• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Thoughts on the mainstreaming of anti-woke and what it means for near future cultural development

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
This post is based on the assumption that 'anti-woke' is now going mainstream. I won't go into great detail on this but just give a few examples of why I think it's safe to say we have now entered this new territory:

Conservative majority government in U.K. elections. Labour were very clearly woke, with Jeremy Corbyn announcing his pronouns. The election was politically about Brexit and culturally about woke culture. Labour were on the wrong side of both which is why they got fucked.

J. K. Rowling drawing a line in the sand for trans activism by supporting Maya Forester.

No links, google that shit if you want to know more.

That's just a couple, albeit fairly large examples.

Then you have the other side of what this means which is what I actually find interesting. In short, I believe the ghost of woke culture may possibly lead to a genuine rise in fascist ideas. Why do I think this?

Woke culture was so damaging because I think it was genuinely culturally atavistic. Growing up in the 80's and 90's my experience of culture in terms of the concerns of social justice was pretty simple. Racism was bad mm'kay, sexism was bad, mm'kay. Etc. Fucking obvious.

Now I'm more fucking racist than I ever was. I can't help it. Black on black crime stats etc. I never fucking cared about this shit before. And I know I'm not alone. I bet racism has actually increased in terms of the relations between the different races becoming more antagonistic based on just racial characterists. Whitey has had a pretty fucking back rap these days, and whites becoming more racist too is basically just a corollory. So this means separatism and state/company led cultural dynamics becoming more fascistic - and I'm taking as fascism Mussolini's definition of the unification of the corporation and the state.

This is going to get fucking ugly. I'll tell you for why. Fascism is essentially not able to square with Christianity. At the same time as there is a resurgence in genuine fascistic ideals in terms of bending the state and corporations to race based political agendas, there is a resurgence in interest in Christianity. See Russia (won't go off one one here but looking back to Rome is instructive here, and commentaries of fascists on Christianity's deleterious impact on Rome) The funny thing is, and I hope you've spotted it already, that in terms of bending state and corporate power to the pursuance of a race based agenda, WOKE CULTURE IS THE FUCKING DON AT THIS. Yes. Woke culture fits the definition of fascism almost perfectly. But what it did was insurgent. It was based on minority agendas. LGBTQ etc, racial minorities. But it has spooked the fucking bear. And now majorities want in on this shit. And it's going to get ugly. Look into Bronze Age Pervert if you want to see the beautiful way it's going to get ugly. Because once it flips to majoritarian agendas, it will be a case of the strong turning against the weak, which is anti-Christian. So the next battle that is some ways off will be a Christian resurgence against fascism. The strong will start to destroy the weak (and in fact in the UK if you look at the state treatment of disabled, mentally ill and homeless people, the foundation is already fairly well laid), and what happens to the strong and the beautiful when they destroy the weak? In Christian terms, they become ugly and weak.

So yeah. That's my brain shitting out some attempt to make sense of what's going on. Probably wrong either entirely or at least to some large degree but just putting it out there as I don't know why it might be wrong. Destroy my ideas. GO!
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
20,180
41,277
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
There's definitely a culture shift going on back to the conservative side, but I wouldn't call it "anti woke", just a conservation of values. Understand that the process of progressive vs conservative has been a part of every human society (that we know of), swinging back and forth to lesser or greater degrees based on the culture and the circumstances, sometimes strengthening the society and sometimes undermining it (and sometimes destroying it).

The social-justice values of the 80s and 90s will more-or-less be conserved while the post 00 stuff will be culled like the garbage it is. I don't expect a hard swing back to Christianity although I do believe people will continue seeking out spiritual/philosophical guidance at an increasing pace.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
There's definitely a culture shift going on back to the conservative side, but I wouldn't call it "anti woke", just a conservation of values. Understand that the process of progressive vs conservative has been a part of every human society (that we know of), swinging back and forth to lesser or greater degrees based on the culture and the circumstances, sometimes strengthening the society and sometimes undermining it (and sometimes destroying it).

The social-justice values of the 80s and 90s will more-or-less be conserved while the post 00 stuff will be culled like the garbage it is. I don't expect a hard swing back to Christianity although I do believe people will continue seeking out spiritual/philosophical guidance at an increasing pace.
Why wouldn't you call it anti-woke? You say the conservatism is against the post 00 stuff, which I would widely cite as the woke stuff - is this not anti-woke? I agree on the hard swing. I think I am being optimistic about the current swing to Christianity. I think it more like the swing to Christianity will be stronger once the uglier fascism wave has truly taken hold, a bit like Solidarnosc in Poland, which was essentially a Christian rebellion against Communism. In fact I think there's a good argument that Christianity was a major cause of Communism's downfall.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
I expect a lot of cries for help, narcissistic larps of promising suicides or moving to Canada by the soft generation who are finally being told "No".
So are you gleefully rubbing your hands at the end of woke and not perhaps engaging with what I worry it actually means for the near future (next decade or so)? I understand btw. Woke culture is horrible - horrible mostly because it is by definition fascist in how it functions. I'm argying that it is the functionality that is disgusting, not necessarily the cause. Using a good cause to cover bad behaviour - not a new thing I know.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,829
4,386
1,055
So are you gleefully rubbing your hands at the end of woke and not perhaps engaging with what I worry it actually means for the near future (next decade or so)? I understand btw. Woke culture is horrible - horrible mostly because it is by definition fascist in how it functions. I'm argying that it is the functionality that is disgusting, not necessarily the cause. Using a good cause to cover bad behaviour - not a new thing I know.
I'm laughing at this whole silliness. I was alive in the 70's, so take my criticism as an old man smirking at this whole movement as it eats itself in real-time.

I'll still be who I am, regardless.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
I'm laughing at this whole silliness. I was alive in the 70's, so take my criticism as an old man smirking at this whole movement as it eats itself in real-time.

I'll still be who I am, regardless.
Again - and forgive me here for assumptions but they are what they are - I see you rubbing your hands with glee at the end of something, but with no response one what I worry it might lead to. It's this potential for people to be culturally blindsided I'm concerned about. The currency of the concepts of fascism, racism, sexism etc. have been so thoroughly debased that I'm concerned the demise of woke may lead to another overshoot the other way using that currency as it's so cheap. I hope I am genuinely wrong here and we're going to see a return to balanced public discourse. But I fear that horse has bolted and the age of extremes is not just going to fizzle out with a few election results. There's still massive institutional edifices that have bet the farm on woke and no one who is anti-woke is going to stop hitting at their foundations, no matter where the energy of the crowd is coming from.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,829
4,386
1,055
Again - and forgive me here for assumptions but they are what they are - I see you rubbing your hands with glee at the end of something, but with no response one what I worry it might lead to. It's this potential for people to be culturally blindsided I'm concerned about. The currency of the concepts of fascism, racism, sexism etc. have been so thoroughly debased that I'm concerned the demise of woke may lead to another overshoot the other way using that currency as it's so cheap. I hope I am genuinely wrong here and we're going to see a return to balanced public discourse. But I fear that horse has bolted and the age of extremes is not just going to fizzle out with a few election results. There's still massive institutional edifices that have bet the farm on woke and no one who is anti-woke is going to stop hitting at their foundations, no matter where the energy of the crowd is coming from.
I am identifying a generation of people not prepared for the realities of the harsh world outside their manufactured bubble. I haven't changed my behavior or beliefs to meet the woke idpol demands.

It is funny to witness. Merely that. I can criticize the ridiculousness of Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkiesean, if that helps. Both pushed really hard based on their belief system and both were symptoms of changes of society at the time they had influence. I'm glad to see both of their types diminished and expect to see the cycle a few more times before I die.
 
