It’s 4chan speak, I’ve seen it before.

While I can understand his syntax, I fail to understand the substance of that sentence.

Now I'm curious how wealth can be utilized in a manner that pertains to African-Americans. Funding sickle cell anemia research?

I don't think that's a neologism. It's just the adjective to 'negro'.

Basically he thinks billionaires are 'behaving black'.

I find it funny how bad guys in fiction openly expresses that they’re in the dark side. That’s so comical it can’t happen in reality. Right?

Nah, this guy is embracing ”Dark Enlightenment” as his core philosophy.

“He has defended the institution of slavery, and has suggested that certain races may be more naturally inclined toward servitude than others.[3][18] He has argued that whites have inherently higher IQs than black people,[18] and opposes U.S. civil rights programs.[19]”

holy fucking hell

What a definitive neckbeard good LORD.

I highly recommend the Behind the Bastards episode on him

He is a racial narcissist (and racial fascist) who has narcissistic delusions about race that are his projections of his own insecurity. He gets narcissistic supply from people responding to his delusions as if they are real. Which is why narcissists crave proximity and control so much and are fascists, because their biggest goal in life is to cater and caretake their delusions, not to actually think or do things or be progressive. It's about the appearance of those things because it was always about narcissistic supply in the first place.

Most white men who are racial narcissists believe in:

• physical narcissism, which they believe black men are superior to them due to eugenics from chattel slavery, including a belief that they are stronger, their dicks are better and they are better at sex (this is a REALLY big deal to them, more than you would realize). This is also why white supremacists wanted to EAT and DID EAT black slaves. It's also why they have to push narratives that black people are ugly, phrenology, etc. It's why they are so physically cruel to them - they overabuse them because they are physically insecure.
• intellectual narcissism, which they believe they are superior to black people because of chattel slavery/owning them (aka sadistic and psychopathic abuse, not intellect) and the various white supremacy lies. This is why they don't like DEI. Again, remember this is projection- it's their own deepest insecurities they vomit out constantly through delusions.

Then these delusions can be applied to others not even in that group, because it was never based on reality to begin with. That's why he's calling white people the n word, he simply wants supply and it doesn't matter if what he says makes sense or is rational.

Tldr; Curtis Yarvin believes his own dick is small, he is bad in bed, he is weak, and he is stupid and a bad rich person who made his money like all very rich people - via slavery and theft.

ok I'm going to TRY to explain his thinking but I'm likely going to come off as racist trying to explain it.

What he's saying is there are those who earned their wealth via hard work and all that other bullshit and others that just got it handed to them or give off the impression that they're insanely wealthy when "they're not".

this is what he likely means when he says "n-word rich". Because this morons impression of wealth in the Black community is via watching music videos and watching reality TV. He's watched way too many youtube vids about such and such Black music artist or athlete who wears all this "bling" has all these cars and a huge mansion with nothing in it but meanwhile said person is broke. that's what he means by "n-word rich".

he could have just said "The problem is the majority of billionaires aren't actually billionaires. They just think they are."

Social media has accelerated this. No one would know who this guy was in the 90s, for example.

Success is awarded to the confident. You can be an absolute weird idiot and still, in the right circumstances, get massive success just because people assume there's a reason you seem so confident, and who are they to second guess that confidence?

Now you, too, know about Curtis Yarvin. You thought Jordan Peterson was bad? Welcome to the club.

And people think I'm exaggerating or polarising when I call Peter Thiel a neoliberal fascist.

edit: it seems some people don't understand that Neoliberalism and Fascism do, in fact, go together very well. And that the fascism we're all facing now does not look the same as 90 years ago.

Teehee just kidding about my proposal to turn humans into petroleum... unless?

What an unfortunate collection of words to read on a Friday like today

From Meriam-Webster's entry on the word

Did the definition of n----r change?

There is a widespread belief that the original meaning of n----r, as defined in dictionaries, was "an ignorant person," and a related belief that current dictionary definitions describing its use as a hateful, racist epithet are a recent change. We do not know the source of those beliefs, but they are not accurate. The word was first included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary in 1864, at which time it was defined as a synonym of Negro, with a note indicating that it was used "in derision or depreciation." There has never been a definition like "an ignorant person" for this word in any subsequent dictionary published by this company. Nor do we know of such a definition in any earlier dictionary.

There's been an attempt among white racists over the years to try and redeem the hard-r N-word. They'll say that it originally meant just an ignorant or foolish person in general, not only black people specifically. But this is a historical fiction. It's always been used as a slur against black people. It was originally a complete synonym for "negro." If you asked Yarvin, and he didn't just admit outright to being a flaming racist, he would likely justify it by making a claim like this. He would claim that he's saying these billionaires are just corrupt and foolish. He would say that it's OK to use the word, as he's not referring to black people, just ignorant and lazy people in general. He would say he's using the non-racist definition of the n-word. But again, this is a historical fiction.

Sometimes racists will cite words like "niggardly", meaning cheap or stingy, as an example of how the n-word could be used in ways not applying just to black people. Niggardly is a word that sounds like the n-word but actually does have a non-racist history. They'll try to link niggardly to the hard-r n-word. But what they ignore is that the word niggardly has a completely different etymological root. Niggardly shares roots with words like niggling, tracing back to the 13th century nig, meaning simply a stingy person. The n-word however, as Meriam-Webster notes, derives directly from the Spanish negro.. Racists will connect the n-word to words like niggardly, niggling, etc., citing their real history as non-racist words, and say that the n-word can also be used non-offensively because of this. But there is no common etymological root between the hard-r n-word and similar sounding words that do actually have a non-racist history.

Of course, it's all ultimately a moot point. In polite society today, most people understandably avoid using any word that remotely sounds like the n-word. See controversies around the word niggardly. And really, there's little reason to use words like niggardly, even if one could argue that they're technically not racist. They just sound way too similar, and there's plenty of other perfectly valid words to use in their place. And ultimately, someone could just as easily be hurt or offended by words that sound similar to the n-word even if they're technically not directly related. The words are best avoided, as they just end up hurting people for no good reason, even if some etymologist might argue they're not directly related.

Probably throwing back his long hair with a head movement, while challenging the prof with what he thinks is an unassailable argument. Mistaking the stunned silence that follows for a win.

🤢🤮

What he "means" to the extent this isn't just a shock value post meant to allow him to get a lot of responses before moving the goalposts & also to get a lot of nazis to like him more, is that:

1. The epithet he used is a racist one used to describe how people (usually black people, but not exclusively) who come from a poor background act once they get some money - often on flashy displays of wealth, but not often on investments/ensuring their wealth grows and lasts into the future. Not that this is actually true, but that's the idea.

2. he is saying American billionaires fit that epithet because of how they spend their money. He calls them N*s because of how they spend money, not because they are black - he is not under the illusion that most billionaires are black.

3. he's saying they spend their money in foolish ways. He would prefer they spend their money abolishing the neoliberal state and replacing it with a neo-feudal monarchical system that makes all these billionaires literal feudal lords with fiefdoms. For him, this is the end-goal of wealth and the ideal societal state.

4. also, he thinks that he is an intellectual and that his tweet is a serious philosophical argument.