This is why I hate liberals

[Serendipper]

Who honestly treats guests better than their own women?
If that seems normal or even good to you, you're already dead. You weren't even ever alive.

Look at him settling into the saddle atop his high horse in condemnation of the considerate.

Yep, beating the ole lady will have to wait until the guests are fed and in bed.

"Beating the old lady"? That is your idea of family love?
I can see what culture you're definitely not part of.

Do you sleep atop that animal or do you just climb up there to stay out of my reach? The wife-beater joke went right over your head... no wonder you think you're so smart.

Every woman will tell you the guys who are nicest in the beginning are meanest at the end. If you ever meet a woman who doesn't run, ask her It's because the guys who are overly nice are compensating for some deficiency they feel they have; some insecurity, so they put the woman on a pedestal hoping that attentiveness and adoration will compensate for lack of whatever it is he feels he doesn't have. Then once he has her locked into a relationship, his adoration turns to tyranny for the same reasons of insecurity that prompted all the doting in the first place.

Any man who flatters himself for pedestalizing women as if adoration were a virtue could only be a dictatorial monster.

If I were a woman enduring your kowtowing to me while letting guests go unattended, I'd smack you with a frying pan and find a man with self-esteem.

You have a habit of delineating the world into good and bad: people who do X are good and people who do Y aren't human and the presumption that you're worthy to judge who is alive and dead makes you a monster ignorant of his own idol's proclamation: Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. :lol

Since there is no logic or reference to my own in your rambling so I only learned you think some one who prefers his woman over his guests is by inference a monster. A predictable enough socialist/muslim morality. You claim conservatism but you were always transparent as an invertebrate.

I don't claim to be conservative. You seriously got that impression?

Slither back under your rock.

You mean the rock upon which you built your church?

[Serendipper]

"Arrogant whites are being punished for their arrogance today. Be nice and everything is cool."

No, be nice and your daughter gets raped. Sorry.
What arrogance you see is just intelligence. We won't be punished for it.

You beat your chest and say "We won't be punished for it" and you say it's not arrogance?

In order for your daughter not to be raped, you have to presume everyone would rape her and punish the crime before the fact. That's essentially what you're advocating I think: "You're too likely to commit a crime, so I'm going to preemptively punish you by making you leave." Is that a good attitude to have? It's not american where we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, or at least until we've actually done something wrong other than being born into a class of people who do more wrong than another class. That's antipodal to the spirit of the constitution.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Really? Not even in general? I know there are exceptions.

yes, I meant in general. Let's look at dogma vs. open mind. The liberals have a party with a history of tendencies, positions they generally take. If they had open minds their members would be conservative more often than conservatives are liberal. They are two groups, each with different values, who struggle against each other.

You may be onto something. The left wants to be the savior and that fits with my observation of the right who wants to condemn.

The right also wants to be the savior, but not a religious savior, more like the hero, or the noble man. The one who makes the hard decisions, takes responsibily for necessary evils, and does not sacrifice himself. Ironically not a Christian savior. That why I called them more pagan. And I did not mean that as an insult.

The right is willing to have winners and losers and be more honest about this than liberals.

I think the right is more than willing.

Yes, sure.

I don't see either side as being particularly open minded. Nor do I see the left as relativists except in certain contexts.

Well the right and especially the christian right is intolerant of certain behavior and it isn't an intolerance they came about by reason, but dogma, and then they judge others by those dogmas. So generally we can describe them as closed-minded because dogma is not open for discussion as it's accepted to be incontrovertibly true by faith. In order to the left to be opposite, they would have to be open-minded and anti-dogmatic and more reliant upon evidence or reason to arrive at a conclusion that is never really known for certain. This is essentially what I see and what the stats that I see reveal.

The religious right is its own category. Perhaps communists would be the equivalent on the left. (me I am more an anarchist) But I don't see the religous right having that much sway in the house, senate or executive. They had more power for a while, but they simply cannot turn to the democrats, so they have no good bluff to fuck with the neo cons who could give a shit about religion and don't really care much about gay sex or marriage, for example.

Atheists on the left, christians on the right. Scientists are evolutionists who are athiests instead of creationists. Atheists are smarter. Smarter people are on the left. Hollywood, wall street, silicon valley.... talent (smart) on the left, dogma (dumb) on the right. It all ties together and nothing really sticks out as being inconsistent. Sure there are exceptions, but generally speaking...

IQ is not so simple....https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... r-liberals

Even a dogmatist can be openminded about some things, but what's the core philosophy? Are there absolutes? Absolute loyalty?

Sure. But we would not have defined parties if one side was open. Read any place where conservatives and liberals or left and right are having a dialogue. They tend to view each other as immoral. And it's been that way since I was born.

Maybe so. According to Watts, the guy at the top couldn't possibly be an absolutist because he'd be a mere machine in need of a commander.

They're wheeler and dealers, the house and senate and presidents. But I don't really think of them as having power. Their the white foam of the wave.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

Oh I get your point now: she should be grateful to exist in this country and should take indignity with stride. That would be ok if someone were presented with that option at the border so they could have the choice to agree. "Hello Mr. Brownperson! Here's the deal: you can come in and enjoy the fruits, but you have to eat our shit too. Do you accept these terms?" I guess it's even worse if you're born here because then you don't get a choice; you're born into indignity and expected to be grateful. "I may be eating shit, but at least I'm eating high-quality american shit and I'm grateful for that!" All this because why?

We have to eat a lot of shit from minorities too.
We have to eat their racism.

I have never seen it. I used to work in crack neighborhoods and saw nothing but nice young men trying to sell me crack. No one ever called me names or tried to fight or steal or anything. Now I live with a Hispanic population and still see no racism, except from white folks complaining about the intrusion of brown people. I ask them why and they have no good reason. My friend says it's because they're riding his dime on welfare, but it's not true: hispanics are too hardworking to be riding welfare and most of them are whites, like his worthless sister.

My biggest problem is white trash and happily I'd trade them for more Hispanics. The guy who threw trash on my property was white. The guys racing up n down the road were white. The methheads are white. Round em up and send em back to Ireland or, lol, Australia lol! (prison colony joke) Seriously, I'd gladly trade some trailer trash for Hispanics... As hardworking as they are, they'd probably clean up the neighborhood. The worst thing about Hispanics is the large parties on holidays.

I have no clue what racism you're referring to.

Many of them are less educated, intelligent, more crime and terror prone.

Terror prone? What is that? The Irish have the shortest fuses and probably a good definition of a Tasmanian Devil is an Irish Apache mix lol. Hell, Notre Dame's logo is The Fighting Irish!

Some of them have strange, unusual and disturbing customs, like forcing their women to wear burkas, and treating them like big children, or property.

Why should I care? As long as they don't gather in the aisle at the store jabberjawing, I'm cool.

Some don't speak our language well, or at all.

That's their problem.

Some have no comprehension of our laws, history and customs.

They'll figure it out.

Many of them have five-ten kids per family, forcing us to overdevelop ourselves (I don't want more pollution and population density), putting a strain on our environment and resources.

Food is a function of the sun and I can't see overwhelming it. Like I said before, prosperous people do not reproduce, so make them prosperous and there is no problem... except for the idea of someone getting something they don't deserve.

The illegals especially take some of our jobs from us.
And don't say we won't do them, Europeans built and maintained their countries without (illegal) immigration.

This video was made to address that



They have a low center of gravity and tolerance for heat.

How do you know their plight is exaggerated?

She has more rights than I do, so how can she say she doesn't feel like a part of this country?
Because she's been subjected to a little racism now and then, likely mostly because she and her ilk can't stop blabbing about how much more she's entitled to from us because she's brown?
Because she's heard mulattos with a 'fuck da police' attitude wind up being shot dead?

I really don't know much about her situation. She has more rights because she's a woman and not because she's brown.

Her feelings are disproportionate to the facts.

We all do that.

And on college campuses, universities and philosophy forums, where facts and reason ought to count for more than fiction and feelings, she should be exposed for it.

Sure, I guess.

Spoiled by what measurement? Just existing in the US is being spoiled? When I think of spoiled, I think Trump who was born with a silver spoon up his butt; not some brown woman ranting on youtube.

I probably can't become a citizen of her country, and I probably wouldn't want to, because it's arguably inferior.
We have more to offer than them, and yet they still complain.

I think what she is complaining about is she is a citizen and should be treated as such instead of being a 2nd class citizen.

I agree they should learn our language and ways, but they shouldn't have to kiss our butts. There is a difference.

*Gasp* you fascist pig!
How dare you force them to learn our language and customs when we should be learning theirs!

I wouldn't force them to learn our language, but I also wouldn't cater to them by putting up signs in their language.

We need to focus on one issue rather than these vague generalities. The correlation of IQ to success is about 16%, which is not a correlation.

From my research, iQ is somewhat correlated with education and wealth.

The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades. Moderator analyses showed that the relationship between intelligence and success is dependent on the age of the sample but there is little evidence of any historical trend in the relationship. http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-cont ... search.pdf

It's a meta, so there are links to other studies in the meta at the bottom. I think the highest correlation was .37, which isn't a correlation. There are a lot of problems associated with being smart that preclude successful assimilation into society.

It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Jews are white. Many, if not most, have blue eyes!

Ashkenazi Jews appear to be as much or more white than west Asian.
I'll accept them as white, so long as they genuinely think of themselves as white, and fight for, or at least refrain from opposing our interests.
Jews who've been caught opposing us, need to be exposed, and have their power stripped from them.

Yeah I guess any conspiracy ought to be busted up.

I don't know why you're not more pissed at old white dudes then.

You seem to be pissed at whites in general, not just the white overclass.

I'm pissed at old whites and young white trailer trash.

[Serendipper]

Really? Not even in general? I know there are exceptions.

yes, I meant in general. Let's look at dogma vs. open mind. The liberals have a party with a history of tendencies, positions they generally take. If they had open minds their members would be conservative more often than conservatives are liberal. They are two groups, each with different values, who struggle against each other.

Do you have an example we can sink our teeth into? How about minimum wage? I've studied the states and found correlation between higher MW and higher median income, education, and lower crime. Plus I have a well-articulated mechanism to explain the correlation. When I argue against conservatives, I get dogma because they can't stand the fact that someone might get something for nothing.

Go to the liberalforum.org and look around. The Liberals Only Room is a breath of fresh air: nothing but intelligent and respectful conversation. Outside of that room, it's dominated by "yer stupid". Liberals only room = wild animals not allowed. I have yet to see example of a conservative who doesn't resort to calling people names in debate (because they abandon reason and insult is the only way to defend dogma). Or heck, look no farther than Jakob right here saying I'm not human as his argument.

Now, I don't believe the climate change narrative, so I argue against liberals on that issue, but they never call me names. They don't believe me, but they don't call me stupid. They are dogmatic in their trust of authority, but they aren't simian. Liberals are far more likely to be open-minded and have a productive conversation. Nobody likes to admit being wrong, but a liberal can do it easier than a conservative and it's principally because a liberal puts more faith in reason than faith.

Why do conservatives have guns, but do not shoot people? Because they're dogmatic that murder is wrong. It's not open for discussion. There is no mechanism around the dogma so it's impossible for a dogmatic conservative to shoot someone not in self-defense much like it's impossible for a machine to do something it wasn't programmed to do. Liberals believe the ends justify the means and it's because they are not dogmatic that they're prone to violence. Their open-mindedness is a mechanism around the dogma that murder is wrong. They may be crazy, but at least they are "human".

This is why I jokingly say right vs left is Dunning-Kruger vs Freddy Krueger.... the stupids vs the crazies.

You may be onto something. The left wants to be the savior and that fits with my observation of the right who wants to condemn.

The right also wants to be the savior, but not a religious savior, more like the hero, or the noble man. The one who makes the hard decisions, takes responsibily for necessary evils, and does not sacrifice himself. Ironically not a Christian savior. That why I called them more pagan. And I did not mean that as an insult.

What do you mean by pagan?

If someone gets something for nothing, why wouldn't we be happy for them? Hate is the only reason and that ain't noble. Making life harder on people isn't salvation.

I don't see either side as being particularly open minded. Nor do I see the left as relativists except in certain contexts.

Well the right and especially the christian right is intolerant of certain behavior and it isn't an intolerance they came about by reason, but dogma, and then they judge others by those dogmas. So generally we can describe them as closed-minded because dogma is not open for discussion as it's accepted to be incontrovertibly true by faith. In order to the left to be opposite, they would have to be open-minded and anti-dogmatic and more reliant upon evidence or reason to arrive at a conclusion that is never really known for certain. This is essentially what I see and what the stats that I see reveal.

The religious right is its own category. Perhaps communists would be the equivalent on the left. (me I am more an anarchist) But I don't see the religous right having that much sway in the house, senate or executive. They had more power for a while, but they simply cannot turn to the democrats, so they have no good bluff to fuck with the neo cons who could give a shit about religion and don't really care much about gay sex or marriage, for example.

Why do you see the religious right so easily fitting with the rest of the right? I see it as being cut from the same cloth. Sure they may not give a shit about gay marriage, but they're dogmatic about other things, like abhorring handouts.

Atheists on the left, christians on the right. Scientists are evolutionists who are athiests instead of creationists. Atheists are smarter. Smarter people are on the left. Hollywood, wall street, silicon valley.... talent (smart) on the left, dogma (dumb) on the right. It all ties together and nothing really sticks out as being inconsistent. Sure there are exceptions, but generally speaking...

IQ is not so simple....https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... r-liberals

Regarding the article, I was conservative in college too. Young people haven't made up their minds yet and lots of conservative kids have just been indoctrinated by their parents. Repeat the assessment on college professors and it would be more accurate.

The only way to be conservative is to be ignorant (not necessarily stupid). I had my dad barking at me all my life about how stupid liberals are, but when the internet came along, I was like "Hey dad, how come liberals have more money? Hey dad, how come liberals are better educated? Hey dad, how does money get from the top back to the bottom again without taxation?" I've disproven everything he's ever told me regarding politics. Without the internet, I'd still be a dummy dogmatically believing what dad had drilled into me. Money printing does not cause inflation. The gold standard is a terrible idea. High taxation is associated with prosperity. Dad was just an AM Radio junkie and bought the narrative. He's a smart guy, but he can't abandon what he thought was true for so long.

Even a dogmatist can be openminded about some things, but what's the core philosophy? Are there absolutes? Absolute loyalty?

Sure. But we would not have defined parties if one side was open. Read any place where conservatives and liberals or left and right are having a dialogue. They tend to view each other as immoral. And it's been that way since I was born.

The right asserts morality and say the left is immoral for not observing what they are asserting. The left says the right is immoral for imposing their morality.

You'll love this video. It's quite funny



04:45
I am perfectly fine, but I am tired of
04:47
tolerance of intolerance! No tolerance of
04:50
intolerance!

I've taken that to be the mantra of the left.

Maybe so. According to Watts, the guy at the top couldn't possibly be an absolutist because he'd be a mere machine in need of a commander.

They're wheeler and dealers, the house and senate and presidents. But I don't really think of them as having power. Their the white foam of the wave.

It could be, but I have no way of knowing. Trump winning the election did a lot to restore confidence that the system is not rigged.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

So it boils down to whether the people can defend the country in order for it to be called a country. So might makes right. IOW, if we can take it from them, then it is right. Right?

Or else you're saying that because the nomads didn't do _________ with the land, then they lose ownership. Anything can fill the blank.

Property is about occupation, possession, use.
If only 00.0001% of x land is currently occupied, possessed, used, than 99.9999% of x land is currently unoccupied, unpossessed, unused.
Of that unoccupied, unpossessed, unused land, no one has it.
If no one has it, than I can't take it from anyone against their will.
If I can't take it from anyone against their will, than I can't steal it.
If I can't steal it, than it's up for grabs.

Let's put it another way, say if instead of Columbus finding ten million native Americans in the Americas, he only found ten, does that mean all of the Americans belong to just ten native Americans, and we have to ask them for permission to settle anywhere in the Americas, even hundreds of miles away from them?
Of course not, we would only ethically have to ask permission to settle in land they're occupying, possessing, using.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the nonaggression principle (liberty) is the only principle worth considering when determining what belongs to who, there are other principles like equity, equality, necessity, superiority, investment, and I don't see why we have to restrict ourselves to just one. That makes me an ethical pluralist.

So if dad steals something from you, then I get to keep it? A guy once stole a motorcycle from me and pawned it. The sheriff and I drove to the pawn shop and I rode home on my bike. The pawn shop was out of luck. Stolen property is stolen property and I don't think that designation changes just because the property changes hands.

I'm not sure if I agree with our laws on that.
If a pawnshop had no way of knowing it was stolen, than perhaps it should remain theirs, or if you do get it back, they should be financially compensated somehow, because through no fault of their own, they will have lost money. It's the thief that should be punished, not the person he sold the goods to.

And there's a difference between dad stealing something yesterday, and giving it to you today, and inheriting something your great, great, great grandpa stole, when the victims, perp and everyone they ever knew have long since been dead.

Luckily for us though, the owners of the land have died and their descendants arose in a different situation which I don't think grants them claim to the land to return it to wilderness. Ethics is a can of worms, but I'm just pointing out all your justifications are beside the point of might making right.

So what do you think, were the Americas ours for the taking, if so, why, if not, why, and if not, why oughtn't we return it to them?

That's true, but lots of whites are happy with browns. The racist whites (unhappy ones) are the minority.

I'm not so sure of that, pretty sure polls say most whites are unhappy with current levels of immigration, and these days most immigrants are brown, it's the politicians who want non-white immigrants, not the people.
That's why the establishment refers to Trump and co as populists, because generally their anti-immigration, protectionist, anti-offensive war policies are popular with the people, which'sn't to say Trump is a perfect populist, far from it, but he's significantly closer than mainstream republicans and democrats.

And Since whites are the majority, if anything, the country ought to be designed to please us more than minorities.

