Is it just me or is this forum pretty empty nowadays?

[Tyler H]

14 hours ago, shirgall said:

To answer your question, when was the last time you heard about a shootout over sales tax or the inclusion of SJW crap in High School Economics? What's is the case is that collectivists overreached and the backlash led to Trump, which was an opportunity for voluntarists. Ron Paul might have been an opportunity too, but he was unable to work against the GOP establishment.

What I meant was that there is a difference  in degree, not classification, and that is an important distinction about which we, those who work to see the initiation of violence abolished from human interaction, should remain vocal.

If you're forced to pick a side that contradicts your moral convictions then you need to continuously remind people why you are supporting that stance and why, otherwise what's to distinguish support under protest and sincere advocation?  

[powder]

On 7/9/2017 at 9:29 AM, Spenc said:

Naturally, we get callers into the show like that guy a couple weeks ago who talked with Stef for a pretty long time about the virtues of stability in Christian families and then made up a bunch of bullshit about spanking being fine and how the studies were flawed (when he didn't seem to know that there were close to 100 studies collated) and couldn't retrieve his sources, etc.  He also accused Stef of conflating terms in order to tie 'spanking' to 'hitting', when he was doing the exact same thing, trying to conflate it to 'swatting' a fly.

Is this person participating in philosophical discussion, or is he just a right-winger who likes that FDR has been home to criticism of the left?

 

In 2006-2012, maybe even into 2014, Stefan would argue that you can't change a person's mind with facts and reason when it comes to issues of freedoma nd politics because they are just acting out their family traumas in broader society.  But lately, there's hardly any discussion on personal freedom issues and a whole shit ton of podcasts/videos in "The Truth About..." series detailing an exhaustive chronology and collation of facts and reason. 

So has Stefan recanted his position on that issue in the past couple years?  I've heard him recant about participating in politics and accepted that it could be useful and valuable at this point in time with this particular candidate (Trump).  I have not heard him go back on his claim that facts and reason do not change people's minds though.

If someone is a conservative, and Stef is going to enter the political realm and produce videos to criticize the left, the right will join in and follow.  But they wont be imbued with principles and philosophy, and as soon as the worm turns and criticism is targeted against the right, those people will turn on FDR, Stef and "philosophy".

Agreed, there was a shift when FDR started with the videos exposing the truth about stuff with facts and information ala InfoWars.  The reason I came to philosophy is because when you stick to objective principles you don't have to rely on massive amounts of research and vetting of info and sources.  I found it very liberating, it was exhausting keeping up with all that stuff only to find out the other side has equally compelling stuff to support their bias.  

I just started a new thread where I linked a article where the left are arguing how wonderful and tolerant and peaceful the new generation of ethnically diverse youths are,...  I am very skeptical, but I don't have the time or energy to fact check, refute, and counter that stuff with links and data and charts,...  esp if facts don't matter to people.  

People are moved to change by moral persuasion, that is how the elite have been doing it for millennia, I find it works well for me in my discussions with people.  

[ofd]

Gnon is a way for saying that systems that have the factor X tend to survive and thrive, while those that don't have it will decline and eventually die off. Both Christians and agnostics can agree with since it can be found in scripture, evolutionary biology, game theory, Ruth Milikan's work, economics, and the theory of convergent instrumental values.

[Erwin]

I think it is because there is too much estrogen running unrestricted.

I see a lot of conversations devolve into either virtue signaling, concern-trolling, or being offended at facts. I don't know which of those 3 are more gay, but it's a pretty good sign that the user doesn't belong to a forum that deals with "sensitive" topics.

If we can filter out excessively feminine users, we can seriously increase the ratio of arguments made relative to nagging. Not to mention, it would completely remove the need for the admin approval process.

[Eudaimonic]

56 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I think it is because there is too much estrogen running unrestricted.

I see a lot of conversations devolve into either virtue signaling, concern-trolling, or being offended at facts. I don't know which of those 3 are more gay, but it's a pretty good sign that the user doesn't belong to a forum that deals with "sensitive" topics.

If we can filter out excessively feminine users, we can seriously increase the ratio of arguments made relative to nagging. Not to mention, it would completely remove the need for the admin approval process.

Part of me likes the idea, however another part has concerns that the board might devolve into strict Spock intellectualism.

