Good post, DoM. Thanks for responding and laying it out. Could you clarify what you believe to be grooming to be? If I were to guess, it would be things like noticing and pointing out disproportions along racial and ethnic lines without being overt and hateful about it. Is that far off base?
I think you're being sarcastic and deceitful, but it's still a valid question.
Yes, it's obviously far off base. Obviously 13-50, 12-56, and 6-56 are not forms of grooming. Disparities do not equate to discrimination because equality is never the norm.
It's the way in which the racialists, both left and right, behave to get their point across, mostly by 'hiding their power-level' from normies instead of being honest about their actual positions.
Instead of arguing from the racial theory of history, and approaching that on it's points, the point is to goad a normie into accepting the racial theory of history by intentionally skewing someone's experiential knowledge by using conditioning and affirmation.
Because racialists use mental conditioning tactics to harp on the assertion. Normalcy of this conditioning through institutions promotes this perspective. Then, you add virtue signaling in social groups through affirmation. They key is to trigger the person with a cue each time they hear a story. Then, go further down this path by rationalizing the affirmation and conditioning you've basically programmed into someone through both shared experience and an 'intellectual' class that can create a theory or hypothesis for you. Eventually, you get to the point of conditioning people into simply accepting things like the racial theory of history, and they've gone through so much conditioning that saying that it might not be true is absolutely ludicrous to them. Why? Because their experiential knowledge matches what their rationalization is, because they've been effectively back-rationalized for years to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.
Why do black people think that cops want to kill them when they walk outside?
Because literally everyone they know talks about racist cops, racist cops, racist cops. White people hate you. White people want to kill you. Cops will shoot you. Cops don't shoot white people. Racist cops. That's the only reason they'd pull you over. Racist cops. That's why you're in trouble. They'd let a white person go. Racist cops The anti-white rhetoric is so institutionalized that it's simply accepted as unquestioned fact. No one would ever disagree.
Most of these people are already at the final stage, but the kids growing up are always taught to look for where a white person was being racist to you, because he has to be racist to you eventually. Every time they speak to a white person: "What does he mean by that?", "What is he thinking?", "Why is he acting that way?", "Did he say it because I'm black?". Then a white guy uses the word "boy" and it acts as a trigger. It doesn't matter what it was about, doesn't matter why he used it, doesn't matter if the explicit context of the conversation was about boys & girls, that word acts as a trigger to prove that you're dealing with a racist. That's the conditioning and affirmation.
Didn't you see what the man on TV? It's those racist cops again. They shot another black man down. They can't help themselves. Was the cop white? Yes. Of course he was. No? Doesn't matter. He was serving whites. The whites always benefit. Doesn't that make you mad? Good. You should talk about it.
Then you've got to share those experiences with others. Everybody gets to tell their story about those racist fucking crackers being racist. Everyone has a story because everyone's experienced it. If you haven't then you weren't paying close enough attention. Go back and get affirmation again. Interacted with a white person and you didn't feel like he was racist? Maybe it's you. Maybe you got the white devil in you? Maybe your a coon? Don't you realize that they hate you. Look what they've turned you into. You're just their pet. Get with the rest of us. Recognize that they hate you. Find the confirmation bias. Get the affirmation.
Good, now you've got the affirmation. Everyone agrees. We're all onboard together. We're not like the whites. Why are the whites like this, we didn't do anything to them! Why are they so obsessed with being racist? Why do they hate us so much? Oh, well, you didn't know this but the whites aren't even human, they were made by a mad scientist named Yakub. Didn't you know? The whites don't act like normal humans, remember all that conditioning I had you do? Of course you do. The whites don't act like humans because they aren't humans. They hate you because of how powerful you are. We was kangs and shit. You're much smarter than them. You know their secret. There are plenty of black people who don't even know this. You're in an exclusive and self-affirming club of Top MInds who understand the Caucasoid and his motivations.