00:28
The educational system the United States has the worst educational system known to science. Our graduates compete regularly at the level of third world countries. How come the scientific establishment of the United States doesn't collapse if we're producing a generation of dummies?

00:58
America has a secret weapon, that secret weapon is the h-1b, without the h-1b, the scientific establishment of this country would collapse. Forget about Google; forget about Silicon Valley, there would be no Silicon Valley. You know what the h-1b is? It's the "genius visa" okay. You realize that in the United States 50% of all PhD candidates are foreign-born? At my system, one of the biggest in the United States, 100% of the PhD candidates are foreign-born. United States is the magnet sucking up all the brains of the world.

Maybe we need them more than they need us.

When immigrants come from say India to the US, they're coming from a country where the GDP per capita is dozens of times lower, so essentially their standard of living (SOL) is being raised dozens of times.
While some of these immigrants will take white collar jobs, some of them will take blue collar, and a few of them will become criminals and drug addicts, so it's not clear if they're actually raising our GDP per capita/SOL.
And even if they are, it can't be by much, even if they're responsible for all the economic growth in the US, which seems unlikely, the US is only growing by 1-2% a year, so in a couple of generations, the US SOL won't've risen anywhere near as much as the immigrants SOL has been raised in the time it takes to fly from New Delhi to New York.
Furthermore, their SOL will also continue to grow with the US as its SOL grows, so overall their SOL will have grown a, HELL of a lot more than ours.

Again, they need us a whole lot more than we need them, so they should be begging on their hands and knees to come here, accommodating us in every single way possible, not the other way round.
And many European countries have comparable or far greater levels of economic growth with little-no non-European immigration or immigration at all, take Iceland for example, at a whopping 7%.

The west is kind of finished growing anyway, doesn't even really need to grow, if anything it needs to stagnate, or decline, whereas the 3rd world still has a lot of catching up to do (what we need is more wealth redistribution, not creation).
Its the 3rd world that needs to grow, they need their white collar workers a hell of a lot more than we do, so they should stay home.
The more an economy grows, the more superfluous and unnecessarily destructive its growth tends to be, early development is characterized by genuine improvements to SOL, whereas latter development is mostly characterized by frivolities, unhealthy crap we don't really need.
Because the rich are hoarding all of the gains and then some, the standard of living for working class Americans isn't being raised, actually it's being lowered, and the middle class is shrinking.
It's only the rich who're benefiting and profiting from whatever gains immigrants are conferring, if they're conferring any that is.

However, what is clear is immigrants are contributing to more pollution, population density and strain on our environment, which many Canadians, Americans, Australians and Europeans, don't want.
They're also contributing to more racism, and cultural clashes.
You can't have as much racism and cultural warfare as you can with multiculturalism.
We wouldn't even being having this conversation if it wasn't for mass immigration, racial and cultural discrimination wouldn't be, a thing.

My private property? Because I can, I guess. Even though I paid money for it and take care of it, the state can still seize it anytime they want. They probably won't though and it's the state keeping other people from seizing my property. So as long as my guardian doesn't turn on me, I should be ok.

When I said I wanted to preserve my biological and some of my cultural heritage, you said instead I should just embrace change, because it's inevitable, but few, if anyone actually believes that, including yourself, because if they did, they'd just give all their things away, and let themselves become worm food.

I can't see it. All Trump can do is usher in a new FDR. Conservatism is like the darwin award: it's self-limiting and causes its own extinction by blowing up.

If Biden runs, I'm voting for Trump because Biden is not a solution. Trump will cause catastrophic collapse which will bring the reform we need, but Biden will be more compromise that will acclimate us to mediocrity. A centrist like Biden is infinitely worse than Trump.

That's very one-sided of you, I think conservatism and progressivism each have their pros and cons.
And even if conservatism is all con, humans aren't exactly known for selecting the right path to go down.
In the west, nationalism is making a comeback.
Most of the world is nationalistic, including some wealthy countries like Israel, South Korea and Japan.
They don't want non-Japanese, non-Korean, Gentile immigrants respectively, and they're doing just fine.
I would say it's nationalism that's inevitable, if anything, and healthy, or at least not sickly.
Mass immigration and the level of globalization we're witnessing is in all likelihood a mere blip in history.

All I know is if you're wanting to go extinct, breed yourself down to one perfect genotype. Genetic variability should be our prime initiative.

That depends.
If the people you're breeding with are inferior, that's not healthy for your race.
If the people you're breeding with are very different than you, you might not balance each other out right, instead you might wind up with mismatched chimeras, having a temper but not the physical strength to enforce it, or being curious but not smart, or having a big head but a small neck, or being picky and unattractive.
If the people you're breeding with are very different than you, you won't be able to comprehend your children's needs very well, or cultivate their abilities.
The Japanese are one of the most homogeneous races, and yet they're one of the most successful.
Inbreeding is bad, but as long as your genepool is sufficiently diverse to prevent it, it's not necessarily bad to only breed within your race.
Lastly, it's nice to have different races with different abilities, because then we can specialize at what we're good at.
True diversity means keeping the races apart, not merging them together into a single race.

I vote we all verbally attack each other and laugh about it because we can't forbid speech since it's a slippery slope.

Virtually anything can be a slippery slope, but nonetheless I agree.
In a democracy, freedom of speech/thought is THE fundamental right.

I guess so, but then again it's like the weak vs the strong because being white does have some privilege. Think of the bias like a handicap in a game against a better opponent.

White people earned their privilege, our ancestors built this amazing country you so desperately want to come to, not yours.

A brown person is going to put brown peoples interests over my peoples.

Such as? I can't imagine.

Brown people hiring more brown people than white people, bullying us, committing acts of terror, demanding special treatment, exaggerating how much we've mistreated them, lobbying for their countries, sharia law.

I think a black woman would be more likely to keep her campaign promises than a white man on average and in general. I think the white man would be saying whatever to get elected then rest on his laurels while the black woman would be fighting for something she deeply believes in. I think this sentiment is the principle reason minorities like Ocassio are clobbering old white dudes at the polls.

Black women are averagely less smart than white men, and white women, and while there may be black women geniuses, they're rarer, and their geniuses aren't as smart as ours.
It'll be much more difficult to find someone with all the qualifications (discipline, education, intelligence, temperament) required for presidency among black women than white men.
Black women will sympathize with their own interests over mine as a white man.
Obama was a puppet anyway, just because you have a black face up there, doesn't mean it's not controlled, in all likelihood it is.

And we need more of the RIGHT kind of sympathy for the poor.
While I think the working class deserves a much fairer wage, again, people who can work, should.

Again I would rather see a white man, or white woman for that matter from a working class background become president.

Why not?

What am I entitled to? And why is that different than room n board?

Why should 50% of the population work twice as hard to feed themselves and the other 50% while the other 50% sits on their ass?

I agree, but too many women get shafted lol. They agree to a certain arrangement then the guy splits leaving her to her own minimum wage devices.

People who don't contribute anything to society shouldn't procreate.
They will fill the land with weakness, and weakness will make it harder to take care of ourselves.
Society doesn't want to be forced to look after other peoples kids.

Firstly, we should get rid of no fault divorce, to encourage husbands and wives to stay together.
Secondly, women should have to sign a contract before they go on disability/welfare relinquishing their right to procreate, and if they break the contract, they should have their newborn taken into custody, and forfeit their right to disability/welfare if they don't agree to be spayed.

It should be a crime because it's causing crime. If businesses reject brown people, then brown people have no jobs, so they cause crime. If cops target brown people, then brown people see white people as enemies. Racism is akin to shitting where you eat as it can only mess up your own life. Either exterminate the brownies or learn to live with them, but making criminals of them isn't a solution.

According to your man Stefan, there's little-no correlation between poverty and crime, but then I'm not so sure of that.
If white people hire a few less blacks, blacks can hire a few less whites, It'll work out.
When it comes to business, most people just want to make money anyway, they'll hire whoever's more qualified.
That being said, I think big business and public business should refrain from discrimination, to ensure there's always enough jobs for everyone.

Maybe, but giving them addition environmental challenges is not helping, especially if they're genetically ill-equipped in the first place.

People should get out what they put in, otherwise we have a parasitical economy, we should take better care of the strong than the weak.
Giving blacks more stuff than they deserve isn't helping them either, it'll teach them to be even less disciplined.
And even if it did help blacks become better, it'll hurt whites, they won't have as much incentive to better themselves, working to prop others up who don't work or do shoddy work will de-incentivize them.

I'm just going on Stefan Moylneux's study of crime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBJ5m3sGfk

You go with that.

I've heard that, but never really verified it. The most creative people tend to be those with well-connected corpus callosums, which are women and gay men usually. Do white men have a larger propensity for homosexuality? So it would seem, but I don't have any data.

It's hard to compare apples to apples since the Europeans had domesticated animals, horses, good climate and soil making it tough to tell the role of genetics when compared to peoples who didn't have those advantages.

A lot of things in the brain make us creative, you can't just say it's the corpus whatever.
And women have invented almost nothing.
We can say it's because women have been held back by the demands of childbirth, or unfair discrimination, but still you think such creative geniuses would've fought to get themselves taken seriously.
While women appear to be as averagely intelligent as men, there's both less dumb and less genius women, and it's the geniuses who're inventing things, very rarely average people.
A man who's twice as a smart as an average man/woman isn't twice as likely to invent something, he's hundreds of times more likely.
Almost all inventors had high iQs, very few had mid-low iQs.
As for gay men, I have no idea, it's only been acceptable to come out of the closet in the west in the last few decades.

Plenty of places had good soil and climate, much of the Americas, Asia and Africa.
Plenty of places had domesticated animals, and the ones who didn't, don't necessarily have an excuse.
Why didn't they domesticate some, or learn from nations who did?

China certainly had all those things, so did India, and they've given the world some amazing inventions, but, if you wiped China or India off the map 1000 years ago, the modern world would've still probably been invented, whereas if you wiped Europe off the map 1000 years ago, it almost certainly wouldn't've been.
Almost all creativity in the last several hundred years has come from Europe and its offshoots.

And does all of Europe really have such an excellent climate?
Northern Europe is very frigid, with low biological diversity, the climate is pretty harsh.
The nicest climates are actually the ones humans are supposed to have evolved in, like in central east Africa, which boasts a far more humane climate.
Much of Europe is very severe, and hostile, not as abundant in natural resources.

So... is similarity a reason you should like or dislike Italians? You have more in common with men, so does that mean you want to have sex with one? Or do you want something different? Would you date a family member? You have more in common with them.

Do you pick your friends at random?
Do you treat other families as good or better than your own?
If you do you'd be an anomaly.

I mean yea it'd be pretty boring if all your friends were exactly the same as you, and there'd be no growth, no learning, but if people are too different, that leads to alienation, too much compromise, conflict, confusion and division.

There's plenty of diversity within the races to keep things interesting, and we tend to care more about people similar to us, because we see ourselves in them.
Generally we want people similar to, but not exactly the same as ourselves for friends.
Again, birds of a feather, races and cultures tend to stick to and marry their own, even whites who're 'progressive' and 'liberal'.

What needs to be done? We've gone through the agricultural and industrial revolutions, at what point can we sit down and enjoy what we've built? Or do we have to eternally work just because?

There are obviously many services machines and computers can't perform, and the machines won't maintain, operate and repair themselves.
We are also running out of oil and gas to power these machines.
It's going to be difficult-impossible to run them on other stuff, we might have to power down our economies, many speculate.
There are limits to how fast and steady we can grow, if not growth itself (I mean we do live on a finite planet in what appears to be a barren, hostile and ultra sparse universe), as well as dire consequences, which might ultimately undo and unravel us and our civilization.
There's still a lot of work to be done.
While some of our productivity is meaningless, and a result of capitalists not wanting to share any of the profits made from these more efficient machines, and we shouldn't have to work as much as we do, we still need to work.

I'm expecting the kids to wake up and notice it's a stupid formality. The only ones holding us back are the ones who say we "should" work and those sorts are dying off.

And then those kids grow up and realize wealth and resources have to come from somewhere, someone has to go out and earn, make a living.

Another ice age is more likely and even then it's a long way off. I don't see nuclear war happening. All this bickering is just too silly for that.

Nuclear war almost happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
There are cold wars going on right now between the US, Russia and China, that could very well erupt into a hot war one day soon.
There are nutters like N Korea and Iran out there, and there may be more nutters to come.
Thanks to too much capitalism, corporatism, consumerism and productivity, resources are being depleted, the planet is undergoing desertification, pretty soon wars will be fought to seize and secure dwindling resources.

What do you mean "pollute with inferiority?" Genes?

Yes, but also cultural inferiority.

Work is slavery. If you do not want to work, but you have to work to live, then you are a slave, pure and simple. I don't call that prosperity nor do I value the genes of people who can't see it. A lot of our genetics is already polluted by yes-men due to extermination of dissidents by kings and rulers throughout history.

No, the man who works so someone can play and rest, is a slave.
I agree we shouldn't have to work as much as we did and do, and that too much wealth is being concentrated in too few hands, but we still have to work.

Why are you typing this? How much are you being paid? Who has a gun to your head? So you see people would be productive without being compelled. You probably couldn't pay researchers to stop their work. I'm confident that if everyone received $20k annually that most would continue working because they either want to get ahead or they love what they do. The ones who don't fit will be paid to stay out of the way and they would also have less sexual market value due to it.

People are pretty different.
Some would continue to work even if they were rich, but others wouldn't lift a finger, they would just have fun at others expense.
And there's a lot of backbreaking, dirty and tedious jobs we have to do, that no one wants to do.
If work was optional, everyone would want to be a chef, musician or painter, no one would want to shovel shit, but someone has to.

Some congressman said we should raise taxes on poor people with kids as a way of deincentivizing having kids, but I think it would have the opposite effect because anywhere there is data, prosperity is associated with less reproduction; not more. So if you want poor people to stop reproducing, give them money. You also kill two birds with one stone because then the poor people go away too. People get smarter, healthier, happier, and society moves up a notch.

I think we should improve the standard of living for the poor, but again everyone that can work should.

You just can't stand the thought of someone getting something for nothing because you had to work, so that's why it's the next generation who doesn't have your burden who will see more clearly how silly this is becoming. Generations to come will thank you for your service, but we ain't gotta do this shit no more; you were just unlucky to have been born too early.

Maybe you just can't stand the thought of having to give to people.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

I have no clue what racism you're referring to.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-americans-think-theyre-discriminated-against

Terror prone? What is that? The Irish have the shortest fuses and probably a good definition of a Tasmanian Devil is an Irish Apache mix lol. Hell, Notre Dame's logo is The Fighting Irish!

Statistics compiled by the United States government's Counterterrorism Center present a complicated picture: of known and specified terrorist incidents from the beginning of 2004 through the first quarter of 2005, slightly more than half of the fatalities were attributed to Islamic extremists but a majority of over-all incidents were considered of either "unknown/unspecified" or a secular political nature.[citation needed] The vast majority of the "unknown/unspecified" terrorism fatalities did however happen in Islamic regions such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or in regions where Islam is otherwise involved in conflicts such as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, southern Thailand and Kashmir.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Prevalence_relative_to_other_forms_of_terrorism

Also, conspiracy theories aside, see 9/11.
Imagine if one of these Islamic extremists ever got their hands on nuclear explosives.

Why should I care? As long as they don't gather in the aisle at the store jabberjawing, I'm cool.

I don't want misogynist and other anti-western values/sharia law proliferating in our homelands.
That being said, I don't want radical feminism and misandry to continue to proliferate either.
Will western civilization even exist in the US and Europe after they become majority Mexican and Muslim respectively?
Can civilization ever really, truly be separated from the race, that produced it?

Some don't speak our language well, or at all.

That's their problem.

No it's our problem, we have to converse with these people.

Some have no comprehension of our laws, history and customs.

They'll figure it out.

Continuous mass immigration ensures there'll always be another generation of immigrants who have to figure it all out, and some of them may never fully will.

White laws and customs were created by white minds, and are probably more difficult for non-white minds to comprehend.

Food is a function of the sun and I can't see overwhelming it. Like I said before, prosperous people do not reproduce, so make them prosperous and there is no problem... except for the idea of someone getting something they don't deserve.

Continuous mass immigration ensures there'll always be another generation of immigrants born in impoverished countries who tend to have 5-10 kids over here.
And in any case, mass immigration itself makes us overpopulated, I want to preserve what's left of our wilderness, and resources, reduce pollution, as well as crowding/population density, not accelerate them.

They have a low center of gravity and tolerance for heat.

Again, whites in Europe do these jobs themselves, they're not reliant on illegal immigration.

"Lower center of gravity", what?
That just means they have to stand on a step latter to pick the high hanging fruit.
They're also less agile, dexterous, lithe and nimble.
Whites are also physically stronger than mestizos.

"Tolerance for heat"?
Legal Mexicans, Mulattos and Southern Europeans also have a high tolerance for heat.

I say get prisoners to do some of these jobs.

I really don't know much about her situation. She has more rights because she's a woman and not because she's brown.

No she has more rights because she's a woman, and she's brown, see the top link.

The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades. Moderator analyses showed that the relationship between intelligence and success is dependent on the age of the sample but there is little evidence of any historical trend in the relationship. http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-cont ... search.pdf

It's a meta, so there are links to other studies in the meta at the bottom. I think the highest correlation was .37, which isn't a correlation. There are a lot of problems associated with being smart that preclude successful assimilation into society.

It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Of course there's a correlation between intelligence and success, are you saying there's as many PHDs with an iQ of 70 (there's probably very, very few, if any PHDs with an iQ of 70 or less), as there are with an iQ of 130?
While some intelligent people may turn to drinking, drugs or else become hermits, minimalists because they know just how bleak, depressing and frivolous our world can be, or because of how isolated they feel, a small positive correlation is still just that, a small positive correlation, not no correlation.
Just because iQ isn't the only factor, doesn't mean it isn't A factor.
Also I'd like to examine the methodology used for ascertaining that number, when I have more time.

