Search the Community

For the past year we've all been watching some really odd and sometimes wretched behavior from what we commonly refer to as "the left". With this whole Hollywood scandal I now realized that there might not be such a thing as "left-wing propaganda". Every movie, every tv-show, every song, every comic, every book that espouse the leftist-agenda has been tainted (I'm not implying the right is innocent). What did J.K. Rowling have to do in order to get published? Or get movies done? What Did Emma Watson have to do in order to get to speak in from of the UN? What did Kimmel do in order to get a late-night show? Meryl Streep? We can go on and on and on with examples. These people have all gave a part of themselves in order to get where they are, they metaphorically sold their soul to the devil (perhaps in some cases not that metaphorically). What would that do to a person? How would a person act towards the innocent knowing deep down that they themselves are wretched? I think it's simple. In their minds they can never be the bad guy so when they see someone that forces them to realize they're evil they will play a sophist trick on themselves and others: they will start changing definitions. Redefining evil as good and good as evil is how these people are able to live with themselves. So leftist propaganda is not for us but ultimately for them. It's an imaginary world of their own making where they're seen as the good, as rebels, as moral pillars, as superheroes. What we have witnessed all this time is their pathology masked in a pretty package. When Roman Polanski won an Oscar, look at Harrison's Ford face as he reads his name. Doesn't it suddenly make sense now why he's so miserable and cynical? People have always complained how he seems to ruin every movie he's in now because he plays each role as the "I really don't wanna be here" guy. Knowing what he knows we would probably be the same. Marina Sirtis (from Star Trek TNG) once broke down at a panel and thanked the fans for giving her the life she has now. After watching Electric Boogaloo you'll know of the other path her career might have taken her. Furthermore look at Patrick Stewart's face at the Emoji movie premiere. Why is Ben Affleck a drunken mess in most of his interviews? What demons is he trying to drown out? Adam Sandler is notorious for making what can be loosely called "movies" and turning a profit every single time. When Al Pacino degraded himself in one of those "movies" people wondered what the hell is wrong with him to willingly take such a plunge? When the top in Hollywood is nothing but a sewer, doing a humiliating Dunkin' Donuts commercial seems pretty clean to me. Mark Millar is as successful of a comic book writer as one can get. In his comic WANTED, also a major Hollywood movie, the main character is an average Joe that's privy to how the world actually works and fully accepts it. It's a superhero comic without any superheroes, it's a world where everything is run by villains and every protagonists is a villain. The main character joins the elite, the high ranking society, and at some point even rapes an A-list celebrity without any consequence. In the Hollywood version of the story everything is turned upside down. They're not villains but assassins (ends justify the means kinda mentality) and the main protagonist is not a villain but a hero. Again, they can't be the villains so they have to put a spin on it. Robin Williams killed himself to avoid to work in that industry. Or what about Leonardo diCaprio? How much does one have to sin in order to feel like you have to save the entire planet in order to atone for them? Even ComicCon makes sense now. I always wondered why would these celebrities and creative types go to such a chaotic place where people pay them to touch them. I'm guessing that taking money directly from fans and cutting out the Weinstein-ish middleman is a breath of fresh air. I wish things were different but ultimately I'm glad I'm finally seeing how the hamburger is made.