Just remember, that cop out there, he hates you. You're everything he can't be. Smart, strong, powerful. He's jealous of you. He's an agent of what keeps you down! He's the embodiment of a thousand years of mayos that hate you and wish they were you! He can't stand to look at you. Did a black man get shot? Of course he did! Was it by a white man? Of course it was! Why? Because that's who white people are in their very souls! Uhuru!
Okay, but so how does the alt-right do the same thing?
Early Life. Early Life. Early Life. Check his name. Check her name. Look again. Find it. Find it. Find it. Find the Jew. Find the Jew. Every time. Every time. Every time. Look again. Every time. Early Life. Every time. Check Nose. Check Name. That's a Jewish name, right? No? Did she change her name? She's probably just a secular Jew. Married in. Look again. She's employed by a Jew. There you go. They always benefit. What is it this time? Bet you he's a Jew. Early Life. Every Time. Every Time.
You saw it was a Jew right? Pol was right again. See, I told you. Every Time. Oy Vey. The Goyim know! Every Time. Early life, every time. Check nose. Don't agree? What, are you a fucking Jew too? What's your name? Post nose. Shut up. You hate whites. You're still brainwashed by their conditioning. We're not like that. We know about their tricks. We know what they do and how they work.
Why do they act like this? Why can't they not subvert everything? Why don't they act like humans? They don't act like humans because they aren't humans. They hate you because they know how powerful we are when we stand together. We're much smarter than them. We know their secrets. We're the Top Minds against the JIDF. We were kings and shit.
...
And so on and so forth. It follows the same pattern because the truth is, the followers of racialism are always getting played like this. That slow, methodical, corruption via conditioning is the grooming. It's the psychological control and manipulation.
The dark truth is that the reason the Left are so terrified of simple /pol memes is because they know that, if it's done right, it works. How the hell else would they have gotten to where they are if they didn't manipulate people's language and interrupt people's thought patterns with psychological conditioning?
I think you're being sarcastic and deceitful, but it's still a valid question.
While I'm sarcastic to strawman and emotive arguments, I'm rarely deceitful. I may question in favor positions I don't fully believe myself, but that's not deceitful. That's just philosophical examination. Kind of surprised that you would think I'm not operating from a place of honesty, really.
It's the way in which the racialists, both left and right, behave to get their point across, mostly by 'hiding their power-level' from normies instead of being honest about their actual positions.
Anti-whiteness has become so institutionally acceptable on the Left at this point that it's probably the thing I'm going to get fired for fighting against it IRL.
First of all, hide your power level. Getting fired serves no purpose, unless you're simply ready for a change of employment. You aren't going to change things on an individual level. Focus on the zeitgeist. Second, you acknowledge institutionally acceptable anti-whiteness. But it's further than that. It's anti-white indoctrination. You don't unwind indoctrination by constantly triggering cognitive dissonance. You ease people into ideas that are uncomfortable, but not painful. Anyone that can't say kike or nigger or chink without discomfort isn't really free in their thoughts. That's why you notice and point, and don't simply start dumping a fact overload that will be summarily rejected. The rejection has nothing to do with the content of the message, but by the conditioning of the subject.
So despite what you say, noticing or 13/50 is precisely what you believe to be grooming. I prefer the term deprogramming, but that's semantics. The goal is the same. Creating receptiveness to ideas that would normally trigger cognitive dissonance.
racist cops, racist cops, racist cops. White people hate you. White people want to kill you. Cops will shoot you. Cops don't shoot white people. Racist cops. That's the only reason they'd pull you over. Racist cops. That's why you're in trouble. They'd let a white person go. Racist cops
While you're correct that this triggers a lot of the discord we're seeing, there are easily obtained facts that show exactly why blacks are disproportionately killed in police encounters. Namely, they're responsible for 44% of attacks on cops, which is what, in turn, leads to death of offenders.
Early Life. Early Life. Early Life. Check his name. Check her name. Look again. Find it. Find it. Find it. Find the Jew. Find the Jew. Every time. Every time. Every time. Look again. Every time. Early Life. Every time. Check Nose. Check Name.
