until 1204

when the french and veneitans killed the

Female gulag prisoner ❤

mainly as the byzantines were as far from the macedonian rennaisance, eastern roman empire, and classical rome

as the arbas were

they were barbarinas

if you were french in 1200

they might as well be arabs

they wore turbans and shit

in 200 years they went from being a world power to a shithole

It's Catholic BS

Nah. Byzantines only functioned when a military state

So did Roman Empire

also essentially a military state

roman empire had a real eocnomy until 300 AD

or so

in the west

Justinian destroyed roman italy

Byzantines themselves lasted until about 1100 as a real country

that could do shit

the last 300 years or so under armenians

That's a lot

armenians ruled them the best actually

Macedonian dinasty had hte most optimal rule

yeah they were armnieans

who were themilitary governors of macedonia

and were completely insane

basil the bulgar slayer

Everybody in those times was declared insane

It's BS, most of the time Catholic BS

he was just uncucked by religion

as Jesus #1 Emperor #2

and they're both peers

it's not even 1 and 2

Catholicism has been informing the West intellectually for 1000 years, and even when people thought they just became "secular" they continued to be informed subconciouslly by Catholicism

catolicism has been around since constantine

With it's fervent and rabid opposition and hatred towards everything non Catholic

since constantine made jesus the roman emperor

suddenly jeebus went from being dressed as a normal person in a toga or tunic

to being a dude in armor wit ha halo

or jupiter with a halo

which identified him as the emperor

sorry not a halo

A NIMBUS

so the average illiterate idiot could pick out the emperor

in a big panting of guys in armor

if he was just too stupid to see the cupids at his feet

and the angels of jupiter hanging him the laurel wreath of victory

One Characteristic thing about Christian and Catholic history is that whenever it holds some persone to have been insane or lunatico or sadist

as yes people were that stupid

as a rule, not a single other historical source agrees or matches it

nah they pretty much agree

tons of histor holds people to be sadists

not just catholics

read what he muslims think

just as bad

or the japanese

or the chinese

even worse

DIS EMPEWA

HIS BRODA

MURDA INNOZENS

SO HE LOSE MDANDATE OF HEABEN

EMPEEROR OWN BROTHER KILL HIM

THE END

tons of shit like that

there's also shit that acutall yhappened

like constnatine killing his own oldest son and his trophy wife

for sleeping with his oldest son

who was only like 15 years younger than him

and older than his wife maybe

gotta go

am drunk

need sleep

see you later

life goals

cellin'

I HAD TO CRANK OUT ANOTHER BATCH OF HOT SAUCE

BLAST AND TARNATION

Mastering is a wicked art

http://atavisionary.com/human-biological-and-psychological-diversity/

'Allo, lads.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-1705-1_12

(2015) Rutherford et al. analyse the geography of ethnic violence.

They state: "We model cultural differentiation as a separation of groups whose members prefer similar neighbors with a characteristic group size at which violence occurs. Application of this model to the area of the former Yugoslavia and to India accurately predicts the locations of reported conflict."

Ethnic, linguistic, religious, and other cultural differences can only be solved by separation. Mixing them into an area created conflict.

Oftentimes deniers of the deleterious effects of diversity will point to the long-standing and very likely to continue-standing nation of Switzerland. Contrary to the idea that Switzerland is an exemplar for multiculturalism, the argument falls apart under scrutiny because; A) Switzerland is still largely racially continuous, and; B) Switzerland has rigid ethno-linguistic and cultural boundaries internally due, in large part, to conflicts arising from diversity (see: Neuchâtel Crisis).

The authors even analysed this and found that: "Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability, and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating linguistic and religious groups, respectively. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura."

And finally the authors state that "Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by both physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide."

The old adage rings true: "Good fences make good neighbours."

IN OTHER WORDS

TRIBALISM WINS

EVERYTHING ELSE IS LARPING

lets make our own tribe

with women subjudgated

the amerikans

im sure thats been mentioned already tho

AMERIKANSKI SODOMI

BEST COMPUTER EVER MADE: http://oldcomputers.net/appleii.html

NO ANUS? https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/01/31/001201/scientists-find-oldest-human-ancestor----a-big-mouthed-sea-creature-with-no-anus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylkLRj8QiOA

http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/original/3X/a/c/ac01f717dfe94bf75de710f368bdd678ec7a8ce4.png

wow lmao

ITS BEAUTIFUL NO?

im wiping a tear away

Hello, laddies.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/4/435

(2007) Dudley & File display kin recognition in an annual plant.