[MagsJ]

Well I can scratch Canada off my visit list.. too much social unrest.. and aggy wildlife.

What do you think of big cities with bright lights, where those that reside there are practically born tolerant? so where the issue of excessive migration doesn't lead to excessive hatred toward non-white nationalities..

Since Brexit was announced, the talk of immigration numbers died out.. the people voted.

[barbarianhorde]

Big cities bright lights, like Paris? Where girls can't walk alone in the streets?

The intolerance is basically coming from the mooselmen. I mean I don't think they have much tolerance for any thing that lives.

We had a tolerant city here for every creed and gays and what not, but in the 90s the first gen mooselmen grew to teenage hood and within a few years they had beaten up so many people, gays predominantly, that no gay ever walks the streets openly here again.I havent seen an open gay for over ten years except in the police monitored gay pride parade.

So tell me, is there much tolerance for gays or Jews in London?



Yeah I didn't think so.

Selective tolerance is the fetish. Tolerance to the ones that murder and mutilate, which makes London intolerant to basic human care and kindness.

Can the British isles recover to civilization? I don't think so, because they were only worth anything when they were all fanatically clinging to the Queen.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

So it boils down to whether the people can defend the country in order for it to be called a country. So might makes right. IOW, if we can take it from them, then it is right. Right?

Or else you're saying that because the nomads didn't do _________ with the land, then they lose ownership. Anything can fill the blank.

Property is about occupation, possession, use.
If only 00.0001% of x land is currently occupied, possessed, used, than 99.9999% of x land is currently unoccupied, unpossessed, unused.
Of that unoccupied, unpossessed, unused land, no one has it.
If no one has it, than I can't take it from anyone against their will.
If I can't take it from anyone against their will, than I can't steal it.
If I can't steal it, than it's up for grabs.

Let's put it another way, say if instead of Columbus finding ten million native Americans in the Americas, he only found ten, does that mean all of the Americans belong to just ten native Americans, and we have to ask them for permission to settle anywhere in the Americas, even hundreds of miles away from them?
Of course not, we would only ethically have to ask permission to settle in land they're occupying, possessing, using.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the nonaggression principle (liberty) is the only principle worth considering when determining what belongs to who, there are other principles like equity, equality, necessity, superiority, investment, and I don't see why we have to restrict ourselves to just one. That makes me an ethical pluralist.

So you're saying that if some guy owns 1000s of acres I can simply claim that is too much for him and take possession of some amount of it? Exactly how much land is one man entitled to own in your view? And what constitutes ownership? Does paying someone else paper currency define ownership or does driving stakes in the ground determine it?

I say what defines ownership is the size of one's army and mine is pretty big, but they could turn on me... idk. Probably as long as I continue paying my taxes, they will let me continue paying taxes and will guard my land from hostile takeover in protection of their income stream.

So if dad steals something from you, then I get to keep it? A guy once stole a motorcycle from me and pawned it. The sheriff and I drove to the pawn shop and I rode home on my bike. The pawn shop was out of luck. Stolen property is stolen property and I don't think that designation changes just because the property changes hands.

I'm not sure if I agree with our laws on that.
If a pawnshop had no way of knowing it was stolen, than perhaps it should remain theirs, or if you do get it back, they should be financially compensated somehow, because through no fault of their own, they will have lost money. It's the thief that should be punished, not the person he sold the goods to.

Well I shouldn't have to repay the pawnshop for my own property back (I actually did have to repay someone who bought my stolen cd player... like $40 I think). The pawn shop can sue the thief, but good luck because he was a real loser not smart enough to take the pawn ticket out of his pocket before raising hell at his ex's house and having the cops arrest him. The pawn shop should have checked if the bike was stolen before they bought it.

And there's a difference between dad stealing something yesterday, and giving it to you today, and inheriting something your great, great, great grandpa stole, when the victims, perp and everyone they ever knew have long since been dead.

I think I agree that if everyone with claims to the property were dead, then it doesn't matter who owns it. That's kinda how I see it now: we're in a new status quo. But that doesn't mean prior wrongs should set precedence for what is permissible as if we did it before and got away with it so it's therefore ok.

Luckily for us though, the owners of the land have died and their descendants arose in a different situation which I don't think grants them claim to the land to return it to wilderness. Ethics is a can of worms, but I'm just pointing out all your justifications are beside the point of might making right.

So what do you think, were the Americas ours for the taking, if so, why, if not, why, and if not, why oughtn't we return it to them?

I'm honestly not sure. If might makes right is the justification for taking the land then we have to be consistent in our philosophy. If someone overtakes us by whatever power, then we can't begrudge them for what we also did. I'm not saying to lay down and die, but maybe be a better sport, I guess? "You are my enemy and I will defend my land to the best of my ability, but I will not call you a monster because that will make me a monster. We're just animals in the jungle vying for territory."

That's true, but lots of whites are happy with browns. The racist whites (unhappy ones) are the minority.

I'm not so sure of that, pretty sure polls say most whites are unhappy with current levels of immigration, and these days most immigrants are brown, it's the politicians who want non-white immigrants, not the people.
That's why the establishment refers to Trump and co as populists, because generally their anti-immigration, protectionist, anti-offensive war policies are popular with the people, which'sn't to say Trump is a perfect populist, far from it, but he's significantly closer than mainstream republicans and democrats.

And Since whites are the majority, if anything, the country ought to be designed to please us more than minorities.

If whites are the majority and if whites do not like browns (according to your polls), then why are the whites not getting their way? I think it's more likely that your polls are wrong. I think most people say live and let live and really don't care that much. A small group cares and they are labeled haters.

Trump was elected because he wasn't Hillary. No one really liked Trump, but he wasn't Hillary, so his election shouldn't be interpreted as a vote for populism nor indicative of what most people want. Whoever decided to run Hillary is the one to blame for Trump because Hillary was the one person on earth who could not beat Trump. Even Mr Hanky could have beat Trump

00:28
The educational system the United States has the worst educational system known to science. Our graduates compete regularly at the level of third world countries. How come the scientific establishment of the United States doesn't collapse if we're producing a generation of dummies?

00:58
America has a secret weapon, that secret weapon is the h-1b, without the h-1b, the scientific establishment of this country would collapse. Forget about Google; forget about Silicon Valley, there would be no Silicon Valley. You know what the h-1b is? It's the "genius visa" okay. You realize that in the United States 50% of all PhD candidates are foreign-born? At my system, one of the biggest in the United States, 100% of the PhD candidates are foreign-born. United States is the magnet sucking up all the brains of the world.

Maybe we need them more than they need us.

When immigrants come from say India to the US, they're coming from a country where the GDP per capita is dozens of times lower, so essentially their standard of living (SOL) is being raised dozens of times.
While some of these immigrants will take white collar jobs, some of them will take blue collar, and a few of them will become criminals and drug addicts, so it's not clear if they're actually raising our GDP per capita/SOL.

Well, either way they are. Either they are slaves willing to do hard work for cheap or they are brainiacs, so I can't see a downside. A check of my local paper's arrest report indicates the whites beating their family and other domestic violence, dui, meth, and what I'd call "real crime" while the hispanics are picked up for pot and fraud (passing bad checks n stuff) and what I'd call "bullshit crime". The whites are on the crotch rockets racing 150mph up n down the road, big diesel trucks making racket, harleys, randomly firing automatic weapons all evening, taking mufflers off thinking they sound cool, dumping trash on my property... I swear, if most whites fell off the earth the first indication would be the uncanny and sudden serenity. "Wait, why is no one raising hell?" I can't tell the hispanics exist: they're small, quiet, and stay out of everyone's way. The only reason the locals don't like them is because they're brown. My friend says it's because they have their hand in his wallet, but far more whites have their hand in his wallet than browns, so he's full of shit.

You might sell me on hating the blacks and reds (especially the rednecks), but I'm cool with the browns and mellow yellows

And even if they are, it can't be by much, even if they're responsible for all the economic growth in the US, which seems unlikely, the US is only growing by 1-2% a year, so in a couple of generations, the US SOL won't've risen anywhere near as much as the immigrants SOL has been raised in the time it takes to fly from New Delhi to New York.

That's an artifact of reduced redistributive taxation. The way to make america great is to put the taxes back how they were when america was great. If we give money to people who are already drowning in money, how can we expect growth? They plow it into stocks, bonds, art, cars, houses, etc for lack of anything else to do with it, then the banks put it on deposit with the fed for a guaranteed interest payment where it sits doing nothing. Raise taxes, redistribute, and people will spend and generate growth. This has zero to do with immigration.

Furthermore, their SOL will also continue to grow with the US as its SOL grows, so overall their SOL will have grown a, HELL of a lot more than ours.

It's hard to see that under this regime of disparity where the poor enrich the rich. If anything, their SOL growth will pale in comparison to the 1% because money is sucked from the poor and given to the rich. The poorer you are, the less well you'll fare.

Again, they need us a whole lot more than we need them, so they should be begging on their hands and knees to come here, accommodating us in every single way possible, not the other way round.

That's becoming less true as we go forward as India isn't the shithole it used to be and america is increasingly less relevant. I'm not saying I'd move to India, but I can see the day when there won't be much difference.

And many European countries have comparable or far greater levels of economic growth with little-no non-European immigration or immigration at all, take Iceland for example, at a whopping 7%.

Iceland has a nearly negligible population dwarfed by many US cities. Can we even call that a country? I'm not sure we could call it a state since I've rejected states with pops less than 500k as being anomalies when studying the effects of minimum wages. There is something about low populations that make such communities immune from economic truths that would otherwise apply. In addition, the workers in Iceland have many rights and negotiate high wages in something more akin to a partnership rather than a capitalistic fleecing, so if the consumers have money, then GDP growth will be robust. A unionized workforce compensates for lack of mandated minimum wage.

The west is kind of finished growing anyway, doesn't even really need to grow, if anything it needs to stagnate, or decline, whereas the 3rd world still has a lot of catching up to do (what we need is more wealth redistribution, not creation).

Yup

Its the 3rd world that needs to grow, they need their white collar workers a hell of a lot more than we do, so they should stay home.

That's becoming the problem... they come here for the education then go back home. Michio talked about that.

The more an economy grows, the more superfluous and unnecessarily destructive its growth tends to be, early development is characterized by genuine improvements to SOL, whereas latter development is mostly characterized by frivolities, unhealthy crap we don't really need.
Because the rich are hoarding all of the gains and then some, the standard of living for working class Americans isn't being raised, actually it's being lowered, and the middle class is shrinking.
It's only the rich who're benefiting and profiting from whatever gains immigrants are conferring, if they're conferring any that is.

You're right.

However, what is clear is immigrants are contributing to more pollution, population density and strain on our environment, which many Canadians, Americans, Australians and Europeans, don't want.

What do you mean? I don't see that. The folks polluting my front lawn are whites. The capitalists dumping into rivers are whites. Where are you getting data?

They're also contributing to more racism, and cultural clashes.

How can the object of hatred be the cause of hatred? There must be a hater and hatee and if the hater hates, then it's not because of the hatee.

You can't have as much racism and cultural warfare as you can with multiculturalism.
We wouldn't even being having this conversation if it wasn't for mass immigration, racial and cultural discrimination wouldn't be, a thing.

We also wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't care. It's a problem only because you make it one.

My private property? Because I can, I guess. Even though I paid money for it and take care of it, the state can still seize it anytime they want. They probably won't though and it's the state keeping other people from seizing my property. So as long as my guardian doesn't turn on me, I should be ok.

When I said I wanted to preserve my biological and some of my cultural heritage, you said instead I should just embrace change, because it's inevitable, but few, if anyone actually believes that, including yourself, because if they did, they'd just give all their things away, and let themselves become worm food.

Embracing your heritage is fine, but it's the compelling others to embrace your heritage that's the problem.

I can't see it. All Trump can do is usher in a new FDR. Conservatism is like the darwin award: it's self-limiting and causes its own extinction by blowing up.

If Biden runs, I'm voting for Trump because Biden is not a solution. Trump will cause catastrophic collapse which will bring the reform we need, but Biden will be more compromise that will acclimate us to mediocrity. A centrist like Biden is infinitely worse than Trump.

That's very one-sided of you, I think conservatism and progressivism each have their pros and cons.
And even if conservatism is all con, humans aren't exactly known for selecting the right path to go down.
In the west, nationalism is making a comeback.

I think it's petering out. It will die with the boomers.

Most of the world is nationalistic, including some wealthy countries like Israel, South Korea and Japan.

That's true, but I also see xenophobia waning there too.

All I know is if you're wanting to go extinct, breed yourself down to one perfect genotype. Genetic variability should be our prime initiative.

That depends.
If the people you're breeding with are inferior, that's not healthy for your race.

How do you know what healthy is? If you can't say what is best, then how can you pick your genetics? Is blue eyes good? If you want cataracts as expense for slightly better night vision, then yeah. Is dark skin good? Not if you live in the north. Tall is better in the heat and short is better in the cold, so are we expecting an ice age or heat wave? If we don't know what will befall us, how can know what to plan for?

One thing I know for sure from dealing with nature is that if I breed plants or animals to one genotype, some disease or bug will evolve and totally wipe them out. I've seen it happen too many times. If you want to go extinct, make yourself ubiquitous and nature will see you as a sitting duck for an easy meal. Look at the Ash Borer wiping out all the Ash trees. The American Chestnut is long gone. Good thing we have other trees, right? Now they're saying the banana is next for extinction. Up in Canada the pine borer wipes out hundreds of acres of Lodgepole Pines leaving desolation in its wake. If you breed yourself down to one type, there is not even a chance that you could survive because evolution will be gunning for you the moment you embark. Diversity is strength because we never know what's coming next.

Look at how nature handled the Vega shooter: some ran for their lives, some hid, some stood there giving the finger to the shooter. That diversity ensures that at least some people will survive. We can't presuppose what the best strategy is for handling a threat we haven't yet encountered and are at the mercy of random variation to see us through because if we ever commit to a strategy that is not random, we will have revealed our hand.

The Japanese are one of the most homogeneous races, and yet they're one of the most successful.

In what way? I thought the Jews were and they are susceptible to oodles of diseases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_g ... i_diseases

Lastly, it's nice to have different races with different abilities, because then we can specialize at what we're good at.

True

True diversity means keeping the races apart, not merging them together into a single race.

True

I vote we all verbally attack each other and laugh about it because we can't forbid speech since it's a slippery slope.

Virtually anything can be a slippery slope, but nonetheless I agree.
In a democracy, freedom of speech/thought is THE fundamental right.

Normally I wouldn't use space commenting on agreements, but this deserves reiteration. Freedom of speech/thought must be guarded at all costs because it's the only way to guarantee truth.

I guess so, but then again it's like the weak vs the strong because being white does have some privilege. Think of the bias like a handicap in a game against a better opponent.

White people earned their privilege, our ancestors built this amazing country you so desperately want to come to, not yours.

I don't see them earning privilege, but being lucky enough to have had domesticated animals, horses, fertile glacial till for farming, among other advantages stemming from chance. I think they should be more humble. If it would have been an equal playing field whereas the Natives had horses and domesticated animals beyond the turkey, then I'd concede congratulations were in order for the clearly superior whites, but it didn't happen that way.

A brown person is going to put brown peoples interests over my peoples.

Such as? I can't imagine.

Brown people hiring more brown people than white people, bullying us, committing acts of terror, demanding special treatment, exaggerating how much we've mistreated them, lobbying for their countries, sharia law.

The guy who runs the corner store hires only whites and hispanics even though he is Indian (from India). He is vegetarian who doesn't believe in taking life to live. I tried to give him duck eggs once and he wouldn't take them because they are potential life. I said I don't have males, so they aren't potential. He still wouldn't take them. It's hard to imagine him being mean to anyone. It's hard for me to relate to any examples you gave. The muslim terrorists just want us to leave them alone and stay out of their countries, but they have the oil. The acts of terror of late have been coming from white people shooting up schools and churches.

I think a black woman would be more likely to keep her campaign promises than a white man on average and in general. I think the white man would be saying whatever to get elected then rest on his laurels while the black woman would be fighting for something she deeply believes in. I think this sentiment is the principle reason minorities like Ocassio are clobbering old white dudes at the polls.

Black women are averagely less smart than white men, and white women, and while there may be black women geniuses, they're rarer, and their geniuses aren't as smart as ours.

This one is cool



I hope she wins. Valedictorian of her high school class and yale law phd while coming from a poor Mississippi family who couldn't possibly have pulled any strings for her, unlike Trump and her opponent, the ass nugget Kemp who talks as if he's had a stroke affecting his remaining brain cell who probably wouldn't have graduated with an Ag degree if not for his senator father's help. But GA is brimming with rednecks and other dumbasses giving hope to the white guy who will invariably make life harder on them with his efforts to stamp out brown and poor people and institute a police state.

It'll be much more difficult to find someone with all the qualifications (discipline, education, intelligence, temperament) required for presidency among black women than white men.
Black women will sympathize with their own interests over mine as a white man.
Obama was a puppet anyway, just because you have a black face up there, doesn't mean it's not controlled, in all likelihood it is.

I'm just saying that it's easier to believe a black woman will do what she says than a white man. Maybe after 10 years of being a politician she will learn bullshitting, but for the time being she is about as trustworthy as it gets.

Why not?

What am I entitled to? And why is that different than room n board?

Why should 50% of the population work twice as hard to feed themselves and the other 50% while the other 50% sits on their ass?

They shouldn't. The 1% should feed the bottom 20% and everyone else will feed themselves.

I agree, but too many women get shafted lol. They agree to a certain arrangement then the guy splits leaving her to her own minimum wage devices.