Here it gets a little tricky. We're not dealing with recorded criminality, but instead promotion of degeneracy and undue influence over way too many people. Because there's no clear database of:
Journalism overall
Distribution by ethnicity
Articles promoting degeneracy
It gets tough to make a clear argument. You can show massive disproportions in ownership and leadership within mainstream news or financial or legal organizations, but laying that out doesn't deprogram anyone. They'll still flinch cognitively when they become suspicious of the Jew. At least initially. That's why you get people to question, rather than say stupid shit like "it's all the Jews fault" (which isn't true, btw).
Now, we can look at other areas of influence that do have recorded information on influence.
The influence is there and disproportionate for anyone willing to see it.
That's why you see so much Early Life. Your community is fighting against degeneracy in our culture, and it has a disproportionate source. I just wish we had a journalism database that couldn't be dismissed as easily as the FBI uniform crime stats.
It's not about conditioning people, DoM. It's about deconditioning people so they can stand on their own with free thought. If you can say nigger without feeling anything, and not feel a need to say nigger, you're in a good place.
Kind of surprised that you would think I'm not operating from a place of honesty, really.
It seemed like a ridiculous question. Why not just ban an entire topic of discussion while I make an attempt to preserve our universally threatened rights to speak freely? Should be obvious.
First of all, hide your power level. Getting fired serves no purpose, unless you're simply ready for a change of employment. You aren't going to change things on an individual level.
Welcome to the Culture War. You should always be prepared to be fired. In fact, you should always go before you get fired. You should make the savings to prepare for that.
I don't agree that you can't change things on an individual level. In fact, individual actions are the only way you can change anything at all. Hell, what do you think I've done to KiA2 besides individual actions? Each institution must be built by hand, not abstraction.
So despite what you say, noticing or 13/50 is precisely what you believe to be grooming. I prefer the term deprogramming, but that's semantics. The goal is the same. Creating receptiveness to ideas that would normally trigger cognitive dissonance.
That's my point, I don't think it is because the end result is different. You deprogram people with conditioning. You can only deprogram people through experience to break any previous conditioning, and most importantly, it has to be an act of independent thought. Conditioned responses to trigger words is the opposite of that, and it's done for an ideological purpose.
All that you'd be doing is trading one ideological possession for another.
While you're correct that this triggers a lot of the discord we're seeing, there are easily obtained facts that show exactly why blacks are disproportionately killed in police encounters. Namely, they're responsible for 44% of attacks on cops, which is what, in turn, leads to death of offenders.
Because Disparity is not Discrimination. There's an underlying factor of behavior, culture, education, competence, family, tradition, and a thousand other things related to that. White cops and White judges don't mean Whites are using power to dominate blacks. The Racial Theory of History isn't valid.
The influence is there and disproportionate for anyone willing to see it.
Disparity is not Discrimination.
Your community is fighting against degeneracy in our culture, and it has a disproportionate source.
I am but a humble janny. "The community" is an abstraction formed by it's changing individual members. What it chooses to fight for, is what they themselves chose to fight for.
It seemed like a ridiculous question. Why not just ban an entire topic of discussion while I make an attempt to preserve our universally threatened rights to speak freely? Should be obvious.
I'm just saying, I doubt "coalburner" or even "niggerlover" would have triggered the removal as quickly as "kikesucker". You seem to have a kneejerk fear and loathing of this particular brand of racism; not without good reason, because it truly is one of the greatest sins a person can commit with speech in this era. For that reason, it would seem as valid to remove such a comment as a direct slur at a user. You're drawing a line, so there's already a compromise. Why not move the line a little to the left to save yourself this particular headache?
I know that you understand that this is precisely how leftism works. Slow and insidious compromises to your ideals. But you also realize you've already compromised, likely in the name of quality discussion, I'm sure. It was a good faith question, I assure you. You're the one that gets to choose where that line is, and I'm just wondering why you fight something that you don't seem to view as conducive to quality discussion, when it's entirely at your discretion.
I don't agree that you can't change things on an individual level. In fact, individual actions are the only way you can change anything at all. Hell, what do you think I've done to KiA2 besides individual actions? Each institution must be built by hand, not abstraction.
