but about ontology. It entirely upends people's reality to accept that the government, the UN, Bill Nye, all the celebrities, the news - they are all part of a great push for "fake science news" in order to gain more power and tax companies to oblivion, or who knows why else. I would never debate it from a science perspective, but a political one. I really don't care about the science of it because not even scientists can even know with any certainty what the hell is going on. It is too chaotic to predict with any honesty.

You were not censored. You made a thread to discuss the episode when you could have posted on the thread for the episode itself, so the moderators deleted it, but added your post to that thread. Get a grip before making a scene.

Sodomy is America's higest value.

An important cause of bad discussions on mainstream social media is that people's positions are not taken for their truth content, but their social status value. A normal person will defend insanity if it gets them social points with the people they want to socialize with. Facebook is made to reinforce people's positions, not to change them, by tribalizing discourse.

I wouldn't judge you if you decided to flee Germany in the next six months or so. I don't know what you could do besides what you've said in the OP, i.e. political activism.

James Randi was the one who really blew my mind away in regards to skepticism.

You underestimate the number of people who didn't vote because they didn't want to give a positive vote for someone they didn't like. Trump lost the popular vote after all. Many people would have voted against Clinton instead of in favor of Trump. Psychologically, there's a difference in motivation. Half of the people who can vote, don't. There's a huge gap in motivation. I think the solution is more options.

For example, in a system where voting was actually about expressing your preference, you could have casted a negative vote against Clinton instead of voting in favor of Trump. Or you could have casted two negative votes instead of not voting. Preferences are positive (love) neutral (apathy) or negative (hate), but democracy as it is now isn't about preference. It's about counting heads, see who has more people, and use it as a proxy for civil conflict and mean "if we fought for the government, we would win because we're more".

I just think it's incomplete. "Expression of preference" doesn't cut it for voting. Preferences can be negative, but you can't cast a negative vote. You're also most likely unable to vote for your actual preferred candidate in the end because they can't win so you vote for the next best thing that can. Under coercion isn't enough to describe it since you're also voting to see who coerces you later. It's a complex equation in reality.

He did one with Gavin already.