Often times a debate is about the emotional underpinning concerning the conceding of a point (and therefore consequences) of a given side. This generally has roots in childhood and you certainly couldn't resolve the dispute intellectually, it would be helpful in those situations (which can be numerous) to engage in a dialogue about each person immediate emotional experience, perhaps RTR or use Imago type tools for that.

I think it would be helpful to develop guidelines and standards by which we filter out people (via ostracism?) For me (and this is simply my experience, not nesseccarily true) there are more than a few members on the board which dominate threads or appear often, but don't share the communities original values (laid down in the podcasts) or standards of debate. The philosophy thread is of particular concern to me. They come across almost like a sneaky virus to riddle to boards with irrelevant topics and endless debate about seemingly simple stuff.

[Eudaimonic]

Perhaps even get together a group of the major posters on the boards and try to discuss ideas about revamping the boards over a video call. That might make it easier to have a back and forth dialogue.

[Erwin]

9 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

Part of me likes the idea, however another part has concerns that the board might devolve into strict Spock intellectualism.

Often times a debate is about the emotional underpinning concerning the conceding of a point (and therefore consequences) of a given side. This generally has roots in childhood and you certainly couldn't resolve the dispute intellectually, it would be helpful in those situations (which can be numerous) to engage in a dialogue about each person immediate emotional experience, perhaps RTR or use Imago type tools for that.

Oh, I completely agree on this point, but I do believe that it has to be context-appropriate.

As an anecdote, one user posted something so grammatically incorrect that it was pretty much gibberish. As a reply, another user accurately described that comment as retarded. And out of nowhere, some woman came in the middle of this and decided to give a lecture on respect blablablabla.

 

13 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

I think it would be helpful to develop guidelines and standards by which we filter out people (via ostracism?) For me (and this is simply my experience, not nesseccarily true) there are more than a few members on the board which dominate threads or appear often, but don't share the communities original values (laid down in the podcasts) or standards of debate. The philosophy thread is of particular concern to me. They come across almost like a sneaky virus to riddle to boards with irrelevant topics and endless debate about seemingly simple stuff.

Ostracism is one of many tools, imo. I think the other way to do it is simply to "legalize" and encourage shaming. Imo, if it's even possible for a man to be offended by words, I immediately place him in the woman category.

Indeed, "no you're wrong" is neither an argument or useful, but that seems to have escaped some.

 

16 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

Perhaps even get together a group of the major posters on the boards and try to discuss ideas about revamping the boards over a video call. That might make it easier to have a back and forth dialogue.

May I suggest a recorded discord? This way, we can even put them up on youtube, and - as an added benefit - discuss the issues that Stefan dare not delve in.

[Eudaimonic]

23 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Oh, I completely agree on this point, but I do believe that it has to be context-appropriate.

As an anecdote, one user posted something so grammatically incorrect that it was pretty much gibberish. As a reply, another user accurately described that comment as retarded. And out of nowhere, some woman came in tWhe middle of this and decided to give a lecture on respect blablablabla.

That's interesting, though I would be curious to find out why the first guy felt the need to call it retarded rather than just leave the post alone. I mean, if someone is really retarded, you don't call them that, right?

23 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Ostracism is one of many tools, imo. I think the other way to do it is simply to "legalize" and encourage shaming. Imo, if it's even possible for a man to be offended by words, I immediately place him in the woman category.

Indeed, "no you're wrong" is neither an argument or useful, but that seems to have escaped some.

I can agree with that, though I don't think it would make sense to shame 'in-group' members because I'm not sure that would be productive for the group. I would want people in the group to be vulnerable about what they're feeling in their exchanges, whatever they're about. I'm sure, if we do end up doing it, this is all stuff we could all work out.

23 minutes ago, Erwin said:

May I suggest a recorded discord? This way, we can even put them up on youtube, and - as an added benefit - discuss the issues that Stefan dare not delve in.

I personally wouldn't mind it being recorded, of course we'd want to make sure everyone involved agreed to it.

As well, I am cognizant that this is ultimately Stefan's board, anything that doesn't fly with him concerning how the board operates doesn't fly with me.

[Erwin]

1 minute ago, Eudaimonic said:

anything that doesn't fly with him concerning how the board operates doesn't fly with me.