They state: "Kin recognition is important in animal social systems. However, though plants often compete with kin, there has been as yet no direct evidence that plants recognize kin in competitive interactions. Here we show in the annual plant Cakile edentula, allocation to roots increased when groups of strangers shared a common pot, but not when groups of siblings shared a pot. Our results demonstrate that plants can discriminate kin in competitive interactions and indicate that the root interactions may provide the cue for kin recognition. Because greater root allocation is argued to increase below-ground competitive ability, the results are consistent with kin selection."

Thus, when foreign plants are in the same pot they are likely to compete with one another whereas related plants are less likely to compete and more likely to attempt what amounts to sharing the pot.

Plants are fucking sexist racist homophobes

My word. Even the organisms with the least animus and no ethology to speak of prefer their own? I guess vegans will say that it is okay they eat plants because they are all NAZIS!!!🍴 🍆

WWII ended more than 70 years ago. I think it is about time that we learn the real history behind the term "Nazi" and the real history of WWII.

There is real history

especially with regards to the extreme similarity of fascists and communists

in terms of economies

in the long run

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/01/in-beginning-was-participation.html

GREAT PIECE FROM BRUCE

@diversity_is_racism Watched that Varg's video. Roman salute and Swastikas are ancient symbols unalienable from Europe

Here in South-East Europe, men used to greet each other with a wave of a hand and a greeting "Здраво" which means wishing good health to someone. Shaking hands was introduced with industrial revolution, and was unkown to common men who always approached each other with a sense of distance

I'm sick and tired of people who say that lone wolf attackers are cowards or made cowardly attacks

Lone wolf attackers are very courageous people, because unlike vigilantes of old days, they have nothing to hope to, and have nowhere to run or hide or to seek refuge nowadays

once they commit attacks they become the loneliest people on planet, denounced even by their family

and their only exit is either death or prison to life

Reminder that African-Americans don't cluster with Africans on PCAs.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00850.x/abstract

(2003) Wickrama & Bryant analyze the community context of social resources and adolescent mental health.

They find that higher ethnic heterogeneity is associated with a greater risk of depression.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953606003510

(2006) Matheson et al. analyze the relationships between urban neighbourhoods, chronic stress, gender, and depression.

They find that higher ethnic heterogeneity is associated with greater depression and stress.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/632/

(2003) Neumayer finds that higher ethnic heterogeneity in a country is associated with a higher frequency of suicides.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1070496509355274

(2009) Das Cassandra & Di Rienzo find that higher ethnic diversity is associated with worsening environmental performance, greater pollution.

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/pramprapa/25598.htm

(2010) Dronkers finds that ethnic diversity is associated with decreases in PISA scores.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0386.html

(2010) Ahlerup shows that higher ethnic diversity results in increased corruption, reduced growth, reduced economic development, worsened provisioning of public goods, and reduced income levels.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268106000941

(2005) Lassen shows that higher ethnic diversity is associated with a larger informal, underground, hidden ("black market") economy.

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/saepubfin/v_3a38_3ay_3a2010_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a146-177.htm

(2010) Li shows that higher ethnic diversity is associated with less tax morale, i.e., a reduced likelihood or motivation to pay taxes.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01924036.2007.9678758

(2011) Altheimer shows that higher levels of ethnic heterogeneity are associated with greater homicide rates.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306624X11414813

(2011) Chon shows that while income inequality is not related to national homicide rates, but it is related to ethnic heterogeneity which is highly related to national homicide rates.

https://ecpr.eu/Events/PaperDetails.aspx?PaperID=12451&EventID=52

(2007) Newton discusses what he calls "The New Liberal Dilemma" of social trust in heterogeneous or otherwise mixed societies.

Newton states that this dilemma arises from the preponderance of evidence regarding heterogeneity indicating that ethnically, linguistically, religiously, or otherwise culturally mixed societies tend to be characterised by a wide range of social, economic, and political disadvantages and ails.

In the face of the overwhelming evidence against societal diversity, Liberals must choose whether they want a strong society that deviates from their egalitarian values or a fractured and dying one that - at the least - doesn't offend anyone too much.

Some of this evidence is presented below:

(Easterly & Levine, 1998; Knack & Keefer, 1997; Alesina et al., 2003) show that heterogeneous societies have poorer economic performance.

(Goldin & Katz, 1999; Alesina, Baqir & Easterly, 1999; Alesina & Glaeser, 2004; Benerjee, Iyer & Somanathan, 2005) show that heterogeneous societies spend less on public goods and (Mauro, 1995; La Porta et al., 1998) show that they deliver these goods less efficiently, less fairly, and to a lower standing.

(Easterly, 2000; Svennson, 1998; Alesina, Baqir & Easterly, 1999; Annett, 1999) show that heterogeneous societies are more corrupt and have larger black markets.

