Yes, we are still extremely close. Africans, Jews, Arabs, Indians, Chinese, as frustrating as some of our differences can be, are my brothers.

While I understand that, on aggregate, my culture and values are generally much more likely to conform to that of other white europeans, I can share common cause, interests, and designs with people who are not white. And there are even whites with which I share little ideologically in common.

Yep

Honestly wasn’t gonna go anywhere from there, so yeah

Understanding differences is a prerequisite to finding constructive ways of resolving them peacefully.

Oh Christ I don't want to have anything to do with *Europeans* that's where socialism comes from.....

LOL. Oh, I actually agree. The subset of Europeans that remained in Europe on average seem to be way more enthusiastic about socialism than the ones who came to the US, on average.

No. Europeans *invented* socialism. It comes from their demented mindset. Where kings dictate economies to unarmed peasants.

Now quick name the jew.....

Yawns...

There's no single point of origin for centrally planned economies. Socialism in particular, in a modern incarnation is both very european, and very jewish. Though one could argue such distributions are de facto often a feature of many *failed* states and economies, though with generally less veiled an intent.

I think to an extent, free markets grew as a product of new technologies and opportunities for trade outpacing the *capacity* for governments to actually control it all, and that as governments achieved newer methods of organization, policing, and monitoring, it became more appealing to the elites to push once again for tighter central planning.

Yet socialism as a formal idea comes from the degenerates in Yurip.

This is also a useful vehicle within democracies, particularly with widely expanded franchise.

Which in particular are you crediting?

As far as I'm aware, both Socialism, as a formal concept, and free markets as a formal concept, are european in origin.

Probably because they had the circumstances where there was really the opportunity to actually widely *debate* these systems and philosophies.

Instead of it just being imposed without necessarily even being defined.

That peasant cultures make peasants who want reasons to thing their masters can rule them justly. And Masters who like the idea that they can and should rule and that it will result in justice.

It's who they are. Peasants, slaves, Europeans.

I'm not sure exactly which non-European society is a strict exception to this. Aside from those which simply couldn't afford to police peasant populations to any significant degree.

I think maybe the English might decide to be men.

Seems to be more of a thing that pretty much every sufficiently sophisticated society does, and from which is rarely departed from more than superficially.

And which the Europeans just had the luxury of being able to define in multiple ways.

Honestly I'm seeing it everywhere now. The anti-white male culture is just everywhere. And in some ways it's like it's trying to erase white men from our very own countries.
Like I just saw a mental health awareness advert.
Black man and white woman.
Why that choice exactly?
Especially anyway when you consider white men are at greater risk of suicide in today's age and they're not being appeal to.
I don't care if muh alt right opinion sounds like reverse sjw opinions. Ya'll sound the same as them by not having a problem with it, checkmate horsetrads.

There's also the tendency for more regulation to occur in societies with lower trust. Even in circumstances where that low trust is directed at the state itself.

Black eraser never existed because black people never existed outside of shitty save the African adverts

Which is why, despite the level of socialism, at least up until recently, some Scandinavian countries actually had fewer market regulations than the US, iirc.

Europeans are peasants, and they do not knwo they are peasants so they think their opiniions matter. Whu=ich they do not.

They lack the initiative to make them matter, really.

Most people do.

And it would be at least somewhat accurate to observe that many european populations have been selected, over the course of the past few thousand years, to be suited to essentially being agrarian serfs. And many are still ill suited for much else.

These qualities and this culture did serve as a useful stepping stone towards more market driven societies, though. The culture of thrift, and industry.

Most still won't really serve as their own advocates, though.

Beyond just the superficial materialism, or certain cultural mores.

Selection over a couple thousand years is basically meaningless. Lactase persistence took a few thousand years. The European culture is what makes them groveling peasants.

In terms a full bore speciation. Yeah, it's not gonna do anything. But in terms of changing the relative distribution of attributes, particularly behavioral attributes, it can do quite a bit.

And there was, iirc, agriculture back even further than that, depending on location. I'd have to read up on it again. I think it's been pretty widespread for a pretty long time.

Lactase persistenc is not speciation it's just a simple adaptation. And not even behavioral for that matter.

There have been 4 lactase persistnce adaptations in human evolution.

I'm not talking about Lactase Persistence.