People who don't contribute anything to society shouldn't procreate.
They will fill the land with weakness, and weakness will make it harder to take care of ourselves.
Society doesn't want to be forced to look after other peoples kids.

Make them smart and rich and they'll stop having kids. Easy.

Firstly, we should get rid of no fault divorce, to encourage husbands and wives to stay together.

I think we should outlaw marriage

Secondly, women should have to sign a contract before they go on disability/welfare relinquishing their right to procreate, and if they break the contract, they should have their newborn taken into custody, and forfeit their right to disability/welfare if they don't agree to be spayed.

You'll have a lot of kids in state care with that strategy. The only way to stop it is to make them prosperous or take them out back and shoot them.

It should be a crime because it's causing crime. If businesses reject brown people, then brown people have no jobs, so they cause crime. If cops target brown people, then brown people see white people as enemies. Racism is akin to shitting where you eat as it can only mess up your own life. Either exterminate the brownies or learn to live with them, but making criminals of them isn't a solution.

According to your man Stefan, there's little-no correlation between poverty and crime, but then I'm not so sure of that.

Just to be clear, he's not my man. I don't like him, but that doesn't mean he's full of shit.

If white people hire a few less blacks, blacks can hire a few less whites, It'll work out.

But blacks are not in a position to hire anyone, so it won't work out.

When it comes to business, most people just want to make money anyway, they'll hire whoever's more qualified.
That being said, I think big business and public business should refrain from discrimination, to ensure there's always enough jobs for everyone.

Right

Maybe, but giving them addition environmental challenges is not helping, especially if they're genetically ill-equipped in the first place.

People should get out what they put in, otherwise we have a parasitical economy, we should take better care of the strong than the weak.
Giving blacks more stuff than they deserve isn't helping them either, it'll teach them to be even less disciplined.

I'm not suggesting to give them Ferraris, but just keep them out of squalor so they don't have to resort to peddling crack as a lifestyle.

And even if it did help blacks become better, it'll hurt whites, they won't have as much incentive to better themselves, working to prop others up who don't work or do shoddy work will de-incentivize them.

That isn't true. Giving my neighbor money doesn't make me lazy.

I've heard that, but never really verified it. The most creative people tend to be those with well-connected corpus callosums, which are women and gay men usually. Do white men have a larger propensity for homosexuality? So it would seem, but I don't have any data.

It's hard to compare apples to apples since the Europeans had domesticated animals, horses, good climate and soil making it tough to tell the role of genetics when compared to peoples who didn't have those advantages.

A lot of things in the brain make us creative, you can't just say it's the corpus whatever.

Yes I can because it's intrahemispherical communication that engenders creativity, otherwise you end up with autism or other robotic behavior not conducive to creativity.

And women have invented almost nothing.

But gays have! And the most profound difference between straight and gay is the connectivity of the hemispheres, so there must be some other reason women aren't inventors.

While women appear to be as averagely intelligent as men, there's both less dumb and less genius women,

Stefan says that too. He says it's because nature takes chances with men because men are expendable, which could be true.

A man who's twice as a smart as an average man/woman isn't twice as likely to invent something, he's hundreds of times more likely.
Almost all inventors had high iQs, very few had mid-low iQs.
As for gay men, I have no idea, it's only been acceptable to come out of the closet in the west in the last few decades.

I've researched this specifically back in 2013 and came to the conclusion that artsy, creative, inventive people were mostly gay men and/or lefties and haven't found reason to change my mind yet. That doesn't mean it's true, but being an engineering type myself, I can see it. My problem solving ability is off the charts, but that doesn't mean I'm creative. If I can't find a sensible reason to paint something a certain color, then I can't make a decision because all decisions must be rooted in logic. It's like a handicap, but I'm overcoming it.

Plenty of places had good soil and climate, much of the Americas, Asia and Africa.
Plenty of places had domesticated animals, and the ones who didn't, don't necessarily have an excuse.
Why didn't they domesticate some, or learn from nations who did?

They didn't have pigs, chickens, cows in the americas and we can't domesticate buffalo. The Natives used to chase the buffalo on foot for lack of horses. The only animal that existed for domestication was the turkey. Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Ger ... _of_theory

And does all of Europe really have such an excellent climate?
Northern Europe is very frigid, with low biological diversity, the climate is pretty harsh.
The nicest climates are actually the ones humans are supposed to have evolved in, like in central east Africa, which boasts a far more humane climate.
Much of Europe is very severe, and hostile, not as abundant in natural resources.

They have the dark rich soil from the glacial till. We're talking a CEC (cation exchange capacity) of 20-30 compared to 5-10 with exhausted soils. Iowa, Nebraska and surrounding areas have that soil, but the rest of the country is either under or over developed. To the west is soil that is too underdeveloped and alkaline while the east is overdeveloped by high-rainfall and is too acid. This was the principle work of William Albrecth who noted that a soil's productivity is determined by the average rainfall (and glacial till). He even noted military dismissals of applicants from the midwest compared to the southeast due to unproductive soils leading to tooth decay and other ailments. The soil where you live determines your health (if you eat the food grown in it). The Plains Indians had the soil, but they didn't have the animals. The other natives were just shit out of luck. But the Europeans had everything... every advantage possible, except UVB, so they became white. I don't know much about asia, but it would address that in the outline of the theory.

So... is similarity a reason you should like or dislike Italians? You have more in common with men, so does that mean you want to have sex with one? Or do you want something different? Would you date a family member? You have more in common with them.

Do you pick your friends at random?
Do you treat other families as good or better than your own?
If you do you'd be an anomaly.

Idk, I've never picked a friend before. Whoever stumbles along and seems friendly ends up being a friend.

What needs to be done? We've gone through the agricultural and industrial revolutions, at what point can we sit down and enjoy what we've built? Or do we have to eternally work just because?

There are obviously many services machines and computers can't perform, and the machines won't maintain, operate and repair themselves.

Not yet but they will soon.

We are also running out of oil and gas to power these machines.

We have the sun.

I'm expecting the kids to wake up and notice it's a stupid formality. The only ones holding us back are the ones who say we "should" work and those sorts are dying off.

And then those kids grow up and realize wealth and resources have to come from somewhere, someone has to go out and earn, make a living.

That used to be the case, but not anymore. Did you forget how to hunt? How will you survive? Oh that's right... grocery stores! Well shit, now you're dependent upon stores to live because you've forgotten how to live off the land. Whatever will you do? Society is moving up and we don't need that antiquated knowledge anymore.

Another ice age is more likely and even then it's a long way off. I don't see nuclear war happening. All this bickering is just too silly for that.

Nuclear war almost happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

That was a generation or two ago.

There are cold wars going on right now between the US, Russia and China, that could very well erupt into a hot war one day soon.

Putin will clobber us with his hypersonic weapons and we'll pick up the pieces. Even nuclear fallout is no big deal. Look at Japan. It probably won't happen, but if it does, it's not the end of the world.

Work is slavery. If you do not want to work, but you have to work to live, then you are a slave, pure and simple. I don't call that prosperity nor do I value the genes of people who can't see it. A lot of our genetics is already polluted by yes-men due to extermination of dissidents by kings and rulers throughout history.

No, the man who works so someone can play and rest, is a slave.

So I'm a slave to my pets? Then why have pets? Most of the people reporting no income to the IRS are old people. The older you are, the more likely you're not going to have income. The younger, the more likely. So, euthanize all the codgers and you won't have to work to support the parasites. People think they're lazy brats, but those are people who haven't researched it. The boomers are a disease and the sooner they're gone, the better, and we'll recognize it when a harley is worth its weight in scrap metal. No one wants those obnoxious noise makers anymore.

but we still have to work.

Why? I can answer this one... because you can't stand that someone might get something for nothing.

Why are you typing this? How much are you being paid? Who has a gun to your head? So you see people would be productive without being compelled. You probably couldn't pay researchers to stop their work. I'm confident that if everyone received $20k annually that most would continue working because they either want to get ahead or they love what they do. The ones who don't fit will be paid to stay out of the way and they would also have less sexual market value due to it.

People are pretty different.
Some would continue to work even if they were rich, but others wouldn't lift a finger, they would just have fun at others expense.
And there's a lot of backbreaking, dirty and tedious jobs we have to do, that no one wants to do.

That's what immigrants are for. It's a step up for them. Then when they develop a healthy sense of entitlement, we'll import new immigrants until machines are developed to replace them.

Some congressman said we should raise taxes on poor people with kids as a way of deincentivizing having kids, but I think it would have the opposite effect because anywhere there is data, prosperity is associated with less reproduction; not more. So if you want poor people to stop reproducing, give them money. You also kill two birds with one stone because then the poor people go away too. People get smarter, healthier, happier, and society moves up a notch.

I think we should improve the standard of living for the poor, but again everyone that can work should.

Jeff Bezos is certainly capable of shoveling shit, so by your ethics, he should be. When you talk about people not working for a living, you're talking about rich people who let other people work for them. No one gets rich by working, but finagling others into doing it for them en masse so they can live off the profits of other's work without doing work themselves.

You just can't stand the thought of someone getting something for nothing because you had to work, so that's why it's the next generation who doesn't have your burden who will see more clearly how silly this is becoming. Generations to come will thank you for your service, but we ain't gotta do this shit no more; you were just unlucky to have been born too early.

Maybe you just can't stand the thought of having to give to people.

What do you mean? Gifts are not earned and since you're the one claiming "deserve" and "earn", then you're the one who is anti-gifts. I'm saying "deserve" is irrelevant.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

I have no clue what racism you're referring to.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-americans-think-theyre-discriminated-against

Oh ok, yeah I can see that. But there is an easy way to fix discrimination against the majority. When blacks are more prevalent in the workforce, then they won't be the underdog anymore and discrimination will go away. "I'm sorry, our quota of blacks is filled, so you'll need to demonstrate merit."

Terror prone? What is that? The Irish have the shortest fuses and probably a good definition of a Tasmanian Devil is an Irish Apache mix lol. Hell, Notre Dame's logo is The Fighting Irish!

Statistics compiled by the United States government's Counterterrorism Center present a complicated picture: of known and specified terrorist incidents from the beginning of 2004 through the first quarter of 2005, slightly more than half of the fatalities were attributed to Islamic extremists but a majority of over-all incidents were considered of either "unknown/unspecified" or a secular political nature.[citation needed] The vast majority of the "unknown/unspecified" terrorism fatalities did however happen in Islamic regions such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or in regions where Islam is otherwise involved in conflicts such as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, southern Thailand and Kashmir.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Prevalence_relative_to_other_forms_of_terrorism

Also, conspiracy theories aside, see 9/11.
Imagine if one of these Islamic extremists ever got their hands on nuclear explosives.

Those are people who are pissed that we invaded their countries and culture, so it's akin to breaking into someone's house and calling them a terrorist if they try to defend their property. But what excuse do the white shooters have? Imagine if they got their hands on nukes!

Here's a list of white folks with a few browns peppered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

Why should I care? As long as they don't gather in the aisle at the store jabberjawing, I'm cool.

I don't want misogynist and other anti-western values/sharia law proliferating in our homelands.
That being said, I don't want radical feminism and misandry to continue to proliferate either.
Will western civilization even exist in the US and Europe after they become majority Mexican and Muslim respectively?
Can civilization ever really, truly be separated from the race, that produced it?

Idk, but the only way you can stop it is to have more kids, but prosperous people don't do that.

Some don't speak our language well, or at all.

That's their problem.

No it's our problem, we have to converse with these people.

Police use Taser on 87-year-old woman cutting dandelions with a knife

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/us/georg ... index.html

She didn't speak english, so she couldn't understand the command to put down the knife and some brazen badass tasered an 87 yr old woman instead of simply walking up and taking it from her.

Some have no comprehension of our laws, history and customs.

They'll figure it out.

Continuous mass immigration ensures there'll always be another generation of immigrants who have to figure it all out, and some of them may never fully will.

White laws and customs were created by white minds, and are probably more difficult for non-white minds to comprehend.

Yeah that law against buying beer on sunday was sure hard to comprehend outside of being a redneck. Luckily, all those old farts died off and each beer consumed on sunday is a toast to lack of one white law. Stupidity is a hard thing to get your head around.

Food is a function of the sun and I can't see overwhelming it. Like I said before, prosperous people do not reproduce, so make them prosperous and there is no problem... except for the idea of someone getting something they don't deserve.

Continuous mass immigration ensures there'll always be another generation of immigrants born in impoverished countries who tend to have 5-10 kids over here.
And in any case, mass immigration itself makes us overpopulated,

I bet they have less kids here than they did over there and the more prosperous they get, the less kids they'll have. The solution is obvious... stop being stingy.

I want to preserve what's left of our wilderness, and resources, reduce pollution, as well as crowding/population density, not accelerate them.

Getting rid of whites is absolutely the best thing that could happen to the wilderness As soon as white feet hit the ground they immediately cut down trees and carried them back to europe. Then they brought africans over to cut more trees and tend the sugarcane so the whites in europe could sip sweet tea in the shade while congratulating themselves for being white. (Contrary to today where everyone wants a tan, back then being really really white was a mark of not having to labor in the sun, so the whiter the better.)

They have a low center of gravity and tolerance for heat.

Again, whites in Europe do these jobs themselves, they're not reliant on illegal immigration.

"Lower center of gravity", what?
That just means they have to stand on a step latter to pick the high hanging fruit.
They're also less agile, dexterous, lithe and nimble.
Whites are also physically stronger than mestizos.

"Tolerance for heat"?
Legal Mexicans, Mulattos and Southern Europeans also have a high tolerance for heat.

I was an employer for 10 years in the construction trade and I can tell you with authority that no white man can outwork a mexican. Not even close. Whites are smarter and stronger; I'll give you that, but working? No way, Jose. Those people are optimized by evolution for working in the sun and without them the price of food would skyrocket because you'd have to pay a white man a fortune to compel him to that kind of labor, then he'd passout and have to be carted to the ER compounding the expense (I've had that happen to a few white dudes who thought they were weekend warriors). And blondes are the worst.. .they go from white to red and never tan. There is no physiological mechanism to deal with sun. One blonde guy was in the siding trade and was constantly riddled with skin cancer with bandaides on his face from a trips to the dr. No way those people could have worked any fields south of iceland. Probably they relied on domesticated animals to pull machinery around since the only crop they really had was grain. The tomato, potato, and pepper came from south america along with most of our non-grain crops.

I really don't know much about her situation. She has more rights because she's a woman and not because she's brown.

No she has more rights because she's a woman, and she's brown, see the top link.

Yeah I guess so.

The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades. Moderator analyses showed that the relationship between intelligence and success is dependent on the age of the sample but there is little evidence of any historical trend in the relationship. http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-cont ... search.pdf

It's a meta, so there are links to other studies in the meta at the bottom. I think the highest correlation was .37, which isn't a correlation. There are a lot of problems associated with being smart that preclude successful assimilation into society.

It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Of course there's a correlation between intelligence and success, are you saying there's as many PHDs with an iQ of 70 (there's probably very, very few, if any PHDs with an iQ of 70 or less), as there are with an iQ of 130?

Phd doesn't equal money, but I seem to recall women getting more phds than men, yet men are smarter, so phd is not indicative of anything. Some rich people are smart and some rich people are stupid (see Trump et al), but lots of smart people are poor. Heck, the smartest person on earth is also one of the poorest: Chris Langan IQ 200 and I read he made about $8k annually, but he's retired now so I don't know.

My dumbest friend is the richest and my smartest friend is the poorest. I know this kid who makes me look like a retard and he lives in his car and sustains himself on handouts from his grandparents. Honestly, smart + rich is one of the rarest things I know. Warren Buffett (iq 150) is one exception, but he had excellent parenting going for him. I'd say if your iq is higher than 130-140, you're probably going to be poor or mediocre at best because that level of intelligence brings more problems than it solves. Iq 110-120 is about right for making money. Less than that and it's back to grass huts and trailer parks. So, I'd say that there is an optimal level of intelligence that correlates to success that can be either overshot or underachieved and both of which hampers success.

While some intelligent people may turn to drinking, drugs or else become hermits, minimalists because they know just how bleak, depressing and frivolous our world can be, or because of how isolated they feel, a small positive correlation is still just that, a small positive correlation, not no correlation.

Exactly.

When I said no correlation, I was exaggerating. It's essentially no correlation, but clearly some level of intelligence is required, so there is some correlation. I just exaggerate to offset the affinity people colloquially have for money and intelligence. I don't like the notion of intelligence being synonymous with wealth because it makes stupid rich people seem like authorities and keepers of wisdom when in fact they're dispensers of nonsense and came about their wealth by luck.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Selective tolerance is the fetish. Tolerance to the ones that murder and mutilate, which makes London intolerant to basic human care and kindness.

It bothers me that racism and what gets called Islamophobia are considered the same or that the latter is the same as anti-semitism. Jews are a race, if you hate them it is a form of racism. Muslims are not a race, they have a belief system. Belief systems directly connect to behavior, but further most of the left considers it fine to be afraid of and or hate people with certain belief systems: far right, nazi, capitalist...depending on the particular leftist beliefs. Once you have the door open to being afraid of or disliking certain people based on their belief system, you cannot then categorically judge other people for being afraid of or disliking certainly based on their belief system.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

So you're saying that if some guy owns 1000s of acres I can simply claim that is too much for him and take possession of some amount of it?

If he hasn't developed or isn't developing it, others should be able to.

Exactly how much land is one man entitled to own in your view?

I'm not exactly sure, but there should be a limit.

And what constitutes ownership? Does paying someone else paper currency define ownership or does driving stakes in the ground determine it?

The more you're able to develop, occupy and use something, the more legitimate your claim to it.

I say what defines ownership is the size of one's army and mine is pretty big, but they could turn on me... idk. Probably as long as I continue paying my taxes, they will let me continue paying taxes and will guard my land from hostile takeover in protection of their income stream.