I've done it! I've been exploring social justice at an intuitive level, attempting to discern some sort of universal human psychology that would allow for spontaneous manifestation. That's a fancy way of saying I've been trying to find something natural to humans that can create social justice without any outside influence. I've been entirely dissatisfied with Stef's contention that base desires like greed, envy, resentment and plain old failure can allow for the social justice virus to take root. Well, take root curated by propagandists and ideologues but I digress. No, I contend that this is entirely an internal process, requiring not even the existence of other people to manifest. I believe it to be an entirely personal phenomenon - which very much accords with social justice. Both with their narcissism and egomania but also with their projection. After all, the root of all projection is a belief about oneself, not a belief about others. So all that said, I located the source. I wouldn't be posting here after so many years otherwise. As the title suggests, it's been hiding in our language the entire time. Turns out, the dissolution of meaning in language isn't just an effect of social justice (or cultural Marxism, whatever name you have for it). Rather, that dissolution is responsible for each of their 'positions' and not the other way around. I use quotations though since through this perspective, these 'positions' are transformed ONLY into ex post facto justifications, rendering what you probably recognize as the core of the ideology as basically a denial matrix. In essence, what you understand as social justice is really a network of excuses that developed out of logical necessity. A logical necessity borne from a deeper, more primal axiom that necessitates these excuses, lest reality challenge and ultimately disprove it. One that they don't recognize but operate on regardless. To say it plainly, social justice is an enormous ex post facto justification acting as a defense mechanism, both for their own peace of mind and against external challenge to it. It is, practically speaking, a system of denial. That said, this is why addressing these ex post facto justifications is so ineffectual. You're addressing only their excuses, NOT the belief those excuses are designed to maintain. Their ultimate rationale as a SJW isn't predicated on these 'positions' nor are these positions properly concluded. I mean to say that they are arrived at only by virtue of necessity, not reason. Whether it's their economic foolishness, their political beliefs, their rampant sense of victimhood, everything. It all comes back to this single source found in the corruption of language. So I'll say it now and make the largest claim I can make here: I can link EVERY SINGLE SJW belief and behavior to this common origin with an uncanny consistency. Not because I'm some great intellect, but rather because it's the truth. It's so consistent because it's true. Period. I've been obsessively robust regarding this matter. Frankly, I wish I were just speaking big - I'm not. I'm more desperate to be proven wrong as this obligation, without actualization, is killing me. I need substantiation. I'd prefer to be wrong but dammit if I haven't figured this out. It even goes so far as to explain the nature of political binary and the nature of the Christian religion too. I'm sure you've noticed Stef's 180 on Christianity over the years. Well, I can provide the answer as to what Christianity is alluding to and for that reason, why it's been so integral to both maintaining and creating Western civilization. And why SJWs hate it so much. For those of you in the know, Christianity is an enormous allegory (metaphor?) to philosophical INDIVIDUATION (for the love of God, this is the answer to EVERYTHING). To that point, Jordan Peterson is correct when he submits that the Genesis story is explaining the manifestation of consciousness, given consciousness is predicated on, or the other way around, individuation. It's a 'Chicken and Egg' sort of thing at that point. The only reason I managed to figure this out is because individuation turns out to be the OPPOSITE process employed by SJWs. Or rather, their denial necessitated by their axiom requires them to take on the exact opposite process to individuation. You basically understand this as mere denial, but it's more particular, precise, and complicated. Think 'perfect denial'. Yes, such a thing exists and I call it 'nebulization'. If you're only interested in the axioms at work and their interplay, see this video (visuals included): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ag4EA7xBw This will give you God, consciousness, and social justice on a silver platter. It's intuitive, given that was the methodology of my work. Also, if you're one of those math wizards, you'll notice that my presentation of the process of individuation parallels the construction of the Surreal Number System. I'm not going to state that my position has some mathematical proof to it, but it's absolutely the same thing. It's up to you whether or not maths and philosophy must remain separated. I admit it excites me, given the implications. Consider the following video an introduction covering the superficial concepts in a more entertaining format: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4yhY41WQmI If it means anything to you, I've shown my face and outed myself. I'm prepared to live honestly in that regard. This is as different and new as any theory out there, though of course I argue that mine is the correct position. So if only for curiosities' sake, I invite you to delve into this matter. I guarantee that at least one perspective you have will be replaced with something you consider to be more true. That alone is a benefit, I think. Moreover, you'll find that this hardly challenges anything you believe. Instead, it will add on it making you MORE RIGHT rather than proving you wrong. Basically, your observations and conclusions will be preserved. You'll just have a far greater understanding of those conclusions and their implications. You'll also know the kryptonite to social justice, free of charge. Take it. I owe Stef that much. So here are the two links you can best put to use: Entire Treatise: https://document.li/nDr6 Introductory Version PDF: https://document.li/I5oM Introductory Version Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enU3i68FcVg Listed above is a secondary introduction that's more in-depth than the video I posted prior, but if you're interested at all in my work, read the treatise instead. I admit that due to your understanding already, the first 4 chapters may come as a bit of a refresher albeit more in-depth, but I promise you nothing but revelation after that point. Truly, I have to set up a lot of dominoes before I can prove myself as thoroughly as I intend. When it comes to what I call Antithesism (the best label IMO), all should be made clear - and I mean that. To you, there will be no double standards, no hypocrisy or irrationality left in the social justice warrior. You'll understand their motivations to a tee. Nothing will seem strange anymore. Of course, I can only relate to you my experience of this perspective, but this is where I'm at. It's over for me. I want to bring you to where I am. I don't want some vain distinction. I want you to know what I know and if not here, then where would something like this find purchase? Please, read. Now, I can answer what questions you may already have, but if you've interest in a new perspective you're best to read the treatise itself. You'll find the answers in there and anything you find contentious in my reasoning, especially regarding the perspective of the SJW, remember that it is only how THEY need to think. It doesn't have to follow necessarily from reason nor accord with your particular understanding of consciousness or psychology. Yet from that point, the consistency must be maintained. I'm glad to be informed of any errors. Hell if I'm mostly right, I'd love this to become a collective effort of FDR itself. Show the world what we can do. Thank you for your consideration and don't give up.

As title says; Pretty sure I heard it on an FDR video but can't remember - I'm fairly sure it was something like 60 times more likely to be left-leaning than right-leaning, if Atheist? Does anyone remember hearing something like that, and if yes, do you remember the study / source? I can't seem to lay my hands on it. Cheers!

