my heart did

the idea doesn't really seem coherent to me

i don't agree with the first part

capitalism is inherently anti-anarchist

the only way i could see it making sense is if anarchism was just being used as a synonym for a high level of decentralization

join the military and you're putting your life on the line for a ruling class of rootless cosmopolitans who would gladly erase your ethnic group from the planet if it meant an increase in their profit margins (and guess what, it does)

jews form a natural ethnic vanguard in plutocracies

i can't because nothing like that exists

i can point to the ethnic distribution present in ukraine and the fact that ukrainian nationalist movements were most prominent in the west, however

some of the worst hit parts of the ukraine were some of the parts with the largest russian diaspora, some of the least hit parts the parts with the greatest portion of ukes

but yeah supporting the military for the purpose of fermenting a future insurrection is fine

why does that mean u have to care

yeah russia expanding is fine

when?

is the us not still the world hegemon? or are we simply saying it isn't because their grip on the world is not as strong as it was immediately following the death of their rival geopolitical bloc?

yes

the eastern bloc died

the soviet empire

it did die what exists now is just a product of russia reasserting itself

and funnily despite the fact that russia is quite a bit weaker than the ussr they're managing to expand

i would be fine with pulling out of the most the world and focusing on building a sphere around the anglosphere and western hemisphere

it's not a reason for them to be involved

this only matters to the ruling class

lol

what you're calling "cultural marxism" is the product of liberalism

the oppressed/oppressor dynamic is a feature of liberalism and has been since before marxism even existed

marx's class analysis was influenced by liberal philosophy

of course it's not the same

compensating for being dealt a bad hand means that you are not limiting egalitarianism to equal treatment under the law

social liberalism already opened the door to the sort of egalitarianism we see from progressives by prescribing political action to rectify inequalities that transcend legal inequalities

that isn't to say that progressivism is entirely liberal, but it mostly is, and the illiberal strands carry the power they due by virtue of their proximity to ruling class ideology

if you're for striving for equality of opportunity and you recognize that inequality of opportunity stems from an idententarian basis then doesn't it logically follow

because the idea is that these groups still face inequalities of opportunity by virtue of their identity

why

"conservatives" are just the centrist libs of your parent's generation and the progressives of your grandparent's generation

well if you're getting at race (which isn't just about skin color) it certainly acts as a proxy for things that are important

it's a proxy for genetic clusters

which manifest in different patterns of behavior, especially when you take into account how race affects cultural expression

supporting the development of a more intelligent stock is fine but i don't think it is something that should be done over all else

i would still rather have a 100 iq anglo immigrant than a 110 iq congolese immigrant

there are other variables at play genius

the fact that one is an anglo and the other is congolese

obviously if it was a choice between a 100 iq anglo and a 110 iq anglo i would choose the latter

because they're quite different

they're less likely to behave in ways that would fit in with our society

they're less likely to behave in ways that i find pleasing

i mean for one, assimilation takes time, and two, you can't assimilate out genetic differences

no

it's not the melanin itself that's horrifying

it's not even just iq differences

not irrelevant

it's just not the sole factor worth caring about

culture stems from behavioral phenotype which stems from genotype

yes

that's bullshit though because episcopalians are higher iq than jews

culture doesn't come 100% from environment

race acts as a proxy for genetic diversity

i mean that's bullshit

they have an average iq of like 113

yeah obviously environmental factors contribute

black people still consistently have lower iqs than white people in every country in which they coexist

as far as i am aware

even in a country like the uk that doesn't have a history of legal discrimination

"oppressed"

then why is it that we still see orientals for example rising above this

i simply do not buy that the slave trade that was abolished in the early 19th century is responsible for the gap

so let me ask you, am i to say that, despite the fact we can see a consistent pattern throughout every society of northeast asians being higher iq than europeans, and europeans being higher iq than sub-saharan africans, and that these groups of people are measurably genetically distinct, and that with groups like the sub-saharan africans had evolved under different circumstances over the span of tens of thousands of years, that i am to believe that the explanation for all of this is simply differences in environmental factors?

this alone, even without looking at the fact we can measure snp's that negatively and positively correlate with iq, and that their distribution matches the pattern of iq differences we see between the races, should be enough to dismiss this ridiculous position

what's wrong with racism

i never said they were

but that's not what we're discussing

we're not discussing statistical outliers we're discussing the aggregate

do you not think that how smart they are might influence how developed they are

yeah vocabulary is a poor measure of any sort of "general" intelligence imo

sure

it represents your ability to manipulate information with your mind

less sex overall but more promiscuous sex

more abortion!

what is the advantage to banning unnecessary abortions

what do you mean

so the argument is that banning abortion will result in less sexual promiscuity?

i could see this being a decent argument within a certain context that is distant from our own

but at least within this context abortion seems to assuage a lot of issues

i could only see this truly mattering if we had 1. eugenics 2. stronger consequences for having children one cannot care for and 3. weren't on the verge of demographic displacement

if we banned abortion in the current context it seems like the likely result would be having more low iq and non-white children from broken homes

the polls were pretty accurate for the 2016 election

they were just interpreted in a retarded manner

the polls leading up to the election had hillary leading the popular vote by about 3%

and she won the popular vote by about 2%

very close

it is just that the results of the polls were interpreted incorrectly

people didn't take into account the dynamics involved with the electoral college

well most people in california probably voted for trump, clinton got votes from hispanics, blacks, and thots, not people

the popular vote isn't necessarily indicative of popular will since the presence of the electoral college affects how people vote and how politicians campaign

well and that is also without getting into what constitutes popular will of course

that's very apparent redneo

sure there is

but term limits are pretty gay

inb4 u get waco'd

the mormons used to have their own independent state