Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Post Reply 
14 different groups on the right wing
Author Message
Just_Die Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 139
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 16
Post: #26
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-07-2016 04:10 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  I make a point of not helping anybody these days. It's got me in to too much trouble, especially with strangers. I can see now it was part of my learning curve as a human being, but I've learned the painful lessons, and have moved on. I would always help a brother out, but I'd have to know he was worth it. You simply would not believe the flak I've got for going above and beyond the call of duty. No more. I've put my money where my mouth is.

I've fallen into a very barren wasteland myself. I'm still in shock and trying to come to terms with it, such is the size of the abyss that I find myself in, right here, right now. Long held relationships (can't really call them friendships) that counted for nothing at the end of the day. Not even betrayal a lot of the time, but a lot of indifference. Not sure what is worse.

Could you tell us an example or two of this situation where you tried to help someone out but got really burned? I wanted to understand more clearly.
05-07-2016 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Rigsby Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,594
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 74
Post: #27
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(04-30-2016 04:17 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  Too many categories. I'd just whittle it down to this:

1. Alt-right (Race fixated)
2. Moral Majority (Jesus fixated)
3. Neocohen (Israel fixated)
4. Randroid (Libertarian spergs)

This is an interesting way of looking at things. AB brought it to my attention when he quoted you in his post, but I'd like to just quickly reply to these, if I may.

1. Alt-right (Race fixated)

I see race as a very real factor. I don't like to be around people that see it as too much of a factor. I certainly don't like to be around people that see it as no factor/issue at all, just burying their head in the sand.

I like very open, very candid discussions with people of different races. I like it when they don't patronise me and they are honest. Sometimes even telling me what they think about 'all white people'. I then tell them what I think about 'all black people' and everyone learns something from it. We know the boundaries, but let each other into our little worlds at least to a small extent.

I don't fixate on race, but rather relish it when we can say vive la difference, with a worthy 'opponent'.


2. Moral Majority (Jesus fixated)

I don't have much to do with these people. As far as Jesus is concerned, I am always open to understanding their take on things. I think, again, if you are open and genuine, then you can tell pretty quick who is just proselytizing and insensitive to boring you to death, and those that have a cogent argument and can add something new to the whole debate.

As for moral majority. I'm not even sure what that means in reality. Most people think they are moral. They certainly do if they have some kind of religion behind them, be it Christianity or Islam.

I live and let live with this one, with an open mind, and don't fixate on it either.


3. Neocohen (Israel fixated)

Neocohen! I like it. Ha ha. This is a tricky one and a kind of acid test of sorts. This very forum is one of the few places I've ever seen alternate viewpoints regarding this matter.

With regard to the 'big question' it would seem that there is some kind of disproportionate thing going on here. On the face of it, it seems pretty one sided, but as always, there is more to it when you dig deeper.

As I stand, I just think that a lot of what Israel is doing is plain wrong, and they will end up paying for it eventually. I wouldn't say I was anti Israeli, as I have some nice friends there who are secular. I'm certainly not a big supporter though.


4. Randroid (Libertarian spergs)

I always thought Ayn Rand was left wing for some reason. I still can't figure her out. I think I just got confused by Rush 2112, which was inspired by her writings. I'm being flippant. I know that Neil Peart, the drummer and main lyricist in Rush has changed his own personal viewpoints regarding her works, that massively inspired not just that album, but others as well.

Can't comment more on this.
05-07-2016 04:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Rigsby's post:
Prince of Persia
Rigsby Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,594
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 74
Post: #28
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-07-2016 04:44 PM)Just_Die Wrote:  Could you tell us an example or two of this situation where you tried to help someone out but got really burned? I wanted to understand more clearly.


Sure, there are two examples that spring immediately to mind.


1: When I worked in an office in Victoria in London, I befriended a homeless man who was on the street. He was originally a firefighter, but had just come out of jail for murder/manslaughter. He had a cat. His cat was staying with a crack head prostitute friend of his (I'm a sucker for a sob story), and he wanted a better home for it as it was not being properly looked after.

So, I went with him one evening after work to pick the cat up and take it back to my place. I would feed it and look after it until he got sorted out with somewhere to stay. So far so good, until the little bastard ran away. He would phone up, asking how the cat was. I would say 'he's fine', all the time printing up 'Have you seen this cat?' posters to put on various lamp posts in the area. I wasn't going to tell him that the kitchen door was open one morning and the little fucker just ran off.

This went on for days. A week even. Eventually I had to tell him. He was not pleased. I had gone from his and his cat's saviour to being no.1 on the hit list. I stopped taking his death threats eventually, and moved out. The cat came back not long after (about 3 weeks) and went to a great home - a top London Chef and his beautiful Italian girlfriend. I made a point of never going to that part of Victoria again.

Easily done.


2: Recently (well the last 2 years or so), a very famous music producer and band member from one of the biggest bands of the 90's, just tried to make a comeback. Problem was, he had no equipment, and no friends.

I'd been following him since he fell on hard times and took it as testament to his character that he had got through the 'caravan in a field' years, and was now ready to make a go of it again. So I loaned him half my studio. Keyboards, guitars, expensive monitors, expensive headphones, all kinds of things.

Now, I did this out of the goodness of my heart. Others might say I was trying to inveigle my way in to his slipstream of greatness. Not really. I knew what a bitter and twisted bastard he was, and truth be told, I had bigger fish to fry. Members of my family with cancer, and also cancer scares on my part. I thought I could just help a brother out.

He came down in a rented car with his girlfriend and took back about 5 grand's worth of studio equipment. Enough to get him started at least.

He had that stuff for nearly two years. I don't know what happened. I didn't phone him. He phoned me. I made no attempt at even beginning to strike up a 'friendship'. I've lent you my stuff dude. Yes, it will be a good one to drop at all the fabulous dinner parties later on, but for now, let's just bask in the glory that someone can do something for someone else without ulterior motive.