Last edited:

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
I see - so as you identify right extreme in Jack Thompson and then left extreme Anita Sarkeesian I understand you're saying that basically that's the swing - so what's your prognosis for the next decade or so culturally? Go back to a right extreme like Jack Thompson? I'm doubtful of this. I think the anti-woke energy is much more liberal than Jack Thompson, which was basically Mary Whitehouse revisited. There's a definite change in cultural dynamic. The left culturally used to be all about freedom and the right more about restriction, but this cultural polarity has flipped. I think when the right is fulled with libidinal expansionist energy it expresses itself in a different way, and when this energy senses there is ground to recover (which there undoubtedly is institutionally as the left has largely succeeded in its march through the institutions just as institutions are falling apart) then I think we'll see some quite different things than just a new Jack Thompson emerging.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
20,180
41,277
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Why wouldn't you call it anti-woke? You say the conservatism is against the post 00 stuff, which I would widely cite as the woke stuff - is this not anti-woke? I agree on the hard swing. I think I am being optimistic about the current swing to Christianity. I think it more like the swing to Christianity will be stronger once the uglier fascism wave has truly taken hold, a bit like Solidarnosc in Poland, which was essentially a Christian rebellion against Communism. In fact I think there's a good argument that Christianity was a major cause of Communism's downfall.
I don't call it anti-woke because "woke" is anti-conservativism a.k.a progressivism. I am not disagreeing with the crux of your argument, I'm just pointing out that these movements aren't all that new (which it appears we already agree on).
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,654
7,298
460
There is no “anti-woke” backlash. Just becuase some people occasionally are calling out bullshit doesn’t mean SJW politics are under threat.

If you feel you are more “racist” now, or are a fascist or whatever, that is on you
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
There is no “anti-woke” backlash. Just becuase some people occasionally are calling out bullshit doesn’t mean SJW politics are under threat.

If you feel you are more “racist” now, or are a fascist or whatever, that is on you
I'm not a fascist - in fact I'm concerned about the rise of fascism due to all the crying wolf about it neutering people's sensitivity to it. On racism, culture at large is more racist now, which I class as more concerned with race and blaming race on things - look at the Terry Gilliam thread on this board for example. Another example of mainstreaming of anti-woke. I grew up in what I considered a post-racist era. Last decade it's gone backwards. Naturally in day to day life I'm colour blind. I agree with Martin Luther King in judging people not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. But I'm more racist because I never used to think about race and now I do. Through the internet I'm aware of things like academic achievement differences between the races, crime statistics, etc. It has had an effect. And I'm also aware that woke culture is generally anti-white - so it's racist. Maybe I should say 'racially aware' instead of racist. But I don't think that's a good thing. I think it's unhealthy for individual perception to be affected too much by statistical reporting as it uses the veil of science and data to harden status quo effects that are very complex and not just to do with biology.
 

A Regular Guy

Member
Feb 23, 2018
568
751
460
I'm not a fascist - in fact I'm concerned about the rise of fascism due to all the crying wolf about it neutering people's sensitivity to it. On racism, culture at large is more racist now, which I class as more concerned with race and blaming race on things - look at the Terry Gilliam thread on this board for example. Another example of mainstreaming of anti-woke. I grew up in what I considered a post-racist era. Last decade it's gone backwards. Naturally in day to day life I'm colour blind. I agree with Martin Luther King in judging people not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. But I'm more racist because I never used to think about race and now I do. Through the internet I'm aware of things like academic achievement differences between the races, crime statistics, etc. It has had an effect. And I'm also aware that woke culture is generally anti-white - so it's racist. Maybe I should say 'racially aware' instead of racist. But I don't think that's a good thing. I think it's unhealthy for individual perception to be affected too much by statistical reporting as it uses the veil of science and data to harden status quo effects that are very complex and not just to do with biology.
You're crying wolf right now, also "racially aware?" Still makes them a racist. So, do you want us to protect the feelings of individuals because they don't like the truth or other facts make them uncomfortable?
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Dargor

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
I see it as we're finally heading back to a balance. But it's not "Anti-Woke," it's Anti-Cancel Culture. We shouldn't be apologizing for small minority activist groups over jokes or facts.

The title of the video is woke cancel culture - cancel culture is a subset of woke. Sure, it might stop there, but it's not just the cancel culture substrate that is collapsing in my opinion, but the whole edifice. Not sure why people are taking exception to my labelling what is happening as being anti-woke. I hope it is returning to balance but from what I see with the rise in interest in Dark Enlightenment stuff I think there will be another overshoot. Socially, politically, culturally, economically, things are too unstable not to go wildly swinging the other way.

So give your best prognosis of next decade - what will returning to balance see? Maybe you're right and with collapse of woke it will also signal collapse of the more extreme facets of its opposition and we will settle for something more sensible. But it's not going to be the same as before. I don't even know what sensible would like like. It's like the morning after a massive drunken orgy and fight in a hotel and everyone is coming down for breakfast. Sure things are seemingly settled, the staff have cleaned up, there's coffee, but everyone is going to be looking at each other sideways. I think for many ideas the genie is out of the bottle.

Once example - incel culture. Incel culture is like a self-awareness of the losers of the failure of social darwinism and eugenics in the last century. In fact there is a half formed theory in my head of woke culture basically arising from the complete rejection of social darwinism and epigenetics. And again, Christianity figures in this too - Christianity in its very nature is against social darwinism and eugenics too. I think the urge to return to Christianity is that Christianity is the greatest cultural balancer humanity has experienced.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
You're crying wolf right now, also "racially aware?" Still makes them a racist. So, do you want us to protect the feelings of individuals because they don't like the truth or other facts make them uncomfortable?
Please explain more. What am I crying wolf about? I'm just brain dumping and I said from the off that I'm probably wrong. Also feelings of which individuals? I don't want to protect anybody's feelings.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,829
4,386
1,055
I'm not a fascist - in fact I'm concerned about the rise of fascism due to all the crying wolf about it neutering people's sensitivity to it. On racism, culture at large is more racist now, which I class as more concerned with race and blaming race on things - look at the Terry Gilliam thread on this board for example. Another example of mainstreaming of anti-woke. I grew up in what I considered a post-racist era. Last decade it's gone backwards. Naturally in day to day life I'm colour blind. I agree with Martin Luther King in judging people not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. But I'm more racist because I never used to think about race and now I do. Through the internet I'm aware of things like academic achievement differences between the races, crime statistics, etc. It has had an effect. And I'm also aware that woke culture is generally anti-white - so it's racist. Maybe I should say 'racially aware' instead of racist. But I don't think that's a good thing. I think it's unhealthy for individual perception to be affected too much by statistical reporting as it uses the veil of science and data to harden status quo effects that are very complex and not just to do with biology.
I think Terry Gilliam is a canary in the coal mine, but I would say it is too late to try and talk sense into the side that is careening off the cliff. Terry Gilliam is not right wing by any measure, he made his career satirizing Thatcher politics as well as other stuffy parts of British society. He represents a powerful ally in what the woke left could be using to help raise awareness, but as a result of their bat shit behavior and intersectional garbage, have essentially caused him and others to take pause and say.. alright I'm out, you folks are fucking nuts.

It shouldn't have to be pointed out in that fashion, but the racism that is ramping up is entirely the fault of the concept of the progressive stack an punching up, taken to an extreme.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
12,027
20,232
905
My uncle had Down's and died young... I never met him. I stopped using retarded out of respect for that, because I found some truth in the idea that we should avoid using terms that marginalize already marginalized groups. But ultimately, I agree with C.K. [or was it Burr?] on the topic - we don't use the term to denigrate people with Down's or otherwise mentally inflicted, we use the term to tell people they are being retarded. And woke people are. So thanks, woke people, for crushing out the little bit of political correctness that I had allowed to seep into me, you retards. I'd rather be considered an asshole by them than kneel to word and tone policing.
 

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,805
8,529
1,025
Brampton, Ontario
Now I'm more fucking racist than I ever was. I can't help it. Black on black crime stats etc. I never fucking cared about this shit before. And I know I'm not alone. I bet racism has actually increased in terms of the relations between the different races becoming more antagonistic based on just racial characterists. Whitey has had a pretty fucking back rap these days, and whites becoming more racist too is basically just a corollory. So this means separatism and state/company led cultural dynamics becoming more fascistic - and I'm taking as fascism Mussolini's definition of the unification of the corporation and the state.
I was going to make a thread on this (but in the nature of not having too many political threads at once, I space them out) but I want to address that bringing up black crime states shouldn't make one "racist/fascist".