(Hero & Tolbert, 1996; Plotnick & Winters, 1985; Lind, 2003; Luttmer, 2001) show that heterogeneous societies have more uneven wealth distributions.

(Alesina, Baqir & Hoxby, 2004) show that heterogeneous societies are less likely to benefit from economies of scale.

(Mauro, 1995; Annett, 1999) show that diverse societies are less politically stable.

(Adelman & Morris, 1967) show that nation and state building is more difficult in diverse societies.

(Paxton, 2002: 266) shows that diverse societies tend to be less capable of democracy.

(Leigh, 2006a, 2006b; Eisenberg, 2006; Coffe & Geys, 2006; Glaeser et al., 2000; Helliwell, 1996; Knack & Keefer, 1997; Putnam, 2003; Alesina & La Ferarra, 1999; Zak & Knack, 2001; La Porta et al., 1997; Hero, 1998, 2003; Costa & Kahn, 2003) all show that mixed societies have reduced levels of social trust, civic cooperation, and social capital.

(Alesina & La Ferrarra, 1999; Costa & Kahn, 2003a, 2003b; Lassen, 2003) show that heterogeneous societies have lower rates of volunteering and participation in voluntary associations.

(Rice & Sumberg, 1997) show that heterogeneous societies have lower levels of civic culture and cultural development. Cultural homogeneity is also stayed by heterogeneity.

With all of this in mind, and no ostensible benefits to diversity, it cannot be said that a position of endorsement is tenable without resorting sheerly to ideology or an argument to faith in egalitarianism in lieu of data.

Good morning, gentlemen.

Good morning, lad.

Or, evening.

As applicable. 😀

How is everyone doing?

Great. Having a ball. You?

Doing just fine.

Read and be mad tbh.

lol

One of the funnier parts is that he knows of dysgenics and acknowledges it for other countries but *not* Greece. He said Greece was dumber due to leading less but when the news showed they read more than previous generations he just denied the news was right.

wew Greece!

Yeah it was kind of a nothing burger argument.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7774.short

(2016) Beauchamp finds evidence for contemporary genetic selection in the United States.

The majority of this natural selection is negative: IQ is decreasing, health is worsening, diseases are becoming more pronounced and pervasive, stature is falling, menarche is ocurring earlier, and predispositions to obesity are growing.

RIP

@HonorVirtutisPraemium What was that debate about, regarding Greek population

That it has undergone selection just as every other population.

I was saying that there is not perfect continuity between the ancient and modern Greeks because of a variety of mechanisms including genetic drift, population admixture, fertility differentials (included in g-drift), mutation, copy-number variation, and more. There's no possibility that they're the same or - at that - better.

It's obvious

Not only is selection for weakness combined with servility emphasized, but strong and autonomous carry an increasing burden

As for ancient Greeks, I certainly believe, unlike 99% of racial anthropologists (well, every true anthropology is raciaL) that ancient greek statues WERE NOT the accurate representation of overall greek populace

Even though they were certainly inspired by individuals of such constitution who lived among greeks

The busts of real personalities in Greece, like Aristotle or Plato, show persons with less emphasized nordic characteristics

While in Rome, a more realistic, mixed appearances are shown

Sulla with a more northern appearance, Trajan with less northern appearance etc

The outright denial of any sort of genetic shift in Greece over time is outrageous. I can't stand typical Greek nationalists for this reason. This person I was """debating""" earlier refused to acknowledge the validity of sources and similarly refused to supply rebuttals, instead stating that I didn't know anything, used strawmen, or used ad hominem even when I didn't. It was too much, too ignorant!

It's almost laughable how they fucked up.

I believe from today's nationalist perspective (levelling of population according to linguistic/political loyalties) that people don't really understand the old Hellenic spirit

Yes, Hellenes too, identified themselves according to language, but no ONLY language

Otherwise they would not consider Macedons to be foreigners

To Spartans for example, mere demagogy meant little

For example, today's Italy can consider Rome it's predecessor, but that is quite conditional - Rome is something to look up to, not something to consider your "national" heritage per se, since every nation is made up from multiple social layers

If you don't uphold values or spirit of Rome, then in what can one find your "allegiance" to Rome? You mere bourgeoisie fascination with Roman art, or intrigues?

Agreed. It is absolutely fine to consider themselves admirers of antiquity, but the moment they begin to identify as the descendants and necessary posterity of those times they begin to break down their legitimacy. At that point where they assume the *racial* mantles of age-old empires they've lost it.

We have so much evidence for population admixture, selection, dysgenics, mutation, and so on that they're just deluding themselves and wasting everyone's times.

No civilization resurfaces in same way or same time

The torch is always carried by the other, which takes the path of emergence, strenghtening

Just as Greece passed torch to Rome, Rome to Franks, Franks to Germans, Germans to Englishmen etc

Obviously there were multiple strong civilizations

Whichever starts selecting for exellency, quality over quantity, get's to carry the torch

Look how many excellent men today, of merit and virtue, marry complete imbeciles today

That's a dysgenic involution of modern times

@The Enlightened Shepherd yes you can notice that in roman portraiture

if you saw augustus on th estreet, you would still recognize him

same with portraits of hellenic era figures

the "classical" ones are not realistic and emphasized

moreover most of the roman emperors were not southern italians but central to northern in descent

so they don't look like "italian" people you see in the US

most of whom are sicilians (who are mostly greek wth lots of north african arab/moor ancestry)

evne someone like titus who looks italian as fuck

http://www.accla.org/images/titus.jpg

he has the euro hairline

Hariline was just a stylized image

It's obvious

well a mix of the m shape and more mediterranean/african image

yes

i nterms of his recession

rarely has any northern person has that curly hair

he is not northern

he looks like a latinate plane italian

take gaius marius for example

he looks like someone who could be from the balkans

gaius marius is obviously from nothern italiy

just looking at him

the same aiwth augustus. caesar lokos more central italy

Germanicus looks like a Frenchman of today

constantine is balkan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

fahter looks super balkan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantius_Chlorus

totally fucked up family after constantine btw

That whole region is degenerated.

degenerated or degenerate ?

@The Enlightened Shepherd lol

this is hte ugliest jew I have ever seen: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/21/09/2B8BCD3E00000578-3205754-image-a-77_1440145508134.jpg

in the horror of the holocaust, I am glad she/he died

but maybe she/he made sick brownies or something

and was a genetic dead end anyway

IS THAT MARILYN MANSON?

MAN HE GOT FAT

I thought they were all starved to emaciation in the concentration camps.

She's the reason

@Deadbeat NAZI should be in all caps since it is an acronym for Nationaler Sozialismus. It started as am Austrian insult. The causes of WWII are many. Probably just as many as the causes of WWI.

Nazi became a noun

sorry I'm not sorry

@HonorVirtutisPraemium the germans saw that

decided shooting them wasn't enough

Gender also came to be conflated with sex.

GOOD POINTS

DECAY OF LANGUAGE

IS NAZI AN ACRONYM, OR A PHONETIC ABBREVIATION?

I AM TOLD THAT THE FIRST SYLLABLE OF THE FIRST WORD IS PRONOUNCED LIKE NATZ AND SOZIALISMUS IS PRONOUNCED SOCI-ALISMUS SO NATZI SOCI = NATZI = NAZI

Hmmm. That does make more sense. I think. I just seems like it is probably more true, especially because the word was first being used in Austria to give a "girly" air to the German political changes. I think they were particularly put off by the brown shirts and they did not like how Hitler was basically going to make a move on Austria like he did Scandinavia. Weren't they still a Monarchy at the time?

I looked it up, I don't think they even had a ceremonial Monarch. Their first Republic fell just within a decade of Hitler's rise. That probably had a lot to do with a lot didn't it?

Nazi was a term made by a kike journalist and then Goebbels decided to appropriate it on his own in the Nazi-Sozi

Was he Austrian or was Wikipedia just blowing smoke up my ass. Maybe I should just stick with Infogalactic?

Konrad Heiden

He was a Jew.

"Nazi," was already in used prior to Hitler as an insulting term based on Igna(tius) or silly and stupid Italians that acted like peasants.

Sozi was a mocking term for socialists.

Interesting. After looking up Heiden (on wikipedia...addictions die hard, ask the tobacco industry though wikipedia is more toxic) He was an American Jew and considered himself a historian on the Weimar Republic and "Nazi era." My question was answered too, clearly I was wrong about the origins of Nazi and I should probably just not trust etymology likely written by libbies.

nazi sounds better

than calling yourself what you really are

NAZI SOUNDS COOL BECAUSE IT IS SHORT AND HAS A HARSH TONE TO IT

nationalistic fascists

AUSTRIA NEEDS TO BE PART OF GERMANY QUITE HONESTLY

SIMILAR PEOPLES

with fasicsm a close economic cousin of socialism

SO DO CERTAIN OTHER AREAS

I SEE FASCISM MORE LIKE NEOREACTION

EXTREME LIBERTARIANISM

TO AVOID HAVING AN INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURE

OF COURSE

yeah but in practice

the same thing

I GO THE OPPOSITE WAY

loot shit

I LIKE INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURES

spend the shit you loot

run out of shit

like franco

TAX AND SPEND

and argentina

there is nothing to tax as they took it all

THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE MODERN STATE

that happened to hitler

BETTER TO CUT BENEFITS