Destiny just became a white advocate (not memeing, watch the video):
(streamable.com)
Comments (37)
sorted by:
The reality is that if you are not allowed to advocate for yourself, you are either a prisoner or a slave. This is not complicated.
indeed!
P.S. Kill all white MEN
just one more hurdle to clear before he figures out just how fucked things are.
The second reality is that if someone is advocating on your behalf, they aren't advocating for you. The truth is that only you can advocate for yourself.
You're lying to yourself when you claim to advocate for others.
Others are lying to you when you when they claim to advocate for you.
He's still an unsufferable cunt who effectively abandoned his child so he could be part of the Commiefornia talking head crowd.
As shitty as Wiki is check his Personal Life section to where it mentions:
He doesn't live with his son, who is in Nebraska while Destiny himself moved around a few places in Cali before moving to Florida most recently.
He's in an open marriage.
He's bisexual.
If you've ever heard of the game "2 lies and a truth" take a guess how the above fit in despite whatever assurances he and his followers will make.
Pretty much. Most will flit between topics so they maintain an audience because they don't actually care about what they stream, it's all about the crowd and money that comes with it. Key point, Destiny become known because of streaming Starcraft 2. So why the fuck should anyone give a shit about him waxing lyrical about politics when actual political commentators are a thing?
disgusting
The game is very simple: how much power can non-whites accrue for themselves (using racial tribalism) before whites wake up and adopt their own defensive tribalism?
God willing, we will never go back to the delusional psyop of “colorblindness”.
Colorblindness would have been fine if the system had been colorblind. But the system was never colorblind and never ever tried to be. Affirmative action for non-whites isn't colorblind. The media freakouts whenever an unarmed black guy gets killed by cops (or overdoeses) isn't colorblind. The college admission rates aren't colorblind.
If these things WERE colorblind, we would not be in this mess.
If welware programs helped white trailer trash as much as they helped inner city blacks, we would not be in this mess.
The problem with colorblindness is not that it was a bad idea, it was that it was never, ever part of the system and only existed on the social level.
People will instinctually pick people who remind them of themselves. That's the very basis of tribalism on a biological level. Colorblindness was always a bad idea because we will never bridge that gap that racial diversity puts between us.
The only solution is an external enemy that is more different, which only works with things like constant warfare and demonetization of one specific group for the betterment of the rest. 9/11 was a good example of that in action for a brief time.
One of the failures of nearly every "progressive" idea is the denial of human nature, or the idea that we can suppress/overcome it. Colorblindness is another of those failures.
"Colorblindness" is a laudable ideal, but it is easily subverted by groups (or possibly even individuals) who refuse to go along. It's also contrary to human nature, but to build a successful society there are certain elements of human nature you have to overcome (though acting as if they don't exist after you "overcome" them is just asking for failure.) I don't think that the US can survive continued racial tribalism, but the solution to this problem is not a simple one
I don't see anything wrong with a society wanting to be ethnically homogenous, or even enforcing that, but this hasn't been the case in the US in a very long time, and it probably isn't practical to eject around half the citizenry purely on the basis of race, nor would I consider that to be a moral solution. The US (and every country) does need to be enforcing some degree of homogeneity or it will simply cease to exist due to irreconcilable factionalism within the populace.
I would propose that the US needs to revert back to a system where the states, cities, and--most importantly--individuals hold the power. In order to preserve this, you would undoubtedly need to have a populace that believes in and upholds those ideals, which given the current ideological makeup of the populace, would likely require some "unpalatable" actions (anywhere from restriction of voting privileges, to splitting the country, or perhaps beyond.)
Obviously I've glossed over and simplified a lot of this, and it certainly strayed pretty heavily from the original discussion of racial tribalism and colorblindness, but suffice it to say I don't believe the US can survive under continued racial tribalism, and I don't believe (re)creating an ethnostate is a practical or moral solution. Ultimately, i believe that colorblindness must be something adhered to by the overwhelming majority of the US populace, or we will cease to exist as a coherent country.