In fact, therein lies the problem. We shouldn't read crime statistics as being "black stats" but also "asian crime stats" or "Indian crime stats".

When I think fascism, I think of people who want to take such data and act them out militaristically. I'm as far away from that as possible. I just believe in treating science without toggling the fear of offending people.

It's like, imagine after reading Darwin's theory of evolution, you get the idea that humans must now physically enforce "survival of the fittest". Again, most biologists believe in evolution without personally killing anyone. It's only fascism that drives thing to the extreme and uses science as a vehicle to commit genocide or invade nations. I refuse to be apart of that.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,229
4,652
540
Moore Park Beach
I'm not a fascist - in fact I'm concerned about the rise of fascism due to all the crying wolf about it neutering people's sensitivity to it. On racism, culture at large is more racist now, which I class as more concerned with race and blaming race on things - look at the Terry Gilliam thread on this board for example. Another example of mainstreaming of anti-woke. I grew up in what I considered a post-racist era. Last decade it's gone backwards. Naturally in day to day life I'm colour blind. I agree with Martin Luther King in judging people not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. But I'm more racist because I never used to think about race and now I do. Through the internet I'm aware of things like academic achievement differences between the races, crime statistics, etc. It has had an effect. And I'm also aware that woke culture is generally anti-white - so it's racist. Maybe I should say 'racially aware' instead of racist. But I don't think that's a good thing. I think it's unhealthy for individual perception to be affected too much by statistical reporting as it uses the veil of science and data to harden status quo effects that are very complex and not just to do with biology.
I agree in part. Today definitely feels more racist thansay 10-20 years ago and I put the entire blame on the woke crazy far left, especially the part of the far left that is so obsessed by race it is the only thing they can think of.
There are like vegans in that matter. They are so single minded in that regard that no matter what the subject is, we always immediately get back to "it is racist".

I mean we have people on this very board that illustrates this. Anything, no matter what, it could be US helped defeat the Nazi in WW2 and they immediately fall back to something that "well, but the US army was racist". They can not see the good in anything because they see racism hidden within EVERY SINGLE THING.

Racism and racists is everywhere and it is impossible to talk about something else.
It is like talking to a vegan. You can not have a conversation without it immediately being derailed to veganism/race.
Call them race-activists. Their whole existence is defined by talking about race.

They have created a lot of damage and also created an atmosphere where when the pendlum now swings back, those
very very few racists that actually exist can now start operating openly and no one really will stand up against them.
I think the pendlum started swinging back about 2 years ago.

Once you are at the stage were absolutely everything and everyone is deeply racist, then no one is racist and the word is meaningless.
Tell people that Richard Spencer is a racist. Normal people now will just shrug and say, "I don't care, go away. Why should I care if he is racist? Public transport is racist. Math is racist, not being late to meetings is racist."

Being racist is no longer something that people care about. Call someone a racist and everyone will just ignore it. The word is meaningless. We no longer have a proper word for this so when the pendlum swings back, how do we describe Richard Spencer in a way that people care? We can't.


But we are not going to swing back to normality. We went so very far to the crazy left this time I think we will definitely overcompensate now that it swings back and for the next 10-15 years.


TLDR
But yeah, we are more racist today than 20 years ago. A big reason for this is that everyone/thing is racist today. Therefore there is no longer any shame when people say racist things anymore.
 
Last edited:

PK Gaming

Member
Jun 9, 2010
21,821
11
805
ON, Canada
Now I'm more fucking racist than I ever was. I can't help it. Black on black crime stats etc. I never fucking cared about this shit before. And I know I'm not alone. I bet racism has actually increased in terms of the relations between the different races becoming more antagonistic based on just racial characterists. Whitey has had a pretty fucking back rap these days, and whites becoming more racist too is basically just a corollory. So this means separatism and state/company led cultural dynamics becoming more fascistic - and I'm taking as fascism Mussolini's definition of the unification of the corporation and the state.

People don't like being talked down to. And they especially don't like being manipulated into "being good". Hence the backlash. Hell, hence this entire fucking forum.

But honestly, I don't think things will get that much worse. We're currently experiencing societal degradation as more and more people get sucked into unreflective consumerism and general apathy.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
12,027
20,232
905
Now I'm more fucking racist than I ever was. I can't help it. Black on black crime stats etc. I never fucking cared about this shit before. And I know I'm not alone. I bet racism has actually increased in terms of the relations between the different races becoming more antagonistic based on just racial characterists.
Be careful of the definitions you use. Knowing facts and understanding/discussing the cultural causes and ramifications of those facts is not racist. Even looking at crime statistics, understand that this is a result of many factors [single parent homes as a result of the welfare state, for example], and not race.

Likewise with immigration. Comprehending the impact of open borders on poor communities within your own country is not racist. People that 'hate immigrants' aren't hating a skin color, they are hating on a cultural force that has taken jobs from the working class, forced businesses to close, torn apart families. Not everyone can formulate their anger into words, but that doesn't mean they are just 'racist' and don't have legitimate concerns. Imho, Roseanne wasn't canceled because of her mouth, but because her show was showing how immigration was destroying her husband's business, and putting working Americans [including his black friend] out of work.

The left has tried to render all these discussions as 'racist'. So to that end, you're absolutely correct - the far left woke have accidentally given rise to a wave of people who suddenly care about these issues. We are talking about this right now because of them. These, generally, aren't issues that normally concern me, but we've never had a pile of Presidential candidates raise their hands for health care for illegal immigrants before.

Meanwhile, it's hard not to look overseas and see the other ramifications of mass migration. Grenade attacks in Sweden. Truck attacks in France, England, etc. What seems to be total disrespect for local culture and heritage under the name of diversity - see small towns of 300 in Ireland suddenly being forced to take in 100 government sponsored immigrants that don't even speak the language. And lets not even get into birth rate trends.

How are we supposed to react to all this? We aren't racist just because we're responding to extreme stimuli forced upon us by governments and supranational organizations.

But again, you're absolutely right this is building up pressure. Almost nobody was paying attention until the far left identitarians went off the rails and forced us all to have these conversations. And the far left wanted to force us to come to their side via force, via insults, via scare tactics, via cancel culture. That backfired. And the far right was eager to have these conversations, because they've been spouting identitarianism for ages and nobody listened. What a fucking mess wokeness created. Though honestly, bad policy is to blame. Though i suppose it is woke bad policy, so we can still blame wokeness.

I feel bad for people who are just coming into all this now. That is, people who will now permanently view politics through the lense of race. It's such a bad idea. But here we are. And we're all neck deep in problems and anyone who pokes their head out to talk about them gets shouted down, which only worsens the situation. There will be no easy answers.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
I was going to make a thread on this (but in the nature of not having too many political threads at once, I space them out) but I want to address that bringing up black crime states shouldn't make one "racist/fascist".

In fact, therein lies the problem. We shouldn't read crime statistics as being "black stats" but also "asian crime stats" or "Indian crime stats".
Not sure I understand your point. How are 'black on black crime stats' also asian crime stats or Indian crime stats?

When I think fascism, I think of people who want to take such data and act them out militaristically. I'm as far away from that as possible. I just believe in treating science without toggling the fear of offending people.

It's like, imagine after reading Darwin's theory of evolution, you get the idea that humans must now physically enforce "survival of the fittest". Again, most biologists believe in evolution without personally killing anyone. It's only fascism that drives thing to the extreme and uses science as a vehicle to commit genocide or invade nations. I refuse to be apart of that.
What could be done short of military activity and within your own nation that you could get behind to address these issues that you also think would be acceptable to mainstream society?

My answer is not easy at all because I don't know what's causing it. Same with reversal of the Flynn effect (decline in IQ). What's causing it? Is it immigration? Is it environmental? Is it cultural? Is it video games? Is it diet? Is it porn? Is it the internet? We just don't quite know. So I can't actually prescribe any solution. I can barely gain control over my own behaviour in this crazy world of skinner boxes and lab tested algorithms that hack my brain six ways from Sunday every time I spend time engaging with a screen, which is a lot of the time.