I was referring to topics that can get him in trouble for speaking it (i.e. too taboo). I don't mean anything unethical.

[Eudaimonic]

2 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I was referring to topics that can get him in trouble for speaking it (i.e. too taboo). I don't mean anything unethical.

Absolutely, thanks for the clarification.

This is what video calls help with!

[shirgall]

6 hours ago, Tyler H said:

What I meant was that there is a difference  in degree, not classification, and that is an important distinction about which we, those who work to see the initiation of violence abolished from human interaction, should remain vocal.

If you're forced to pick a side that contradicts your moral convictions then you need to continuously remind people why you are supporting that stance and why, otherwise what's to distinguish support under protest and sincere advocation?  

Indeed, I get crap for saying that Hillary would have been much worse, and that gridlock generally benefits everyone whether they like it or not.

[ofd]

The main activitiy of communist group nowadays is not the global revolution, as one might think, but to stay ideologically pure and to fight other splinter groups. Many Libertarian / Ancap groups are the same now, with the difference that they open up to ideas of 'justice'. The thin vs. thick debate two years ago delineated the two groups, with the thin libertarians now being pushed out. Popular events now are in name only about Freedom, in reality they are a variation of SJW meet up.s

[Spenc]

On 2017-07-23 at 4:16 PM, powder said:

Agreed, there was a shift when FDR started with the videos exposing the truth about stuff with facts and information ala InfoWars.  The reason I came to philosophy is because when you stick to objective principles you don't have to rely on massive amounts of research and vetting of info and sources.  I found it very liberating, it was exhausting keeping up with all that stuff only to find out the other side has equally compelling stuff to support their bias.  

I just started a new thread where I linked a article where the left are arguing how wonderful and tolerant and peaceful the new generation of ethnically diverse youths are,...  I am very skeptical, but I don't have the time or energy to fact check, refute, and counter that stuff with links and data and charts,...  esp if facts don't matter to people.  

People are moved to change by moral persuasion, that is how the elite have been doing it for millennia, I find it works well for me in my discussions with people.  

i actually just listened to an interesting podcast Stef did from his car in Volume 2 (about FDR400 timeframe).  he talked about how people with principles aren't concerned by minutiae, whereas people without principles are slaves to minutiae.  Like, if we raise the minimum wage, is $1 too little, is $5 too much?  what about the student minimum, how should that be changed in comparison to the regular minimum wage?  Do you phase it in over 2-3 years or just set a January 1 in-effect date?  So much bullshit to exhaust yourself with, but if you have a free market principle you don't have to argue about $5 being too high and trying to prove that $3.50 is the optimal increase with intensely detailed graphs and projections. 

[DaVinci]

On 7/23/2017 at 9:53 PM, Erwin said:

 

As an anecdote, one user posted something so grammatically incorrect that it was pretty much gibberish. As a reply, another user accurately described that comment as retarded. And out of nowhere, some woman came in the middle of this and decided to give a lecture on respect blablablabla.

 

Are you still upset about that thread? 

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, DaVinci said:

Are you still upset about that thread? 

Bahaha what am I, a woman?! 

[Frederik]

The change on the board from a year ago is tremendous! It’s very quiet in here and there is not much conversation happening.

 

On 1.7.2017 at 3:59 AM, Spenc said:

Since the call-in show is drifting away from the 'personal freedom' issues,as well as the videos/podcasts that they produce, the content isn't there to create a feedback loop wherein those people out there looking for that sort of content won't find it in FDR because it is not featured here anymore.  Thus they will not listen, will not call-in, will not join the forum, etc.  And thus the shows will reflect less of these concerns in a constant feedback loop.

It sounds plausible to me that this negative feedback loop is in fact a contributor. I personally love most listening to older podcasts in sequence, because I love FDR for the personal freedom stuff. The amount of conversation about personal issues and the coherence within the community was tremendous back then and I would say hardly any of that is left.

I do hope that the new people who yearn for the personal freedom stuff find their way to the older podcasts. They are a joy!