He flipped out. He started sending me abusive emails. I even nearly missed a hospital appointment because he sent the stuff back to me on the day of my operation. I don't have much money, but I bought an extra flight case for my expensive keyboard. I had no money to pay for him to send it back to me. He went fucking ballistic. He expected me to pay, for me to have my own stuff sent back to me. I'm such a mug I would have as well, except I had no money.

That guy really hates my guts. He even held back some of my equipment so as I would pay the carriage back. And when I didn't, he sent it back anyway, in fucking bits!

Hey ho. We live, we learn.

Best part was, when the project failed, he cited all kinds of reasons, one of them being, people had lent him stuff (there were dozens who did) because they 'wanted to be his friend'. Fuck me, what rotters. Imagine that? Doing a good deed for someone, in the vain hope you might hit off some kind of amiable relationship. That wasn't me he was talking about by the way, but some others that he felt 'manipulated' by.

It's my own fault. The guy is a bitter and twisted cunt. He was in one of the biggest bands of the 90's (who are still around today btw) and played Glastonbury and worked on and produced many other major hit makers from other fields of music. Now he is a no one. He was actually insulted by little old me trying to help him.


So, there you go. Two examples of why it's not a good idea to help anyone other than your bosom buddies. Like I said, I'd help a brother out tomorrow. But no more strangers off the street. And no more people that I 'think' are kindred spirits, just because they work in the same field as me.

I gave these two examples because they are clear and cut cases. No room for interpretation here. No 'he said, she said'. No 'no smoke without fire'. These were out and out examples of someone trying to help someone else, just to make the world a better place. And getting 'burned' in the process. I know others have far worse stories to tell. I came out unscathed really at the end of it.
05-07-2016 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Rigsby's post:
Irenicus, Samseau
Just_Die Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 139
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 16
Post: #29
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
Oh yeah dude that's some intense stuff. I guess I've always had a side of me that knew that people mostly just want to take advantage of you and rarely reciprocate and even worse, backbite and blame/shit on you, just like a bad girlfriend. Just like when they'd ask for answers to my homework as early as elementary school and same with bitches in the field, never give unless you are respected, appreciated and in a position of power.

You can still give even if you don't have those things, but distance yourself as you may create dependency which turns into ill-feeling when you stop giving, or you may come off as creepy or approval seeking. No good deed goes unpunished.

Give to those closest to you and to your tribe. And certainly never go off on a limb for a stranger unless maybe it's a life and death situation or you feel you must do what is morally just according to your values and mission.
05-07-2016 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
hydrogonian Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,195
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 73
Post: #30
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-07-2016 01:26 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  [quote='Roosh' pid='1289317' dateline='1461983683']
4. Uptown Black Conservatives - Thomas Sowell, Allen West
5. Downtown Black Conservatives - more "ghetto" than number 4

(04-30-2016 11:02 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  4. This group might not be large enough to count as its own group.
5. This group might not be large enough to count as its own group.
Quote:I think we need to rejigger this explanation.

Quote:It's not that those groups are too small, it is that they fit within other ideological groupings. The same could be said for all minorities that are a part of the party.

What other ideological category could these groups possibly be in?

By definition, they are being singled out by race. It's nonsensical to define them by race only to then say that they are different due to ideology. If they are different to ideology, then the racial grouping doesn't make sense because Black republicans would not all hold the same ideology. If you are saying that they are different due to ideology, then the racial grouping makes no sense.

Ironic to your suggestion, eliminating them as their own group eliminates an unnecessary racial category. If you want to, redefine a new category, that includes them, under an ideological definition. But, again, you are starting from a race; which makes no sense.

Quote:As the party pivots towards being more inclusive (except for possibly southern Republicans), I foresee people joining the party because they agree with the family values,

Yes, but "family values" isn't specific and ordered enough to make a party. You have lots of liberals who will claim to hold "family values", if for no other reason but to be belligerent and to hold that "family values" is justifiably redefined under gay marriage, etc. In the same vein, all ideas are vulnerable to redefinition, weakening, and even genocide (because it isn't genocide if you are eliminating a people who are only held together by an evil idea, is it?). In short, "ideas" make for weak politics. Community and culture make for strong politics, and wholly define the true political sphere.

To circle back to the family values suggestion, in order to flesh the idea out to its practical limit : you would need to define it more specifically ie: Christian values. But that is problematic for a number of reasons as well, least of all for the fact that Christianity is entirely too broad and everyone in the world makes it their business to constantly redefine it.

I agree that "family values" are an important force for political cohesion, but they will be the political agenda - not the primary outward defining characteristic of the group unless you think we are all going to meet up at the "family values" building every week or have some type of multicultural "family values" based social and community cohesion, as a primary driving social force, in our day to day life. Neither of those things is going to happen.

Politics, and effective political groups, are wholly defined by how people interact, in the community, on a day to day basis. Unless people begin changing their everyday social behavior, the republican party is going to die and be wholly redefined by sociopolitical reality; not idealistic visions of what it should be.

Quote:fiscally conservative policies, pro-business attitude, ideas surrounding self-actualization, personal responsibility, tolerance and personal liberty.

These so called characteristics of conservatism are modern inventions by libertarians (liberals) who were attempting to liberalize and de-nationalize American conservatism in favor of social liberalism. All economic politics, when fronted as a primary driver of politics, are a false and poison pill designed to reduce the political effectiveness of a group. See the USSR and communism. It's a wonder that so called fiscal conservatives don't look to communism and see that they are merely playing the opposite side of the same politically destructive coin. Communism was not about justice for the proletariat (an economic definition). It was about removing political power from the middle and lower classes, through removing cultural and community cohesiveness and replacing it with a neutered politics of economics, and consolidating all power for the elite group at the top. Economic politics are a front no matter what side of the coin that you choose; because they never have and never will create real political power for a group.