Colorblindness was a psyop propagated against white peoples in order to destroy them. The goal was to disarm white tribalism while maintaining racial and ethnic tribalism for everyone else. That’s why whites are the first racial cohort in history with an out-group bias.
This is the right answer. It is specifically aimed at white people in Western countries.
Colorblindness isn't an out-group bias. And that's not white people, it's white Leftists specifically.
I think he was saying that pushing colorblindness (was part of what) led to outgroup bias among whites, but even non-leftist whites have less outgroup bias than almost every other racial group, IIRC.
No, I know current_horror. He means exactly that Colorblindness was a jewish psyop to get demoralize white people from their innate racialist tendencies in order to destroy them, which is why he wants to conflate Colorblindness with out-group bias.
I mean, I don't see how you get a racial out-group bias without promoting either colorblindness or an outright belief in racial inferiority, so I don't see why the degree of conflation in his post is inaccurate. Given that there didn't seem to be the same type of top-down push against the multitude of minority racialism/identarianism as there was against white racialist/identarian while colorblindness was being pushed, I find some conspiracy to be more likely than not, but I welcome your counter opinion.
You don't get a racial out-group bias because that also is totally contradictory to colorblindness. You wouldn't have an out-group bias in anyone naturally form unless they lived among other people and though: "Oh wow, my people are actually really shitty. I think I should move." That happens, but it's rare.
People always have a slight natural in-group preference to the familiar, and then a stronger natural in-group preference to the familial.
A colorblind approach intentionally asserts that you should not make any conscious effort to bias yourself one way or another, and should examine people's behaviors.
This may allow for a rare handful of people to look at their own local culture and think, "Hmm. These people are actually shit." But the default preference is towards an in-group. People do eventually leave the trailer park and the ghetto and then develop a bias against their own group if their personal experience was bad, but that's always the exception because of natural human pre-disposition.
An explicit out-group preference for a population can only be the result of aggressive conditioning for an out-group preference. This does happen on occasion, and one famous account was of the Japanese absolutely venerating American culture and technology as innately superior towards the end of the 19th century, as they feverishly industrialized. The Japanese government and people were aggressively taught that they were a backwards people who needed massive social and technological change to be equals to the rest of the world. This actually caused them to do exactly that, and they accepted social changes in the span of 2 generations that would normally have cause enormous bloodletting in most societies.
However, what the Japanese didn't do was promote the idea that they were innately inferior. Just that they were primitive by comparison, and that they could improve with effort.
What is being happened with Whites is what I call "Voluntary Sonderkommandos".
White people in American are being conditioned to hate whites as innately inferior. That there is no opportunity for improvement because the big 4 categories: whites, straights, males, and Christians; are an inherently morally degenerate race that is not physically capable of being non-degenerate.
The issue at hand is that the Civil Rights movement was primarily Illiberal philosophically, but most Americans are philosophically Liberal, as the US and it's culture is a Liberal Revolutionary Republic. Most of the Civil Rights actors were avowed racial nationalists and racial socialists. At the turn of the 20th century, Booker T. Washington was pushing for improving the lives of blacks in society by having them improve their culture from the Ulster-Scottish culture they were acculturated with in the Antebellum South (which was the predominant southern American culture at the time), into something more akin to the Protestant-English model. His primary opponent in this was W.E.B. DuBouis, who was a revolutionary Communist, and even adopted the principles of the german Volkish movements to Blacks. Communists and Socialists had been concentrating in black communities prior to the Civil Rights era for nearly 50 years. When it became clear that the Old Progressive Racialism was out-of-favor in the world after WW2, the Communists and Socialists started nipping at the Racial Progressives, while allied with the Black Nationalists (Volkists).
