Insanity of the Left

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Your evidence of that specific distribution?

There's no evidence of anything else. As Hashi noted, if it were right-wing groups doing the damage, that'd be the lead story on the news every night.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The exact percentages may not be exact but the principle is sound: if right-wing groups were indeed instigating violence then there would be a non-stop barrage of it topping every other news story, corona included, from the Liberal Media. The lack of such non-stop news coverage is the evidence that it isn't right-wing groups.

[Gaius Octavius]

You say that while discounting all the news stories of "boogaloo bois," "boogaloo movement," "Umbrella Man," "Proud Boys," etc.

Come on, you know better than that. Your fallacious line of reasoning is basically: "If it wasn't talked about all the time, it did not happen."

[Gaius Octavius]

People who believe that police need to be defunded deserve never to have police protection ever again.

I don't support defunding the police, but you are delusional if you believe that the police protect citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled that cops aren't obligated to protect citizens despite the whole "protect and serve" motto.

Cops are literally just people who investigate crimes, not people who are required by law to stop crimes currently taking place or prevent them.

A police officer can literally sit in his squad care near a dark street corner, watch a woman get mugged and raped by some thug, and do nothing about it. He may or may not get fired for unprofessional conduct, but he cannot get in trouble with the law over it. All he has to do is investigate the crime.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

You say that while discounting all the news stories of "boogaloo bois," "boogaloo movement," "Umbrella Man," "Proud Boys," etc.

Come on, you know better than that. Your fallacious line of reasoning is basically: "If it wasn't talked about all the time, it did not happen."

Please list the cities they've rioted in and looted, the public and private property they've destroyed, the liberal media personalities and politicians they've harassed in restaurants and other public venues, or anything other than peaceful get-togethers.

The Boogaloo thing was a joke. A complete non-event.

[Gaius Octavius]

You are also building a strawman argument. No one ever said that the majority of rioters/looters were right-wing.

Just because something isn't the majority doesn't mean that it isn't significant. There are radical right-wing groups that are "accelerationists." What that means is that they purposefully fan the flames of racial division. They purposefully do mass shootings because they want the government to react by creating tough gun laws.

Why do they do this? The goal is to instigate a civil war.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

You are also building a strawman argument. No one ever said that the majority of rioters/looters were right-wing.

Just because something isn't the majority doesn't mean that it isn't significant. There are radical right-wing groups that are "accelerationists." What that means is that they purposefully fan the flames of racial division. They purposefully do mass shootings because they want the government to react by creating tough gun laws.

Why do they do this? The goal is to instigate a civil war.

I don't know why I bother, as no one's been able to get through to Wayfreind what a straw man fallacy is, but I'll keep doggedly trying with everyone.

Please list "significant" instances of coordinated right-wing violence. Anything that compares to several blocks of a major city seceding from the US, or Democrat politicians whipping people up to drive Republicans from public places.

As a former member was wont to say, I'll wait.

[Gaius Octavius]

The Boogaloo thing was a joke. A complete non-event.

I'm not your personal secretary. Go look it up yourself. I've already mentioned the specific example of the Umbrella Man, but you completely discounted that.

You are very ignorant concerning the "boogaloo" movement. Just because it has a stupid name does not mean that it's a joke. There really are people who want to accelerate policies that they see as anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-gun. They want conservatives to get angry and be susceptible to radicalization. They want to start a civil war so they can remake society in their own image.

I've spent a lot of time around far-right content and have seen this first hand. This is a very real movement. They are able to blend in somewhat with more conservative-looking individuals/groups, and that is by design.

There are people on Youtube for example (and I know you probably think Youtube is a joke or whatever, but it is popular for political commentary) who are drawn to these channels. On the surface, they appear like your bread-and-butter Republican political commentators, however, the more you dig the more you realize that they are just a gateway to far-right ideology.

There's a channel called the Red Elephants on Youtube. The guy presents himself as just a young GOP voter presenting conservative political commentary. However, the more you watch him, you start seeing things that aren't quite right. He livestreamed with a literal neo-Nazi on his channel (Devon Stack, author of "Day of the Rope" which is just a re-telling of William Luther Pierce's "Turner Diaries"). These political commentators generally only livestream with people they agree with, and Vincent James (The Red Elephants) never did say anything critical but was in agreement with Devon Stack. Of course, Devon Stack never said anything about the Jews or advocated genocide. However, if you look at his book and read between the lines on his channel (Black Pilled), you will see what is really going on.

[Gaius Octavius]

You are also building a strawman argument. No one ever said that the majority of rioters/looters were right-wing.

Just because something isn't the majority doesn't mean that it isn't significant. There are radical right-wing groups that are "accelerationists." What that means is that they purposefully fan the flames of racial division. They purposefully do mass shootings because they want the government to react by creating tough gun laws.

Why do they do this? The goal is to instigate a civil war.

I don't know why I bother, as no one's been able to get through to Wayfreind what a straw man fallacy is, but I'll keep doggedly trying with everyone.

Please list "significant" instances of coordinated right-wing violence. Anything that compares to several blocks of a major city seceding from the US, or Democrat politicians whipping people up to drive Republicans from public places.

As a former member was wont to say, I'll wait.

Don't play dumb.

We have far-right mass shootings. That's right-wing. We have the Clive Bundy ranch standoff with federal officers. That's right-wing violence. They took over federal property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupatio ... ife_Refuge

You have people open-carrying guns to protests as an intimidation tactic. That's right-wing, predominately at least.

You have already been given examples of radicals who want another civil war being involved with current events, showing up to protests in order to intimidate others, or even using violence. You just choose to ignore what doesn't fit your view.

Yes, I agree that the majority of the violence is due to anarchists and Marxists (primarily Antifa). Yes, they are left-wingers. However, you are pretending that the right-wing radicals do not exist, which is fucking dense.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

It's well and good that you're not my personal secretary, as you're not very helpful.

I mentioned "Umbrella Man". 1 guy, 1 incident. I already mentioned the Bundy thing, and noted that there was no violence, other than the government killing a man. This is what you're hanging your hat on?

Boogaloo. Hmmm, what have they done? Nothing. Oh, there's a YouTube channel. That's great. People are free to post whatever they like, and there's plenty of radical left YouTube channels as well. Walking around with guns? Perfectly legal. It's 4Chan nonsense, just like everything from 4Chan.

Again, please regale us with all the horrible, violent actions that right wing groups have perpetrated during the last 6 months or so. Go back further if you need to. Dylan Roof? Mainstream conservatives treated him like a leper. Tim McVeigh? Same. Show me the Republican congressman who did what Maxine Waters did.

You're so fervent in your beliefs, back them up with actual facts.



Of course, you're calling me dumb and dense, which means you have no argument and have turned to Sky's name calling. Pity.

[Gaius Octavius]

I mentioned "Umbrella Man". 1 guy, 1 incident. I already mentioned the Bundy thing, and noted that there was no violence, other than the government killing a man. This is what you're hanging your hat on?

Boogaloo. Hmmm, what have they done? Nothing. Oh, there's a YouTube channel. That's great. People are free to post whatever they like, and there's plenty of radical left YouTube channels as well.

The Red Elephants
Black Pigeon Speaks
Felix Rex
Stefan Molyneux
Blacked Pilled
Way of the World
Murdoch Murdoch
Revival of the West
The Iconoclast
Survive the Jive*

*Although he's more of an archaeology/history channel. He's a massive racist though, and his channel community has many far-right type people. I believe he himself has such political leanings. Despite the politics, his channel is pretty good if you want to learn about Indo-European history, and he definitely knows his stuff. He's from a wealthy family, and one of his ancestors was instrumental in creating the Indian railroad system and earned an OBE for it.

These are just some of the far-right channels. They vary in extremity.

Some as I've said are gateways. They are designed to appeal to typical conservatives in order to radicalize them. Of course, they don't say anything about white nationalism directly, but they do slowly indoctrinate you with things like "cultural Marxism" ("cultural Bolshevism," as defined by the Nazis). Their objective is merely to put the idea in your head that the world is anti-white male, that it wants to destroy you. The further you dig into the rabbit hole, the more they do this. Eventually, they start out-right saying the Jews own the media, the Jews run the banks, the Jews want to breed the white man out of existence through "UN replacement migration." That they will ban guns in order to destroy the possibility of armed resistance to the white genocide. This is the ultimate goal: full radicalization. Convert conservatives to neo-fascists by way of the red pill.

As far as communities, it should go without saying that there are plenty off of Youtube. Gab, Telegram, Bitchute, /pol/, VOAT, etc., are all popular platforms for far-right political discourse.

You act like there are only the far-left people. They are a problem, sure, but so are the far-right. You can't solve the problem by only looking at one part of the equation.

You continue to downplay the threat by saying that it isn't significant. The Clive Bundy incident was violent (other than the militiaman getting shot by law enforcement) because it was an armed takeover of federal property. Authorities tried to intervene and were met with warning shots. The message was clear: "Do something about it. We will kill you." That is violence.

Slinging rifles over your shoulder and wearing surplus military gear to protests isn't really about "I am exercising my constitutional rights" as it is about "I am doing this. I dare you to stop me, because I will kill you." That is violence. They may or may not shoot somebody, but the threat of violence is always implicit with their actions. It is an intimidation tactic. It is a warning, and a promise.

Also, the far-right movement isn't isolated to just America. It is a worldwide phenomenon. It is the cultural zeitgeist: a movement towards hardcore nationalism.

The Christchurch shooter killed the Muslims solely because he wanted to accelerate the implementation of anti-gun laws as well as a gun confiscation in New Zealand. And it wasn't just in New Zealand, but by doing that, he knew there would be a lot of press about it. He knew it would trigger gun control policy in the US as well. That was all planned. It wasn't just a spur-of-the-moment kind of thing.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Again I ask you, what have they done? This is the United States, people have a constitutionally protected right to say whatever dumb stuff they want.

I mean, your entire argument can be summed up with, "but they didn't tip well".

[Gaius Octavius]

Before you dismiss these channels as "unpopular," keep in mind that Youtube has tried to ban these channels before. Some of them were successful (as in the case of most of Murdoch Murdoch's content), but others not so much.

Black Pigeon Speaks (and as I recall Red Elephants as well and The Iconoclast) was banned, but that decision was quickly reversed due to outcry from fans. It was big enough of a backlash to force Youtube to reverse their decision.

It will vary in terms of popularity, but the more mainstream-appearing channels like Red Elephants will generally be more popular than the more radical channels because they are easily digested by conservatives. You don't realize what is going on, just like a frog being boiled alive.

BPS is very popular as well. His content is very professionally made. His graphics are impressive. His voice is charismatic, it is dramatic. He knows how to work your emotions.

Red Elephants will generally attract people who like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are more mainstream conservatives, your normal type, as it were. Then they discover more radical channels that are close enough to regular conservatives in tone and narrative, that they do not realize they are being radicalized.

[Gaius Octavius]

Again I ask you, what have they done? This is the United States, people have a constitutionally protected right to say whatever dumb stuff they want.

I mean, your entire argument can be summed up with, "but they didn't tip well".

Didn't you read any of my posts? I've already stated what they have done and given very clear examples.

Your last sentence is complete nonsense, and I am not even sure what you are trying to say. It is word salad.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

You haven't. They've done nothing other than exercise their free speech rights to say dumb things. Nano, speech is allowed in this country.

Left wing groups have destroyed public and private property. They've taken over blocks of a city. They've attacked politicians. The right wing guys have worn Hawaiian shirts and carried guns legally. The Bundy occupation was wrong, but again, who died? What property was destroyed? You realize that all charges against them were thrown out last week?

How are you not getting this?

[Gaius Octavius]

"The Last Son of the West" (reupload, OC is Murdoch Murdoch

"What were they fighting for?" (Murdoch Murdoch, reupload)

"Hold back the night" (Murdoch Murdoch reupload)

As you can see with the first few videos, blatant white nationalism. However, you see a lot of overlapping concepts discussed with such videos such as George Soros, radical feminism, cultural Marxism, white genocide, anti-white sentiment, UN replacement migration, etc. This is for people thoroughly indoctrinated and is an end-point in the radicalization. Videos are presented using stylization similar to South Park to appeal to younger people.

"How the L.A. Times Redpilled America (Way of the World) (22,000+ views for the video, 111k subscribers, which is pretty good for political commentary on Youtube)

"Facing the New Anti-White Reality" (Way of the World) (45,000 views)

"Rise of the Modern Emasculated Male" (BPS) (260k views, recent video; 550k subscribers

"LEFT OVER WOMEN and the Giggolos that Love Them" (BPS) (385k views)

Three of the BLACKEST PILLS of All (BPS) (330k views)

"The Party is Over" (Black Pilled) (90k views, recent video; 210k subscribers)

"Day of the Rope" (Black Pilled) (200k views)

Blackpilled and Red Elephants Livestream (reupload)

"Tucker EXPOSES the NY Times for Trying to Reveal Where He Lives" (Red Elephants) (28k views, 300k subscribers)

"Why We Willingly Give up the West: Demoralization, Indoctrination, Ostracism" (Red Elephants (44k views)

"CHAZ WARZONE" (Red Elephants) (25k views)

As you can see, some content can pass as just regular conservative media, but you see clues that there's more to the story when they talk about "assaults on whites" and the like, and how they entertain guests on their show like Devon Stack (an extremist who tries to pass his book off as just an exploration of an "interesting topic"). The more you dig, the more you realize what is going on.

Other channels are flat out obvious, some are more middle-ground. The most hardcore neo-Nazi content is for people already indoctrinated, but the faux-conservative content is to draw people in. They want disaffected whites to join their cause.

Part of the "conservative ban" controversy in social media includes these type of channels, which is then passed off as part of this phenomenon.

[Gaius Octavius]

As you can see, it's a spectrum. Not everyone who watches these videos are fully radicalized, nor do they ever become as such.

However, eventually you reach a point where you are furious, you want to know who did this to society. You blame the liberals, then you blame the communists for infiltrating our institutions. Eventually, they want you to come to the "realization" that the banks and media are controlled predominately by Jews, and that the media is liberal/Marxist. They want you to "realize" that the Jews are behind the spread of Marxism because many Jews supported the Bolsheviks. THAT is the ultimate goal, but just radicalizing you enough to embrace part of the white nationalist ideology is enough.

Also, Tucker Carlson's writer was exposed for posting racist content online. His show has been accused of spreading white nationalism before. I just find that interesting, given what I've found out myself about the phenomenon described above.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Again, freedom of speech. Not seeing how you're comparing this to what's going on in Portland or other major cities.

And no, I'm not clicking on those links. I have no desire to be on a list.

[Gaius Octavius]

My point of posting the links is to provide proof of the "rabbit hole" (as you might hear about in the press) that seeks to radicalize conservatives. Many conservatives may dismiss its existence, but I've provided hard proof that it does exist.

It can be hard to determine who is intentionally trying to radicalize conservatives and who isn't, so I've not listed Sargon of Akkad's channel. However, he does use the same terminology and bashes Soros just like the rest of them.

Some of them (Red Elephants) definitely ARE trying to radicalize. You can see that with the interview with Devon Stack. It's obvious what he's up to when you see that kind of video, otherwise you can be easily misled. Frog in the kettle.

Subscriber numbers might vary from 100k-600k and aren't Ben Shapiro's 1.5m subscribers, but those numbers are significant, and these channels exist to attract people who like conservative commentary.

[Gaius Octavius]

Watch this content, then watch Tucker Carlson. You can see the similarities.