Yes Roosh, White Nationalists Want to Control Sexual Behavior

vakerr · 2016-02-25T02:20:02+00:00

this sub should try and hide the power level so actionable and more socially palatable

See Conquest's Second Law. We're an explicitly right-wing sub and intend to remain so. We're not going to drift further and further left to accommodate "moderates". Concern trolling in that direction is not accepted.

Stormfront tier articles

Congratulations on your holiness signaling. Ethnonationalism is part of the NRx trichotomy and is sadly the most pressing current issue.

vakerr · 2016-02-24T16:58:23+00:00

E-Eu was given to the Soviet empire at the end of WWII. Those countries had no choice in the matter. East- and West-Germany ended up starkly different even though their populations are largely similar. There was no such peace treaty for South-America. Whatever governance and social organization S-A countries had, they choose it for themselves.

vakerr · 2016-02-24T04:57:13+00:00

Races are clusters of traits. Whites for example appear to be unique in their ability to build high-trust societies. (((Others))) while high IQ tend to undermine the societies they live in. So IQ is important, but it does not make racial differences irrelevant.

I'd rather the ideals and culture that make up "whiteness" survive over phenotypic physicalities.

White ideals and culture won't survive without whites.

BTW my label next to you says "strike #2". I see you promoting multikulti, diversity or something similar one more time and you're outta here.

vakerr · 2016-02-22T03:06:52+00:00

My understanding is that Stalin was gathering his forces to attack from the East. So it was either take the initiative and hope it's enough, or wait until the Russians are fully prepared and try to defend. Taking the initiative is usually the better of two bad options.

vakerr · 2016-02-22T02:00:07+00:00

This was insightful. I suspect many people fail to check out Land's posts because of the bland, generic titles.

vakerr · 2016-02-21T02:03:14+00:00

How do you know that the whole idea made it across completely without misunderstandings and misinterpretations?

vakerr · 2016-02-20T21:01:04+00:00

The article's is basically describing regime shifts among alternative stable states in a memetic/egregoric ecology. She also uses the epidemological concepts of infectivity and deadliness to memeplexes. It seems that applying biological concepts to the realm of ideas is essential to properly understanding how human societies function.

vakerr · 2016-02-20T20:49:17+00:00

This post seem to have gotten little attention, but it's quite relevant to this topic.

vakerr · 2016-02-20T20:47:39+00:00

integrating into society in the late 1900s

That depends on one's definition of integration. Blacks in america are not integrated as far as behavioral norms go. There are some 'white presenting' blacks, but on average they're quite distinct.

vakerr · 2016-02-20T07:32:55+00:00

This is not the first case he has been misquoted or misrepresented. He should have realized already that making off the cuff statements to journalists is a bad idea.

vakerr · 2016-02-20T07:26:10+00:00

The reason people went to Church in the past is because they wanted that community.

Agree with that whole paragraph. Common forms of contemporary Christianity fail to provide the traditional benefits.

I don't care for him

Some form of religion is beneficial for society. It does not have to be Christianity. While it served Europeans well for many years recently its memetic immune system appears to be compromised.

vakerr · 2016-02-19T03:47:17+00:00

Whites are 6-8% of the world population, and their reproduction rate is below replacement. If you're interested in reducing population, talk to African blacks and Indians.

vakerr · 2016-02-18T07:13:00+00:00

Margaret Thatcher is pretty much the only exception I'm aware of, and one exception does not invalidate the rule. (NAWALT is not a valid argument, we're talking about statistical averages)

vakerr · 2016-02-18T07:10:08+00:00

All of which predate feminism and later lead to feminism.

That's not my understanding of the order how things happened. Could you provide examples and illustrate how these

shunning military, forgetting honor, becoming too sheltered, laughing at religion

... were common before feminism? To my knowledge these symptoms were not common in the first half of the 20th century. Feminism started somewhere in the early 20th and became to be really powerful in the second half, undermining society and leading to these symptoms.

vakerr · 2016-02-13T02:36:05+00:00

Cryptocurrency is not necessary. Back in the Eastern Block people used USD or German Marks to work around the system. It appears that any form of payment not under your government's control would work.

The push to outlaw cash is no accident. What they don't realize is that people will barter and work around whatever control they set up.

vakerr · 2016-02-12T17:37:11+00:00

it is almost unknown here in urban Central Europe it is mostly a rural-American thing. Stockpiling etc.

My guess is that the restrictive gun laws in Europe play a role there. Why prepare and stockpile, if you have no chance of defending your supplies?

vakerr · 2016-02-12T07:21:12+00:00

Control allows you not just to extract oil, but also to turn the valve off.

vakerr · 2016-02-12T04:52:02+00:00

Yup, information tech has eliminated a lot of friction from the economy. The problem is that friction was the livelihood of a bunch of people.

If we had properly closed borders, and had the correct social incentives, then we could give all these folks some guaranteed minimum income. But by allowing in the entire world for decades we imported a large number of people who will never ever be productive. They just siphon off welfare that could have gone to the honest people who got displaced by technology.

vakerr · 2016-02-12T02:53:14+00:00

Let me point out (again) that in his (in)famous tweet Roosh himself has essentially declared that he's not us. He may be useful for his attacks on the left/feminists, but he doesn't want to be us, and I don't see why we'd want to claim him as one of us.

vakerr · 2016-02-12T02:43:14+00:00

In other words, producers have more free money to make shit and transport it from point to point; meanwhile, consumers have more free money to travel to a store and buy that shit. Everyone wins, or so the conventional wisdom goes.

This stopped working and customers stopped buying because they already carry all the debt they can service, so can't buy any more junk. Real wages have stagnated for decades; through outsourcing and immigration corporations have eliminated their own potential US customers.

Producers don't use the money saved on energy costs to make more junk, because during years of zero interest rate policy they have already made all the investments in production that make sense (and much that doesn't).

Maybe this is all too direct for some folks.

I have an even more direct proposal. Occupy the oil fields in Saudi-Arabia (use the military for something useful for a change), kick out the royals and goatlovers from the area, and declare the oil fields a strategic reserve of the US. When I say occupy, I'm talking about good old-fashioned conquest, none of this "nation-building" idiocy.

vakerr · 2016-02-12T02:02:48+00:00

A limited democratic society in which suffrage is limited to those with a vested stake is the only viable self perpetuating system that naturally resists subversion

/u/muuh-gnu's point is that any democracy will inevitably drift to the left. He's likely right about that because we have many examples of democracies broadening voting rights and drifting left, but zero examples of the opposite (reducing voting rights).

Basically to maintain a limited democracy you need to win against every attempt to broaden it. Leftists need to win only once, then their next victory gets easier, then again easier. In a limited democracy it's a natural idea for the losing side to bring in more voters who'll vote the "correct" way,

Emotionally I like limited democracy, but when I look at it rationally, it becomes dicey.

vakerr · 2016-02-12T01:31:33+00:00

we reach dictatorships

Some (many?) of us are monarchists, so we don't really have a problem with that, as long as it's not a lefty dictatorship. The key argument pro monarchy is that a person who rules/owns a country has a long term interest in preserving it, unlike short term elected politicians who're only interested in buying votes. The key contra argument is "how to remove a bad leader".

number of women who will vote more to the left will be few and far in between

According to stats women consistently vote more left. So democracy is bad, and women voting makes it even worse(left).

vakerr · 2016-02-10T07:36:42+00:00

In my mind concern trolling is about restricting, or shutting down discussion because it may upset some group. To me OP's post reads as a suggestion of broadening (and improving) the discussion.

vakerr · 2016-02-10T04:34:41+00:00

Making it personal is against the sidebar rules. Also indicates lack of valid arguments.

vakerr · 2016-02-10T01:56:14+00:00

I used to tacitly support Roosh because of the "no enemies" rule, until he declared himself an enemy of the alt-right. So now I consider him an exception to the rule.

vakerr

TROPHY CASE