The Civil Rights Era is separated by two distinct strands of the movement: the Christian Liberal roots of people like MLK, and the Black Volkish roots of people like Malcolm X. It was the John Birch Society that was aggressively pointing out the Socialist and Communist operations within the Civil Rights movement, though they may have been surprised that the Fabian Socialist establishment preferred to ally itself with Christian Liberals, rather than Volkish Socialists. MLK was allowed to progress into the mainstream, and the establishment attempted to cover over the increasing violence and purity spiraling that the Communists, Socialists, and Black Volkists had collapsed into. Especially since many of them were now operating with the assistance of violent street gangs.
The Liberal philosophy of Colorblindness, or really just Racial Apathy, is perfectly acceptable to an American society that doesn't really want the government to regulate race. However, the Communists, Socialists, and Volkists never went away, and were being absolutely idolized, even as terrorists. Since a whole swath of the Civil Rights movement had been made of of these radicals (and the radicals themselves expanded into other 'minority rights movements', forming things like LGBT, Mexican Immigrant, and Native American movements) the racialist core of the Civil Rights movement festered until enough of them had gotten through academia and exploited the internet to promote their old Volkish, Socialist, and Communist philosophies.
While most white Americans were happy to accept the Liberal philosophy of not regulating race, the radicals festered in black communities, the way that white racialists had festered in the reconstructed South. Whites turned away from Racialism with the emergence of Goldwater style Conservativism and a Liberal philosophy towards Civil Rights, and blacks turned towards racialism. American black populations were exposed to these Volkish philosophies about the incredible need to see one's race reflected in things, and to have "self love" and "love of
peoplerace" as core to their very identity, even going to create a nonsensical racial narrative about Pan Africanism and "The Black Diaspora". It shouldn't surprise you that a Communist invented Kwanza.Instead of maintaining that Liberal philosophy, these black Volkish movements were given free reign to construct a racial meta-narrative and push it through university education, and now as a bully pulpit even against corporations and organization with Social Media and Corporate Media in compliance.
White Americans are being force-fed Black National Socialism's racial meta-narrative. They are being taught the a kind of Black National Socialist narrative on Judeo-Capitalism, which you could just think of as Mayo-Capitalism. Lo and behold, this has caused an extremely unhealthy and dangerous amount of anti-white hatred and self-hatred to be normalized, as Useful Idiot whites subscribe and re-enforce a Nazi narrative about them.
That is where the out-group preference comes from. The Fabian Socialist Cathedral's use of Black National Socialism as a weapon to control political and economic opposition.
I think there were enough people for whom the ideal of colorblindness was sincerely held belief that had there not been a conscious effort to push the most extreme supremacist elements, and a narrative to convince people that their beliefs had validity (well, unless they were Cis White Men) that average Americans would have banded together against these groups and ideologies, and they would have died down to insignificance.
Colorblindness may have been part of a manipulation campaign, but so long as the ideal can be enforced in some way (that is, making the outgroup based on who forms ingroups based on racial lines and punishing them for it.) I believe you could probably make a functional society based on that ideal.
From the responses to this comment: quite a bit.
There's no hope for the United States to do what you're asking. The diversity ship sailed in the early 1900's. Americans need to try and unite on common ground. There are people of all races who believe in liberty and individualism. If they balkanize themselves by race they will be divided and lose to Globohomo. White people should try to be leaders and teach their cultural values to others as much as possible. Maybe you think Asians are "bugmen" but some of them will listen to reason and work with you.
If you're talking about European countries, they may still have a fighting chance to remain ethnostates. The UK is probably a lost cause.
That's not reality. It's as absurd as Racism = Prejudice + Power. You are asserting that it is physically impossible for people to interact with one another.
Even entirely alien people can live next to each other amicably, particularly through trade.
Moreover, you're rejecting that there is differences of behavior within demographics, which is nonsense and would negate the very concept of religious differences.