The simple approach of woke culture that everything is white people's fault will unfortunately create the backlash that no, actually, everything is non-white's fault - "and here are the stats to prove it". No matter how nuanced or complex the actual reasons for things being as they are, the simple counter explanation is impossible to avoid, and trying to create the cultural space to have this debate without someone flying off the handle is just not going to happen. And I don't even know what a successful debate or outcome would look like. I have no idea what the middle ground could look like.

This guy on twitter calls his account "A New Radical Centrism" - it should give you a good idea of what many think the new centre looks like: https://twitter.com/a_centrism

Today has thrown up another couple of anti-woke mainstreaming - Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes:


An illustrative opinion from the comments:

"Racist" is an anti-white slur. Self preference and preservation ('racism') is accepted as healthy and normal in literally every non-white (90%) community and country across the globe. Whites (10%) are uniquely disallowed. Imagine the outrage if this policy of one-way mass immigration and assimilation, diversity, multiculturalism, etc., was imposed on any other group.
Another example of the mainstreaming of anti-woke is the issue in the UK, which is all over the talk shows today, of the issue whether two private schools were right to reject a donation from Sir Brian Thwaites to create a scholarship focused on helping white working class boys, especially comparing Stormzy's scholarship to help black boys being accepted at Cambridge University (a institution trying to shed its image of being 'dangerously white'.



The squirming explanation of the Chief inspector of Schools in the UK in the above clip is quite something to see.
 

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,805
8,529
1,025
Brampton, Ontario
Not sure I understand your point. How are 'black on black crime stats' also asian crime stats or Indian crime stats?
Because when I assume you refer to "black on black crime" you're referring to initial disparities when it comes to breaking down crime by most ethnicities.

You could repeat this trend in countries where there isn't a white majority. I.e I don't think in Japan, they're not exposed to that level of violence, but that's because the country is 99% Japanese and the 1% is made up of foreigners. But ask Japan what they think of the 1% living there and whether they commit crimes at higher rate per capita than average Japanese, and you will get a different answer from them.

What could be done short of military activity and within your own nation that you could get behind to address these issues that you also think would be acceptable to mainstream society?
Just change public attitudes and social programs to better reflect these statistics?
I would argue America already had something like this before it decided to create welfare programs that acted as a dysgenic influence that made these problems worse.

Like you look at the black children born out of wedlock, and it was nowhere near as bad it is today. When you have black children raised by single mothers, this will always reflect in the crime rate as well.




To solve this, again, I rather go straight to the source of the problem, or at least evaluate why did after the 1960s did black lawlessness multiply? Today's society might only care about wanting to be politically correct but I'm saying, the simple solution is just educate the masses so this taboo is no longer a thing.

The failure of today's society is trying to use a "one glove fits all" rather than acknowledging that in a multicultural society, equality doesn't quite exist among different groups. Rather than blame these problems on "white supremacy", we need to shift resources that say "hey, it's kinda obvious there are cities where the murder rate is 2x the national average. Thus, wouldn't this justify actually trying to police these cities more, rather than less?".
 
Last edited:

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
Because when I assume you refer to "black on black crime" you're referring to initial disparities when it comes to breaking down crime by most ethnicities.
You could repeat this trend in countries where there isn't a white majority. I.e I don't think in Japan, they're mostly exposed to that level of violence, but that's because the country is 99% Japanese and the 1% is made up of foreigners.


Just change public attitudes and social programs to better reflect these statistics?
I would argue America already had something like this before it decided to create welfare programs that acted as a dysgenic influence that made these problems worse.

Like you look at the black children born out of wedlock, and it was nowhere near as bad it is today. When you have black children raised by single mothers, this will always reflect in the crime rate as well.




To solve this, again, I rather go straight to the source of the problem, or at least evaluate why did after the 1960s did black lawlessness multiply? Today's society might only care about wanting to be politically correct but I'm saying, the simple solution is just educate the masses so this taboo is no longer a thing.
So effectively centre the sanctity of marriage and the family to solve the issues? I agree but Devil’s advocate, why did dysgenic welfare policies overwhelmingly affect blacks rather than whites if there was not a racial element? We’re the policies targeted at blacks over whites because of good intentions? So those they wanted to most help they did the most harm?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Griffon

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,805
8,529
1,025
Brampton, Ontario
So effectively centre the sanctity of marriage and the family to solve the issues? I agree but Devil’s advocate, why did dysgenic welfare policies overwhelmingly affect blacks rather than whites if there was not a racial element? We’re the policies targeted at blacks over whites because of good intentions? So those they wanted to most help they did the most harm?
Thomas Sowell wrote a book called Black Rednecks White Liberals and explains that Black culture originated from Southern White culture which represented general lawlessness.
Sadly, rather than this type of culture being suppressed, it's only been glorified when you look at how Gangsters and Rappers are deified, rather than change the focus of black role models to be about scientists or doctors.

Personally speaking, I think there's a mix of both. It could be racial, it could also be cultural. Keep in mind that in the history of the U.S, black people were brought over as slaves sold by other Africans. And these types of slaves actually represented the Africans who where either war prisoners, criminals, or even just sold off by their parents.

Slaves were generated in many ways. Probably the most frequent was capture in war, either by design, as a form of incentive to warriors, or as an accidental by-product, as a way of disposing of enemy troops or civilians. Others were kidnapped on slave-raiding or piracy expeditions. Many slaves were the offspring of slaves. Some people were enslaved as a punishment for crime or debt, others were sold into slavery by their parents, other relatives, or even spouses, sometimes to satisfy debts, sometimes to escape starvation. A variant on the selling of children was the exposure, either real or fictitious, of unwanted children, who were then rescued by others and made slaves. Another source of slavery was self-sale, undertaken sometimes to obtain an elite position, sometimes to escape destitution.
Compare other countries like Canada or Britain, where immigration policies for black people was more tied to education and wealth, and the same problems that exist in the U.S are less severe (although again, I do believe there could also be a racial element since even after selective immigration, black crime rate is still disproportionately high compared to other groups even in other countries).

The USA basically got the double jeopardy of terrible gangster culture, welfare that supports single motherhood, and purchasing slaves who came from a background of losing war.
 
Last edited:

accel

Member
Sep 11, 2015
897
395
520
At the same time as there is a resurgence in genuine fascistic ideals in terms of bending the state and corporations to race based political agendas, there is a resurgence in interest in Christianity. See Russia ...
This is a good thread, and I am feeling bad about inserting a side remark here, but this just has to be told: Russia is a bad example of a genuine interest in Christianity, the renewal of interest is real but it isn't what it looks like. In Russia, the church is merely a branch of the security agencies. It is more vertical-oriented and more corrupt than even the Russian government, if that could even be imagined. Top dogs in the church get enormous money from the government in the form of various grants and then they launder money in various tax evasion schemes on top of that. When a drunk 'batyushka' totals your car, the guy who is going to pay for it is you and the guy who is going to be found drunk is you as well, and you better pray they won't find drugs - because they absolutely can. All these sudden nods to Christianity after the fall of Soviet Union is merely a recognition of a new power. The church lied in ruins, unused, someone had a good idea of reviving and using it and now it's one more type of gang with the security guys at the root. That's all that happened.
 
Last edited:

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
This is a good thread, and I am feeling bad about inserting a side remark here, but this just has to be told: Russia is a bad example of a genuine interest in Christianity, the renewal of interest is real but it isn't what it looks like. In Russia, the church is merely a branch of the security agencies. It is more vertical-oriented and more corrupt than even the Russian government, if that could even be imagined. Top dogs in the church get enormous money from the government in the form of various grants and then they launder money in various tax evasion schemes on top of that. When a drunk 'batyushka' totals your car, the guy who is going to pay for it is you and the guy who is going to be found drunk is you as well, and you better pray they won't find drugs - because they absolutely can. All these sudden nods to Christianity after the fall of Soviet Union is merely a recognition of a new power. The church lied in ruins, unused, someone had a good idea of reviving and using it and now it's one more type of gang with the security guys at the root. That's all that happened.
I can understand that - kind of why I mentioned Rome, which took on Christianity as a way to co-opt power that could otherwise have threatened it. I’m no fan of organised religion really, but again the example of Solidarnosc shows that there is something that lives in people’s hearts and is realised when people gather. The co-opting of genuine movements for power grabs by the ambitious is a perennial human problem. Woke capital is the latest example of this.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
Thomas Sowell wrote a book called Black Rednecks White Liberals and explains that Black culture originated from Southern White culture which represented general lawlessness.
Sadly, rather than this type of culture being suppressed, it's only been glorified when you look at how Gangsters and Rappers are deified, rather than change the focus of black role models to be about scientists or doctors.