This is a descriptive, amoral definition of ownership, not a prescriptive, moral one.
I was asking you for the latter, not the former.

If whites are the majority and if whites do not like browns (according to your polls), then why are the whites not getting their way? I think it's more likely that your polls are wrong. I think most people say live and let live and really don't care that much. A small group cares and they are labeled haters.

Because white bureaucrats and big businessmen only care about their bottom line, they don't care about our bottom line, the environment, our race and its customs, and because Jewish, brown and black bureaucrats and big businessmen, and their useful idiots, see our race and its customs as a threat to theirs.
They want to annihilate and/or assimilate us.

Trump was elected because he wasn't Hillary. No one really liked Trump, but he wasn't Hillary, so his election shouldn't be interpreted as a vote for populism nor indicative of what most people want. Whoever decided to run Hillary is the one to blame for Trump because Hillary was the one person on earth who could not beat Trump. Even Mr Hanky could have beat Trump

In that case, why didn't they elect Cruz, Kasich, Rubio or another, run-of-the-mill republican candidate?
It's because Trump was the only one saying things like: 'build that wall', and 'Muslim ban', it's because his positions resonated with the people.

Well, either way they are. Either they are slaves willing to do hard work for cheap or they are brainiacs, so I can't see a downside. A check of my local paper's arrest report indicates the whites beating their family and other domestic violence, dui, meth, and what I'd call "real crime" while the hispanics are picked up for pot and fraud (passing bad checks n stuff) and what I'd call "bullshit crime". The whites are on the crotch rockets racing 150mph up n down the road, big diesel trucks making racket, harleys, randomly firing automatic weapons all evening, taking mufflers off thinking they sound cool, dumping trash on my property... I swear, if most whites fell off the earth the first indication would be the uncanny and sudden serenity. "Wait, why is no one raising hell?" I can't tell the hispanics exist: they're small, quiet, and stay out of everyone's way. The only reason the locals don't like them is because they're brown. My friend says it's because they have their hand in his wallet, but far more whites have their hand in his wallet than browns, so he's full of shit.

You might sell me on hating the blacks and reds (especially the rednecks), but I'm cool with the browns and mellow yellows

As a whole, pretty sure east yellows are the only race as mellow or mellower than whites, the other races commit more crime, not just the blacks, reds, mestizos and mulattos, but the browns and south east yellows.
Your mischaracterization of the white race as just a bunch of hillbilly red necks is gross.

That's an artifact of reduced redistributive taxation. The way to make america great is to put the taxes back how they were when america was great. If we give money to people who are already drowning in money, how can we expect growth? They plow it into stocks, bonds, art, cars, houses, etc for lack of anything else to do with it, then the banks put it on deposit with the fed for a guaranteed interest payment where it sits doing nothing. Raise taxes, redistribute, and people will spend and generate growth. This has zero to do with immigration.

The point is immigrant's SOL is being raised more than ours, because their SOL is instantly being raised many times over just by flying from New Delhi to New York, in addition to incrementally being raised afterwards along with ours, furthermore their raise is more substantive than ours, for like I said, early development is more needed, whereas latter development is less needed, if not entirely superfluous, which means they need us more than we need them, which means if any group ought to be accommodating the other, they should be accommodating us.

It's hard to see that under this regime of disparity where the poor enrich the rich. If anything, their SOL growth will pale in comparison to the 1% because money is sucked from the poor and given to the rich. The poorer you are, the less well you'll fare.

Firstly, I'm not sure if the overclass's SOL is being raised by the immigrant's more than the immigrant's SOL is being raised by coming here, but even if it is, in that case the overclass should be both accommodating the immigrants, and the white majority, and immigrants should still be accommodating the white majority, if anything, because we're raising their standard of living by allowing them to come here, whereas they're not raising ours at all.

That's becoming less true as we go forward as India isn't the shithole it used to be and america is increasingly less relevant. I'm not saying I'd move to India, but I can see the day when there won't be much difference.

So long as they're coming here, it is true.
Few, if any of them would be coming here, if their standard of living wasn't being raised.
And it remains to be seen, if India, China and the rest of the third world can even reach our heights.
So far the only non-white countries that've been able to are South Korea and Japan.

Iceland has a nearly negligible population dwarfed by many US cities. Can we even call that a country? I'm not sure we could call it a state since I've rejected states with pops less than 500k as being anomalies when studying the effects of minimum wages. There is something about low populations that make such communities immune from economic truths that would otherwise apply. In addition, the workers in Iceland have many rights and negotiate high wages in something more akin to a partnership rather than a capitalistic fleecing, so if the consumers have money, then GDP growth will be robust. A unionized workforce compensates for lack of mandated minimum wage.

Forget Iceland, there's plenty of European Countries with as much or more growth than the US, with little-no immigration, such as Ireland, Finland and Poland, @4%, 2.8% and 3.8% respectively.
White countries can grow without immigration, I mean Europe has always been on par with the US, and only very recently have some European Countries adopted mass immigration, much to the chagrin and dismay of many Native Europeans.

That's becoming the problem... they come here for the education then go back home. Michio talked about that.

So these two points cancel each other out.
On the one hand, some of the smart ones go back home, helping to make their countries more affluent, but on the other hand, some of the smart ones stay here, helping to make their countries more impoverished.
So they're increasing the education of their smart people, which benefits them, but they're decreasing the amount of their smart people, which detriments them.

What do you mean? I don't see that. The folks polluting my front lawn are whites. The capitalists dumping into rivers are whites. Where are you getting data?

And importing more browns will just add to our pollution.
We need to teach whites to pollute less, not import browns who are just going to help us pollute even more.

How can the object of hatred be the cause of hatred? There must be a hater and hatee and if the hater hates, then it's not because of the hatee.

Firstly, for me and many other white nationalists, this isn't about hate, it's about wanting to preserve our people and its way of life.
Secondly, there'll always be haters, forcing different peoples to live together means haters will inevitably clash with one another.

Embracing your heritage is fine, but it's the compelling others to embrace your heritage that's the problem.

Compelling me to interact with people I don't want to interact with is a problem for me.

How do you know what healthy is? If you can't say what is best, then how can you pick your genetics? Is blue eyes good? If you want cataracts as expense for slightly better night vision, then yeah. Is dark skin good? Not if you live in the north. Tall is better in the heat and short is better in the cold, so are we expecting an ice age or heat wave? If we don't know what will befall us, how can know what to plan for?

As a democracy, we can discuss it, which cultures and races are more compatible with us and healthier to admit.

One thing I know for sure from dealing with nature is that if I breed plants or animals to one genotype, some disease or bug will evolve and totally wipe them out. I've seen it happen too many times. If you want to go extinct, make yourself ubiquitous and nature will see you as a sitting duck for an easy meal. Look at the Ash Borer wiping out all the Ash trees. The American Chestnut is long gone. Good thing we have other trees, right? Now they're saying the banana is next for extinction. Up in Canada the pine borer wipes out hundreds of acres of Lodgepole Pines leaving desolation in its wake. If you breed yourself down to one type, there is not even a chance that you could survive because evolution will be gunning for you the moment you embark. Diversity is strength because we never know what's coming next.

It seems to me, there's more total variability in the human species if you keep the races apart than if you mix them together, and so less chance of humanity altogether being wiped out by a single virus.

In what way? I thought the Jews were and they are susceptible to oodles of diseases.

I'm not sure how homogenous the Jews are.
The Japanese are homogenous, and I don't think they're especially susceptible to disease.

I don't see them earning privilege, but being lucky enough to have had domesticated animals, horses, fertile glacial till for farming, among other advantages stemming from chance. I think they should be more humble. If it would have been an equal playing field whereas the Natives had horses and domesticated animals beyond the turkey, then I'd concede congratulations were in order for the clearly superior whites, but it didn't happen that way.

You can socially domesticate just about any intelligent, social animal (mammals and birds tend to be the most intelligent, social) by continually culling the unruly ones, and you can asocially domesticate any animal that can be used as a resource, by continually culling the unfruitful ones, same as plants.
After generations of selective breeding, gradually you alter the species into something easier to manage, and more fruitful.
There's no reason why Native Americans couldn't domesticate as many animals as whites.
As for good climate and soil, again, plenty of places in the Americas, Africa and Asia have them.
European climate and soil can be more severe in places and at times than many parts of the Americas, Africa and Asia, especially North Europe.
And it's not as if Europeans were just given their land, we had to fight for it, defend it from invaders, from the Moors and Carthaginians of North Africa, the Ottomans, Phoenicians, Saracens and Persians of West Asia, to the Turks and Mongols of Central and East Asia respectively, and many more.
Furthermore, our prehistoric ancestors were strong and wise enough to settle this land and stay, defending it from early invaders, as well as exterminate, drive out or assimilating whoever, or whatever was here before us, so luck didn't necessarily have as much to do with it as some suppose.
It's funny how North Africa and West Asia have a much harsher climate and soil, less biodiversity and resources than Subsaharan Africa, yet they've always been substantially more advanced than them to this day.
It's probably because Subsaharan Africans have the smallest and most uncomplicated brains of the races of man, after Australian Aborigines.

The guy who runs the corner store hires only whites and hispanics even though he is Indian (from India). He is vegetarian who doesn't believe in taking life to live. I tried to give him duck eggs once and he wouldn't take them because they are potential life. I said I don't have males, so they aren't potential. He still wouldn't take them. It's hard to imagine him being mean to anyone. It's hard for me to relate to any examples you gave. The muslim terrorists just want us to leave them alone and stay out of their countries, but they have the oil. The acts of terror of late have been coming from white people shooting up schools and churches.

Lots of 'East Indians' in my neighborhood are gangsters and thugs.

I hope she wins. Valedictorian of her high school class and yale law phd while coming from a poor Mississippi family who couldn't possibly have pulled any strings for her, unlike Trump and her opponent, the ass nugget Kemp who talks as if he's had a stroke affecting his remaining brain cell who probably wouldn't have graduated with an Ag degree if not for his senator father's help. But GA is brimming with rednecks and other dumbasses giving hope to the white guy who will invariably make life harder on them with his efforts to stamp out brown and poor people and institute a police state.

Trump is doing things to help the poor, like keeping away illegal immigrants who drive down wages and working conditions, and trying to manufacture more wares at home, instead of being reliant on China and Mexico.
As for police state, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I am far from 100% satisfied with Trump, but he's doing substantially more to help the poor than mainstream republicans and democrats ever did, which's why the establishment hates him.

I'm just saying that it's easier to believe a black woman will do what she says than a white man. Maybe after 10 years of being a politician she will learn bullshitting, but for the time being she is about as trustworthy as it gets.

The same could be said of an intelligent, aspiring politician from a white, working class background, only he'll probably have a higher iQ, and better qualifications all-around.

They shouldn't. The 1% should feed the bottom 20% and everyone else will feed themselves.

Money by itself doesn't feed anyone, someone still has to work.

Make them smart and rich and they'll stop having kids. Easy.

Non-contributors should have less kids than contributors, or no kids.

You'll have a lot of kids in state care with that strategy. The only way to stop it is to make them prosperous or take them out back and shoot them.

Threatening to take their kids from and spay them may deter almost all of them from having kids.
It's something we could try out, but we should at least spay them.
Many parents who're on the dole, their kids windup being raised by the system anyway.
But we should at least spay them, the ones who refuse to practice contraception/abortion.
If they want to have kids, they should have to go off the dole for a while.

But blacks are not in a position to hire anyone, so it won't work out.

While less blacks are in a position to hire than whites, there're still some blacks in a position to hire, and they can hire even more of their own kind than whites hire of their kind, to compensate, but like I said, in business, most people, most of the time, care more about the bottom line anyway, they'll hire whoever's more qualified, and in any case I would have big and government business more regulated and less discriminatory than small business.

I'm not suggesting to give them Ferraris, but just keep them out of squalor so they don't have to resort to peddling crack as a lifestyle.

If you can work and don't, than you're not entitled to anything, if you can't work, than I agree, they should be entitled to a decent standard of living, but they shouldn't be having kids.

That isn't true. Giving my neighbor money doesn't make me lazy.

There's a difference between giving your neighbor money, something you want to do, and government taking money from you, something you may not want to do, which may de-incentivize you.

Yes I can because it's intrahemispherical communication that engenders creativity, otherwise you end up with autism or other robotic behavior not conducive to creativity.

Personality probably plays a role in creativity, and I'm sure all of personality can't be located in that region you mentioned.
And define creativity.
I don't see why there can't be a compartmentalized, specialized creativity, in addition to a generalized, holistic.
Some autistic people can be creative in their own way, like autistic savants.
Perhaps it's a combination of specialization and generalization, that makes a person creative.
Too generalized/holistic, and you end up with a Jackson Pollock (chaos), too compartmentalized/specialized, and you end up with predictable, simple and uninteresting patterns, like stickmen (order).
It might be the interplay between these two qualities that begets creativity.
Kind of, sort of an organized chaos, selective variation, being able to choose the optimal option (order) from a wide array of alternatives (chaos).

But gays have! And the most profound difference between straight and gay is the connectivity of the hemispheres, so there must be some other reason women aren't inventors.

Up until the last few decades, peoples sexuality hasn't been well documented, so again, how do you know how many artists, inventors and so on were gay?
I think most of them were probably straight, just because most people are straight.
And what are these gays creating?
Are they giving us practical things, like lightbulbs and medicine, or are they our interior decorators, and fashionistas?
Not that the latter category of stuff has no value, but perhaps less.

I've researched this specifically back in 2013 and came to the conclusion that artsy, creative, inventive people were mostly gay men and/or lefties and haven't found reason to change my mind yet. That doesn't mean it's true, but being an engineering type myself, I can see it. My problem solving ability is off the charts, but that doesn't mean I'm creative. If I can't find a sensible reason to paint something a certain color, then I can't make a decision because all decisions must be rooted in logic. It's like a handicap, but I'm overcoming it.

When it's difficult or impossible to find reasons to select one thing over another (because reasons are complex/elusive on the one hand, or because there are none on the other), than yes, people with more say, hyper-intuitive minds will excel in such circumstances/predicaments, like with highly subjective spheres/domains, like the arts, or like with highly dynamic/intricate ones, like philosophy, psychology, religion and the social and theoretical sciences.
However, with more straightforward ones, like much of physics and chemistry, much of the practical and experimental sciences, hyper-intuitive minds can be a hinderance.
Such fields require a more analytical mind.
And I think there's such a thing as analytical creativity, as opposed to synthetic.
Analytical minds can make bold, new discoveries of their own.

They didn't have pigs, chickens, cows in the americas and we can't domesticate buffalo. The Natives used to chase the buffalo on foot for lack of horses. The only animal that existed for domestication was the turkey. Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Ger ... _of_theory

Why do you suppose we can't domesticate the buffalo, because they're unruly?
Do you think that's how cows, horses and pigs began, as tame, docile creatures, easy to manage?
Capture some offspring from some of these wild beasts and raise them to be as obedient as they can be.
The more malleable ones, as well as ones that produce more fur, milk, fatty, tender meat and so on, breed them together and cull the ones that don't.
After centuries or millennia, you'll end up with domesticated buffalo, moose, deer, or what have you.

They have the dark rich soil from the glacial till. We're talking a CEC (cation exchange capacity) of 20-30 compared to 5-10 with exhausted soils. Iowa, Nebraska and surrounding areas have that soil, but the rest of the country is either under or over developed. To the west is soil that is too underdeveloped and alkaline while the east is overdeveloped by high-rainfall and is too acid. This was the principle work of William Albrecth who noted that a soil's productivity is determined by the average rainfall (and glacial till). He even noted military dismissals of applicants from the midwest compared to the southeast due to unproductive soils leading to tooth decay and other ailments. The soil where you live determines your health (if you eat the food grown in it). The Plains Indians had the soil, but they didn't have the animals. The other natives were just shit out of luck. But the Europeans had everything... every advantage possible, except UVB, so they became white. I don't know much about asia, but it would address that in the outline of the theory.

The best everything is in Subsaharan Africa, as far as I know, the best climate, the best soil, the most biodiversity and resources.
Why they didn't domesticate indigenous animals, or bring over nonindigenous ones from North Africa and Eurasia, probably has to do with their race having a more lax, c'est la vie, laissez faire spirit, as well as a smaller, less sophisticated brain.

Idk, I've never picked a friend before. Whoever stumbles along and seems friendly ends up being a friend.

Some people do pick friends, and friends who we have more things in common, tend to stick around longer.

Not yet but they will soon.

Civilization waxes and wanes.
Our civilization has many problems.
In all sorts of ways, we're ruining our health and the health of our environment.
What makes you so sure our civilization won't collapse at some point in time like the innumerable civilizations that came before us?
Why is more technological prowess and sophistication necessarily a good?
Instead of thinking of it as a good, I think each people, at each time and in each place, needs to ascertain what the right balance of technology is, rather than thinking more must always be merrier.

We have the sun.

We shall see, if all of civilization can run itself on the sun itself without fossil fuels.
And we'll see what consequences come of that.
There're always consequences to whatever man does to nature.
Only question is, how dire, and whether they're worth paying.
Little is straightforward.

That used to be the case, but not anymore. Did you forget how to hunt? How will you survive? Oh that's right... grocery stores! Well shit, now you're dependent upon stores to live because you've forgotten how to live off the land. Whatever will you do? Society is moving up and we don't need that antiquated knowledge anymore.

In the transition from nature to society, we move from a state of more independence to a state of, not dependence, but more interdependence rather.
I can get food from groceries because I provide everyone, or some people with a service.
There needs to be checks and balances to ensure parasites don't proliferate.
And I'm agreeing with you that, not all parasites are on the bottom rungs, most are on top.

That was a generation or two ago.

