The left is correct about one thing: racism and hate are a huge problem in the western world right now. They're just wrong about who's doing it to who. They're always talking about sunlight being the best disinfectant and not allowing hate to escape justice. Let's give them exactly what they want.
Something as simple as an excel spreadsheet would suffice, and it could be decentralized via git, torrent, or simple file sharing. Every time someone decides to publicly support oppression or tyranny, they get an entry on the spreadsheet with their name, the type of racism, and a link to an archive. For posterity, local backups could be included. This wouldn't be hosted on any single server, although it could be hosted anywhere. The more data held by the more people, the better. The main concern here would be not allowing it to be destroyed no matter how many tentacles of the establishment go after it.
Does something like this exist? If not, would anyone be interested in launching a project to create it? I'd be happy to spearhead it right here, but only if there's enough interest.
For those wondering why I ask this and why now, it's because this insane anti-Russia fervor is really reminding me of the forgotten oppression of US citizens who happened to share an ethnicity with a country we didn't like at the time. Irish, German, Polish, and even Ukrainian people were treated like shit and put into camps. The reason this is forgotten is because the people who supported it can simply lie and say "I was always against that". We have no proof any more. If we want people to start being held responsible for mob rule atrocities, we need to start ensuring that the evidence cannot be destroyed.
For posterity, and as a show of good faith, this database should include genuine evil of all types. This includes white-on-black racism, based and redpilled people going too far, etc. I expect these entries to make up maybe 1% of the total database for a number of reasons, but we can't show any bias if we want future generations to take this information seriously.
Also, it should probably only include people who qualify as public figures. Making a list of private citizens could easily be considered libel at the very least. It should be kept to bluechecks, talking heads, government officials, and the like. Even with this restriction, there would still be gigabytes of hate to document, because people like that tend to be the most reprehensible of them all.
Disclaimer: the point of this project would not be to encourage direct action against people, no matter how vile and hateful they are. The point would be to halt the cycle of "commit atrocity, go into hiding, deny committing atrocity, commit another atrocity". These people only do these things because they think they can get away with it. That we'll all forget. And they're absolutely correct. Unless someone does something, evil will always be forgotten in a generation or two and permitted to rise again.
don't accept their premise
What premise? That holding people responsible for their actions is bad? That hating white people is as bad as hating black people? Is this an "if we fight our enemies they win"?
How is making a naughty list holding people responsible? You need power to do that. Right now people can be legally harmed for being against degeneracy and for nationalism but can't be harmed for promoting degeneracy and globalism. So what would this list accomplish other than painting targets on the people who make the list?
That in-group preference are bad. You still haven't broken the conditioning if you are talking in terms of "hating".
The neomarxists win by getting majority agreement on seemingly acceptable general principles then, using institutional power, applying those principles unequally to forward the neomarxist agenda and harm anyone who stands in the way. When questioned they have a million reasons why "thats different". Just look at facebooks recent "calls for violence against russia are fine" policy.
At least in the US our best case political scenario is using state legislatures to create strongholds that will eventually become safe havens during balkanization. That probably won't work out, mostly because women can vote, and the result will be tyranny followed by collapse.
As I said in the post, this isn't about aunt Carol. This is about talk show hosts, celebrities, politicians, etc. It's about shattering the public trust in these figures. I would never suggest trying to convert an NPC by pointing out flaws in their own logic. They have no logic.
From my post:
Those people are lost causes. This would mainly be for the benefit of non-brainwashed normies, kids who haven't yet been brainwashed, and fence-sitters. I live in an extremely brainwashed area, and I only know a handful of true, actual NPCs. Everyone else just says they love diversity and hate Republicans because it's unsafe for them to do otherwise. Their jobs and lives could be in real danger if they let their true views be known.
This would be a morale-booster for those people. A way to let them know that the left's evil isn't going unnoticed. And a way to let them know that if we do win, their enemies can't just slink back into the shadows like they always do. Next time the pendulum swings back, the evil gets destroyed, not just inconvenienced.
"racism" is a dead false god
This idea operates on the left's framing and moves the Overton window further to the left.
I would recommend we don't focus on racism since the left will always have control of the narrative when that word is uttered. People are emotionally brainwashed to assume racism always means a white perpetrator. You cannot win by adopting the left's words.
Instead we should focus on exposing authoritarianism and the suppression of civil liberties.
Doesnt work because the marxists believe they are justified in harming "fascists".
We have to fight in the mud with them. Sieze power by any means, use that power to harm our enemies and help our friends regardless of circumstances.
Recognize subversion, never give an inch, and never forgive.
This is probably the only way at this point. Maybe if the people us before didn't let things get so bad it'd be different. So much for taking the high road and "losing with grace."
I'm not suggesting making a "racists list". I'm suggesting documenting any time someone explicitly says something pro-white genocide or white replacement. We don't even have to use the word "racism". I think you'll find that if we list every public figure that advocates genocide of a race, you'll find many thousands of anti-white entries and maybe two or three for every other race combined. That's the idea.