Behavior is influenced by culture. Think social norms, and moral beliefs. Some cultures clash with one another, people have different ideas about how things should be done. Think about Islamic law. Consider that Islamic law (which defines morals and social norms aka culture) is incompatible with western culture. Women in the West believe they have the right to dress how they like. Those dress standards conflict with Islamic law. Someone who grew up under by Islamic law and thinks everyone should live under it as well, is not going to fit in with Western society, to say the least.
Of course, and that's my point. That culture isn't defined solely, or even primarily by genetics. Not even close. Religion is a social system. Islam is a totalitarian system that effects all aspects of society. Hell, it's basically Muhammad's whole point: to unite all of the bickering arab tribes, clans, and ethnic groups into a single homogenous culture. It worked for nearly a thousand years. Though there was still infighting, and multiple civil wars, most of these came about as the result of the innate authoritarianism of Islam. It's clear that the culture of Islam is the specific issue, not the genetic make-up of people there (excluding inbreeding, and even then, that's not as detrimental to society as Islam's practices).
I'm an Atheist & an American Liberal (as in American Revolutionary Liberalism).
If Arab Christian moves next door to me, I have nothing to worry about.
If an Arab Entrepreneur moves next door to me, I have little to worry about.
If an Arab Communist moves next door to me, I'm going to be a bit nervous, and build a fence to protect my property.
If an Arab Islamist moves next door to me, I need to buy a gun to protect myself, and build a fence.
A racialist or an ethno-centrist just saw the same person repeated 4 times and will not treat them differently. That's intentionally disregarding nuance and individuality in order to support their narrative.
Well that was an unexpected yet inevitable development.
Where is this clip from? More context would be good.
https://youtu.be/yhHsTX21MSQ
This video on destiny channel i believe
"Demographics is Destiny", said a prophet
The problem is that if you actually have an anti-authoritarian order, no one should be advocating for abstract categories at all.
Now, if you already have a native population in an area, and they are advocating on their behalf due to threats of conquest, colonization, or subversion, then it's a different story because each person there has a right to their property & community they've formed. They have every right to resist forcible assimilation into something else. That includes predominately white countries wanting to limit migration.
But that's the difference. Ireland doesn't have a say on what Denmark does just because they are both white. Those two states can act with resistance towards any form of conquest, if the people chose to wield them that way. No population should be tolerant of any sort of "racial advocacy" because that will simply be a way to subvert that population and culture to the intelligentsia of that abstraction.
It is imperative for people to destroy those racial advocacy groups in wholesale: the The "Pan-Africanism" intelligentsia doesn't represent africans. The Zionist intelligentsia doesn't represent jews. The Chinese Communist Party doesn't represent the chinese. And no white racial intelligentsia represents white people.
Every Racialist is a Race Traitor.
They only intend to use that abstract category to ensure their individual dominance over that group, and then to wield that group as a political weapon for power. All racialist intelligentsias should be destroyed, they are always the enemies of their own people who will insist on tyranny, and use their own people as cannon fodder. In the end, this is because political representation is a myth, and the idea of political representation of a vague, inter-temporal, abstract concept like "my people" is always just a song and dance to use those very people as a step-stool for power.
Instead, each individual has to use their own personal power to seize their government by the neck, and force it to use force at a foreign adversary who will colonize them. And then the rest of that effort must go into individuals asserting their property rights to gatekeep their communities as they see fit, monetarily, socially, and culturally.
That way, if any assimilation is to take place, it must be on your terms. Never the terms of the state, let alone the intelligentsia.
This guy is still a fucking commie leftist
Devils advocate
Just how big was the backlash when he went anti-BLM?
Destiny been browsing ConsumeProduct lmao
Destiny has been living in Sweden with his new wife, it's not surprising that he would be radicalised. The segregation here is very extreme, no issues at all in one area, walk 300 meters away on the other side of the motorway and you risk getting shanked for looking white.
I should note destiny has defended child porn with his so called "ethical cp" arguments.
16 hours since this was posted and and no one has bothered to google this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/sam1b0/lol_vince_james_and_nick_found_a_clip_of_destiny/
Literally who?