Only a generation or two?
Not even a blink of an eye in the history of man.
We have gone through periods of long' peace before, from Pax Romana, Pax Britannia, to Pax Americana, and every peace in between.
Some lasted for decades, others centuries.
The people living then probably thought the sun would never set on their empires too, but it did.
I don't know if humans are ultimately progressing or on the brink of annihilation, I'm leaning much more towards the latter prospect than the former at this rate, but even if we are ultimately ascending, if history has taught us anything, it'll at the very least be a treacherous climb onward and upward.
We have to tread very carefully, instead of whimsically redesigning nature and society like we have been.
What you're talking about is like the end of history.
Just smooth sailing, unrelenting progress from here on out.
This's totally at odds with everything we know about humanity, life and existence itself.
Things seem to come and go, even stars and galaxies are born, decay and perish.
So many civilization collapsed due to overextending themselves.
To assume we're it, that we've arrived, seems awfully short-sighted and, the height of folly to me.

Putin will clobber us with his hypersonic weapons and we'll pick up the pieces. Even nuclear fallout is no big deal. Look at Japan. It probably won't happen, but if it does, it's not the end of the world.

Damage compounds.
Thousands of nuclear bombs detonated simultaneously is not the same as thousands detonated one at a time, the latter permitting toxins to be sparsely dissipated by nature, and effected ecosystems quickly infused with and rejuvenated by the life force of surrounding ecosystems.

So I'm a slave to my pets? Then why have pets? Most of the people reporting no income to the IRS are old people. The older you are, the more likely you're not going to have income. The younger, the more likely. So, euthanize all the codgers and you won't have to work to support the parasites. People think they're lazy brats, but those are people who haven't researched it. The boomers are a disease and the sooner they're gone, the better, and we'll recognize it when a harley is worth its weight in scrap metal. No one wants those obnoxious noise makers anymore.

Firstly, pets are something we voluntarily take on, because we're into it, not something government forces us to take on whether we like it or not, like people on the dole are.
Secondly, we spay and neuter our pets, to control their numbers, and selectively breed them, for quality control.
Thirdly, pets are helpless in society, even in nature, whereas some people on the dole aren't.
Fourthly, it costs a lot more resources to take care of people than pets.
Fifthly, we can't breed with our pets, so they can't infect us with their genes.
Sixthly, when government intervenes in our affairs, generally, if not always, it should be to promote health, not sickness, nor superfluity.

Why? I can answer this one... because you can't stand that someone might get something for nothing.

Because fields won't cultivate themselves, buildings won't build, clean and maintain themselves, and so on.

That's what immigrants are for. It's a step up for them. Then when they develop a healthy sense of entitlement, we'll import new immigrants until machines are developed to replace them.

They're already entitled, the Arab girl in the OP was the embodiment of entitlement.

Jeff Bezos is certainly capable of shoveling shit, so by your ethics, he should be. When you talk about people not working for a living, you're talking about rich people who let other people work for them. No one gets rich by working, but finagling others into doing it for them en masse so they can live off the profits of other's work without doing work themselves.

While I agree unbridled capitalism is inherently unjust, and many rich people are idle, or exploitive, some do reinvest, manage and design, while taking decent care of their customers, and employees.

What do you mean? Gifts are not earned and since you're the one claiming "deserve" and "earn", then you're the one who is anti-gifts. I'm saying "deserve" is irrelevant.

Because some people are more selfish and weak than others, and people are pretty selfish in general, what you propose cannot work.

[Karpel Tunnel]

@Serendipper

So you're saying that if some guy owns 1000s of acres I can simply claim that is too much for him and take possession of some amount of it?

If he hasn't developed or isn't developing it, others should be able to.

Exactly how much land is one man entitled to own in your view?

I'm not exactly sure, but there should be a limit.

And what constitutes ownership? Does paying someone else paper currency define ownership or does driving stakes in the ground determine it?

The more you're able to develop, occupy and use something, the more legitimate your claim to it.

Wouldn't this make everyone's property, then, utterly vulnerable to corporations?
Must land be developed? And what constitutes development?
Do you see a place for a commons in this? (national parks, perhaps town logging lands, protected areas of other types)

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

So you're saying that if some guy owns 1000s of acres I can simply claim that is too much for him and take possession of some amount of it?

If he hasn't developed or isn't developing it, others should be able to.

Exactly how much land is one man entitled to own in your view?

I'm not exactly sure, but there should be a limit.

And what constitutes ownership? Does paying someone else paper currency define ownership or does driving stakes in the ground determine it?

The more you're able to develop, occupy and use something, the more legitimate your claim to it.

Wouldn't this make everyone's property, then, utterly vulnerable to corporations?
Must land be developed? And what constitutes development?
Do you see a place for a commons in this? (national parks, perhaps town logging lands, protected areas of other types)

Individuals, whether they're nomadic (non)citizens or sedentary (non)citizens, can't legitimately own much more land than they need/are personally, physically using.
Large corporations should either be partly, or wholly nationalized, or unionized.
Intellectual property is partly, or wholly illegitimate.
Only the democratic state can legitimately own land it's not personally, physically using, for it is the emobidment of the will of the people of the land.
It can protect this land from being developed (nature reserve), or it can develop the land itself (public property), or it can temporarily reserve the land for individuals or corporations (private property), so long as they commence development shortly after its reservation.

[gib]

Hello everyone,

How's the debate going? Anybody resolve anything? Can we all hold hands yet and sing Kumbaya?

I'm not feeling nearly as grumpy as I did when I started this thread, so I thought: hey, why not give it a try? Jump in. Have a delightful discussion. It's your thread after all.

So where are we? What's the last thing being discussed. No, I will not read any of it, not even the last post despite its brevity. Someone fill me in.

[Gloominary]

Sorry, my posts keep disappearing and reappearing, experiencing technical difficulties, I'll get someone to remove my duplicates.

[gib]

Oh sure, just bull doze right over my post. I have contributed so much to this thread, and this is the thanks I get.

Ok, ok, I'll read your last post, Gloominary:

Sorry, my posts keep disappearing and reappearing, experiencing technical difficulties, I'll get someone to remove my duplicates.

Er, not that one...

Individuals, whether they're nomadic (non)citizens or sedentary (non)citizens, can't legitimately own much more land than they need/are personally, physically using.
Large corporations should either be partly, or wholly nationalized, or unionized.
Intellectual property is partly, or wholly illegitimate.
Only the democratic state can legitimately own land it's not personally, physically using, for it is the emobidment of the will of the people of the land.
It can protect this land from being developed (nature reserve), or it can develop the land itself (public property), or it can temporarily reserve the land for individuals or corporations (private property), so long as they commence development shortly after its reservation.

Everyone knows that ownership is a fabrication, right? Nonetheless, it's often a useful one. And legally, it's a powerfully effective one. Now when you bring "ought" into the equation, it brings with it a whole can of worms that can only be sorted through with a series of questions. First question: what is the good we are supposing comes about from a legal arrangement of land ownership? <-- That should be our primary focus at all times.

Personally, I'm in favour of leaving the law out of man's affairs unless necessary (for the good, whatever that is determined to be). The first question I ask myself is: why can't we just live like the animals? We are animals. Animals know nothing of ownership and property rights. They graze the land and roam wherever they please, stopping only where they sense danger lurks. Why can't we live like that? I mean, we have no choice, do we? We have to live. Just our existence gives us some claim to land, doesn't it? We have to exist on at least some small plot of land. The law can't come down on us for existing, for the gravity keeping us bound to the Earth, can it? And we have to roam. We have to graze. Don't we? At what point does the law come in and say: you're allowed to exist only here, and not there. You're allow to do this, but not that, on the land appointed to you. And why?

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

Oh ok, yeah I can see that. But there is an easy way to fix discrimination against the majority. When blacks are more prevalent in the workforce, then they won't be the underdog anymore and discrimination will go away. "I'm sorry, our quota of blacks is filled, so you'll need to demonstrate merit."

So called Afro Americans (better known as mulattos, sons and daughters of both black slaves, and white slave masters) earned much, or most of their lower socio-economic status, for reasons I've already given.
Nigerian Americans not only outperform Mulatto Americans economically and educationally, but they outperform White Americans, and even East Asian Americans (Chinese, Koreans and Japanese).

And what makes you think progressives will stop there?
Until whites are enslaved the way blacks were, or genocided the way reds, supposedly were, they won't be happy.
Only then can we have what they refer to as equality (better known as the annihilation, assimilation and/or subjugation of white people).

Those are people who are pissed that we invaded their countries and culture, so it's akin to breaking into someone's house and calling them a terrorist if they try to defend their property. But what excuse do the white shooters have? Imagine if they got their hands on nukes!

Here's a list of white folks with a few browns peppered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

You're not saying innocent American women and child deserve to be bombed, because of what American politicians did in our name (most Americans stopped supporting the war in Iraq once it had been revealed we were lied to by the Bush administration and the neocons (90% of whom were Jewish) about Saddam possessing WMDs and having ties with Al-Qaida)?
While the US hasn't helped matters in West Asia, I don't think their penchant for terror can be completely attributed to the US.
Part of the blame is radical Islam, as well as the temperament of the Arab race.
While many religions have their radicalism, Christianity has largely been purged of its radicalism after centuries of liberalization and modernization, Islam has not.
I think it's insane to import millions of people from countries we're bombing.
The solution is to stop bombing their countries, and either switch to greener technologies, wean ourselves off the petroleum teat, and/or power down our economies, consume and produce less, as well as completely cease Islamic immigration.
Continuing to both bomb them, and import millions of them, is a recipe for disaster.
It's only a matter of time before one of these cooks gets their hands on a real WMD.

Idk, but the only way you can stop it is to have more kids, but prosperous people don't do that.

No the way to stop it is, you sign a contract that says you won't have kids while on the dole, otherwise your kids get taken from you, and you forfeit your right to welfare/disability.

I bet they have less kids here than they did over there and the more prosperous they get, the less kids they'll have. The solution is obvious... stop being stingy.

1. Mass exportation/importation of goods, jobs and people from one country to another, namely globalization, ultimately hurts nature, it's localization, nationalism, isolationism and self sufficiency that helps it.
I'm not saying we should necessarily do away with globalization altogether, but we should at least consider slowing down or putting a stop to further globalization, I mean again, we're on the verge of another mass extinction event, because of what people are doing to the planet in the name of productivity/consumption.
What you're proposing is destroying more of nature, to ultimately help us save it.
No we just need to stop destroying nature right now, by greening our economies, and powering them down, becoming more self reliant and austere, not consuming much more than we need.
2. East Europe and Russia are impoverished, yet they have a low birth rate, so there're probably other factors at play than mere affluence.
3. Europeans and East Asians have, always had a lower birthrate than others, for they have more impulse control, and a lower libido (see Philippe Rushton and R/K selection theory).
While affluence tends to, or can sometimes decrease the birthrate (for people who're more educated, practice safer sex (the solution may be more sex education, contraception and abortion clinics, not necessarily affluence), affluence also decreases the death rate, and allows us to extract even more resources from nature.
It's unclear whether affluence will ultimately decrease the birth rate more than the death rate for non-white immigrants/the 3rd world countries they come from.
4. GDP growth almost invariably = environmental decay.
A lower birthrate hasn't stopped the US, nor Europe from acceleratingly destroying nature.
5. They may have just as many kids over here, perhaps even more, it may take them generations before family is no longer so important to them, but continuous mass immigration ensures there'll always be another generation of new arrivals who'll have to go through that process.
6. It's unclear whether the third world is even capable of reaching the socioeconomic heights the west achieved.
7. The solution for 3rd world overpopulation may be a 1 or 2 child policy.
It worked for China.

Getting rid of whites is absolutely the best thing that could happen to the wilderness As soon as white feet hit the ground they immediately cut down trees and carried them back to europe. Then they brought africans over to cut more trees and tend the sugarcane so the whites in europe could sip sweet tea in the shade while congratulating themselves for being white. (Contrary to today where everyone wants a tan, back then being really really white was a mark of not having to labor in the sun, so the whiter the better.)

Whites are a very inventive, and industrious race, and there are pros and cons that come with that.
I don't think the modernity whites gave us is all bad, it just needs to be tempered.
We may even use white technology one day in the distant future to save us from an asteroid collision, or colonize other worlds (assuming such things are even possible, they might just be a pipe dreams).

That being said, future progress isn't guaranteed.
even scientists are saying we're on the verge of another mass extinction event.
We have to learn how to live on this world before we can even begin thinking about colonizing others.

And there might be fixed limits to what technology can do.
It might not be efficient to run everything on machines, even if we could, and even if it is, there could be problems with that, like an AI takeover, or problems we can't begin to fathom.

But even if there aren't fixed limits, it might take us centuries, perhaps millennia to figure out how to run everything on machines.
Humanity goes through phases of technological, and sociologically innovation, and stagnation.
For example, within several centuries, the Sumerians and Egyptians created civilization but after that, not a great deal was created until the industrial age.
We're going through a period of great tech and sociological evolution, but I think it's already begun to fizzle out.
I mean other than some new phones, not a whole lot has been invented so far in the early 21st century when compared with the early 20th.
We might've picked all the low hanging fruit.
It might take us centuries or millennia before we're able to build an intellectual ladder to reach the higher hanging fruit, assuming such fruit even exist.

I was an employer for 10 years in the construction trade and I can tell you with authority that no white man can outwork a mexican. Not even close. Whites are smarter and stronger; I'll give you that, but working? No way, Jose. Those people are optimized by evolution for working in the sun and without them the price of food would skyrocket because you'd have to pay a white man a fortune to compel him to that kind of labor, then he'd passout and have to be carted to the ER compounding the expense (I've had that happen to a few white dudes who thought they were weekend warriors). And blondes are the worst.. .they go from white to red and never tan. There is no physiological mechanism to deal with sun. One blonde guy was in the siding trade and was constantly riddled with skin cancer with bandaides on his face from a trips to the dr. No way those people could have worked any fields south of iceland. Probably they relied on domesticated animals to pull machinery around since the only crop they really had was grain. The tomato, potato, and pepper came from south america along with most of our non-grain crops.

Many or most Illegal immigrants are illiterate, uneducated, they don't speak our language, they don't know a thing about our customs, they're more drug and crime prone than, not only East Asians and Whites, but legal Latinos, they drive down wages and working condititions for, not only White Americans, but Mulatto Americans and legal Latinos, and they pay little-no tax, they take more out of the system than they put in.
The only people they benefit are themselves (if you can call economic exploitation a benefit), and capitalists, which's one of the real reasons why the borders were left wide open, another being the elite is at best indifferent to White interests, and at worst, hostile.
I mean what's the point of even having a border and citizenship requirements, or a minimum wage and standardized working conditions for that matter, if illegals are good for us?
We might as well not even have them.

Does the protestant work ethic mean much to you?
Whites are the most industrious race on earth.
White Americans just aren't as used to picking fruit in the hot sun as illegals, but they'll get used to it, like White Europeans are (again, White Europeans haven't had mass illegal immigration, they do these jobs themselves).
And as I said, Southern Europeans have no problem dealing with the sun, nor do Mulattos and legal Latinos.
I myself am half Italian (and half Irish and Scottish), and can tan very easily, I can spend all day long in the sun in a muscle shirt and not burn at all.
I say get prisoners who can stand the sun to do these jobs, they need something to do.

Lastly, just because illegals are cheaper, doesn't mean the prices of the goods and services they produce and provide will be, capitalists want to keep the extra profits they make for themselves, so they can save, spend or reinvest them, they don't want share the extra profits they make with us, so we can save, spend or reinvest them.

[gib]

Well, I tried...

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

So you're saying that if some guy owns 1000s of acres I can simply claim that is too much for him and take possession of some amount of it?

If he hasn't developed or isn't developing it, others should be able to.

I don't entirely disagree with you as it does seem a waste for one guy to tie-up resources, but I think you're presupposing that "development" is better than undeveloped unless by "developed" you mean managed (like a state park which is undeveloped but managed).

I have mixed feelings about this and would probably have to judge on a case by case basis. If a guy is hoarding land with no real plan for it and isn't managing the land, but letting invasive species take over, then maybe there is a case to be made that he should be compelled to justify his continued ownership if the land could be put under better stewardship by someone else.

I also feel this way about money in that if someone is hoarding money with no productive use for it then maybe the community by virtue of numbers should gangup and take it back. An example is Bezos using his fortune to explore space rather than feed people on earth or some other more pressing need that could be addressed with that money rather than doing what NASA does anyway. One man shouldn't have control of that many of society's resources. I'm not against private property, but that is too much.

Exactly how much land is one man entitled to own in your view?

I'm not exactly sure, but there should be a limit.

And what constitutes ownership? Does paying someone else paper currency define ownership or does driving stakes in the ground determine it?

The more you're able to develop, occupy and use something, the more legitimate your claim to it.

I don't disagree, but that is a slippery slope that gives me pause. When we say that ownership is contingent upon obscure notions like "productive use", then ownership is determined by one's ability to perpetually defend their position in court against an onslaught of people who claim they could be more productive with it. I could assume ownership of this site merely by claiming I could serve society better than Carleas, so anything would be up for grabs based on pipe dreams.

I say what defines ownership is the size of one's army and mine is pretty big, but they could turn on me... idk. Probably as long as I continue paying my taxes, they will let me continue paying taxes and will guard my land from hostile takeover in protection of their income stream.

This is a descriptive, amoral definition of ownership, not a prescriptive, moral one.
I was asking you for the latter, not the former.

Morality went out the window when we said might makes right. Anyway, society, by virtue of numbers, determines what morality is, so morality is just an intermediate step bridging the gap between might and right which fools us into believing that morality isn't still might making right.

If whites are the majority and if whites do not like browns (according to your polls), then why are the whites not getting their way? I think it's more likely that your polls are wrong. I think most people say live and let live and really don't care that much. A small group cares and they are labeled haters.