Personally speaking, I think there's a mix of both. It could be racial, it could also be cultural. Keep in mind that in the history of the U.S, black people were brought over as slaves sold by other Africans. And these types of slaves actually represented the Africans who where either war prisoners, criminals, or even just sold off by their parents.



Compare other countries like Canada or Britain, where immigration policies for black people was more tied to education and wealth, and the same problems that exist in the U.S are less severe (although again, I do believe there could also be a racial element since even after selective immigration, black crime rate is still disproportionately high compared to other groups even in other countries).

The USA basically got the double jeopardy of terrible gangster culture, welfare that supports single motherhood, and purchasing slaves who came from a background of losing war.
I find it hard to square your solution of 'Just change public attitudes and social programs to better reflect these statistics' (which I'd be interested in hearing more detail about) with the rest of what you've said about generational dysgenics. It seems to me that completely throwing out genetic considerations and focusing only on cultural ones is all that we're going to be able to do to avoid social darwinist/eugenic policies, unless some kind of morally inert technological solution can address genetic issues - but technological solutions (even just better food) will always be more available to those with economic resources and not poor people, so once again it creates a divide. And even focusing on social programs will create misery. Any investigation into the plight of disabled people under the roll out of Universal Credit and then a comparative review of Aktion T4 creates worrying points of comparison. Of course, no modern policy making will ever be explicitly socially darwinist and there is always genuinely felt denial that the increased numbers of disabled and homeless and elderly people dying whilst under the arm of welfare is any way deliberate.

The unsolveable issue is the relationship between the strong and the weak. It's quite possible for a society to evolve so that the strong become overly burdened by the weak, especially if the weak become dominant and begin to have an overall deleterious effect on society, if being weak has the effect of being strong. The triumph of victimhood culture, prizes for everyone, being fat and fabulous etc. is a sure sign that this is where we are. There's a great short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron (very short - read it in about 5 minutes) that is perfectly illustrative of this.

I cannot escape the horrible sense that at some recurring point in cultural evolution (which I think we may be in), the strong in general come to the conclusion that the weak must be sacrificed. Because the weak dominating the strong creates a kind of civil disorder, an upside down world - perhaps a clown world - that everyone feels the negative effects of. The history and culture of Sparta is very illuminating in this regard, and shows yet another complication. The Spartans ritually declared war on the Helots (their slaves) every year and killed some of them - the strongest of them, to keep them collectively weak.

The solution for me is to put loving, intact families at the centre of social order, and to put caring for the vulnerable, the ill, the weak, the elderly as a major civilisational priority, because to do otherwise is dehumanising and evil. Bringing back strong social stigma against divorce, promiscuity, childbirth out of wedlock, and vain genetic supremacy (undone in an accident at once and in age over many years) are the cultural factors that would help most,. There needs to be a mystical element of this - recognising the divine in each other, weak and strong alike, alpha and omega. Recently bought Dominion by Tom Holland for my brother, who is a Christian. The more I think on this subject, the more all the churches in every village and town and every cathedral in every city in Christendom make sense - but they are like beautiful books written in a language we have forgotten.
 

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,805
8,529
1,025
Brampton, Ontario
I find it hard to square your solution of 'Just change public attitudes and social programs to better reflect these statistics' (which I'd be interested in hearing more detail about) with the rest of what you've said about generational dysgenics. It seems to me that completely throwing out genetic considerations and focusing only on cultural ones is all that we're going to be able to do to avoid social darwinist/eugenic policies, unless some kind of morally inert technological solution can address genetic issues - but technological solutions (even just better food) will always be more available to those with economic resources and not poor people, so once again it creates a divide. And even focusing on social programs will create misery. Any investigation into the plight of disabled people under the roll out of Universal Credit and then a comparative review of Aktion T4 creates worrying points of comparison. Of course, no modern policy making will ever be explicitly socially darwinist and there is always genuinely felt denial that the increased numbers of disabled and homeless and elderly people dying whilst under the arm of welfare is any way deliberate.

The unsolveable issue is the relationship between the strong and the weak. It's quite possible for a society to evolve so that the strong become overly burdened by the weak, especially if the weak become dominant and begin to have an overall deleterious effect on society, if being weak has the effect of being strong. The triumph of victimhood culture, prizes for everyone, being fat and fabulous etc. is a sure sign that this is where we are. There's a great short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron (very short - read it in about 5 minutes) that is perfectly illustrative of this.

I cannot escape the horrible sense that at some recurring point in cultural evolution (which I think we may be in), the strong in general come to the conclusion that the weak must be sacrificed. Because the weak dominating the strong creates a kind of civil disorder, an upside down world - perhaps a clown world - that everyone feels the negative effects of. The history and culture of Sparta is very illuminating in this regard, and shows yet another complication. The Spartans ritually declared war on the Helots (their slaves) every year and killed some of them - the strongest of them, to keep them collectively weak.

The solution for me is to put loving, intact families at the centre of social order, and to put caring for the vulnerable, the ill, the weak, the elderly as a major civilisational priority, because to do otherwise is dehumanising and evil. Bringing back strong social stigma against divorce, promiscuity, childbirth out of wedlock, and vain genetic supremacy (undone in an accident at once and in age over many years) are the cultural factors that would help most,. There needs to be a mystical element of this - recognising the divine in each other, weak and strong alike, alpha and omega. Recently bought Dominion by Tom Holland for my brother, who is a Christian. The more I think on this subject, the more all the churches in every village and town and every cathedral in every city in Christendom make sense - but they are like beautiful books written in a language we have forgotten.
If we remove the social barriers that promote dysgenic behavior (i.e welfare that by design, allows more poor people to successfully reproduce in bigger numbers) then everything else you said about genetics begins to fall into place.

I've brought up the importance of immigration. When countries like Canada or Japan deliberately approve immigrants by social status rather than the open borders idea of zero vetting, you are basically selecting for people who are more likely to be successful and educated, vs the opposite which is more poor and thus more criminal.

Unfortunately for Canada (and not Japan), this system is also ruined when Liberals at home still express ideas of "equality no matter what" and as a result, they still promote cancerous ideas like affirmative action which again, is meant to reward people for not having worked as hard as someone who is at the top and thus begins the downward spiral again.

Meanwhile, do you think if a white or black person where to go to Japan, they would be given handouts just as easily? You would need to be both a highly educated person, and someone who actually has the patience to survive Japan's brutal work culture to actually stick around. And as a result, Japanese society as we know it is preserved. There is no rise in lawlessness or homelessness because Japanese culture does filter out these things so that they never become the norm.

If the West adopted these same ideas, then I do expect crime rate to massively drop down and that it's more successful and educated people in life who will go on and reproduce more vs, just paying a single mother to pop out 10 more low income children on everyone's tax credits.
 

PK Gaming

Member
Jun 9, 2010
21,821
11
805
ON, Canada
If the West adopted these same ideas, then I do expect crime rate to massively drop down and that it's more successful and educated people in life who will go on and reproduce more vs, just paying a single mother to pop out 10 more low income children on everyone's tax credits.
Hmm, well I don't think the onus should entirely on the black community to shape-up since those communities are still feeling the after-effects of the war on drugs, income disparity, mass incarceration, redlining, and police brutality. Second, the solution you're proposing is vague and impractical; these people are already in the country so it's not like you can vet a group of people who already live in the country, lol.