I am but a humble janny. "The community" is an abstraction formed by it's changing individual members. What it chooses to fight for, is what they themselves chose to fight for.
These two statements together are more what I meant. It's the zeitgeist. Your individual actions don't mean much unless they're in concert with others. If your firing influences those around you, or if you can get others to take a stand with you, then there's meaning to it. If your a minor individual annoyance that is quickly forgotten, then it probably only has much meaning to you (which, of course, still has value). Your actions, along with the individuals in the community, help shape the coming zeitgeist. If your firing would have no impact on the greater abstract, it would seem ill advised. The institution is built by hand, but it only becomes an institution within the abstract. This is also, incidentally, the exact foundation that modern racism is founded on; individual actions that build on the abstract.
I appreciate your view on being prepared for it, though. Cancel culture makes it a necessity as much as impending recession.
That's my point, I don't think it is because the end result is different. You deprogram people with conditioning. You can only deprogram people through experience to break any previous conditioning, and most importantly, it has to be an act of independent thought. Conditioned responses to trigger words is the opposite of that, and it's done for an ideological purpose.
You have to condition people to have an independent thought that breaks their programming. That's why people point out ((())). Eventually, through exposure, people begin to look into it for themselves. That's why you say 13/50. So people become receptive to the facts shown on FBI table 43. Some people legitimately believe only black crimes are reported to explain away that information if you don't bring them to a place where they can notice things they're conditioned to not notice.
This is why /pol/ memes are effective. They're succinct and make people question. That initial act of questioning things that you were taught to not question is "the red pill". What that means isn't ideologically rigid, because it's an individual act of self discovery.
Because Disparity is not Discrimination. There's an underlying factor of behavior, culture, education, competence, family, tradition, and a thousand other things related to that. White cops and White judges don't mean Whites are using power to dominate blacks. The Racial Theory of History isn't valid.
I may not be reading you right here, but this isn't an argument of discriminatory outcome. It's an argument of behavior, an underlying factor. Everything I've said
has been about observation of behavior, not of outcome. If you meant something else, I apologize, but you seem to be arguing that "equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome", which isn't my point at all. I'm in complete agreement with that statement.
Now, there is certainly an inherent correlation between behavior and outcome. I wouldn't use white in these analogies, because, at least in the US, whites are a majority, and proportions are amplified without and understanding of distribution (on a side note, the anti-AP style guide of capitalizing the W is a nice touch). When you deal with 2% or 13%, it helps contextualize why there's a disproportion. Saying whites are responsible for 64% of anti-social behavior sounds a lot more powerful without the context of whites being 64% of the studied group. Saying whites are responsible for 50% of articles promoting societal degeneracy works the same way (which I can't prove offhand, and I really wish we had a database so I could).
I don't condemn Jewish wealth. I don't condemn Jewish participation in journalism. I condemn their behavior in both how they use, and how they obtain that wealth and influence, disproportionately. And yes, Jews aren't a monolith. There are poor Jews, to be sure. There are wonderful Jews. There are honest Jews. The same applies to blacks, or any other "group". That's not the argument. It's the abstract that matters on the societal level. Anecdotes are great for individual interaction, but only a miniscule data point on demographic observation.
Also, I don't know what the Racial Theory of History is. Is that a tangible thing (CRT?), or is it an allusion to a limited influence of genetic factors on behavior, culture, tradition, competence, etc. on how things have turned out along racial lines?
Good post, DoM. Thanks for responding and laying it out. Could you clarify what you believe to be grooming to be? If I were to guess, it would be things like noticing and pointing out disproportions along racial and ethnic lines without being overt and hateful about it. Is that far off base?
I think you're being sarcastic and deceitful, but it's still a valid question.
Yes, it's obviously far off base. Obviously 13-50, 12-56, and 6-56 are not forms of grooming. Disparities do not equate to discrimination because equality is never the norm.