So in having spent the better part of 5 years invested in the atheism, men's rights, and anarchist communities it wasn't until around 7 months ago that I began to catalogue my beliefs regarding these topics. Not to my surprise they coalesced around particular principles that I had been holding to and so engendered my involvement in these areas. Yet something I hadn't expected happened. I discovered a coalescence with regard to my enemies. That is, I found a link between feminists, theists, and statists though I quickly whittled that down to a commonality through ideological belief. Well of course right? But that commonality wasn't just that they were ideologues but that they shared the exact same belief in common. I had discovered a singular belief common to all ideologies that to do this day I've been unable to disprove. Quite a claim right? It was a few months later I discovered that with the addition of a single psychological relationship to identity, one could develop a conservative or liberal mindset. Fast forward another month and I am blown away by r/K selection theory and how it accorded with my own observations. Now granted my only exposure to r/K is through Stef himself so I am unaware of the entire breadth of the argument presented by Anonymous Conservative. Yet in Stef never mentioning this angle or rather this explanation I feel it is my duty to outline some of it here. Suffice it to say, I may have discovered the actual logic to the 'r' and 'K' mindset respectively. That evolution engenders these is almost without a doubt, but I contend that even as biological motivations, they actually rely on one logical axiom and then one more relationship to identity. That is to say, 'r' and 'K' are the result of a logic system that evolution is responsible for implanting. It is like computer code. The evidence for my theory which I will provide Stef albeit in a messy, first-draft form, is that it goes further to explain the phenomenon of social justice and feminism and the 'arguments' and perspectives they purport to have. When my theory is taken into consideration what they say makes logical sense though granted it must operate on a single false axiom from the start. From here I have begun to predict their response to current events with an accuracy that one would consider prophetic but really it's elementary. Again, quite the claim. Karen Straughan expressed interest in the material regarding the feminism aspect and she has been sent a copy. This is the best means I know of to contact Stef and the crew and so here I am. Now while I imagine I've made some mistakes in my own reasoning, the bulk of the treatise I've written is with regard to the logic system of the Left or 'r' demographic with the 'K' taking a backseat so to speak. If I have failed (should any discrepancies be discovered) in my attempt to establish this logic system as a necessary part of human psychology, that doesn't mean it isn't how the 'r' and 'K' operate regardless. It just means they're operating on faulty reasoning whose origin is unknown rather than entirely disproven. That there exists problems with both the 'r' and 'K' would naturally have us assume that their's is a faulty system of reason to begin with. But I digress. The summary is attached as a PDF file and was written for Karen in particular. There is also some conjecture regarding MGTOW and reference to a previous conversation we had had. These shouldn't confuse you but I want to make you aware of this regardless. This summary is about 15000 words and the treatise itself is about 100000 words. It's not as though it takes more than a few pages to argue my point but that the breadth of its applications are so vast I took the time to explore many of them. Now in the summary, given that it was written for Karen in particular, doesn't explore in full the claim that all ideologies are fundamentally founded on the same belief, but the greater treatise does. If the summary whets your appetite for it I will provide it with Mike's blessing (given the size of the file it too large). Though really, it's so elementary you'll figure it out yourself and kick yourself for having missed it. Or I'll tell Stef in an interview. It's so obvious and seemingly trite as to make you question your ability to think and observe the world at all when it's full influence is demonstrated. Stef said, though I'm sure he was quoting another, that ideology was the creation of arbitrary categories (or something like that). As it turns out I was establishing just that, save I had established that ideologies were axiomatic identities that existed without criteria. This will prove to be an important distiction. I guarantee it. All the best everyone and, should this argument prove useful, consider this my donation to FDR. Stef, you said getting therapy was payment enough but hell, I can still do more. Why not establish a logical axiom upon which all ideologies are based, the logic system for 'r' and 'K', and with that the 'key to the kingdom' with regard to human allegiance itself? This is going to make Bill Whittle's head explode. Or maybe I'm wrong. Only one way to find out. PS - The summary was written in the span of 36 hours so please, I needn't be shown any spelling or grammatical errors. There are plenty I'm sure. Summarization of Treatise.pdf

I apologize for the clickbait title. After the Paris attacks I firmly believed that people would finally open their eyes and see what's right there in front of their eyes. ISIS did its absolute best, years of relentless labor, to help the West out yet they spit in ISIS' face and firmly refused to give them any credit whatsoever. I mean some of them sacrificed their precious lives in order to get attention yet they still blame foreign intervention and the jews. Just check this article out: Paris attacks: President Francois Hollande welcomes 30,000 refugees in the next two years Gavin Mcinnes said it best: "You can't make jokes about this anymore because it's already so absurd." You know how when you present counter evidence to people with strong beliefs what it does is just make their belief stronger? I think we're witnessing this on a global scale. These people went left for so long they finally hit the wall of sanity. They didn't stop, no, they just ploughed right through and continued to go left. Absurdity is the new renewable energy source, if only we could find a way to harness it. French father explains terror attacks to his young son