Quote:Putting people into sub-groups in the Republican party based on race or ethnicity defeats the purpose of the party being the party of ideas rather than identity.

Except that no one agreed on this except for the establishment media (and their prole consumers who are ready to believe whatever 'education' that comes from said media) who, curiously enough, is entirely liberal. Political reality is and always will be ethnically defined. It isn't a choice, as that is where and how real political power is always condensed. The only choice is whether or not you choose to play on the real chess board or the fake one.

Quote:Everyone is included as long as they have a desire to contribute to the ideological pot.

Everyone is included? Okay. How about those with ethnic agendas that view the party as inimical to their interests? As long as they say the right things at the right times, are they included? They will always be a large, subversive force in the party that is run under your political definitions. How will you keep people who are playing the real game (ie: almost everyone except Western European liberal commoners) from appropriating your political force, who is oriented to fake goals in the fake game, from being used or destroyed for their purposes?

With all due respect (I'm seriously not trying to be disrespectful) join the adults at the adult table. There can be an alliance of ideas between groups (ie: WASP conservatives and Latino conservatives), but all politics has always been and will always be about groups as they have always existed. It's not a truth that is popular, but it is the hard truth and it has not changed. You'll either play or you'll lose. When the last powerful group gives up their power for the politics of economics, I'll then recant my assertion of the nature of political reality. But not before.
(This post was last modified: 05-09-2016 01:22 PM by hydrogonian.)
05-09-2016 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes hydrogonian's post:
Samseau
All or Nothing Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,088
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 10
Post: #31
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-09-2016 01:13 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  With all due respect (I'm seriously not trying to be disrespectful) join the adults at the adult table. There can be an alliance of ideas between groups (ie: WASP conservatives and Latino conservatives), but all politics has always been and will always be about groups as they have always existed. It's not a truth that is popular, but it is the hard truth and it has not changed. You'll either play or you'll lose. When the last powerful group gives up their power for the politics of economics, I'll then recant my assertion of the nature of political reality. But not before.

I was just trying to offer an alternative perspective that is not wholly based around ethnocentric lines, since the original statement you made about black republicans came off as dismissive to non-white groups.

Republican party won't win going into the future as long as it remains dismissive to non-white groups, unless you want to move to the balkanization of the states and break the U.S. into pieces.

The whole point was to offer a framing mechanism that is more inclusive.

I agree with some of your points, but I am not sure if that is the whole truth. Especially if you look at demographics, there is currently a ton of overlap between various communities (Catholic, Mexican, Western European, WASP, Asian, black) in terms of intermarriage, so that obfuscates the issue of ethnocentric subversion.

Edit: And I realize what you said was in response to the original post, I am just trying to offer alternative perspectives that move the ball away from identity politics. Just testing out ideas here.
(This post was last modified: 05-09-2016 05:11 PM by All or Nothing.)
05-09-2016 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
hydrogonian Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,195
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 73
Post: #32
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
Quote:I was just trying to offer an alternative perspective that is not wholly based around ethnocentric lines, since the original statement you made about black republicans came off as dismissive to non-white groups.

How is it dismissive to avoid pointing out someone's race and categorizing them by it without them first expressing a desire to be so categorized?

Do Republican Blacks feel that they need to be segregated into their own group based on race? If so, I'm cool with it. However, I wouldn't do it based on ideology until that different ideology is expressed. And I wouldn't do it based on race until they made their own race based movement in that direction. I'm not going to group them into their own group for no reason. But, again, I'm indifferent to it until it is an actual issue.

I predict that moving them into their own group would better create that issue of divisiveness before it would close any less perceptible gap within the party.

Race based groups generally equal different, and often conflicting, race based goals. If they have conflicting goals then they should absolutely make their own group. No one will be happy otherwise; but it will predictably turn into their own separate sub-party.

Quote:Republican party won't win going into the future as long as it remains dismissive to non-white groups,

See above on the dismissive charge.

On the "winning" issue, it seems like you might opt to liberalize certain issue platforms in an effort to cater to (traditionally liberal) demographics in order to win elections. If you do that, you don't win even if you win the election. You lose because you stopped fighting. I'd rather lose and keep the political orientation alive then kill the political orientation just to say that we're in office. You can always win office in later years, or otherwise get your way by other means. But not if you give up your political orientation in everything but name only.

Minority groups, if they stay unified and unyielding, can be some of the strongest groups in any nation precisely because they are more cooperative and committed than groups of much larger numbers. I believe that a large conservative contingent has reached a point wherein they aren't going to give more ground, and the entirety of the nation will be better for it whether or not they get into the White House. At this point, holding ground is more important than winning. If conservatives need to hunker down to survive the storm, then that is what they will do but they will emerge with certain values and premises, that protect their party and core community power, intact.

If it isn't about catering to ethnic minorities on policy positions then, again, categorize them however they want.

Quote:unless you want to move to the balkanization of the states and break the U.S. into pieces.

It isn't about "want".

The 1965 immigration act, and associated policies enacted by liberals, do not and should not mandate conservatives to amend their basic political orientation.

What will liberals enact this year that will have "conservatives" again amend their politics as a result in 2050? At what point are you willing to stop giving ground?

What are we even talking about, specifically, to avoid theoretical Balkanization? In my estimation, it would mean completely redefining politics in a manner that essentially forfeits any true political power against exceedingly powerful groups that still exist and have no intention of amending their politics to avoid Balkanization.

To wit, why don't all other groups become socially conservative in an effort to avoid Balkanization? Could White conservatives live with that? Sure, to a reasonable point.

But the liberal contingents that have exploded in demographics and political power since the 1960's, themselves, won't do what is necessary to avoid Balkanization. The powerful minority groups will not denationalize. Why should the conservative base? Why should they change to accommodate the selfish, predictable, and destructive politics of everyone else to avoid their created future conflict? Cramming so many disparate people into a single nation has predictable consequences that have been repeated in history ad naseum. This social experiment is akin to loading a revolver with five bullets and playing Russian Roulette.