Also, the Overton window operates entirely on how comfortable one side is to let the mask slip. If people start being afraid to be openly pro-tyranny, that by definition shifts it to the right.
The racism idea is a very bad one. Who controls who gets put on this list? If any retard can do it then you're just begging for leftists to just turn it into another weapon against their opponents. This game developer is a racist because he didn't portray a black character the exact way someone wanted. That writer is an X-phobe because 80% of the characters in her show are alphabet freaks instead of 100%. We've all heard it before. If someone on our side is curating the list that defeats your stated purpose of making future generations take it seriously, especially if this takes off and becomes a threat to some powerful people. They might not be able to delete it if we set things up right but they'll use their lock on institutions to discredit it to the point where being unable to destroy it won't matter.
I do think there's merit in something more limited. Maybe people/companies who are denying people their rights. That includes things like free speech, nondiscrimination, gun rights, due process, etc. That eliminates the possibility of the list being hijacked for nefarious purposes like trying to paint a scarlet letter on a private person with no real power for the crime of saying something "problematic". You could include both sides in this, provided there's factual proof something list worthy happened, especially in the white on black stuff you describe. For example: If Tyrone claims he was thrown out of a restaurant for being black, whoever vets entries (and there absolutely needs to be vetting to prevent leftists from hijacking this) needs to make damn sure that's what actually happened and it wasn't because he was sexually harassing the waitresses or something like that. Drawing the line there keeps the whole thing about rights instead of being twisted into denying people rights. Someone saying "niggers/spics/crackers/immigrants/whatever" needs to die isn't illegal and it doesn't deny anyone their rights. Making hiring decisions based on that opinion does, and only the latter belongs on a list like this.
The only way an idea like this would work is if it has strict, set-in-stone rules about what counts as what. For example, if a senator says "the white devil is responsible for all the world's evils", that is a demonstrable attempt at oppression. If some crackhead from Baltimore says it, it's just trash being trash. Not all evil is created equal.
It would almost be like a Wikipedia for power mongers and rich sociopaths. Anyone can contribute, but there are still rules to follow.
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at when I suggest drawing the line at rights denial if were to do this at all. The senator part of your example is in between the line I'm suggesting and the crackhead part of your example. A senator saying that isn't directly depriving people of rights, but given their influence it's not harmless. It's really hard to make a good call in that gray area. If that senator introduced or backed discriminatory legislation then that takes it into undisputed rights denial territory.
Make sure the rules are actually enforced if that's the case. Wikipedia is a terrible example of enforcing rules evenly given their rotten governance structure. It's basically mob rule over there with social status determining how effective someone is at forming mobs to push whatever agenda they want to push. It also makes an easy target for community capture as the wokie hijacking of their governance showed.
Fuck you. No list.
Are you retarded? They don't give a shit about racism, they just want to hate their enemies.
waste of time
Every single time theyve had AI analyse for racism, its found out that "minorities" (they arent in their own nations) are the most racial.
Then the AI becomes "racist" and is shut down.
Not a bad idea but that will show the real numbers and you can’t have that
I've thought about doing something like this before, though focused more on regressive businesses.
The idea I had would be to define certain regressive criteria (such as supporting BLM, stances on free speech, etc.) and score businesses based on that. In addition to a site-based database, users would be able to generate a file compatible with all of the popular content blockers that would block domains from companies that meet criteria that they specify.
The technical implementation would be fairly easy. Coming up with criteria that people would agree upon and getting people to actually stop using those the goods and services of those businesses is the hard part.
Perhaps it would be better to, as u/AntonioOfVenice suggests, create a plug-in to instead inform users and suggest an alternative. I don't know a whole lot about web front end or browser plug-ins but I don't suspect it would be too difficult.
Idea is very good, implementation quite bad (but that is to be expected).
No one is going to search through an Excel spreadsheet, especially if you have to download updates (and how exactly are we going to merge the archives of all those involved).
I have a better system just for myself, let alone one that others would have to use.
But it's good to think about it. Ideally, there would be a website where you could look up institutions. Maybe even a browser plug-in that would automatically highlight issues.
The implementation is, in a way, bad on purpose. A website is a central point of failure. So is a plug-in. We're dealing with an enemy that has infinite power over every institution everywhere in the English-speaking world. Decentralization is absolutely mandatory, and in order to make that happen we have to utilize tools that everyone has access to. Not everyone can host their own internet database, but everyone can open a spreadsheet.
I'd love it if we could just make regressives.net and have all of these scumbags out there for the public to see, but the instant that site goes up the host is going to get a very lucrative cash offer from some very powerful people to shut it down. Even if you host it yourself, they'll go after the ISPs, the DNS, or they'll just DDOS you all day every day forever.
That is the problem with this site as well. But if it is so unusable that very few people use it, they have already achieved their objective.
If we are creating a database, I would suggest a more productive alternative.
Like people who work with globalhomo.