It's the way in which the racialists, both left and right, behave to get their point across, mostly by 'hiding their power-level' from normies instead of being honest about their actual positions.
Instead of arguing from the racial theory of history, and approaching that on it's points, the point is to goad a normie into accepting the racial theory of history by intentionally skewing someone's experiential knowledge by using conditioning and affirmation.
Because racialists use mental conditioning tactics to harp on the assertion. Normalcy of this conditioning through institutions promotes this perspective. Then, you add virtue signaling in social groups through affirmation. They key is to trigger the person with a cue each time they hear a story. Then, go further down this path by rationalizing the affirmation and conditioning you've basically programmed into someone through both shared experience and an 'intellectual' class that can create a theory or hypothesis for you. Eventually, you get to the point of conditioning people into simply accepting things like the racial theory of history, and they've gone through so much conditioning that saying that it might not be true is absolutely ludicrous to them. Why? Because their experiential knowledge matches what their rationalization is, because they've been effectively back-rationalized for years to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.
Why do black people think that cops want to kill them when they walk outside?
Because literally everyone they know talks about racist cops, racist cops, racist cops. White people hate you. White people want to kill you. Cops will shoot you. Cops don't shoot white people. Racist cops. That's the only reason they'd pull you over. Racist cops. That's why you're in trouble. They'd let a white person go. Racist cops The anti-white rhetoric is so institutionalized that it's simply accepted as unquestioned fact. No one would ever disagree.
Most of these people are already at the final stage, but the kids growing up are always taught to look for where a white person was being racist to you, because he has to be racist to you eventually. Every time they speak to a white person: "What does he mean by that?", "What is he thinking?", "Why is he acting that way?", "Did he say it because I'm black?". Then a white guy uses the word "boy" and it acts as a trigger. It doesn't matter what it was about, doesn't matter why he used it, doesn't matter if the explicit context of the conversation was about boys & girls, that word acts as a trigger to prove that you're dealing with a racist. That's the conditioning and affirmation.
Didn't you see what the man on TV? It's those racist cops again. They shot another black man down. They can't help themselves. Was the cop white? Yes. Of course he was. No? Doesn't matter. He was serving whites. The whites always benefit. Doesn't that make you mad? Good. You should talk about it.
Then you've got to share those experiences with others. Everybody gets to tell their story about those racist fucking crackers being racist. Everyone has a story because everyone's experienced it. If you haven't then you weren't paying close enough attention. Go back and get affirmation again. Interacted with a white person and you didn't feel like he was racist? Maybe it's you. Maybe you got the white devil in you? Maybe your a coon? Don't you realize that they hate you. Look what they've turned you into. You're just their pet. Get with the rest of us. Recognize that they hate you. Find the confirmation bias. Get the affirmation.
Good, now you've got the affirmation. Everyone agrees. We're all onboard together. We're not like the whites. Why are the whites like this, we didn't do anything to them! Why are they so obsessed with being racist? Why do they hate us so much? Oh, well, you didn't know this but the whites aren't even human, they were made by a mad scientist named Yakub. Didn't you know? The whites don't act like normal humans, remember all that conditioning I had you do? Of course you do. The whites don't act like humans because they aren't humans. They hate you because of how powerful you are. We was kangs and shit. You're much smarter than them. You know their secret. There are plenty of black people who don't even know this. You're in an exclusive and self-affirming club of Top MInds who understand the Caucasoid and his motivations.
Just remember, that cop out there, he hates you. You're everything he can't be. Smart, strong, powerful. He's jealous of you. He's an agent of what keeps you down! He's the embodiment of a thousand years of mayos that hate you and wish they were you! He can't stand to look at you. Did a black man get shot? Of course he did! Was it by a white man? Of course it was! Why? Because that's who white people are in their very souls! Uhuru!
Okay, but so how does the alt-right do the same thing?
Early Life. Early Life. Early Life. Check his name. Check her name. Look again. Find it. Find it. Find it. Find the Jew. Find the Jew. Every time. Every time. Every time. Look again. Every time. Early Life. Every time. Check Nose. Check Name. That's a Jewish name, right? No? Did she change her name? She's probably just a secular Jew. Married in. Look again. She's employed by a Jew. There you go. They always benefit. What is it this time? Bet you he's a Jew. Early Life. Every Time. Every Time.
