Comments by "lordsneed" (@lordsneed9418) on "Trad Wife Learns About Gamer Gate 2 u0026 Sweet Baby Inc" video.

  1. I seem to remember in a previous video Malcolm saying that he believed bl people are systemically discriminated against, and them both being reluctant to acknowledge the socially normalised anti-wh hatred. So I'm glad that they have come around and are speaking more openly about it. However they're misrepresenting lef ideology. they're on the side of bl and br people who are on the side of bl and br people. So they're on the side of all bl and br people apart from traitors who try to defend wh people. This actually makes sense and is rational for them to do since their goal is to benefit bl and br people and displace wh people from positions of power. Wh people should be doing the same thing and being on the side of wh poeple except those wh people who are traitors like lef wing people.
    2
  2. 22:15 Then you're not playing to win , Malcolm. Speech is force aka violence. Why? Because speech influences people's real world behaviour and influences which political movements gain subscribers and thus power. When you take away a group's ability to speak and be heard by people you take away their power and make it less likely for them to win in the future. This is how left has been continuously winning. The benefit of free speech is to test ideas amongst friends, not to allow your enemies to gather supporters and power. Free speech is only valuable amongst your friends, not your enemies.
    2
  3. 13:55 Lef-ism is to a large degree anti-wh , pro-bl racial chauvinism. Given this it is rational for them to care more about wh on bl violence than bl on bl violence. Why? The same reason why it makes sense from a pro human perspective to consider a war with aliens a bigger threat than wars between humans. conflicts and crimes between insiders, group-members never result in extinction, however when an outside group starts committing crimes and conflicts with your group that often leads to your group being totally subjugated or destroyed. Outside groups are naturally a bigger threat.
    2
  4. People enslaved other groups and were racist towards them long before european colonialism e.g. arab slavery. What are you calling "dehumanising" ? If you buy a human being and you grape and beat them at will and split up their family and only need to pay a small punishment for killing a slave compared with killing a free person (this has happened on an ethnic basis since biblical times and earlier), are you not dehumanising them? Or is slavery only dehumanising according to you when it's accompanied by negative views towards different continental groups about intelligence and things like that? Because if so it sounds like you're saying "feeling entitled to kidnap a group, grape them, keep them in captivity, force them to do labour, split up their families" meh that isn't really dehumanising, but if several generations later you think that that group is unintelligent or uncivilised , then that's what's really dehumanising. Which indicates a very modern , skewed, leftist-influenced value system. Secondly, what's meaningfully different between "fear that which is different" and "modern day racism" ? Ethnic conflict is ultimately based around the competition for resources and the fact that human beings tend to prioritise those that they share closer ancestry with. so if my tribe of closely related people needs the land that your group who I'm less closely related to occupies so that me and my tribe can support our increasing numbers then I'll probably attack and kill or enslave your tribe. And the same happens at the level of ethnic groups and then nations. This is what has happened throughout history, the only thing different about Europeans after 1400 is that they're the first people able to project a large amount of power across oceans , whereas before people would attack and prioritise their ethnicity's interests towards other ethnicities on the same continent. Some people seem to believe that before European colonialism, different groups would conquer, enslave and grape each other, but there wasn't any racism and people didn't have any negative views or treat people differently because of their ethnicity. The only time this is true is when the conquered group is graped and subjugated so much that their whole ethnic identity disappears. The rest of the time, having negative opinions about other peoples and treating them differently and prioritising them less than your own people aka racism was the norm. There isn't anything special about European conquest and subjugation of other groups in this respect apart from it being the most recent and being the first time it occurred across oceans because europeans were the first to gain enough technological advantage to do so. Oh and apart from the fact that Europeans went out of their way to do things like end slavery. "I’d honestly say racism towards white people can be put on a weighted scale when comparing racial injustices. " malcolm and simone aren;'t saying that the anti-european racism normalised in society today is as severe as say being enslaved, so I don't know why you're responding as though they made that claim. Their point was that marginalising and having hostility towards a race of people is racist and is bad whatever race they are. Your response indicates that you believe that people should not be bothered or only bothered a little when white people are marginalised and when hatred towards them is encouraged and normalised because historically being enslaved 150 years ago was much worse. This belief is obviously hogwash.
    1
  5. 31:16 For most middle class wh liberals , the fear of being seen and racist and wh guilt about having any racial preference are more powerful than the fact that they are being blatantly and increasingly marginalised and persecuted and subject to rising racial hatred. You are not going to get large numbers of them opposing anti-wh discrimination without undoing those mental blocks and making them proud to be wh and comfortable with the fact that they have racial in-group preference. De-racinated, timid, liberal individualists are not going to do anything. Wh people need to regain the same level of racial chauvinism and racial in-group preference as everyone else
    1
  6. it's not insane, it makes sense. Basically they're on the side of minorities except for traitors. It's like if there was a war with aliens and I said "I'm on the side of humans" and simultaneously I fought against humans who were collaborating with the aliens.
    1
  7. it's not insane, it makes sense. Basically they're on the side of minorities except people who betray their side . It's like if there was a war with aliens and I said "I'm on the side of humans" and simultaneously I fought against humans who were collaborating with the aliens.
    1
  8. actually it makes sense. Basically they're on the side of mine or rit teas except for tray tors. It's like if there was a war with aliens and I said "I'm on the side of humans" and simultaneously I fought against those humans who were collaborating with the aliens.
    1