 

On 20.7.2017 at 0:53 AM, Tyler H said:

Yes, there are plenty of people to defend Trump and rail against the decline of society, but when Stef left the "Ivory Tower" who was left to speak true philosophy?  He often would posit prior to his shift to full time podcasting "does the world need another software programmer or does it need philosophy"; well tell me, does the world need another conservative pundit, or do they need someone to show the way to a free society through truth and reason? This is a thought I sometimes have, but I hope I'm wrong about that and right about the detour - i.e. we buy time and gain some eyeballs to try and convince later.

I am hoping with you, that Stef is doing the right thing here

 

To help prove the point, in a recent YT video the caller was saying three times or so something to the extend of "It has probably something to do with my childhood" (read: I would like to talk about my childhood) but Stef was very reluctant to go there. The call was only 30 minutes, and ended with Stef giving advice of the "Don’t do that!"-quality and saying "Listen, I got a huge mass of callers tonight..." Ususally Stef asks for feedback but here he didn’t, and I am pretty sure the call was not very satisfying for the guy. (/watch?v=WhTOEjY6EaE)

That would have never happened a couple of years ago. I hope that Stef has good reasons for all of this that I just don’t understand!

[_LiveFree_]

34 minutes ago, Fred Black Fox said:

To help prove the point, in a recent YT video the caller was saying three times or so something to the extend of "It has probably something to do with my childhood" (read: I would like to talk about my childhood) but Stef was very reluctant to go there. The call was only 30 minutes, and ended with Stef giving advice of the "Don’t do that!"-quality and saying "Listen, I got a huge mass of callers tonight..." Ususally Stef asks for feedback but here he didn’t, and I am pretty sure the call was not very satisfying for the guy. (/watch?v=WhTOEjY6EaE)

That would have never happened a couple of years ago. I hope that Stef has good reasons for all of this that I just don’t understand!

 

An imperfect analogy:

 

A private investor wants to build something huge that will fundamentally change the community around him, like an international airport. Besides the billions of dollars required to fund construction of the facility, there is also the years it will take to construct it, the impact on surrounding neighborhoods, traffic congestion due to construction everywhere, public outcry of those who don't want an airport fighting with those that do, designing the airport for safety, efficiency, and profitability, the tens of thousands of man hours needed to construct it. In other words, vast human resources will be used in many various ways because this massive change to the town will begin to take place. All of those funds, man hours, and resources will be allocated away from other projects/business in order to build the airport. In a free society, everyone can support/reject/or remain neutral to this project all they want. All things being equal, the private investor would likely be considered revolutionary, a risk taker, a lover of humanity, a visionary,.... (((to make the analogy less imperfect, instead of an international airport, make it the first interstellar stable wormhole transporter; a 20 year project)))

Now imagine a plague is rapidly sweeping across the globe killing billions of people at this time. 

--------------------------------------

A very important sacrifice is being made right now to ensure a future for the free people of Earth. We aren't fighting this war because we want to be at war. This is for survival.  And it's so Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

 

 

 

[DaVinci]

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

Bahaha what am I, a woman?! 

You tell me. I can't answer that question. But I'm not even really interested in that. I only want to know why that thread keeps coming up. 

[Erwin]

4 hours ago, DaVinci said:

You tell me. I can't answer that question. But I'm not even really interested in that. I only want to know why that thread keeps coming up. 

Who made you the FBI? Stop sperging bro, it's just anecdote.

[D.D.]

On 2017-07-19 at 6:53 PM, Tyler H said:

He [Stef] often would posit prior to his shift to full time podcasting "does the world need another software programmer or does it need philosophy"; well tell me, does the world need another conservative pundit, or do they need someone to show the way to a free society through truth and reason?

Interesting question.  Here's another perspective:

Does the world need another philosopher or does the world need more true selves?

[Tyler H]

22 hours ago, D.D. said:

Interesting question.  Here's another perspective:

Does the world need another philosopher or does the world need more true selves?

Your proposition is put forward as if it were mutually exclusive when it isn't, so I'm not sure how to respond. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. 

[Eudaimonic]

23 hours ago, D.D. said:

Interesting question.  Here's another perspective:

Does the world need another philosopher or does the world need more true selves?

 

44 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Your proposition is put forward as if it were mutually exclusive when it isn't, so I'm not sure how to respond. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. 

 

Does the world need another potato or does the world need more spuds?

[D.D.]