You saw it was a Jew right? Pol was right again. See, I told you. Every Time. Oy Vey. The Goyim know! Every Time. Early life, every time. Check nose. Don't agree? What, are you a fucking Jew too? What's your name? Post nose. Shut up. You hate whites. You're still brainwashed by their conditioning. We're not like that. We know about their tricks. We know what they do and how they work.
Why do they act like this? Why can't they not subvert everything? Why don't they act like humans? They don't act like humans because they aren't humans. They hate you because they know how powerful we are when we stand together. We're much smarter than them. We know their secrets. We're the Top Minds against the JIDF. We were kings and shit.
...
And so on and so forth. It follows the same pattern because the truth is, the followers of racialism are always getting played like this. That slow, methodical, corruption via conditioning is the grooming. It's the psychological control and manipulation.
The dark truth is that the reason the Left are so terrified of simple /pol memes is because they know that, if it's done right, it works. How the hell else would they have gotten to where they are if they didn't manipulate people's language and interrupt people's thought patterns with psychological conditioning?
While I'm sarcastic to strawman and emotive arguments, I'm rarely deceitful. I may question in favor positions I don't fully believe myself, but that's not deceitful. That's just philosophical examination. Kind of surprised that you would think I'm not operating from a place of honesty, really.
First of all, hide your power level. Getting fired serves no purpose, unless you're simply ready for a change of employment. You aren't going to change things on an individual level. Focus on the zeitgeist. Second, you acknowledge institutionally acceptable anti-whiteness. But it's further than that. It's anti-white indoctrination. You don't unwind indoctrination by constantly triggering cognitive dissonance. You ease people into ideas that are uncomfortable, but not painful. Anyone that can't say kike or nigger or chink without discomfort isn't really free in their thoughts. That's why you notice and point, and don't simply start dumping a fact overload that will be summarily rejected. The rejection has nothing to do with the content of the message, but by the conditioning of the subject.
So despite what you say, noticing or 13/50 is precisely what you believe to be grooming. I prefer the term deprogramming, but that's semantics. The goal is the same. Creating receptiveness to ideas that would normally trigger cognitive dissonance.
While you're correct that this triggers a lot of the discord we're seeing, there are easily obtained facts that show exactly why blacks are disproportionately killed in police encounters. Namely, they're responsible for 44% of attacks on cops, which is what, in turn, leads to death of offenders.
Here it gets a little tricky. We're not dealing with recorded criminality, but instead promotion of degeneracy and undue influence over way too many people. Because there's no clear database of:
Now, we can look at other areas of influence that do have recorded information on influence.
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors
Top 10 individual contributions:
The influence is there and disproportionate for anyone willing to see it.
That's why you see so much Early Life. Your community is fighting against degeneracy in our culture, and it has a disproportionate source. I just wish we had a journalism database that couldn't be dismissed as easily as the FBI uniform crime stats.
It's not about conditioning people, DoM. It's about deconditioning people so they can stand on their own with free thought. If you can say nigger without feeling anything, and not feel a need to say nigger, you're in a good place.
It seemed like a ridiculous question. Why not just ban an entire topic of discussion while I make an attempt to preserve our universally threatened rights to speak freely? Should be obvious.
Welcome to the Culture War. You should always be prepared to be fired. In fact, you should always go before you get fired. You should make the savings to prepare for that.
I don't agree that you can't change things on an individual level. In fact, individual actions are the only way you can change anything at all. Hell, what do you think I've done to KiA2 besides individual actions? Each institution must be built by hand, not abstraction.
That's my point, I don't think it is because the end result is different. You deprogram people with conditioning. You can only deprogram people through experience to break any previous conditioning, and most importantly, it has to be an act of independent thought. Conditioned responses to trigger words is the opposite of that, and it's done for an ideological purpose.