If Balkanization is a concern, then liberals and their establishment Republican equivalents should have never legislated for the social conditions that might create it. It doesn't obligate rank and file conservatives to change their politics to avoid nasty consequences. Liberals and neocons will have to lie in their bed, or else the newer citizens should conform to the conservative social standard.

Quote:The whole point was to offer a framing mechanism that is more inclusive.


It's a slope that is too slippery. I think that it is worthy to note that the modern conservative culture in the United States is likely one of the most inclusive in the history of conservative humanity. It isn't perfect, but that's the nature of every movement that has tens of millions of people under its umbrella. You won't change that with ill conceived further attempts to make it superficially more inclusive. In the end, politics is a natural force rooted in community cohesion and it can't be changed fundamentally. Doing so would require severe oppression as occurred in the Soviet Union. Tacking on an "inclusivity" mandate only hobbles the party to likely no meaningful gain in actual inclusiveness or pledges of minority allegiance. the only result will be propaganda that liberals can isolate and use against us.

Those that are in, are already in for the correct reasons. Pandering to inclusiveness would not be one of those good reasons.

Quote:I agree with some of your points, but I am not sure if that is the whole truth. Especially if you look at demographics, there is currently a ton of overlap between various communities (Catholic, Mexican, Western European, WASP, Asian, black) in terms of intermarriage, so that obfuscates the issue of ethnocentric subversion.

I disagree with your overall assessment, but we can agree to disagree. A lot of mixed individuals tend to identify with the minority group, assuming that they can be truly accepted by it (some can not). For intensive purposes, there is no politically powerful mixed group, and there likely will not be because political power is rooted in shared culture. A mixed group, by definition, has no significant shared culture. The generic USA culture that anyone can adopt, when they find themselves disturbingly without something more traditional, will not (and does not) lend the values that incubates group political power.

No one knows more than multi-ethnic individuals themselves how socio-politically marginalized they can be to a large extent. Largely, this is not due to cruelty or some intentional design meant to marginalize them. It's simply the reality of politics - specifically the root in close community politics. Ask mixed-Asians if they are fully accepted in the ethnic Asian community as mixed individuals. Ask African Americans, with a significant admixture, living deep in an African American community. Ask mixed Jewish individuals, in a conservative Jewish community, with a non-Jewish mother. These communities are their political groups. Now ask these communities if they are ready to be more inclusive. Now ask them in nations wherein they are the majority.

Just because intermarriage exists does not change the largely subconscious nature of politics, hurt feelings aside. People cooperate with who they identify with. It's that simple. Cooperation between individuals, to variously higher degrees, is what politics is and what political power is. No more and no less. That is never going to change.

There are exceptions to the rule. People who are so culturally seamless with a group, that they aren't entirely connected to genetically, that people stop seeing and treating them as different. Thus, the sociopolitical cooperation remains intact. I know many individuals with this ability. It's great. I get the sense that there are many individuals like that here on this forum. However, it doesn't change the political reality of large numbers as a whole.

A reminder that I'm just the messenger who observes. I'm not stating any opinion on the manner in which I wish the world operated; I'm only stating how I observe it to operate and what I predict to be the future of that operation.

Quote:Edit: And I realize what you said was in response to the original post, I am just trying to offer alternative perspectives that move the ball away from identity politics. Just testing out ideas here.

Well, its a good effort. The only way out of it, theoretically, is if everyone in the world gave up their identity politics almost at once. And I do mean everyone. Until that happens, you are essentially mandating that some groups give up their political power in the face of groups that are willing to use their naturally stronger community-created political power against those dis-empowered groups. First, no one is moving toward this. Second, it just won't ever happen, period, as you will never be able to stop people from finding and using common ground that gives them a cooperative advantage in competing against atomized individuals for resources. Less competition merely assures that whoever is left rises to permanent power uncontested. In that sense the competition is good for everyone.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2016 01:53 AM by hydrogonian.)
05-10-2016 01:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes hydrogonian's post:
Samseau
All or Nothing Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,088
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 10
Post: #33
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-10-2016 01:40 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  quote

I agree with a lot of your points. It is a lot to take in, so thank you for giving me something new to think about.

(05-10-2016 01:40 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  I disagree with your overall assessment, but we can agree to disagree. A lot of mixed individuals tend to identify with the minority group, assuming that they can be truly accepted by it (some can not). For intensive purposes, there is no politically powerful mixed group, and there likely will not be because political power is rooted in shared culture. A mixed group, by definition, has no significant shared culture. The generic USA culture that anyone can adopt, when they find themselves disturbingly without something more traditional, will not (and does not) lend the values that incubates group political power.

No one knows more than multi-ethnic individuals themselves how socio-politically marginalized they can be to a large extent. Largely, this is not due to cruelty or some intentional design meant to marginalize them. It's simply the reality of politics - specifically the root in close community politics. Ask mixed-Asians if they are fully accepted in the ethnic Asian community as mixed individuals. Ask African Americans, with a significant admixture, living deep in an African American community. Ask mixed Jewish individuals, in a conservative Jewish community, with a non-Jewish mother. These communities are their political groups. Now ask these communities if they are ready to be more inclusive. Now ask them in nations wherein they are the majority.

Just because intermarriage exists does not change the largely subconscious nature of politics, hurt feelings aside. People cooperate with who they identify with. It's that simple. Cooperation between individuals, to variously higher degrees, is what politics is and what political power is. No more and no less. That is never going to change.

There are exceptions to the rule. People who are so culturally seamless with a group, that they aren't entirely connected to genetically, that people stop seeing and treating them as different. Thus, the sociopolitical cooperation remains intact. I know many individuals with this ability. It's great. I get the sense that there are many individuals like that here on this forum. However, it doesn't change the political reality of large numbers as a whole.