But I also don't think it's something America can fix by itself either. Affirmative Action was mostly a failure after all. Punishing the "bad elements" doesn't work and a blind re-allocation of resources to the disadvantage didn't work either, so there's another path that isn't being considered. The US will never be like Japan so it shouldn't strive to perfectly emulate (especially since Japan is suffering from values forced onto it by America like its awful work culture and terrible homeless situation).

For what it's worth as a Black Canadian who knows other Black Canadian's, not having nearly as many stressors in life compared to Black Americans, coming from a good home and being taught good values from your parents made a huge difference. And that sort of thing might not be feasible now in America, but crime rates are dropping, and even though black single households are the majority, cohabitation between 2 parents is more common as well.. Stuff like the First Step Act helps too. I doubt America will ever reach racial parity, but it's undeniable that it's been going about it the wrong way until recently.

Keep in mind that in the history of the U.S, black people were brought over as slaves sold by other Africans. And these types of slaves actually represented the Africans who where either war prisoners, criminals, or even just sold off by their parents.
Even if we buy that criminality is 100% inherited, I don't think it persisted across 400 years of slavery, lol.
 

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
2,654
2,314
750
San Francisco, CA
It's not difficult to understand. The pendulum has swung the other way. Remember a decade ago that people want to be labeled. Now they're all for labeling everything. The pendulum is going to hit the other side and swing back the other way.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Rei dos Vermes

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,805
8,529
1,025
Brampton, Ontario
Hmm, well I don't think the onus should entirely on the black community to shape-up since those communities are still feeling the after-effects of the war on drugs, income disparity, mass incarceration, redlining, and police brutality.
Let me stop you right here.
I have done extensive research and came to a well justified conclusion that.... no group in human history has ever been given a free pass. For all the most successful countries you can name in history, I can bet you, they have suffered some kind of hardship other people would claim was impossible to recover from, but still found a way to bounce back on their feet in almost record breaking time.

Pretend for a moment if there was no United States of America, who are what's responsibility would it be for there being income disparity? Or mass incarceration? Or drugs or police brutality?
Is it not logical to assume that for success to happen you cannot blame a system, it is responsibility of the group to bring themselves up?

Unfortunately, discussing these topics in full detail is incredibly difficult, because "political correctness" happens to dominate the narrative or people will toss in accusations of "white supremacy" even though I will point out, there where Black leaders in the past like Malcolm X or Marcus Garvey who would happily agree with me and say that, if these things were the prevailing issues for causing a group to fail, why not make an effort to get as far away from that as possible?

If these men were not the answer then sadly, I don't believe there is any future hope for the U.S. Because the experiment of multiculturalism has been tried in so many other countries and the results are so damn predictable that it makes me angry to know, if blaming the system is what's suppose to usher in diverse utopia then well, Brazil or South Africa have some explaining to do.

Second, the solution you're proposing is vague and impractical;
There is nothing impractical about criticizing the current U.S multicultural approach which I consider to be 100% a failure. Every statistic is out there, you will find group differences at every level. All it takes is a U.S President to actually talk to Americans and directly challenge them on their beliefs and everything else will fall into place.

Especially with the ongoing border crisis, the USA is now being pushed into a scenario where everyone from around the world can come inside while one political party (the Democrats) are happy to give away free government services regardless of actual educational or wealth background. And when you again, look at these statistics that show that not everyone in America represents an equal status, the conclusion demonstrates that you will run out of money trying to help every "desperate" person out there as they will continue to vote for the same political party that wants to push for more handouts.


The US will never be like Japan so it shouldn't strive to perfectly emulate (especially since Japan is suffering from values forced onto it by America like its awful work culture and terrible homeless situation).
Here lies a contradiction. The U.S will never be like Japan and yet you instill that Japan is what it is today because... America told them to?

The U.S was the original model for why these countries that were blown apart in world wars actually want to emulate them to claim a piece of that pie. This was something I debated with another user very recently when I asked, what is thus the real reasons for so many countries in world failing and only certain countries have managed to succeed?

Japan could have ignored U.S money and maybe they might have ended up like their neighbor China, who while living under a brutal and communist government, are still technologically and economically competitive with the rest of the developed world.

But since Japan did accept help from the U.S and they are now by far one of the most powerful Asian countries out there, then this kinda proves that maybe the original American model is actually by far the best one out there, and it should be in the U.S interests to try and return to this system for themselves?
 
Last edited:

Ten_Fold

Member
Jan 18, 2017
766
431
355
The mob mentality and trying to kill freedom of speech is what leans me more on the conservative side, it's rare to hear a black man say that, but I'm just not a fan of you HAVE to like a certain lifestyle or your a horrible person. I do think bei g racist is kinda fucked up but even then everyone should have some sort of freedom of speech.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
10,397
4,904
680
There's definitely a culture shift going on back to the conservative side, but I wouldn't call it "anti woke", just a conservation of values. Understand that the process of progressive vs conservative has been a part of every human society (that we know of), swinging back and forth to lesser or greater degrees based on the culture and the circumstances, sometimes strengthening the society and sometimes undermining it (and sometimes destroying it).

The social-justice values of the 80s and 90s will more-or-less be conserved while the post 00 stuff will be culled like the garbage it is. I don't expect a hard swing back to Christianity although I do believe people will continue seeking out spiritual/philosophical guidance at an increasing pace.
I would 100% say there is an anti-woke movement going on.

Woke people are the smallest of minorities, the problem is that they live in a echo chamber of twitter blocks and safe spaces. Even though these cum buckets have blocked themselves off from normal society, unfortunately, a lot of them are in positions of power within said society, that makes them believe that they can push their agenda like they are the majority.

The most recent examples I can think of this are:

1) Jeremy Corbyn - My pronouns are/socialist manifesto/second referendum/all round cunt

2) The movie business - Woke Hollywood has destroyed numerous IPs by revisiting beloved franchises and retconning decades old lore. Notably;

Star Wars - All of the Force is Female bullshit aside, Kathleen bought back the Emperor for no other reason than to have Rey, a girl, kill him, undoing the entire plight of Anakin and Luke in the OT. I have not scene this vapid, cartoon looking, pile of minge batter, but I have heard that Rey force heals dead people, which, if this was a power, would have rendered the entire Prequel trilogy and the Darth Vader story obsolete.

Terminator - Latest movie a Terminator turns up on the beach, kills John Conner, something something both the resistance and Skynet are no more, a new AI threat sends back new terminators, that just happen to look almost identical to the original Terminators, to kill a new resistance leader - a little girl. To save said little girl the resistance send back another girl, who is way better than Kyle Reese because she has super powers!!!!!! - all in all wiping the events of the Terminator 1 and 2 from lore.

3) Gillette the best a Xim can get.......

4) metro.co.uk - everything about this woke rag and yet it is now the only free UK morning newspaper.

5) Australian bush fires and Greta. 183 people were charged with arson but the media is blaming climate change. And Greta is a little Mekong looking prick.

6) Womens sports and sex based spaces under attack

7) That Yaniv ball wax bloke losing his lawsuits

Anyway...

Point beling is, of the above the reaction from the majority of the population is "Just fuck off" . The may not know the word "woke" but they know utter bollocks when they see it and they are really not having it

I should really do some work..
 
Last edited:

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,515
5,340
485
All I know is that Ricky Gervais vocalized what the majority of the country is thinking; that a bunch of elite hypocrites have gone off the deep end with grievance culture and trying to appear virtuous. No one likes a finger wagger, a boaster, or people who scream one thing and do another and the Woke Left is all of those things.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
261
414
310
If we remove the social barriers that promote dysgenic behavior (i.e welfare that by design, allows more poor people to successfully reproduce in bigger numbers) then everything else you said about genetics begins to fall into place.

I've brought up the importance of immigration. When countries like Canada or Japan deliberately approve immigrants by social status rather than the open borders idea of zero vetting, you are basically selecting for people who are more likely to be successful and educated, vs the opposite which is more poor and thus more criminal.

Unfortunately for Canada (and not Japan), this system is also ruined when Liberals at home still express ideas of "equality no matter what" and as a result, they still promote cancerous ideas like affirmative action which again, is meant to reward people for not having worked as hard as someone who is at the top and thus begins the downward spiral again.