All that you'd be doing is trading one ideological possession for another.
Because Disparity is not Discrimination. There's an underlying factor of behavior, culture, education, competence, family, tradition, and a thousand other things related to that. White cops and White judges don't mean Whites are using power to dominate blacks. The Racial Theory of History isn't valid.
Disparity is not Discrimination.
I am but a humble janny. "The community" is an abstraction formed by it's changing individual members. What it chooses to fight for, is what they themselves chose to fight for.
I'm just saying, I doubt "coalburner" or even "niggerlover" would have triggered the removal as quickly as "kikesucker". You seem to have a kneejerk fear and loathing of this particular brand of racism; not without good reason, because it truly is one of the greatest sins a person can commit with speech in this era. For that reason, it would seem as valid to remove such a comment as a direct slur at a user. You're drawing a line, so there's already a compromise. Why not move the line a little to the left to save yourself this particular headache?
I know that you understand that this is precisely how leftism works. Slow and insidious compromises to your ideals. But you also realize you've already compromised, likely in the name of quality discussion, I'm sure. It was a good faith question, I assure you. You're the one that gets to choose where that line is, and I'm just wondering why you fight something that you don't seem to view as conducive to quality discussion, when it's entirely at your discretion.
These two statements together are more what I meant. It's the zeitgeist. Your individual actions don't mean much unless they're in concert with others. If your firing influences those around you, or if you can get others to take a stand with you, then there's meaning to it. If your a minor individual annoyance that is quickly forgotten, then it probably only has much meaning to you (which, of course, still has value). Your actions, along with the individuals in the community, help shape the coming zeitgeist. If your firing would have no impact on the greater abstract, it would seem ill advised. The institution is built by hand, but it only becomes an institution within the abstract. This is also, incidentally, the exact foundation that modern racism is founded on; individual actions that build on the abstract.
I appreciate your view on being prepared for it, though. Cancel culture makes it a necessity as much as impending recession.
You have to condition people to have an independent thought that breaks their programming. That's why people point out ((())). Eventually, through exposure, people begin to look into it for themselves. That's why you say 13/50. So people become receptive to the facts shown on FBI table 43. Some people legitimately believe only black crimes are reported to explain away that information if you don't bring them to a place where they can notice things they're conditioned to not notice.
This is why /pol/ memes are effective. They're succinct and make people question. That initial act of questioning things that you were taught to not question is "the red pill". What that means isn't ideologically rigid, because it's an individual act of self discovery.
I may not be reading you right here, but this isn't an argument of discriminatory outcome. It's an argument of behavior, an underlying factor. Everything I've said has been about observation of behavior, not of outcome. If you meant something else, I apologize, but you seem to be arguing that "equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome", which isn't my point at all. I'm in complete agreement with that statement.
Now, there is certainly an inherent correlation between behavior and outcome. I wouldn't use white in these analogies, because, at least in the US, whites are a majority, and proportions are amplified without and understanding of distribution (on a side note, the anti-AP style guide of capitalizing the W is a nice touch). When you deal with 2% or 13%, it helps contextualize why there's a disproportion. Saying whites are responsible for 64% of anti-social behavior sounds a lot more powerful without the context of whites being 64% of the studied group. Saying whites are responsible for 50% of articles promoting societal degeneracy works the same way (which I can't prove offhand, and I really wish we had a database so I could).
I don't condemn Jewish wealth. I don't condemn Jewish participation in journalism. I condemn their behavior in both how they use, and how they obtain that wealth and influence, disproportionately. And yes, Jews aren't a monolith. There are poor Jews, to be sure. There are wonderful Jews. There are honest Jews. The same applies to blacks, or any other "group". That's not the argument. It's the abstract that matters on the societal level. Anecdotes are great for individual interaction, but only a miniscule data point on demographic observation.
Also, I don't know what the Racial Theory of History is. Is that a tangible thing (CRT?), or is it an allusion to a limited influence of genetic factors on behavior, culture, tradition, competence, etc. on how things have turned out along racial lines?