3 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Your proposition is put forward as if it were mutually exclusive when it isn't, so I'm not sure how to respond. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. 

I agree with you that they are not mutually exclusive.  My understanding is that a philosopher is an umbrella term for an intellectual, lover of wisdom, containing both a true and false self.  The term philosopher does not mean that the intellectual is adept with these selves.  The distinction I was making is that the world could benefit more from true selves - people who are spontaneous, expansive, loving, giving, and communicating - people who accepts others feelings without judgement and fear.  To contrast that with the false self, that part is our egocentric ego that feels uncomfortable, strained, or unauthentic - focused on what others think of it, it is envious, critical, idealized, blaming, shaming and perfectionist.

A human-being is composed of a logical and emotional brain.  The emotional is ancient and trumps the logical side.  From what I see, our species is the cutting-edge of evolution which strains to incorporate these two halves - hence, Stef's contribution to ethics.  With more intellectuals who also pursue self-knowledge and are adept with their true-selves, we would not see a philosophy forum composed of conversations with down-votes or the rationalization of ill behaviour - instead, there would be civilized rebuttals with the understanding that we are fallible and open to reparation.  This makes me wonder if philosophy is second to psychology.

Let me know if that's more helpful / comprehensible than my previous post.

Edited July 27, 2017 by D.D.
Grammar and clarity

[Tyler H]

1 hour ago, D.D. said:

I agree with you that they are not mutually exclusive.  My understanding is that a philosopher is an umbrella term for an intellectual, lover of wisdom, containing both a true and false self.  The term philosopher does not mean that the intellectual is adept with these selves.  The distinction I was making is that the world could benefit more from true selves - people who are spontaneous, expansive, loving, giving, and communicating - people who accepts others feelings without judgement and fear.  To contrast that with the false self, that part is our egocentric ego that feels uncomfortable, strained, or unauthentic - focused on what others think of it, it is envious, critical, idealized, blaming, shaming and perfectionist.

A human-being is composed of a logical and emotional brain.  The emotional is ancient and trumps the logical side.  From what I see, our species is the cutting-edge of evolution which strains to incorporate these two halves - hence, Stef's contribution to ethics.  With more intellectuals who also pursue self-knowledge and are adept with their true-selves, we would not see a philosophy forum composed of conversations with down-votes or the rationalization of ill behaviour - instead, there would be civilized rebuttals with the understanding that we are fallible and open to reparation.  This makes me wonder if philosophy is second to psychology.

Let me know if that's more helpful / comprehensible than my previous post.

Yes it certainly is, thank you for the clarification.  While I agree with your definitions, the one about philosophers was not a component in my post.  I think this may be the source of some of the confusion.  When I quoted Stef saying that the world needed philosophy more than a programmer, the context I left out is that when he said that he meant real philosophy, not the sophistry so prevalent in today's society.  Philosophy as in the search for, and more importantly the love of, truth.  Where no matter what idols fall in its path we continue on.  Where self knowledge and empathy are as important as reason and empiricism. 

I think you're right; we need far more true selves than what passes for a philosopher these days.  However, I think we get more true selves when there's less hero worship and politics, and more deep conversations about personal relationships and self knowledge.  I was glad to hear topics broached in the last call-in that had been left unexplored for quite some time.  This is what I think will lead to more true selves.

 

 

[piotr22]

I think I could come up with a good hypothesis on this. First, Stefan used to be an anarcho-capitalist, while now he openly supports Trump and gets a lot of conservative viewers. There is at least one major libertarian website that has abandoned their support for Molyneux, and I suspect many former members of this site, who used to be ancaps, have abandoned him as well. His show has also deviated largely from discussions on how to have a free society and abstract philosophy, to why Trump isn't as bad as the media makes him out to be, comments on multiculturalism, and the authoritarian left.

To the extent that his fanbase has largely been replaced by alt-right and conservative viewers, its not clear that they are all that interested in philosophy, or having discussions on online forums. I have noticed on youtube comment sections that they usually leave comments such as "we need to secure a future for white people", or "women shouldn't have the right to vote", or "we need a new hitler", to various crude insults of CNN, leftists, professors, climate science being a hoax, etc. Its not exactly erudite discussion. Beyond that, most conservative viewers tend to be 50+; they have families, jobs, meetings...not much time to have philosophical discussions on forums, if that is their interest at all, which it is likely not. I'm not sure exactly where the alt-right tends to post, but I suspect it is on the more popular channels and various subforums on reddit affiliated with the alt-right.

And as for me personally, I would never have a discussion on these forums. On the very first page of this thread you can see that people bully each other pretty easily. If you actually want to have a serious discussion in philosophy, you don't insult people on a regular basis. Not surprisingly, this is exactly the behaviour Molyneux displays when people call into his show. If they make a mistake, he berates them for a few minutes, practically getting them to admit they're total idiots before continuing. If people on the forums emulate Molyneux, no one would want to have a discussion here, even if they were ancaps. You can see this in any number of videos Stefan puts up where people call into his show.

[_LiveFree_]

8 hours ago, piotr22 said:

I think I could come up with a good hypothesis on this. First, Stefan used to be an anarcho-capitalist, while now he openly supports Trump and gets a lot of conservative viewers. There is at least one major libertarian website that has abandoned their support for Molyneux, and I suspect many former members of this site, who used to be ancaps, have abandoned him as well. His show has also deviated largely from discussions on how to have a free society and abstract philosophy, to why Trump isn't as bad as the media makes him out to be, comments on multiculturalism, and the authoritarian left.

To the extent that his fanbase has largely been replaced by alt-right and conservative viewers, its not clear that they are all that interested in philosophy, or having discussions on online forums. I have noticed on youtube comment sections that they usually leave comments such as "we need to secure a future for white people", or "women shouldn't have the right to vote", or "we need a new hitler", to various crude insults of CNN, leftists, professors, climate science being a hoax, etc. Its not exactly erudite discussion. Beyond that, most conservative viewers tend to be 50+; they have families, jobs, meetings...not much time to have philosophical discussions on forums, if that is their interest at all, which it is likely not. I'm not sure exactly where the alt-right tends to post, but I suspect it is on the more popular channels and various subforums on reddit affiliated with the alt-right.

And as for me personally, I would never have a discussion on these forums. On the very first page of this thread you can see that people bully each other pretty easily. If you actually want to have a serious discussion in philosophy, you don't insult people on a regular basis. Not surprisingly, this is exactly the behaviour Molyneux displays when people call into his show. If they make a mistake, he berates them for a few minutes, practically getting them to admit they're total idiots before continuing. If people on the forums emulate Molyneux, no one would want to have a discussion here, even if they were ancaps. You can see this in any number of videos Stefan puts up where people call into his show.

what would it take to elevate your discourse from passive aggressive, strawman, whiny, cucked out, non-intellectual, baby food spew to actual philosophy?

Thanks for breaking out the Hitler argument so early. Always lets you know  who's full of complete s---  

[Erwin]

18 hours ago, piotr22 said:

To the extent that his fanbase has largely been replaced by alt-right

Nope. Any Alt Righters who like Stefan enough to be on this forum are the exceptions. The rest of us are "meh.... not bad". That might change if he addresses the Jewish problem.... but hey one can hope.

19 hours ago, piotr22 said:

its not clear that they are all that interested in philosophy, or having discussions on online forums.

I know. We're busy doing the street work that everyone else is too cucked to do. But we do have discussion on forums, though. Just not here.

19 hours ago, piotr22 said:

I have noticed on youtube comment sections that they usually leave comments such as "we need to secure a future for white people", or "women shouldn't have the right to vote", or "we need a new hitler", to various crude insults of CNN, leftists, professors, climate science being a hoax, etc. Its not exactly erudite discussion.

That's called shitposting. It's meant to trigger shitlibs and cuckservatives by dropping exaggerated truth bombs. I don't know where you got the idea that people are just dying to sperg with strangers.

19 hours ago, piotr22 said:

I'm not sure exactly where the alt-right tends to post, but I suspect it is on the more popular channels and various subforums on reddit affiliated with the alt-right.

The Jews Shoah'd us off their platform, so we have independent platforms now.

[shirgall]

7 minutes ago, Erwin said:

...

That might change if he addresses the Jewish problem.... but hey one can hope.

...

That's called shitposting. It's meant to trigger shitlibs and cuckservatives by dropping exaggerated truth bombs. I don't know where you got the idea that people are just dying to sperg with strangers.