A reminder that I'm just the messenger who observes. I'm not stating any opinion on the manner in which I wish the world operated; I'm only stating how I observe it to operate and what I predict to be the future of that operation.

This is something I have been thinking about a little bit recently.

The people who are the descendants of the Homo sapiens that first migrated to the Eurasian region are the descendants of race mixing between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.

The Han Chinese are the result of mixing between various tribes in the southeast Asia region. The same could be said of white Americans being the mix of various tribes from Europe. Turkey is a mix of Turk tribes and the Anatolians (I just looked at some anthropology report on this), which could also explain how Turkey is caught in the crossfire between being pulled to the Muslim world and the EU world.

Brazil and Mexico are the most interesting ones to look at since many of their inhabitants contain a wide cross-section of tribes from all around the world. The vast majority of people in Brazil and Mexico are mixed race. Even the leadership show signs of being mixed race if you look them up.

I definitely think the US is ultimately going to move in the direction of where Brazil and Mexico already are. It seems to be a natural part of human behavior for the larger group to absorb all of the smaller groups over time and then to assimilate them completely, barring migration patterns changing things.

Also, from what I have been noticing is that mixed race people miss out on complete acceptance between either the dominant or minority group, but they ultimately gain a wider swath of genetic adaptations. In addition to this mixed race people have a higher level of access to power that the dominant group holds. Barack Obama is the perfect example of this, even though the man seems to hold whitey in contempt, he himself is half-white.

Also, mixed race people seem to have to worry less about extermination events from the dominant group. I was looking at South Africa and the Boers are at danger of being killed off, but the Coloureds (mixed people) do not seem to be facing the same potential fate.
05-13-2016 12:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
All or Nothing Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,088
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 10
Post: #34
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
hydro, I'll give a response for this now.

(05-10-2016 01:40 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  
Quote:I was just trying to offer an alternative perspective that is not wholly based around ethnocentric lines, since the original statement you made about black republicans came off as dismissive to non-white groups.

How is it dismissive to avoid pointing out someone's race and categorizing them by it without them first expressing a desire to be so categorized?

Do Republican Blacks feel that they need to be segregated into their own group based on race? If so, I'm cool with it. However, I wouldn't do it based on ideology until that different ideology is expressed. And I wouldn't do it based on race until they made their own race based movement in that direction. I'm not going to group them into their own group for no reason. But, again, I'm indifferent to it until it is an actual issue.

I predict that moving them into their own group would better create that issue of divisiveness before it would close any less perceptible gap within the party.

Race based groups generally equal different, and often conflicting, race based goals. If they have conflicting goals then they should absolutely make their own group. No one will be happy otherwise; but it will predictably turn into their own separate sub-party.

Well, what I was propositioning is a way to see things in a way that is more inclusive.

Additionally, I feel that race based goals are divisive in nature since it leads people to focus on their personal ethnicity over their nationality. In order for a state to survive, people must see themselves as members of the state over their race, ethnicity, or religion. Otherwise the state will inevitably dissolve based on racial, ethnic and religious lines. We can see this with the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc. etc.

Quote:
Quote:Republican party won't win going into the future as long as it remains dismissive to non-white groups,

See above on the dismissive charge.

On the "winning" issue, it seems like you might opt to liberalize certain issue platforms in an effort to cater to (traditionally liberal) demographics in order to win elections. If you do that, you don't win even if you win the election. You lose because you stopped fighting. I'd rather lose and keep the political orientation alive then kill the political orientation just to say that we're in office. You can always win office in later years, or otherwise get your way by other means. But not if you give up your political orientation in everything but name only.

Minority groups, if they stay unified and unyielding, can be some of the strongest groups in any nation precisely because they are more cooperative and committed than groups of much larger numbers. I believe that a large conservative contingent has reached a point wherein they aren't going to give more ground, and the entirety of the nation will be better for it whether or not they get into the White House. At this point, holding ground is more important than winning. If conservatives need to hunker down to survive the storm, then that is what they will do but they will emerge with certain values and premises, that protect their party and core community power, intact.

If it isn't about catering to ethnic minorities on policy positions then, again, categorize them however they want.

Practically all of the minorities are more socially conservative than white people from a Christian background.

Mexicans tend to be more religious and have a higher tendency to stick with Catholicism (Christian beliefs as a whole) than whites do. Black people compose one of the most heavily religious and socially conservative groups in the United States. Asians who come from Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. also tend to be pretty socially conservative.

The reason why all of these groups vote overwhelmingly Democrat is a one-two punch of racial demagoguery that the Democrats repeat ad nauseam and that Republicans do not appear to want non-white people. I have serious doubts that you can get southern Republicans to change their views since they appear to have a culture steeped in a kind of hierarchical ethnocentric competition, but that doesn't mean that the party outside of that region can work to be more inclusive when it comes to non-white groups.

Quote:
Quote:unless you want to move to the balkanization of the states and break the U.S. into pieces.

It isn't about "want".

The 1965 immigration act, and associated policies enacted by liberals, do not and should not mandate conservatives to amend their basic political orientation.

What will liberals enact this year that will have "conservatives" again amend their politics as a result in 2050? At what point are you willing to stop giving ground?

What are we even talking about, specifically, to avoid theoretical Balkanization? In my estimation, it would mean completely redefining politics in a manner that essentially forfeits any true political power against exceedingly powerful groups that still exist and have no intention of amending their politics to avoid Balkanization.

To wit, why don't all other groups become socially conservative in an effort to avoid Balkanization? Could White conservatives live with that? Sure, to a reasonable point.

But the liberal contingents that have exploded in demographics and political power since the 1960's, themselves, won't do what is necessary to avoid Balkanization. The powerful minority groups will not denationalize. Why should the conservative base? Why should they change to accommodate the selfish, predictable, and destructive politics of everyone else to avoid their created future conflict? Cramming so many disparate people into a single nation has predictable consequences that have been repeated in history ad naseum. This social experiment is akin to loading a revolver with five bullets and playing Russian Roulette.

If Balkanization is a concern, then liberals and their establishment Republican equivalents should have never legislated for the social conditions that might create it. It doesn't obligate rank and file conservatives to change their politics to avoid nasty consequences. Liberals and neocons will have to lie in their bed, or else the newer citizens should conform to the conservative social standard.

Well, we can reduce the disparity by integrating the people into the culture and the population through longterm demographic changes.

Brazil is further along on this path and they are still a singular state where everyone is united by a national identity even though they are equally disparate in terms of racial background as the US is.

Quote:
Quote:The whole point was to offer a framing mechanism that is more inclusive.


It's a slope that is too slippery. I think that it is worthy to note that the modern conservative culture in the United States is likely one of the most inclusive in the history of conservative humanity. It isn't perfect, but that's the nature of every movement that has tens of millions of people under its umbrella. You won't change that with ill conceived further attempts to make it superficially more inclusive. In the end, politics is a natural force rooted in community cohesion and it can't be changed fundamentally. Doing so would require severe oppression as occurred in the Soviet Union. Tacking on an "inclusivity" mandate only hobbles the party to likely no meaningful gain in actual inclusiveness or pledges of minority allegiance. the only result will be propaganda that liberals can isolate and use against us.

Those that are in, are already in for the correct reasons. Pandering to inclusiveness would not be one of those good reasons.

It is not pandering if you actually build cross-community inroads and focus on a common set of interests that unite people rather than divide them.

Even Donald Trump does this. I have friends and I am talking real true blue friends in addition to acquaintances from a wide variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. It's not like this is impossible.

Quote:
Quote:I agree with some of your points, but I am not sure if that is the whole truth. Especially if you look at demographics, there is currently a ton of overlap between various communities (Catholic, Mexican, Western European, WASP, Asian, black) in terms of intermarriage, so that obfuscates the issue of ethnocentric subversion.

I disagree with your overall assessment, but we can agree to disagree. A lot of mixed individuals tend to identify with the minority group, assuming that they can be truly accepted by it (some can not). For intensive purposes, there is no politically powerful mixed group, and there likely will not be because political power is rooted in shared culture. A mixed group, by definition, has no significant shared culture. The generic USA culture that anyone can adopt, when they find themselves disturbingly without something more traditional, will not (and does not) lend the values that incubates group political power.

No one knows more than multi-ethnic individuals themselves how socio-politically marginalized they can be to a large extent. Largely, this is not due to cruelty or some intentional design meant to marginalize them. It's simply the reality of politics - specifically the root in close community politics. Ask mixed-Asians if they are fully accepted in the ethnic Asian community as mixed individuals. Ask African Americans, with a significant admixture, living deep in an African American community. Ask mixed Jewish individuals, in a conservative Jewish community, with a non-Jewish mother. These communities are their political groups. Now ask these communities if they are ready to be more inclusive. Now ask them in nations wherein they are the majority.

Just because intermarriage exists does not change the largely subconscious nature of politics, hurt feelings aside. People cooperate with who they identify with. It's that simple. Cooperation between individuals, to variously higher degrees, is what politics is and what political power is. No more and no less. That is never going to change.

There are exceptions to the rule. People who are so culturally seamless with a group, that they aren't entirely connected to genetically, that people stop seeing and treating them as different. Thus, the sociopolitical cooperation remains intact. I know many individuals with this ability. It's great. I get the sense that there are many individuals like that here on this forum. However, it doesn't change the political reality of large numbers as a whole.

A reminder that I'm just the messenger who observes. I'm not stating any opinion on the manner in which I wish the world operated; I'm only stating how I observe it to operate and what I predict to be the future of that operation.

I understand what you are saying, but the way Mexico and Brazil operates flies in the face of this. Long term it would be the mixed group that becomes more and more powerful as demographics evolve. That is if the United States follows a similar pathway that Mexican and Brazil followed. It remains to be seen though. Even now, interracial marriage rates for Mexicans and Asians seems to be around 50%. Interfaith marriages for Jews is about 50%. We seem to be moving in the direction of having a more singular community.

Quote:
Quote:Edit: And I realize what you said was in response to the original post, I am just trying to offer alternative perspectives that move the ball away from identity politics. Just testing out ideas here.

Well, its a good effort. The only way out of it, theoretically, is if everyone in the world gave up their identity politics almost at once. And I do mean everyone. Until that happens, you are essentially mandating that some groups give up their political power in the face of groups that are willing to use their naturally stronger community-created political power against those dis-empowered groups. First, no one is moving toward this. Second, it just won't ever happen, period, as you will never be able to stop people from finding and using common ground that gives them a cooperative advantage in competing against atomized individuals for resources. Less competition merely assures that whoever is left rises to permanent power uncontested. In that sense the competition is good for everyone.

I am not saying that people need to give up identity politics completely. I am proposing ideas that would deemphasize identity politics.

There are methods that have worked:

Quote:In their book “All That We Can Be” (1996), the sociologists Charles Moskos and John Sibley Butler describe how the U.S. Army escaped from the racial dysfunction of the 1970s to become a model of integration and near-equality by the time of the 1991 Gulf War. The Army invested more resources in training and mentoring black soldiers so that they could meet rigorous promotion standards. But, crucially, standards were lowered for no one, so that the race of officers conveyed no information about their abilities. The Army also promoted cooperation and positive-sum thinking by emphasizing pride in the Army and in America.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hard-truths-...1462544543

If you focus on giving people pride in being part of a national identity and working to give people equal opportunity while simultaneously recognizing certain innate differences between people, you can reduce racial tensions. It has worked.

The two party system is the two option system. The Republican party and Democrat party compete by offering alternate visions for the future of America.

I personally believe Obama who has reshaped the Democrat party in 7 years is a false prophet because of his divisive nature and underlying animosity towards white people, specifically towards white Christian men. This does not mean that the Republican party has to be equally divisive in turn.

That is why I am offering an alternate more inclusive vision for the future. If no one offers a cooperative vision, then eventually the state will dissolve and the outcome could be horrifying.
05-22-2016 06:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
El Chinito loco Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 4,683
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 71
Post: #35
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-22-2016 06:10 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Additionally, I feel that race based goals are divisive in nature since it leads people to focus on their personal ethnicity over their nationality. In order for a state to survive, people must see themselves as members of the state over their race, ethnicity, or religion. Otherwise the state will inevitably dissolve based on racial, ethnic and religious lines. We can see this with the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc. etc.

America's modern social foundation is built on the bedrock of racial identity politics. Wishing it will go away and people will unite on ideology is like wishing for a leprechaun to appear and shit out a pot of gold. It's not going to happen.

There will be a gradual balkanization process as the different minority races increase in size and compete for a smaller and smaller portion of the American pie. The conflict between whites, minority vs minority, etc.. will increase in scope and tension. You can already see proof of this on the west coast where it's been happening for decades now.

Liberals in particular have much to gain by keeping race identity politics alive and well. It benefits both establishment parties to play this game to the end. That's the problem..that's not going to change anytime soon.
05-22-2016 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like El Chinito loco's post:
TonySandos, Yatagan
Suits Offline
Banned

Posts: 9,744
Joined: Feb 2013
Post: #36
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(04-30-2016 11:03 AM)Going strong Wrote:  In comparison, the Left only has 1 group (Useless to Society Parasites), sub-categorized in 3 sub-groups:

1- Fat female SJWs and beta-orbiting White Knights
2- Pervert LGBQs
3- BLM opportunistic racists

I lean left, but also believe in fiscal responsibility.

I support, for example, universal, single payer health care. My logic is that if a reasonable level of health care is assured for all (in first world nations that can afford it), anyone who wants to start a business will be free to do so without the pressure to stay tied to an employer (who pays too little to offer forward lifestyle progress) just for the health benefits.

I also believe in having a social safety net (provided that it isn't constructed in a manner that encourages people to stop making an effort to stand on their own two feet).

Which of these liberal categories do I fall into?
05-22-2016 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
All or Nothing Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,088
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 10
Post: #37
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-22-2016 07:33 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  
(05-22-2016 06:10 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Additionally, I feel that race based goals are divisive in nature since it leads people to focus on their personal ethnicity over their nationality. In order for a state to survive, people must see themselves as members of the state over their race, ethnicity, or religion. Otherwise the state will inevitably dissolve based on racial, ethnic and religious lines. We can see this with the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc. etc.

America's modern social foundation is built on the bedrock of racial identity politics. Wishing it will go away and people will unite on ideology is like wishing for a leprechaun to appear and shit out a pot of gold. It's not going to happen.

There will be a gradual balkanization process as the different minority races increase in size and compete for a smaller and smaller portion of the American pie. The conflict between whites, minority vs minority, etc.. will increase in scope and tension. You can already see proof of this on the west coast where it's been happening for decades now.

Liberals in particular have much to gain by keeping race identity politics alive and well. It benefits both establishment parties to play this game to the end. That's the problem..that's not going to change anytime soon.

I don't wish it would go away. What I am saying is that the narrative needs to change.

The narrative coming out of Washington Post and NY Times has been focused on zero-sum identity politics. There are alternative narratives that are healthier for the nation that lead to higher levels of social cohesion that we can emphasize.

There are positive sum ways of looking at things.

Right now, I believe that we are sailing down the wrong course in politics, but that does not mean that course correction is not possible.

What I am saying is that you can strip the Left/Democrats of the power of identity politics by offering a superior way governing the United States that allows everyone to succeed based on merit.

Also, you bring up the West Coast as an example. Well, here's the thing over a long enough timeline, the Mexicans will become integrated into American society. Given that Mexico's population growth has stabilized, the incumbent group of Mexican immigrants will now slowly be absorbed into American society and culture. Over time, the racial tensions will decrease through increasing levels of assimilation.
05-22-2016 08:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
El Chinito loco Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 4,683
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 71
Post: #38
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-22-2016 08:04 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Also, you bring up the West Coast as an example. Well, here's the thing over a long enough timeline, the Mexicans will become integrated into American society. Given that Mexico's population growth has stabilized, the incumbent group of Mexican immigrants will now slowly be absorbed into American society and culture. Over time, the racial tensions will decrease through increasing levels of assimilation.

I lived on the west coast for a long time. They are not going to "integrate" with American society they will replace large portions of American society with a hybrid Mexican ethnonationalist identity loyal to Mexicans if not Mexico.

I think you are a bit confused as to what integration really means.

As this hybrid Mexican ethnonationalist identity grows it will come into violent and severe political conflict with other minorities as well as with the white holdouts in these blighted areas.

People who have never lived in those types of neighborhoods don't really understand how severe this balkanization process is.

What you are in a sense repeating is a watered down version of utopian type multiculturalist thinking. It's not just all going to work itself out. It's completely contrary to human nature and racial/tribal identity which has been built up in the U.S.
05-22-2016 08:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes El Chinito loco's post:
TonySandos
All or Nothing Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,088
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 10
Post: #39
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-22-2016 08:17 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  
(05-22-2016 08:04 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Also, you bring up the West Coast as an example. Well, here's the thing over a long enough timeline, the Mexicans will become integrated into American society. Given that Mexico's population growth has stabilized, the incumbent group of Mexican immigrants will now slowly be absorbed into American society and culture. Over time, the racial tensions will decrease through increasing levels of assimilation.

I lived on the west coast for a long time. They are not going to "integrate" with American society they will replace large portions of American society with a hybrid Mexican ethnonationalist identity loyal to Mexicans if not Mexico.

I think you are a bit confused as to what integration really means.

As this hybrid Mexican ethnonationalist identity grows it will come into violent and severe political conflict with other minorities as well as with the white holdouts in these blighted areas.

People who have never lived in those types of neighborhoods don't really understand how severe this balkanization process is.

What you are in a sense repeating is a watered down version of utopian type multiculturalist thinking. It's not just all going to work itself out. It's completely contrary to human nature and racial/tribal identity which has been built up in the U.S.

I live in the southwest, a couple hours away from the border, my closest friends are second generation Mexicans.

I have been around a lot of the southwest including the west coast and I have not seen what you are talking about.

I have seen some cholos, but that's about it. The poorer Mexican communities can exhibit stronger tribal behavior but that could be said of any poor community.

A lot of Mexicans are pretty friendly to "gringos". A lot of Mexicans self identify as white. The vast majority are mixed race. The biggest barrier is language, but even then a huge portion of younger Mexicans in the northern part of Mexico know conversational english based on what my friends have told me.

Also, I am not talking about multiculturalism. I am talking about integration. Integration is when you combine two communities into one, in order to create a singular larger community that has higher levels of social cohesion and stability.

Integration is the pathway forward.
05-22-2016 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
El Chinito loco Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 4,683
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 71
Post: #40
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-22-2016 08:33 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  I have been around a lot of the southwest including the west coast and I have not seen what you are talking about.

I have seen some cholos, but that's about it. The poorer Mexican communities can exhibit stronger tribal behavior but that could be said of any poor community.

Well good for you but that's certainly not how it was or is for a lot of southern California where I grew up. The ethnonationalist type politics is pretty strong there. It may differ a bit in the southwest in general but definitely not in CA.

Quote:A lot of Mexicans are pretty friendly to "gringos". A lot of Mexicans self identify as white. The vast majority are mixed race. The biggest barrier is language, but even then a huge portion of younger Mexicans in the northern part of Mexico know conversational english based on what my friends have told me.

Maybe, maybe not that respect is based on current social and economic hierarchy. We'll see how friendly things are when whites are a minority in those communities and no longer hold the reins of political or economic power like before. I also predict the minority on minority violence will increase substantially as the lower class neighborhoods start to overlap more.

About that whole identifying as white thing..

[Image: Latinos_favor_Clinton_over_Trump_by_39_point_mar.jpg]

Latinos can be white as well and of european ancestry but that does not mean the majority identify as "white" when they are still fully entrenched in their specific ethnonationalist identity politics tribes.

On top of that the middle class is currently shrinking in the U.S. The U.S. is riding the wave of unprecedented economic prosperity. All these ethnic relations will devolve down the road when unemployment and economic conditions worsen. This is likely already the long decline off the peak unless things change substantially with Trump as president. If Hillary gets elected and the situation in the U.S. continues along this path indefinitely then you'll just see an acceleration of the decline.
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2016 08:47 PM by El Chinito loco.)
05-22-2016 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes El Chinito loco's post:
TonySandos
churros Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,159
Joined: Dec 2015
Post: #41
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(04-30-2016 05:53 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  You've managed to leave me out entirely - none of those are my fixations.

5. Wastelanders (Apocalypse fixated)

...
It's easy to mistake it as Paganism. I think we just see a futile civilisational pattern of the strong being expected to carry the weak until each society collapses from the weight, and rather than have the boring conversation with the entitled and dysfunctional, we'd rather just let natural selection take care of them.

Note that the mindset doesn't come from priviliged apathy, but backgrounds in experiencing poverty and hardship first-hand, where you learn the world simply doesn't care about your survival, particularly the Leftists who wring their hands, beat their chests and sing songs of how deeply they do care, none of which changes the reality on the ground.

It's interesting to note that three of us in the manosphere experienced harsh physical lessons earlier in life that offered us perspective and humillity, whilst also making us driven to achieve, just to stare down natural selection as it tried to throw us off a cliff and say "Not today."

Interesting. Couldn't you also say, though, that economic laws are analogous to natural laws? Or at the least, that they represent a "second nature"?
05-28-2016 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
hydrogonian Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,195
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 73
Post: #42
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-22-2016 08:33 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Also, I am not talking about multiculturalism. I am talking about integration. Integration is when you combine two communities into one, in order to create a singular larger community that has higher levels of social cohesion and stability.

Integration is the pathway forward.

There are a myriad of things wrong with this view, both in theory and in practice. Both morally and politically. Though I don't have the motivation to further write on it. One day you will realize the issues with this through either experience or common sense, or you won't. One person with a fantastical view of the world, entirely separated from how it operates and always will operate, doesn't concern me. In fact, it makes for less intense competition. Carry on.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2016 08:39 PM by hydrogonian.)
05-28-2016 08:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
LeeEnfield303 Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,464
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 8
Post: #43
RE: 14 different groups on the right wing
(05-22-2016 08:04 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  What I am saying is that you can strip the Left/Democrats of the power of identity politics by offering a superior way governing the United States that allows everyone to succeed based on merit.

Seriously?

You really think the "gimmedat" crowd will be swayed to give up their freebies provided by a corrupt elite class by the promise of working for a living?

What world do you live on? I want to emigrate there.

"strip the Left of the power of identity politics" ....I'm about to break a rib. By the way, I hear National Review is looking for another pundit.

Лучше поздно, чем никогда

Those that see...will prepare.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2016 08:46 PM by LeeEnfield303.)
05-28-2016 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Red Bull’s CEO Is Reportedly Launching A Right-Wing News Platform MOVSM 32 12,193 12-07-2019 07:35 PM
Last Post: Sword and Board
  Right Wing Tax Squads: 4chan doxxxes e-thots to the IRS [email protected] 309 57,550 11-28-2019 02:11 PM
Last Post: Dr. Howard
  Is red pill thinking neither left or right wing? El Chinito loco 35 17,035 04-21-2019 04:43 AM
Last Post: Sp5

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication