Comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtvwWeC4I_s&lc=UgzN1SvVgsb4ycmv6m94AaABAg

I dont think not playing is the winning move. And Distributist's content always puts me in the mood anyway.

1. Are Jews oppressing white people.

Yes. I'd say they form an Elite without an organic bond to the people they preside over, and in fact according to PEW 70% of US Jews say remembering the Holocaust is the most important thing about being Jewish. Meaning a particular fear of whites showing in-group preference and pride in themselves is something they fear. As it stands the issue is left wing Jews become hardcore progressives, and most Jews lean left, which is an anti-white ideology. And right wing Jews tend to care about middle east foreign policy and Israel. Neither one is forming a beneficial relationship with whites, and the more prominent side is effectively anti-white.

They also act as a good warning against just bringing over a new Elite with Cognitively Elitist Immigration policies like one sees in Canada and Australia (who also have issues with Chinese influencers now). I think Singapore's policy of maintaining a strict ethnic balance and Han supermajority is the right compromise.

This is regarding elite and politically connected Jews. IE the ones who think about their positions and have political influence. It's no different from saying the wealthy like mass immigration as a form of economic warfare on the poor, or the Germans are the architects of many of the EU's bad ideas, or liberal whites mismanage black urban neighborhoods. In all cases it is a disconnected group either mismanaging something, forming a harmful relationship with it, or are the architects of some bad ideas.

Jews were also involved with the Frankfurt School, I believe only one of the prominent members was a gentile even. And a lot of the ideas of Critical Theory were that white ingroup preference was bad, and a sort of rootless individualism was better, which later wealth and decadent consumer culture made an easy sell (also, the world wars were confidence shattering). And it's not at all absurd to apply this relationship racially. Gadhaffi did, he used Black African soldiers whenever he wanted to push around his own Libyan people because they'd lack attachment to the Libyans (unlike his Libyan forces)

2. Should interracial marriages be forced to separate

No. Interracial Marriage is not high enough to be a threat. The real issue is declining births. It's sort of an issue that if it gets too high, we're fucked, because what is the solution? But really, and UK holiday ads were a good example of this, is interracial relationships tend to be depicted unrealistically, more than they occur, and are usually one particular combination. I wont say this is "brainwashing whites" but it does reflect the normative values of our media and entertainment class, who are culture creators. It is the world they choose to show. To go further, interracial unions in media are almost always a white woman and black man. Those unions in the US are not very glamourous (google, 'interracial relationships 92%' and you should at least find a blog which links to the study I reference). As per Coming Apart by Charles Murray, it is an underclass thing. But that isnt how it is depicted.

And in light of it not being necessary, I'd say it is cruel. Even if I think monoracial should be encouraged

3. Should citizens be prevented from leaving to save the race

No. Not unless we end up like I think paraguay did after a war, with our population really vivisected. But then a lot of libertires would probably be revoked, for good reason. Our starting point is free association, sort of as a way to alienate far left whites who will be disgusted by our society anyway, so we kinda hope people can leave

4. Should the state control education

Yes. A policy question I lack expertise on. I am fine with private options, the State will probably review the curriculum as it does now. State control of education seems impossible to escape from. So I guess I have to say yes. School is in many ways the State teaching you citizenry, and how to contribute anyway

5. Should the state control media

No. But I think the kinds of regulations we used to have in the 1950s were good. Kids shows couldnt just be toy commercials, and programming with the intent of educating the public had to abide by the Fairness Doctrine which said they had to present both sides fairly. Right now we just have totally ideological niches of dumb entertainment, while the post-war consensus era was healthier and more urbane. William F Buckley Jr versus Samantha Bee? No competiion

6. Should state control the economy

No. A lot of the altright are ex-libertarians so we tend to see central planning as bad. I could be talked into a few aspects of state capitalism and government intervention in heavy industries, as well as a Protective Tariff. But free enterprise should be respected. Even if just for the little guy. Ideally, regulations would fall harder on big corporations. I like low corporate taxes though. Nobody has argued against them satisfactorily to me. Even Sweden sees the value in low corporate taxes.

7. Do the decisions of Individual White People Matter to the Goals of the Altright

No. Not 100% sure what this means. I presume it refers to if individual whites go against the ideal we prefer. It shouldn't matter if there are deviations. We will probably entice people to stay and be good coracialists but ultimately we shouldnt try to alter every maverick

8. Should women have a role in public life.

Yes. Women should trend more to the domestic sphere. I recognize that genie has left the bottle somewhat. But that's why I like Nordic Societies and their ingenious idea to structure a lot of their welfare around helping with work-life balance and family formation. Such as, workplace accomodations so women who work can spend time with their kids. The biggest loss in white fertility, and biggest dysgenic risk for whites, comes from Professional Women not having many kids. Because of work and school.

I think traditionalists have their heart in the right place but should sort of... "turn into the direction of the spin" when the car is spinning out of control. If that makes sense.
-----------------------------------

Notice how Destiny didnt ask science questions when Ryan was around? And waited until he left? This is gonna be long sadly.

The 1790 immigration and naturalization law, that Destiny ignores when he isnt butchering the views of the Founding Fathers, says "white" and permitted what we see as Whites now. Irish and Italians too. Ben Franklin, a single Founding Father, may have said some things about Germans but that's a fallacy of composition to apply that to the collective. The laws of the nation and the commonly held  opinions about race the Fathers had are more consistent with Tara's idea than Franklin wanting to exclude Germans (who weren't excluded). Moreover, I dont think the Founders being stricter than the Nazis pwns white nationalism, otherwise it's saying that a past devolution of what is American justifies all further devolutions. If one wants to defend the changes from the 1964 act, do so. And Rome was not multicultural until the end when they began tolerating more disparate identities

Destiny, even saying this on his stream, just stuck to normative claims to avoid the descriptive claims he doesnt like because they challenge his normative claims about society. All his benefits of immigration are short term falls in the cost of goods, whereas this suggests that the long term demographic consequences will be pretty dire. And kvetched about what other race realists say, which was false in many cases. Race Realists dont claim they know all there is to know about intelligence, and that it is entirely genetic. A claim he repeated several times.

If he wants to debate ethnostates, he should debate ethnostates rather than argue about race realism. If you want to argue about what Ryan thinks, argue with Ryan. Ryan wants an ordered top-down partition like the USSR. An ethnostate would just be promoting a eurocentric demography, not kicking out all the color. The definition of ethnostate is just a state which secures demographic hegemony for the group. So Singapore is an ethnostate for keeping a Han Supermajority. It's about trends.
And also, IQ differences arent really the justification. More just breaking the mainstream narrative on race and equality, showing that it isnt a lack of effort and empathy that races have tension and gaps.

Cthulhu guy was odd. He doesn't like eugenics so I guess he is marrying a crack-whore? Marrying your college sweetheart and having kids with them is an eugenic instinct really. As Jean said, decisions which influence the genes in the next generation are eugenic decisions. Destiny I understand. He at least tried his gotchas, which were too highly specific when we're talking about general trends. And he seemed to not grasp that selective migration can happen even if the policy doesn't actually try to select for them. He can say we are more connected or whatever, but what he is advocating isn't actually connecting the world more in a meaningful way since only a small fraction of the 3rd world can immigrate to the 1st world. And this experiment of 'browning America' is never actually justified, despite it being an irrecoverable change if it does occur.


And civic nationalism is bad (imo) because it is either toothless hand-wave when someone like Roaming Millennial says it, or just used as a political bludgeon based on who decides what our values are when a Progressive uses it. When really the West has never had unified sets of values but an often contradictory diversity of ideas. And they will go out of fashion when the balance of power changes.

Ironically, his example of "city-stamping" is a good argument for why race matters and (excessive) multiracialism doesnt work imo, it cant be concealed and leads to inevitable extrapolations. Race is "city-stamping" you cant stop. And despite Warski agreeing (for some reason) that telling people they cant come in to a nation is bad, Destiny still used an appeal to consequences to low-key argue we shouldn't discuss this. He says he wants to use the info to bridge the gaps as much as we can, but we've spent a lot of money on that. Its failure is a huge argument for race realism.

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

I think I can explain why people dislike Warski defending Destiny and make Tonka's case against Destiny
From what I gather, Destiny's case against JF is based off of an opinion by a psychologist thrown out by the judge. And it is also contradicted by her full legal autonomy prior to the relationship.

Destiny talks a big game but went out of his way to dodge and block Alternative Hypothesis. Which is why people think he is dishonest, or him ending the debate with Naked Ape after Ape pointed out he didnt read his own study. These debates are about his glorification, which is why he goes after people if they embarass him, and motivates dishonesty. I also think he does prefer to take on people who dont know their own positions very well, and not those who do. And his fanbase assigns an additional penalty if one does do too well against him.

Destiny did do his whole "immigration reduces cost of goods" thing with Jontron, citing the wealth of California as proof. Sargon even isolated it mockingly.

And Jontron was right about rich blacks and crime. As per the Washington post, poor whites are less likely to go to prison than rich blacks. You can say it's discrimination but I'd argue it is unlikely this is the case based on the correspondance between black perps reported by the NCVS and UCR. Basically the records of blacks charged with crimes matches the rate people report being victimized by blacks.

Destiny is just about reducing bad things happening (who isnt), and he thinks being conciliatory is the answer. I guess this is why he dislikes race realism, means you cant just throw money at the issue. Economists tend to assume people are just widgets which can be interchangeable, and it neglects the fact that power is a zero-sum game, giving away industrial power is pretty bad. I dont even disagree with his reasoning but think on some level, like economists do, he assumes diverse strata of humanity are interchangable widgets.

Really, Destiny is smart and competent at debating. He knows it is better to criticize the other side than defend one's own positions, and debates he has lost usually involve that script being flipped. And people think because he has an annoying personality that this isnt true, that he isnt smart and quick enough to be good at debating. Really, I think that is the secret. His debates are annoying to watch if you dont care for him so people dont know what to expect. And in many cases dont even know their own position, overrating themselves

The people arguing with him about economics were being stupid, they let him get away with a huge presupposition and instead tried arguing against the free market rather than explaining the limits of reducing everything to a matter of money.
Mexico wont be as stable as Canada, and assuming lack of money is why is silly. Lack of money is the consequence of Mexico's failures and problems. ​If a latin american nation cant twist the arm of America for more money like we would hypothetically give to Mexico, how will money fix their issues? Puerto Rico isnt a powerful economy despite US assistance.
Tends to frame the argument where all his solutions will work out ideally, all his opponent's will never ever work out well. At least he admitted wages get depressed.

Why not just build the wall and send them money, that way we just arent endlessly throwing them money?

"What would the super long term economic impacts? Not sure"
Most criticisms of immigration revolve around the long term economic impact of these demographic changes. One of which is Krugman's "permanent underclass" which can only do low level labor and will get fucked by automation.