Meanwhile, do you think if a white or black person where to go to Japan, they would be given handouts just as easily? You would need to be both a highly educated person, and someone who actually has the patience to survive Japan's brutal work culture to actually stick around. And as a result, Japanese society as we know it is preserved. There is no rise in lawlessness or homelessness because Japanese culture does filter out these things so that they never become the norm.

If the West adopted these same ideas, then I do expect crime rate to massively drop down and that it's more successful and educated people in life who will go on and reproduce more vs, just paying a single mother to pop out 10 more low income children on everyone's tax credits.
OK - but the thing is, you're not going to just stop people from having kids by taking away welfare. What you are going to do is create penury by removing social safety nets. People will not stop having kids - and I even think the anti-natal propaganda that suffuses culture (stop having kids for the environment, don't give up gaming and high heels for kids - an actual NHS advert - "Bware Da Baby Trap" - lol, who is this aimed at?), nature will still find a way. Presumably what you want is more smart men/women having kids and less stupid people having kids? Well guess what, that ain't gonna happen, and we're more likely going to end up in an Idiocracy type situation. Feminism is not popular amongst the lower classes. It's all middle and upper class, presumably what you would consider better genetic stock. Anti-natal propaganda when targeted explicitly at the non-middle/upper class of non-African countries causes all sorts of woke protestations from the middle and upper classes of those countries, such as Macron's comments on Africa's birthrate.

Another point, it's been proven that better guaranteed health of kids (drop in infant mortality) reduces birth rates, which makes sense, if you think that parents will have more kids if they consider the risk of death of any of their children to be higher. This surely is an argument for a good system of public health? Withdrawing welfare and creating penury may have an opposite effect of actually increasing the number of kids being born.

On immigration controls, I guess you would favour a non-genetic set of tests which would ultimately translate into genetic health anyway? So that gets round the eugenics bit, or at least gives plausible deniability? If not, would you favour genetics tests as part of immigration controls, and if not why not? Also would you be in favour of bringing back compulsory sterilisation? If not, why not? If avoidance of dysgenics is so important to you and you don't care what people think and only think about the truth, why step around it?

On Japanese homelessness - it's hidden because of the culture, but it's there. As far as lawlessness in Japanese culture goes, it depends on your perspective and definition, but whilst the day to day appearance is extremely law abiding, the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 are not great examples of a law abiding culture on a global stage. This was explicitly tied to theories of racial superiority which justified expansionism, empire and war.

I think things are different now in that there is a sense of defensiveness and threat in eugenic thinking (defence best form of attack rather than attack best form of defence as previously), so rather than being concerned about expansionism, it is concerned about control within borders. I suppose this is the better of the two, and if every racial group had somewhere they could call theirs, rather than the world becoming a beige multicultural monolith with no borders as per the supposed Koudenhove-Kalergi plan, this could be a kind of defence (although, what do you make of the argument that mixed race children are genetically superior? How would this factor in to your policies if at all?)

The defensive rather than expansive argument is I think why Israel is so defended on the right, including anti-semites like Richard Spencer, because it is seen as a refuge state for a racial/religious identity that can then be applied to other groups who want to keep their own identity such as white nationalists (if it's good for the Jews, why is it not good for the whites?) against what are now seen as culturally imperialist identities (Islam, multiculturalism, feminism, LGBTQism(?) which have their own internal battles such as Islam vs LGBTQism but are all firmly against the defensive nationalist cause because defensive nationalism is about exclusion).

If you look at actual military imperialism of the U.S., Israel and NATO in the Middle East however, this seems to paint a different, complex picture - they are the aggressors. On one hand, the aggressor countries are culturally multicultural following a doctrine of liberal interventionism but are going through insurgent nationalist cultural wars - even Israel. If you look at support for Trump's recent actions you get a combination of an anti-Islam vibe that criticises Iran as training paramilitaries, when this is exactly what the U.S. and NATO allies have been doing in Syria with their support for 'moderate rebels'), and you also get a liberal interventionism vibe which criticises Iran's insularity. Defensive nationalists should really be leaping to Iran's defence. It could be argued that the overriding cultural force behind Middle East wars of recent decades is a kind of capitalist liberal multiculturalism. I think that resource wars are always multicultural, therefore actual multicultural societies find it ideologically easier to invade other nations that are not in order to get their resources.

Israel on some accounts is shrinking, and others expanding, but ultimately it's the clearest case for a defensive racial/ethnic homeland against historical oppression, and it's also being used to defend the idea of nationalism in general, which could be applied to other countries, going against the characterisation amongst the left and right anti-semitic narratives of Jews being rootless cosmopolitan capitalism parasitising other countries. But again, as above, Israel is part of the liberal interventionist axis.

The other example of defensive nationalism might be the Kurds, against the Turks, whose petitioning for a state are generally supported by the left because politically they want to base it on left wing principles. It would be interesting to see whether the Kurds would become racially defensive if they ever got a homeland, and if they did if the left would still defend it if they followed through with their left wing political project - probably. Kurds would become 'indiginous', which is the word always used by the left whenever they talk about defensive ethnic nationalism.

You can also look at Poland, which all but disappeared as a country under the German and Russian empires before being reinstated. Poland is perhaps one of the most successful examples of defensive nationalism we have in terms of the lack of conflict with other states and its relationship with expansionist empire - this is why Poland and the EU is one of the bellwether relationships to watch. Poland is certainly defensive, mostly culturally, as Catholisicm is the major unifier there still.

Anyway - no conclusions, just some more thinking out loud about too many things trying to make sense of it. All this stuff is so complicated, even when I find contradictions these fracture through into my own understanding/making sense of them - I have no idea what is right. It seems to me all political positions are logically incoherent and lack internal consistency. We're in a loose moment. Hard to make sense of things. People who think they have the answers are just part of the question for me.

It's interesting that a lot of the answers on the thread are just echoing the anti-woke stuff by pointing out how shit woke culture is and how it's taken over various institutions such as films, media etc, just, as I said previously, trust in these institutions is at a nadir. I can't disagree on woke culture being shit. As politics is downstream of culture I really wonder how it's going to turn out - maybe Moldbug's patchwork idea is kind of inevitable, just as Moldbug says,.
 

dragonfart28

Banned
Jun 12, 2009
5,106
736
1,080
There's always been controversial opinions represented in the media.

The difference now is that it's the woke that are controversial so they get the hits.

Don't expect that to really change until the right stop getting offended by them.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,805
8,529
1,025
Brampton, Ontario
OK - but the thing is, you're not going to just stop people from having kids by taking away welfare. What you are going to do is create penury by removing social safety nets. People will not stop having kids - and I even think the anti-natal propaganda that suffuses culture (stop having kids for the environment, don't give up gaming and high heels for kids - an actual NHS advert - "Bware Da Baby Trap" - lol, who is this aimed at?), nature will still find a way. Presumably what you want is more smart men/women having kids and less stupid people having kids? Well guess what, that ain't gonna happen, and we're more likely going to end up in an Idiocracy type situation. Feminism is not popular amongst the lower classes. It's all middle and upper class, presumably what you would consider better genetic stock. Anti-natal propaganda when targeted explicitly at the non-middle/upper class of non-African countries causes all sorts of woke protestations from the middle and upper classes of those countries, such as Macron's comments on Africa's birthrate.
The bell curve exists for a reason. It is not my goal or intention to make low income people stop having babies since statistically speaking, they will always exist. It's also not like these people don't have a purpose in life. Think of all the jobs that people who are geniuses don't have time to work. It's not realistic to expect every scientist or CEO to pickup a broomstick and start sweeping the streets for a living.

What my fear is when the average for national intelligence drops and that the proportion of people who can actually become a general surgeon or CEO fall into short supply, leading towards a downward spiral in society.

I do not fear PC backlash for this because what I believe in is the truth. How does anyone expect society to succeed or at least maintain 1st world standards if we don't have at least more smart people running around? Ground breaking inventions like the Car or Theory of Gravity would never have happened if there wasn't at least one turbo genius to put the idea forward and then similar like minded people who understand the usefulness of these concepts. This what I refer to when I rather society shift towards glorifying these ideas, and not promote welfare or a system that leads to an imbalance of smart to low income ratio.

Another point, it's been proven that better guaranteed health of kids (drop in infant mortality) reduces birth rates, which makes sense, if you think that parents will have more kids if they consider the risk of death of any of their children to be higher. This surely is an argument for a good system of public health? Withdrawing welfare and creating penury may have an opposite effect of actually increasing the number of kids being born.
Ask yourself why does poverty exist? The definition is one based around just how much wealth is actually concentrated in the majority population vs the 1%.
Believe it or not, Canadians and Japanese people are actually poorer than Americans by average, yet it has never crossed your mind that Canadians or Japanese people are sickly has it?



It's not welfare that stops poverty. If anything, it's just a band-aid for not addressing the real reasons why aren't most people working the most high paying jobs. Maybe some of it is justified (i.e someone who gets laid off at work and to avoid going into homelessness has to take up some form of welfare before he can find another job) but other times it's not (i.e someone who illegally lands in another country with the sole purpose of using up free public services with little intention to actually pay back into it).

In my opinion, welfare should only exist as an extreme last resort, that requires tons of backgrounds check, and should only be approved when there is some form of guarantee a person will go back to working vs just living off public assistance forever.

On immigration controls, I guess you would favour a non-genetic set of tests which would ultimately translate into genetic health anyway? So that gets round the eugenics bit, or at least gives plausible deniability?
Immigration acts as a filter. If you set the entrance requirement really high, then in return, you should be getting people into your country who are expected to work hard and contribute.
There are some exceptions though, like people who obviously cheat or fake their degrees to get inside. But those people should be deported for refusing to follow the law.


Vow said:
If not, would you favour genetics tests as part of immigration controls, and if not why not? Also would you be in favour of bringing back compulsory sterilisation? If not, why not? If avoidance of dysgenics is so important to you and you don't care what people think and only think about the truth, why step around it?
It would be easier to just refuse them at the border. Why take on the risk if you don't have to? That is what strict immigration/border control is all about. If you cannot control who is allowed inside your house, why call it a house in the first place?

On Japanese homelessness - it's hidden because of the culture, but it's there.
If someone had to be homeless in Japan or Brazil, guess which country most people would pick? Even if Japan has a homelessness problem, it's easy to see why it's mitigated. The rest of country is known for its safety and high economic status. Hell, I wouldn't mind sleeping on the streets of Tokyo if I'm waiting for my next job there. Some Japanese homeless people are even known to create their own jobs despite being in such a destitute position.

As far as lawlessness in Japanese culture goes, it depends on your perspective and definition, but whilst the day to day appearance is extremely law abiding, the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 are not great examples of a law abiding culture on a global stage
That was in the past. Japan was beaten into submission and are unlikely to wage war again. Otherwise, I wouldn't use those examples to judge modern Japanese society based on lawfullness.
Again, as a great test, ask any random person on the street which country would they consider less violent: Brazil or Japan? How could this be if one country didn't have a culture that practiced creating a safe and sound society compared to the other?

I think things are different now in that there is a sense of defensiveness and threat in eugenic thinking (defence best form of attack rather than attack best form of defence as previously), so rather than being concerned about expansionism, it is concerned about control within borders. I suppose this is the better of the two, and if every racial group had somewhere they could call theirs, rather than the world becoming a beige multicultural monolith with no borders as per the supposed Koudenhove-Kalergi plan, this could be a kind of defence (although, what do you make of the argument that mixed race children are genetically superior? How would this factor in to your policies if at all?)
I would tell people those countries already exist. Brazil, Mexico, Dominican Republic have origins that are mixed race. If someone wants to go live in those countries, that's their choice.
That doesn't mean the entire world has to be like that. Japan clearly is a homogeneous nation. So are some European countries. If people believe those countries are doing worse than Brazil, I would be interested in seeing their argument.

It's interesting that a lot of the answers on the thread are just echoing the anti-woke stuff by pointing out how shit woke culture is and how it's taken over various institutions such as films, media etc, just, as I said previously, trust in these institutions is at a nadir. I can't disagree on woke culture being shit. As politics is downstream of culture I really wonder how it's going to turn out - maybe Moldbug's patchwork idea is kind of inevitable, just as Moldbug says,.
I've always been a facts over feelings guy. In fact, while I associate myself with Conservatism, I still rather side with evidence regardless of who is in power.
If Trump said the moon is made of cheese with no evidence, i'm not going to defend him just because he's a Republican. But if a Democrat said something equally stupid, then my same standard applies.

If anyone follows my posting habits on Neogaf, you'll also know that I'm heavily against any echo chamber. I always want to listen to both sides, regardless if I actually agree or disagree with them. The only exception is when it comes to death threats or use of physical violence. It's only in scenarios of complete self defense do I think the use of force is necessary.
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2018
2,285
1,811
385
Again - and forgive me here for assumptions but they are what they are - I see you rubbing your hands with glee at the end of something, but with no response one what I worry it might lead to. It's this potential for people to be culturally blindsided I'm concerned about. The currency of the concepts of fascism, racism, sexism etc. have been so thoroughly debased that I'm concerned the demise of woke may lead to another overshoot the other way using that currency as it's so cheap. I hope I am genuinely wrong here and we're going to see a return to balanced public discourse. But I fear that horse has bolted and the age of extremes is not just going to fizzle out with a few election results. There's still massive institutional edifices that have bet the farm on woke and no one who is anti-woke is going to stop hitting at their foundations, no matter where the energy of the crowd is coming from.
Why should he or anyone else give two shits on what is to come? Idiots are going to idiot. If their is a drastic paradigm shift they are going to have to still deal with salty, bearded bastards who were alive when the original Star Wars was still playing in theaters.
My uncle had Down's and died young... I never met him. I stopped using retarded out of respect for that, because I found some truth in the idea that we should avoid using terms that marginalize already marginalized groups. But ultimately, I agree with C.K. [or was it Burr?] on the topic - we don't use the term to denigrate people with Down's or otherwise mentally inflicted, we use the term to tell people they are being retarded. And woke people are. So thanks, woke people, for crushing out the little bit of political correctness that I had allowed to seep into me, you retards. I'd rather be considered an asshole by them than kneel to word and tone policing.
there really isn’t much more I could add. This precisely how I see things.
 
Nov 18, 2016
1,163
298
450
Hearing about people complaining about how things are "too woke" is about as annoying as the more hypocritical parts of Woke Twitter.

Can we all just shut the fuck up and agree on certain basics so we can move on? Like reprimanding cops who pull guns on unarmed black people or not complain when someone wants a bathroom set aside in public buildings simply labeled "bathroom"? There's a lot of complaining that sounds like "Old Man Shakes Fist at Cloud."

At the same time though, moutains of people expressing outrage / ruining careers over some off-color joke someone may have posted on Twitter in 2008 is trite and tiring as fuck.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
20,180
41,277
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Can we all just shut the fuck up and agree on certain basics so we can move on?
Are you unaware that's one of the core problems in this situation? We have ideologues claiming math is racist, that biological facts are transphobic, and that history was written by white people. The Twitter mob can't be bothered to stick to ancient principles of civil debate and proper argument formation, so we are in full-blown "court of public opinion" mode right now.

The skirmish between political parties is window dressing. There's a deeper ideological battle going on and the culture shift will make this even more obvious in the coming decade.
 
Oct 26, 2018
7,971
7,523
515
I'm hoping there's even more wokeness for 10-15 more years.

I 'm planning on retiring in that time, and the more pink haired, nose studded creeps are on social media complaining all day, the better chance I'll keep my job. Last thing I want are floods of smart, clean cut noobies teasing HR to hire them at half the pay, while gassing my ass.

Every big company with bucks to spare shies away from weird people. What they want are smart, articulate, clean cut employees who don't cause trouble or are social media outcasts. If they want to work at low level jobs, go ahead. I don't think Burger King really cares what you look like as long as you can make a Whopper right but for higher level jobs, most bosses care.
 
Last edited: