White supremacist outcome...

[Industriallies]

Yeah, I totally deserve your nastiness. Because I don't vote.

All Trump voters deserve nastiness.

 

[Klingsor]

All Trump voters deserve nastiness.

Thank God Bulldog isn't around anymore. Just between us, what a little shit that guy was.

 

[The Meat Rod Cometh]

Awesome! It's a legitimate relief to finally see some good work being done on investigating the Alt-Right from a Left-leaning (mainstream) perspective. A few particularly worthy insights Mr. Wilson had:







That last bit points to precisely what I have been arguing here the past couple months. People seem to have this impression that the Alt-Right is just a rebranding of the same old stock of White nationalists. But it's very much not the case. There are some connections, but the majority of the AR's population is young men who were not brought up with this ideology. Which is what makes it particularly critical that we strive to learn what is motivating them. I think Mr. Wilson caught a glimmer of it with his perceiving their sense of being dispossessed of their place in society.

I realize that not all the "Alt-Right" folk share the same views as Richard Spencer.
Unfortunately he pretty much coined the term and he personally has blatant racist views that are obvious in most of his interviews.

In essence its going to make young men who may otherwise lean towards the other aspects of those views not want to have anything to do with the racist ones at all.
At this point it seems the only ones who accept the "Alt-Right" title are those who already had or have some form of racist views ready to be fanned into flame by someone else. Thus why they are the target crowd.

Instead of focusing in the issues at hand and speaking against all racism they themselves adopt racist views.
For example there are other aspects of their views (aside from the racist parts) that do have legitimacy, like the maintenance of European cultural heritages, etc.

What pisses me off the most is the fact that the "Alt-Right" could have done so much better if opposition to racism was actually an inherent aspect of their views which it obviously is not.
I get so tired of being erroneously classified with those types of people.

The only way to actually overcome the world financiers is to oppose all forms of racism entirely, period, as a solid principle. And actually mean it.

No more of this: "we're opposed to racism as long as its not us" crap. That dialouge has gotten very old time and again. Its the same dialouge the bankers use themselves.

 

[keenobserver]

I realize that not all the "Alt-Right" folk share the same views as Richard Spencer.
Unfortunately he pretty much coined the term and he personally has blatant racist views that are obvious in most of his interviews.

In essence its going to make young men who may otherwise lean towards the other aspects of those views not want to have anything to do with the racist ones at all.
At this point it seems the only ones who accept the "Alt-Right" title are those who already had or have some form of racist views ready to be fanned into flame by someone else. Thus why they are the target crowd.

Instead of focusing in the issues at hand and speaking against all racism they themselves adopt racist views.
For example there are other aspects of their views (aside from the racist parts) that do have legitimacy, like the maintenance of European cultural heritages, etc.

What pisses me off the most is the fact that the "Alt-Right" could have done so much better if opposition to racism was actually an inherent aspect of their views which it obviously is not.
I get so tired of being erroneously classified with those types of people.

The only way to actually overcome the world financiers is to oppose all forms of racism entirely, period, as a solid principle. And actually mean it.

No more of this: "we're opposed to racism as long as its not us" crap. That dialouge has gotten very old time and again. Its the same dialouge the bankers use themselves.

. . . said the Holocaust Denier.

 

[The Meat Rod Cometh]

. . . said the Holocaust Denier.

And what is that supposed to even mean?
How does that have anything to do with what I just posted above?

So when someone does not accept the official version of the "Holocaust" without more solid evidence that automatically makes him or her a so-called "Holocaust denier?"
No, it makes you a thorough historian.

So with that claim, not accepting the official version of American history would make me an "American History Denier?"
Any historian worth their grain of salt knows that most mainstream history is biased as fuck to one side and distorted to suit the whims of special interest groups.

This is just common sense even if one does not study alot of history.

The phrase "history is written by the winners" is a true and very accurate common sense statement.
But somehow the only historical incident where this phrase does not hold up in the public mind is regarding the "Holocaust"
Somehow every other historical incident is worthy of healthy skepticism except this one.

So therefore those who "win" historically must have their version of the history analyzed and scrutinized with the utmost healthy skepticism. Their motives regarding their presented history must also be analyzed thoroughly before jumping to any hyped or emotionally clouded conclusions.

 

[Thedrewbert]

Just where do you think 6 to 10 million Jews, homosexuals, and other undesirables are hiding? Do I need to clean out my basement and look harder next time?

The Nazis documented it in frightening detail.... NBC wasn't over there taking the film's...

Do you think the moon landing is fake too just because that history was written by Americans?

 

[Chrysippus]

Any historian worth their grain of salt knows that most mainstream history is biased as fuck to one side and distorted to suit the whims of special interest groups.
This is just common sense even if one does not study alot of history.

@The Meat Rod Cometh took his Twentieth-Century European History from Professor Goebbels at Trump University.

 

[Thedrewbert]

It just makes no sense. There are contemporary newspapers available for viewing that showed the Holocaust playing out in real time. The US knew what was going on, but didn't know the full extent of it till after the war. The Nazis took great notes and even film footage.

Aside from time travel, I'm not sure what more evidence there needs to be that this thing called the Holocaust happened.

 

[The Meat Rod Cometh]

Just where do you think 6 to 10 million Jews, homosexuals, and other undesirables are hiding? Do I need to clean out my basement and look harder next time?

The Nazis documented it in frightening detail.... NBC wasn't over there taking the film's...

Do you think the moon landing is fake too just because that history was written by Americans?

The moon landing is 100% absolutely faked and that has factually been proven countless times over.
There is a reason no one has returned to the moon even WITH all our modern high tech advancements in the field.
Why? Because it never happened in the first place, that's why. It would be a piece of cake to get back there by now comparatively.
Its 2017 for fucks sake. Over half a century after the supposed landing. Seriously man.

Anyone who thinks we actually made it to the moon in the 60s but thinks we can't or thinks there is a reason we won't now is delusional.
That on top of all the evidence that it was faked.
I guess that makes me a "Moon Landing Denier" then too doesn't it?

Again, there is always an assumption that not accepting the official version of history of that time somehow means that one does not accept people died or that one is somehow trying to justify what happened. Not accurate and again not accurate.
We should not accept the official version of either side during that time as both sides were extremely biased regarding details.
That should be obvious to everyone.

 

[Chrysippus]

We should not accept the official version of either side during that time as both sides were extremely biased regarding details.

Wow, a variant of Trump’s Charlottesville comment ‘there were good people on both sides.’

 

[The Meat Rod Cometh]

It just makes no sense. There are contemporary newspapers available for viewing that showed the Holocaust playing out in real time. The US knew what was going on, but didn't know the full extent of it till after the war. The Nazis took great notes and even film footage.

Aside from time travel, I'm not sure what more evidence there needs to be that this thing called the Holocaust happened.

People died yes, people were murdered on both sides, yes. Was it an atrocity? Yes, obviously.
Is the term "Holocaust" in any way accurate regarding what actually happened? NO.
It is not an accurate term for what happened or how people were killed and the term itself is extremely misleading in so many ways.
That is the issue with that term.

The term specifically means "burnt offering" The only single common ground thing many researchers deny regarding that period are the gas chambers being used for mass murdering and the scientifically impossible burning of piles of bodies. That is all, nothing more.
There is no denial of people being killed or dying in other ways.

Not accepting the "Holocaust" term specifically does not mean you do not accept the fact that people died or were murdered.
People need to get this through their heads already.

The white supremacists and racists in America today do not help the issue at all but only cloud it further by playing in to the already fucked up narrative.

 

[Thedrewbert]

Lawd, you're dumber than I thought. Into the basket you go.

There is no one official version of history. There is only the current version we know which gets updated as new information is discovered. You seem to be arguing over details of the Holocaust which is precision not accuracy. That the Nazis committed genocide on a massive scale may be imprecise, but it is still accurate.

As for the moon landing, we don't go back because we don't spend money on science (or history apparently) anymore. At this point we allow our bridges fall down in order to preserve tax breaks for the Walton family, so there is no way we're spending money to go to the Moon again unless the rich can make a huge profit.

 

[Thedrewbert]

You're really arguing about the original definition of the word? Spam used to just be a tinned meat product by Hormel... These days it means something entirely different.

Word meanings change over time... Get over it and yourself.

 

[The Meat Rod Cometh]

Lawd, you're dumber than I thought. Into the basket you go.
View attachment 845899


There is no one official version of history. There is only the current version we know which gets updated as new information is discovered. You seem to be arguing over details of the Holocaust which is precision not accuracy. That the Nazis committed genocide on a massive scale may be imprecise, but it is still accurate.

As for the moon landing, we don't go back because we don't spend money on science (or history apparently) anymore. At this point we allow our bridges fall down in order to preserve tax breaks for the Walton family, so there is no way we're spending money to go to the Moon again unless the rich can make a huge profit.

No man, we ain't never going "back" to the moon as we never went there in the first place and it is not even possible to reach the moon with currently available technology. This is a fact.

That is honestly the poorest argument I have ever read as to why we cannot make it back brother. 50 years from now we still won't be "back" there. It will probably be 25 to 20 years before the one's involved in the faking publicly come out and admit the landings were faked.
You're gonna feel like a damn fool when that day comes and you'll remember this conversation when that happens.
Best get on board so you do not feel like a lied to fool later. The sooner the better.

 

[SamSpain]

Sigh...sometimes u just wanna give up.

 

[The Meat Rod Cometh]

Sigh...sometimes u just wanna give up.

That's what they said when they realized they could not reach the moon.
But no, the fakery MUST go on!

So on they trucked for liberty and justice for all.

 

[Thedrewbert]

No man, we ain't never going "back" to the moon as we never went there in the first place and it is not even possible to reach the moon with currently available technology. This is a fact.

That is honestly the poorest argument I have ever read as to why we cannot make it back brother. 50 years from now we still won't be "back" there. It will probably be 25 to 20 years before the one's involved in the faking publicly come out and admit the landings were faked.
You're gonna feel like a damn fool when that day comes and you'll remember this conversation when that happens.
Best get on board so you do not feel like a lied to fool later. The sooner the better.

In 25 years, the ones who were old enough to participate in it will be 6 feet under.

(2017 + 25) - (1969 + 30)= 103 years old.

Current year plus 25 - moon landing year plus age of person involved = 103

No one under 30 would have been trusted with a conspiracy of that magnitude.

 

[The Meat Rod Cometh]

In 25 years, the ones who were old enough to participate in it will be 6 feet under.

(2017 + 25) - (1969 + 30)= 103 years old.

Current year plus 25 - moon landing year plus age of person involved = 103

No one under 30 would have been trusted with a conspiracy of that magnitude.

Oh. They'll admit it sooner than that. That would be the latest it would take.
And if not, it will be revealed via the solid evidence becoming mainstream of the fakery much sooner than that.

The fact that the earth is flat and circular now THAT is gonna be a hoot when that becomes the mainstream view.
The faked moon landing's got nothin' on that one. The lie that the earth is a globe has been faked for over 500 years

Faking landing on the moon is an amateur's piece of cake compared to that.

 

[deleted37010]

When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not):
The Backfire Effect in the Context of Journalistic Coverage and Immediate Judgments as Prevention Strategy

Although myths and facts stories are clearly designed to debunk common
myths existing in the population, research shows that this procedure might
have the opposite effect, because disclaimers do not always lead to a rectification,
but sometimes to a solidification of the myth: “Attempts to warn people
about false information can backfire and unintentionally increase people’s
acceptance of the false information as true” (Skurnik, Yoon, & Schwarz,
2007, p. 4). This backfire effect can be momentous, especially when people
base judgments on their erroneous memory.

full research article
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1075547015613523

 

[Thedrewbert]

Okay, now I can't tell if you're just trolling and playing dumb. If so, cheers mate, you got me.

If not... seek medical attention.