The Jews Shoah'd us off their platform, so we have independent platforms now.

Any references to the Jewish problem *are* shitposting. There is no Jewish problem.

[Eudaimonic]

1 hour ago, shirgall said:

Any references to the Jewish problem *are* shitposting. There is no Jewish problem.

I beg to differ.

The idea that the Jewish problem has anything to do with a world wide conspiracy or Zionism is shit posting, but Jews have an evolutionary bent towards subverting their host culture and pushing for multicultural (and leftist) policies in order to protect their own minority, highly cohesive in-group. Other races have now adapted the strategies Jews have been using since before the birth of Christ. This is generally unconscious, but manifests in their behaviors none the less.

Especially in the 20th century, Jews were the intellectual force and roots behind almost every leftist position or culturally subversive position today.

The Culture of Critique (a book written by a University of California PhD) and the two volumes written before that, detail extensively the evolution of the Jewish people and their numerous connections to subversive and leftist ideology.

It's certainly not a world wide conspiracy, but it is something every Anglo-Saxon white male should be aware of.

[Eudaimonic]

1 hour ago, shirgall said:

Any references to the Jewish problem *are* shitposting. There is no Jewish problem.

Even the state of the Jewish population today could cause concern.

1. Jews tend to occupy positions of influence.

2. Jews tend to lean left.

3. Leftism is not good for western society in general.

Therefore, Jews generally aren't good for western society.

[shirgall]

1 hour ago, Eudaimonic said:

Even the state of the Jewish population today could cause concern.

1. Jews tend to occupy positions of influence.

2. Jews tend to lean left.

3. Leftism is not good for western society in general.

Therefore, Jews generally aren't good for western society.

1. The positions of influence they occupy are dominated by people with superior verbal skills.

2. Jews tend to score very highly in the verbal component of IQ and other standardized tests.

3. Anyone who seeks government office harbors the conceit that they deserve to wield the gun of government.

4. Everyone knows that increasing government power increases the size of the slice of the pie they control.

5. Singling any group out for attack causes that group to defend itself.

Therefore, the solution is to enforce the reduction of government power, not attack some group that coincidentally highly represented.

People who waste their time (and asking FDR to waste its time) on the Jewish question are stealing time from productive pursuits.

[_LiveFree_]

1 hour ago, shirgall said:

Therefore, the solution is to enforce the reduction of government power, not attack some group that coincidentally highly represented.

Does this apply to Muslims?

[shirgall]

11 minutes ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Does this apply to Muslims?

Not in the same way, but the principle of "remove incentives that attract people whose values are not your own" applies.

[_LiveFree_]

What incintives do muslims have to destroy the west?

[Eudaimonic]

2 hours ago, shirgall said:

1. The positions of influence they occupy are dominated by people with superior verbal skills.

2. Jews tend to score very highly in the verbal component of IQ and other standardized tests.

3. Anyone who seeks government office harbors the conceit that they deserve to wield the gun of government.

4. Everyone knows that increasing government power increases the size of the slice of the pie they control.

5. Singling any group out for attack causes that group to defend itself.

Therefore, the solution is to enforce the reduction of government power, not attack some group that coincidentally highly represented.

People who waste their time (and asking FDR to waste its time) on the Jewish question are stealing time from productive pursuits.

But I'm not saying to attack them, just like I wouldn't say "let's attack black people because they're majorly dependent on welfare." We learn about biological/evolutionary bents in a people to better understand how we've gotten here. If everyone becomes conscious to the fact that Jewish people are behind almost every subversive and leftist position today, they're less likely to be influenced by them and (if you frame it correctly by which I mean make the connection for people) question why it is that certain minority groups are able to wield such power (government.) They're all over Civic Nationalism, killing it from the inside (Shapiro against Trump; Milo revealed to be a borderline pedo.)

Jews were the intellectual force behind the immigration acts of 1965 (the main problem that is forcing us to focus more politically rather than personally,) the birth of Communism in Russia (one of the worlds major killers) and they are the major intellectual force behind multicultural ideas/philosophical relativism. To ignore them, to me, is to ignore the one of the leading evolutionary causes for the situation we're in today (nevermind their influence of parenting and circumcision.)

We need a "Truth About the Jewish Race."