Because white bureaucrats and big businessmen only care about their bottom line, they don't care about our bottom line, the environment, our race and its customs, and because Jewish, brown and black bureaucrats and big businessmen, and their useful idiots, see our race and its customs as a threat to theirs.
They want to annihilate and/or assimilate us.

I agree that white bureaucrats are the problem, which is why I trust minorities more in government. They wouldn't have the white's interest in mind because they would have everyone's interests in mind, which includes whites, but doesn't give them special privilege.

Trump was elected because he wasn't Hillary. No one really liked Trump, but he wasn't Hillary, so his election shouldn't be interpreted as a vote for populism nor indicative of what most people want. Whoever decided to run Hillary is the one to blame for Trump because Hillary was the one person on earth who could not beat Trump. Even Mr Hanky could have beat Trump

In that case, why didn't they elect Cruz, Kasich, Rubio or another, run-of-the-mill, republican candidate?
It's because Trump was the only one saying things like: 'build that wall', and 'Muslim ban', it's because his positions resonated with the people.

Yes good point. Trump would have beat any republican because he was the not-politician candidate which appeals to republicans, but in the election he won because he was the not-hillary choice. Trump lost the popular vote and if we concede that many votes were illegal, then he barely won, at best. Hillary had a lot of baggage including Comey deciding to open an investigation so close to the election and even then, Trump still barely won. If Trump couldn't handily beat someone under investigation for mishandling classified information and lying and being a Clinton and a woman and falling down sick all the time among other disadvantages not on the top of my head, then Trump didn't win in my opinion. Anyone without all those issues would have wiped the floor with Trump. He didn't win the fight, but his opponent was sorta disqualified for being sick and lame. When I say anyone could have beat him, obviously I'm exaggerating, but it's equally an exaggeration to say Trump represents the people.

He doesn't even represent his fans because he's not pro-gun, he raised their taxes (tariffs, online sales tax, proposed a gas tax), filled the white house with jewish bankers, and he supports perpetual 0% interest rates. His only redeeming attribute is he's unimaginably stupid which is what resonates with his fans while he's screwing them. If his IQ is triple digits. I'll eat my hat.

Well, either way they are. Either they are slaves willing to do hard work for cheap or they are brainiacs, so I can't see a downside. A check of my local paper's arrest report indicates the whites beating their family and other domestic violence, dui, meth, and what I'd call "real crime" while the hispanics are picked up for pot and fraud (passing bad checks n stuff) and what I'd call "bullshit crime". The whites are on the crotch rockets racing 150mph up n down the road, big diesel trucks making racket, harleys, randomly firing automatic weapons all evening, taking mufflers off thinking they sound cool, dumping trash on my property... I swear, if most whites fell off the earth the first indication would be the uncanny and sudden serenity. "Wait, why is no one raising hell?" I can't tell the hispanics exist: they're small, quiet, and stay out of everyone's way. The only reason the locals don't like them is because they're brown. My friend says it's because they have their hand in his wallet, but far more whites have their hand in his wallet than browns, so he's full of shit.

You might sell me on hating the blacks and reds (especially the rednecks), but I'm cool with the browns and mellow yellows

As a whole, pretty sure east yellows are the only race as mellow or mellower than whites, the other races commit more crime, not just the blacks, reds, mestizos and mulattos, but the browns and south east yellows.
Your mischaracterization of the white race as just a bunch of hillbilly red necks is gross.

It's not a mischaracterization, but it is gross. Check your local paper and see who is committing the most crime.

Here are some examples:

http://www.presspublications.com/newspa ... lice-beats
https://www.enewscourier.com/news/arres ... bef43.html
https://www.daily-chronicle.com/2018/10 ... 3/abmn461/

That's an artifact of reduced redistributive taxation. The way to make america great is to put the taxes back how they were when america was great. If we give money to people who are already drowning in money, how can we expect growth? They plow it into stocks, bonds, art, cars, houses, etc for lack of anything else to do with it, then the banks put it on deposit with the fed for a guaranteed interest payment where it sits doing nothing. Raise taxes, redistribute, and people will spend and generate growth. This has zero to do with immigration.

The point is immigrant's SOL is being raised more than ours, because their SOL is instantly being raised many times over just by flying from New Delhi to New York, in addition to incrementally being raised afterwards along with ours, furthermore their raise is more substantive than ours, for like I said, early development is more needed, whereas latter development is less needed, if not entirely superfluous, which means they need us more than we need them, which means if any group ought to be accommodating the other, they should be accommodating us.

We need them because without them, there would be no us. How could we be so successful if not for their cheap labor? Wealth is like a waterbed... the only way to make one side go up is to make another side go down. That's what conservatism means: disparity. The shitholes in the US exist because all the wealth has been sucked out and transferred to the Hamptons.

I was just telling a friend yesterday that we utilize animals to pull plows then use their digestive systems to process vitamins (K2, A, B12) from vegetation that our species is no longer able to do, then we eat the animal. Making slaves of things to steal their productivity is what we do.

It's hard to see that under this regime of disparity where the poor enrich the rich. If anything, their SOL growth will pale in comparison to the 1% because money is sucked from the poor and given to the rich. The poorer you are, the less well you'll fare.

Firstly, I'm not sure if the overclass's SOL is being raised by the immigrant's more than the immigrant's SOL is being raised by coming here, but even if it is, in that case the overclass should be both accommodating the immigrants, and the white majority, and immigrants should still be accommodating the white majority, if anything, because we're raising their standard of living by allowing them to come here, whereas they're not raising ours at all.

I'm not sure whose SOL is being affected by the immigrants coming here. If anything, it's another source of cheap servitude to be capitalized upon.

That's becoming less true as we go forward as India isn't the shithole it used to be and america is increasingly less relevant. I'm not saying I'd move to India, but I can see the day when there won't be much difference.

So long as they're coming here, it is true.
Few, if any of them would be coming here, if their standard of living wasn't being raised.
And it remains to be seen, if India, China and the rest of the third world can even reach our heights.
So far the only non-white countries that've been able to are South Korea and Japan.

I can't imagine how we will not be a global society one day. How are we to transition from a class zero society to a class 1 or 2 with power to move stars and intergalactic travel if we're still bickering about race?

Iceland has a nearly negligible population dwarfed by many US cities. Can we even call that a country? I'm not sure we could call it a state since I've rejected states with pops less than 500k as being anomalies when studying the effects of minimum wages. There is something about low populations that make such communities immune from economic truths that would otherwise apply. In addition, the workers in Iceland have many rights and negotiate high wages in something more akin to a partnership rather than a capitalistic fleecing, so if the consumers have money, then GDP growth will be robust. A unionized workforce compensates for lack of mandated minimum wage.

Forget Iceland, there's plenty of European Countries with as much or more growth than the US, with little-no immigration, such as Ireland, Finland and Poland, @4%, 2.8% and 3.8% respectively.
White countries can grow without immigration, I mean Europe has always been on par with the US, and only very recently have some European Countries adopted mass immigration, much to the chagrin and dismay of many Native Europeans.

Sure they can grow without immigration. My point was the worker's rights. A society is only as rich as the poorest members and the Europeans take care of their poor. The US has been trending the opposite direction and we have the weak growth to show for it. Immigration is irrelevant to growth except to the extent they can be made into slaves.

What do you mean? I don't see that. The folks polluting my front lawn are whites. The capitalists dumping into rivers are whites. Where are you getting data?

And importing more browns will just add to our pollution.
We need to teach whites to pollute less, not import browns who are just going to help us pollute even more.

Race doesn't seem relevant to pollution.

How can the object of hatred be the cause of hatred? There must be a hater and hatee and if the hater hates, then it's not because of the hatee.

Firstly, for me and many other white nationalists, this isn't about hate, it's about wanting to preserve our people and its way of life.
Secondly, there'll always be haters, forcing different peoples to live together means haters will clash with one another.

Well even if we open the flood gates and let the world pour in, you'd still have your white community of like-minded people right? That's what I don't get because you're free to preserve your heritage without focusing on the browns. This seems more like instead of preserving your heritage, you're eliminating other heritages.

Embracing your heritage is fine, but it's the compelling others to embrace your heritage that's the problem.

Compelling me to interact with people I don't want to interact with is a problem for me.

What's the difference? If your neighbor is brown, you say hello and go about your business. What difference does it make? Maybe I can see a point if they are cooking your food, but vocal interaction shouldn't be a problem.

One thing I know for sure from dealing with nature is that if I breed plants or animals to one genotype, some disease or bug will evolve and totally wipe them out. I've seen it happen too many times. If you want to go extinct, make yourself ubiquitous and nature will see you as a sitting duck for an easy meal. Look at the Ash Borer wiping out all the Ash trees. The American Chestnut is long gone. Good thing we have other trees, right? Now they're saying the banana is next for extinction. Up in Canada the pine borer wipes out hundreds of acres of Lodgepole Pines leaving desolation in its wake. If you breed yourself down to one type, there is not even a chance that you could survive because evolution will be gunning for you the moment you embark. Diversity is strength because we never know what's coming next.

It seems to me, there's more total variability in the human species if you keep the races apart than if you mix them together, and so less change of humanity altogether being wiped out by a single virus.

So the analogy is planting one type of grass (monostand) as opposed to many types; they don't interbreed, but coexist on the same plot. The monostand looks nicer, but is much harder to maintain without having large bald spots that fill with weeds.

Some people will interbreed resulting in new breeds in addition to the ones who choose to preserve their heritage. Keeping them separate results in bald spots.

Most whites will choose to breed with whites and most browns will choose to breed with browns and some will intermix giving us 3 lines of defense against extinction rather than 2. Add the yellows and we have 3 purebreds, white/yellow, white/brown, brown/yellow, and white/brown/yellow for 7 lines of defense plus the white/brown/yellow breeding with brown/yellow or white/yellow or white/brown and the complexity explodes.

In what way? I thought the Jews were and they are susceptible to oodles of diseases.

I'm not sure how homogenous the Jews are.
The Japanese are homogenous, and I don't think they're especially susceptible to disease.

Today's 10 million Ashkenazi Jews descend from a population of only 350 individuals who lived about 600–800 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews

I doubt the Japs can claim the same.

The most dominant native ethnic group is the Yamato people; primary minority groups include the indigenous Ainu[243] and Ryukyuan peoples, as well as social minority groups like the burakumin.[244] There are persons of mixed ancestry incorporated among the Yamato, such as those from Ogasawara Archipelago.[245] In 2014, foreign-born non-naturalized workers made up only 1.5% of the total population.[246] Japan is widely regarded as ethnically homogeneous, and does not compile ethnicity or race statistics for Japanese nationals; sources varies regarding such claim, with at least one analysis describing Japan as a multiethnic society[247] while another analysis put the number of Japanese nationals of recent foreign descent to be minimal.[237] Most Japanese continue to see Japan as a monocultural society. Former Japanese Prime Minister and current Finance Minister Tarō Asō described Japan as being a nation of "one race, one civilization, one language and one culture", which drew criticism from representatives of ethnic minorities such as the Ainu.[248] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Demographics

"one race, one civilization, one language and one culture" and it's going extinct.

I don't see them earning privilege, but being lucky enough to have had domesticated animals, horses, fertile glacial till for farming, among other advantages stemming from chance. I think they should be more humble. If it would have been an equal playing field whereas the Natives had horses and domesticated animals beyond the turkey, then I'd concede congratulations were in order for the clearly superior whites, but it didn't happen that way.

You can socially domesticate just about any intelligent, social animal (mammals and birds tend to be the most intelligent, social) by continually culling the unruly ones, and you can asocially domesticate any animal that can be used as a resource, same as plants, by continually culling the unfruitful ones.

That isn't true according to the sources putting forth the theory because I wondered the same when I first heard it: why didn't the natives domesticate the buffalo?

As far as domestication goes, there are only a finite number of species that are actually suitable for domestication and the bison is not a very good candidate. https://www.quora.com/Farming-Why-didnt ... grow-crops

Why didn’t Europeans domesticate bison? The kinds of animals available for domestication in the Americas are almost all animals that exist in Eurasia and were NEVER domesticated there. It appears, then, to me that it may be because deer, bison, etc may not be very domesticable.

Unfortunately, most animals just don't seem to be domesticatable. For example, lots of people throughout history have tried to domesticate zebras, which seems like it should be easy since they are so much like horses, but zebras are unpredictable and panicky when stressed and terrible for riding or taming or doing anything else that might possibly stress them out.

I have no idea and I'm not an authority on it, but just assume some animals cannot be domesticated.

As for good climate and soil, again plenty of places in the Americas, Africa and Asia have them.

This is not true and, like I said previously, even in the US there is only the midwest with good soil.

European climate and soil can be more severe at times and in places than many parts of the Americas, Africa and Asia, especially the North Europe.

Soil is a function of rainfall and igneous rock. Generally speaking, grasslands have good soil and forest lands do not, so a quick look at google maps would reveal where good soil lie.

And you're forgetting the animals from which the Europeans got milk and fat. Dr. Price traveled the globe looking for healthy teeth and finding them in Europe where they existed off cheese and seafood with no crops to speak of. Same deal in Africa and Americas. He attributed dental health to animal fat, so animals were paramount in our evolution (as evidenced by the fact that we can't convert beta carotene to vitamin A very well nor K1 to K2 nor synthesize B12 on our own - this proves we were reliant on animal fat for much of our evolution). Where domesticated animals are, there will intelligent people be. Everyone else had to chase down wild critters and didn't have a selection mechanism for intelligence nor the nutrition in the abundance required that domestication could provide.

The theory is sound. You should research it.

And it's not as if Europeans were just given their land, we had to fight for it, defend it from invaders, from the Moors and Carthaginians of North Africa, from the Ottomans, Phoenicians, Saracens and Persians from West Asia, to the Turks and Mongols from Central and East Asia respectively, and many more.

Sure I'll concede that, but I bet again the animals played a pivotal role.

Actually the Vikings went extinct in Greenland at the onset of the iceage while the Inuit (whom they called "dogs") survived. Their arrogance did them in because they shunned the ways of the Inuit which could have saved them. That's the thing about white folks; they're proud and the meek shall inherit the earth according to the white jesus.

Furthermore, our prehistoric ancestors were wise and strong enough to originally settle this land and stay, defending it from early invaders, as well exterminate, drive out some of its inhabitants while assimilating others, so luck doesn't necessarily have as much to do with it as some suppose.

I think you're referring to the Neanderthals who didn't fare so well in spite of their strength and big 1600cc brains, but I'm assuming that's where we got blue eyes and red hair. I'm thinking the Vikings originated from the Neanderthals.

There were several waves of migrations out of Africa separated by 20,000 year spans or more from the axial precession and other climatic events that made migration impossible which trapped the immigrants for lengthy periods where they could evolve without dilution from Africans. That's how the Neanderthals came about. They evolved in a low-UV and cold environment which selected for light skin, hair, and eye color... and apparently, intelligence.

It's funny north Africa and west Asia have (a) much harsher climate and soil, less biodiversity and resources than Subsaharan Africa, yet they've always been substantially more advanced than them to this day.
It's probably because Subsaharan Africans have the smallest and least sophisticated brains of the races of man, after Australian Aborigines.

North Africa is not always a desert. Every 20k years or so due to the axial precession the land turns green. The earth changes its tilt.

The guy who runs the corner store hires only whites and hispanics even though he is Indian (from India). He is vegetarian who doesn't believe in taking life to live. I tried to give him duck eggs once and he wouldn't take them because they are potential life. I said I don't have males, so they aren't potential. He still wouldn't take them. It's hard to imagine him being mean to anyone. It's hard for me to relate to any examples you gave. The muslim terrorists just want us to leave them alone and stay out of their countries, but they have the oil. The acts of terror of late have been coming from white people shooting up schools and churches.

Lots of east Indians in my neighborhood are involved in gangs, drugs and crime.

I'm not saying you're lying, but trying to picture that is like trying to picture a gang of kittens and bunnies terrorizing; it's just totally paradoxical imagery lol

I hope she wins. Valedictorian of her high school class and yale law phd while coming from a poor Mississippi family who couldn't possibly have pulled any strings for her, unlike Trump and her opponent, the ass nugget Kemp who talks as if he's had a stroke affecting his remaining brain cell who probably wouldn't have graduated with an Ag degree if not for his senator father's help. But GA is brimming with rednecks and other dumbasses giving hope to the white guy who will invariably make life harder on them with his efforts to stamp out brown and poor people and institute a police state.

Trump is doing things to help the poor, like keeping away illegal immigrants who drive down wages and working conditions,

How do they drive down wages? Oh by being willing to work for cheap because the SOL is such a step up even at low wages? Doesn't that mean Americans have a sense of entitlement then? (They're too good to work for cheap.)

So if immigrants go away, the whites will move in with mom and dad in protest of wages and force wages higher. I can see that. Or we could throw Trump out, put Bernie in and he'll mandate higher wages.

and trying to manufacture more wares at home, instead of being reliant on China and Mexico.

I don't like this idea. Trump is nostalgic for a time passed. American workers are inefficient and expensive and it's best to avoid them in favor of Chinese who pay more attention to detail, respect their jobs, and are willing to do it for cheap. I go out of my way to avoid anything made in America and every Briggs engine I've seen is a pile of junk. They can't even stamp the model number on right so I can find a manual without sending pics to Briggs for identification. American products cost twice as much and are half as good.

As for police state, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh you don't have to deal with roadblocks where you are? The republicans haven't made it that far then. You can get a dui here for drinking a beer and mowing your own lawn.

I am far from 100% satisfied with Trump, but he's doing substantially more to help the poor than mainstream republicans and democrats ever did, which's why the establishment hates him.

You spelled "rich" wrong. He hasn't done one thing to help the poor and everything he's done has been specifically tailored to hurt the poor. Sales tax for online purchases, tariffs, pissing off partners, filling his cabinet with jewish bankers and then giving them huge tax cuts to further stifle the poor, put the country $1 trillion farther in debt which the poor will have to pay, screwed up the health insurance situation, and backed other candidates who are against minimum wages, medicare and pro-cash bail which criminalizes being poor and prohibition. I can't think of anyone who has been harder on the poor than Trump; not even Reagan.

I'm just saying that it's easier to believe a black woman will do what she says than a white man. Maybe after 10 years of being a politician she will learn bullshitting, but for the time being she is about as trustworthy as it gets.

The same could be said of an intelligent, aspiring politician from a white, working class background, only he'll probably have a higher iQ, and better qualifications all-around.

In that case his name would be Bernie Sanders or Warren Buffett. Sure, I would trust them.

They shouldn't. The 1% should feed the bottom 20% and everyone else will feed themselves.

Money by itself doesn't feed anyone, someone still has to work.

Something still has to work; not someone.

Make them smart and rich and they'll stop having kids. Easy.

Non-contributors should be less able to have kids than contributors.

You can try to force your ideals on nature, but it doesn't work that way. The more you hate the poor, the more they will reproduce and overwhelm you.

You'll have a lot of kids in state care with that strategy. The only way to stop it is to make them prosperous or take them out back and shoot them.

Threatening to take their kids from and spay them may deter almost all of them from having kids.

Oh yes because the threat of punishment always deters crime which is why we never have crime anymore, right. You're a prohibitionist. All you'll accomplish is having lots of kids in state care which will cause more poor to exist and cause more kids to be in state care until you eventually resort to throwing them in ovens.

It's something we could try out, but we should at least spay them.

I think we should spay republicans and all problems go away.

Many parents who're on the dole, their kids windup being raised by the system anyway.
But we should at least spay them, the ones who refuse to practice contraception/abortion.

We tried that before. Where do you think Hitler got the idea? lol

I'm not suggesting to give them Ferraris, but just keep them out of squalor so they don't have to resort to peddling crack as a lifestyle.

If you can work and don't, than you're not entitled to anything, if you can't work, than I agree, they should be entitled to a decent standard of living, but they shouldn't be having kids.

I disagree. There is no benefit to making people suffer; you only hurt yourself.

That isn't true. Giving my neighbor money doesn't make me lazy.

There's a difference between giving your neighbor money, something you want to do, and government taking money from you, something you may not want to do, which may de-incentivize you.

I don't understand where you're going with that.

Yes I can because it's intrahemispherical communication that engenders creativity, otherwise you end up with autism or other robotic behavior not conducive to creativity.

Personality probably plays a role in creativity, and I'm sure all of personality can't be located in that region you mentioned.

It's not in the region, but the region connects the hemispheres so they can talk to each other.

And define creativity.

Creation of something such that's it's not understood how it was created and can't be mimicked or mechanized.

But gays have! And the most profound difference between straight and gay is the connectivity of the hemispheres, so there must be some other reason women aren't inventors.

Up until the last few decades, peoples sexuality hasn't been well documented, so again, how do you know how many artists, inventors and so on were gay?
I think most of them were probably straight, just because most people are straight.
And what are these gays creating?
Are they giving us utilitarian things, like lightbulbs and medicine, or are they our interior decorators, and fashionistas?
Not that the latter category of stuff has value, but perhaps less.

It should be obvious from merely looking at a gay and straight person who is more creative because their attire will be different.

DaVinci was gay https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... o-da-vinci

Here's MIlo's thoughts on the subject: Gay Rights Have Made Us Dumber, It’s Time to Get Back in the Closet https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015 ... he-closet/

The British Establishment, in particular, has long relied on gay geniuses. Consider Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde and John Maynard Keynes. OK, maybe not that last one.

Elsewhere in the world, the story is the same. Abraham Lincoln was almost certainly at least bisexual. And then there are figures from remoter history, such as notorious bum bandit Alexander the Great. It seems that wherever you find human greatness, gays are joyfully abundant.

That’s at least in part because gay men are smarter: we test higher for IQ than our heterosexual counterparts. Intelligence allows us to “transcend” our evolutionary programming, according to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, which may explain the correlation between homosexuality and high IQ.

Research it. There are big lists online. I've done this 5 years ago.

I've researched this specifically back in 2013 and came to the conclusion that artsy, creative, inventive people were mostly gay men and/or lefties and haven't found reason to change my mind yet. That doesn't mean it's true, but being an engineering type myself, I can see it. My problem solving ability is off the charts, but that doesn't mean I'm creative. If I can't find a sensible reason to paint something a certain color, then I can't make a decision because all decisions must be rooted in logic. It's like a handicap, but I'm overcoming it.

When it's difficult or impossible to find reasons to select one thing over another (because reasons are complex/elusive on the one hand, or because there are none on the other), than yes, people with more say, hyper-intuitive minds will excel in such circumstances/predicaments, like with highly subjective spheres/domains, like the arts, or like with highly dynamic/intricate ones, like philosophy, psychology, religion and the social and theoretical sciences.
However, with more straightforward ones, like much of physics and chemistry, much of the practical and experimental sciences, hyper-intuitive minds can be a hinderance.
Such fields require a more analytical mind.
And I think there's such a thing as analytical creativity, as opposed to synthetic.
Analytical minds can make bold, new discoveries of their own.

That's true. Probably why engineers tend to be straight, righthanded men. I'm contemplative rather than creative. I can dive deep down with extreme focus, but I can't multitask very well. I'm good at science and math, but suck at the literary and artsy. If I were gay, I'd be the opposite.

Kim Peek was born without a corpus callosum and consequently he can read a page with his left eye and a page with his right. He's famous for memorizing every book in the library, including the phone book. I think he's the guy rainman was based on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek

They didn't have pigs, chickens, cows in the americas and we can't domesticate buffalo. The Natives used to chase the buffalo on foot for lack of horses. The only animal that existed for domestication was the turkey. Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Ger ... _of_theory

Why do you suppose we can't domesticate the buffalo, because they're unruly?
Do you think that's how cows, horses and pigs began, as tame, docile creatures, easy to manage?
Capture some offspring from some of these wild beasts and raise them to be as obedient as they can be.
The more malleable ones, as well as ones that produce more fur, milk, fatty, tender meat and so on, breed them together and cull the ones that don't.
After centurires or millennia, you'll end up with domesticated buffalo, moose, deer, or what have you.

This is like the chicken and egg question of which came first: the domesticated animals which facilitated intelligence or the intelligence to domesticate the animals. Plus, the horse was completely missing from the Americas. There were no pigs either. The wild hogs came from the domesticated pigs the Europeans brought.

A quick search online produced:

Indigenous mammals include the American bison, eastern cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit, plains coyote, black-tailed prairie dog, muskrat, opossum, raccoon, prairie chicken, wild turkey, white-tailed deer, swift foxes, pronghorn antelope, the Franklin's ground squirrel and several other species of ground squirrels.

Even if we could domesticate them, they wouldn't be worth much.

We need pigs, chickens, cows, goats, sheep and horses and none were in the Americas.

Idk, I've never picked a friend before. Whoever stumbles along and seems friendly ends up being a friend.

Some people do pick friends, and friends who we have more things in common, tend to stick around longer.

How do I pick a friend? I could use more friends.

Not yet but they will soon.

Civilization waxes and wanes.
Our civilization has many problems.
In all sorts of ways, we're ruining our health and the health of our environment.
What makes you so sure our civilization won't collapse at some point in time like innumerable civilizations before us?

Well, I'm not sure, but I don't see it outside of a cataclysmic event. Civilizations collapsed before and yet here we are, smarter than ever. I don't see humans as self-limiting. I believe (as a matter of personal opinion) that whatever caused this universe wants to be more complex, so even if we go extinct, we'll be back. I think the humanoid is the optimal design (thumbs, binocular vision, air-breathing, yellow star, bipedal, etc)

Why is more technological prowess and sophistication necessarily a good?

It's not, but we want to know what we are, so onward we press to higher levels of complexity.

Rather than thinking of it as a good, I think each people, at each time and in each place, needs to ascertain the right balance of technology, rather than thinking more must always be merrier.

That's how I feel too, but you say we must keep working, presumably to stay ahead of the competition.

We have the sun.

We shall see, if the whole of civilization can run itself on the sun itself without fossil fuels.
And we'll see what consequences come with that.

Sure it can and the consequence of free energy is free stuff.

That used to be the case, but not anymore. Did you forget how to hunt? How will you survive? Oh that's right... grocery stores! Well shit, now you're dependent upon stores to live because you've forgotten how to live off the land. Whatever will you do? Society is moving up and we don't need that antiquated knowledge anymore.

In the transition from nature to society, we move from a state of more independence to a state of, not dependence, but more interdependence rather.
I can get food from groceries because I provide everyone, or some people with a service.
There needs to be checks and balances to ensure parasites don't proliferate.
And I'm agreeing with you that, not all parasites are on the bottom rungs, many, if not most are on top.

I see what you're saying, but my point is we lost a skill necessary to survival outside of dependence upon technology and we're becoming more and more dependent upon tech to survive while we lose more and more skills. Just like hunting, working is being antiquated and becoming unnecessary.

Hunting and cooking led to time to develop language instead of spending all our time like herbivores eating, then farming and livestock led to art and science by freeing us from hunting, now machines will free us from working which will give us time to contemplate even higher things.

That was a generation or two ago.

Only a generation or two?
Not even a blink of an eye in the history of man.
We have gone through periods of 'long' peace before, from Pax Romana, Pax Britannia, to Pax Americana, and every peace in between.
Some lasted for decades, others, even centuries.
The people living then too probably thought the sun would never set on their empires, but it did.
I don't know if humans are ultimately progressing or on the brink of annihilation, I'm leaning much more towards the latter prospect than the former at this rate, but even if we are ultimately ascending, if history has taught us anything, it'll at the very least be a treacherous scale onward and upward.
What you're talking about is like the end of history.
Just smooth sailing, unrelenting progress from here on out.
This's totally at odds with everything we know about humanity, life and existence itself.
Things seem to come and go, even stars and galaxies are born, decay and perish.
So many civilization collapsed due to overextending themselves.
To assume now that we are it, that we've arrived, seems awfully short-sighted to say the least.
The height of folly to me.

You're making it seem as if we've gone extinct several times before. We've had wars but, so what? We're here and better than ever.

Putin will clobber us with his hypersonic weapons and we'll pick up the pieces. Even nuclear fallout is no big deal. Look at Japan. It probably won't happen, but if it does, it's not the end of the world.

Damage compounds.
Thousands of nuclear bombs detonated simultaneously is not the same as thousands going off one at a time, the latter permitting toxins to be dispersed widely by nature, and ecosystems to be quickly infused with and rejuvenated by the life force of surrounding ecosystems.

Some lifeforms exist solely off radiation from uranium deep underground. We'll adapt and go on. I don't think life can be stopped.

So I'm a slave to my pets? Then why have pets? Most of the people reporting no income to the IRS are old people. The older you are, the more likely you're not going to have income. The younger, the more likely. So, euthanize all the codgers and you won't have to work to support the parasites. People think they're lazy brats, but those are people who haven't researched it. The boomers are a disease and the sooner they're gone, the better, and we'll recognize it when a harley is worth its weight in scrap metal. No one wants those obnoxious noise makers anymore.

Firstly, pets are something we voluntarily take on, because we're into it, they're not something government forces you to take on whether you like it or not, like freeloaders are.

I forget the context of this one. The fact that you call them freeloaders says you're emotionally involved and you have some visceral aversion to people getting something for nothing, unless they're rich because you don't use degrading vernacular to characterize them, although you concede they do get things for nothing, yet because they're rich, you see them as somehow deserving while the lazy freeloaders can rot in hell. You're just hurting yourself with this philosophy.

Secondly, we spay and neuter our pets, to control their numbers, and selectively breed them, for quality control.

Fine, let's neuter republicans. I'm down with that. Why not spay the most dangerous organization in the history of humanity? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 06026.html

Why? I can answer this one... because you can't stand that someone might get something for nothing.

Because fields won't cultivate themselves, buildings won't build, clean and maintain themselves, and so on.

Robots

That's what immigrants are for. It's a step up for them. Then when they develop a healthy sense of entitlement, we'll import new immigrants until machines are developed to replace them.

They're already entitled, the Arab girl in the OP was the embodiment of entitlement.

I think you're acting more entitled than her. For instance you think your race is entitled to special considerations and I think it should have less for that very reason. As Alan Watts said, "we're not better because we want to be." Arrogance. Thinking you're special is proof you're not.

Jeff Bezos is certainly capable of shoveling shit, so by your ethics, he should be. When you talk about people not working for a living, you're talking about rich people who let other people work for them. No one gets rich by working, but finagling others into doing it for them en masse so they can live off the profits of other's work without doing work themselves.

This's an exaggeration.
While many rich people are idle, or exploitive, others reinvest, manage and design, while taking decent care of their customers and employees.

Not an exaggeration. I'd admit it if it were. The only way to get rich is to exploit (or inherit from someone who exploited).

What do you mean? Gifts are not earned and since you're the one claiming "deserve" and "earn", then you're the one who is anti-gifts. I'm saying "deserve" is irrelevant.

Because some people are more selfish and weak than others, and people in general are pretty selfish, what you propose cannot work.

All beings are selfish and it's impossible not to be.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

Oh ok, yeah I can see that. But there is an easy way to fix discrimination against the majority. When blacks are more prevalent in the workforce, then they won't be the underdog anymore and discrimination will go away. "I'm sorry, our quota of blacks is filled, so you'll need to demonstrate merit."

So called Afro Americans (better known as mulattos, sons and daughters of both black slaves, and white slave masters) earned much, or most of their lower socio-economic status, for reasons I've already given.
Nigerian Americans not only outperform Mulatto Americans economically and educationally, but they outperform White Americans, and even East Asian Americans (Chinese, Koreans and Japanese).

And what makes you think progressives will stop there?
Until whites are enslaved the way blacks were, or genocided the way reds, supposedly were, they won't be happy.
Only then can we have what they refer to as equality (better known as the annihilation, assimilation and/or subjugation of white people).

Progressives are not gunning for white people, but against disparity. They're trying to equal the playing field between weak and strong independent of color. Color is irrelevant. If you want progressives to like you, be weak.... er, meek.

But if you claim one color is better than another color, they won't like you.

Conservatism is all about disparity and it's a core premise. Disparity of race; disparity of wealth; disparity of privilege. That's what it's about. Progressivism is the opposite.

Those are people who are pissed that we invaded their countries and culture, so it's akin to breaking into someone's house and calling them a terrorist if they try to defend their property. But what excuse do the white shooters have? Imagine if they got their hands on nukes!

Here's a list of white folks with a few browns peppered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

You're not saying innocent American women and child deserve to be bombed, because of what American politicians did in our name (most Americans stopped supporting the war in Iraq once it had been revealed we were lied to by the Bush administration and the neocons (90% of whom were Jewish) about Saddam possessing WMDs and having ties with Al-Qaida)?

No I'm not saying anyone deserves to be bombed, but that whites are a bigger terroristic threat than browns.

911 wouldn't have happened if not for our presence in the middle east, but what's the motive of Paddock in Vegas and all the other white terrorists shooting innocent people?

While the US hasn't helped matters in West Asia, I don't think their penchant for terror can be completely attributed to the US.
Part of the blame is radical Islam, as well as the temperament of the Arab race.

If you want to talk temperament, look at the Irish. Arabs are just uneducated. What's excuse of the Irish?

Idk, but the only way you can stop it is to have more kids, but prosperous people don't do that.

No the way to stop it is, you sign a contract that says you won't have kids while on the dole, otherwise your kids get taken from you, and you forfeit your right to welfare/disability.

That recipe is guaranteed to backfire. Show me one instance where prosperity has not caused less reproduction. Show me one instance where adversity has not caused population explosions.

You're wanting to control and punish people and by doing so, you're only hurting yourself and your race. I understand the emotion, but it's not helping your cause.

I bet they have less kids here than they did over there and the more prosperous they get, the less kids they'll have. The solution is obvious... stop being stingy.

1. Mass exportation/importation of goods, jobs and people from one country to another, namely globalization, ultimately hurts nature, it's localization, nationalism, isolationism and self sufficiency that helps it.

We can't hurt nature. I appeal to George Carlin on this.

2. East Europe and Russia are impoverished, yet they have a low birth rate, so there're probably other factors at play than mere affluence.

Russia had 25/1000 births in 1950 and has 12/1000 today. Would you say Russia was more prosperous in the 1950s than today? I hope not.

Here's an animated gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fer ... ations.gif

Why do the poor have more kids?

Evolutionary theory predicts that if you are a mammal growing up in a harsh, unpredictable environment where you are susceptible to disease and might die young, then you should follow a "fast" reproductive strategy - grow up quickly, and have offspring early and close together so you can ensure leaving some viable progeny before you become ill or die. For a range of animal species there is evidence that this does happen. Now research suggests that humans are no exception. https://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/24/ev ... young-age/

Being mean to them just makes more of them.

3. Europeans and East Asians have, always had a lower birthrate than others, for they have more impulse control, and a lower libido (see Philippe Rushton and R/K selection theory).

Not according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... e_1950.svg

4. GDP growth almost invariably = environmental decay.
A lower birthrate hasn't stopped the US, nor Europe from acceleratingly destroying nature.

Prosperity = more environmental laws for conservatives to complain about. It's illegal to cut down a hardwood greater than 8 inches at breast height without permission in many if not all municipalities. In MN, it's illegal to ride an atv through a bog on your own land.

5. They may have just as many kids over here, perhaps even more,

The evidence doesn't support that. Go on a dating site and see who has the most kids (whites). See if you can find any browns or yellows with kids.

6. It's unclear whether the third world is even capable of reaching the socioeconomic heights the west achieved.

Until the philosophy of disparity is ended.

7. The solution for 3rd world overpopulation may be a 1 or 2 child policy.
It worked for China.

Yes and they've abandoned it now since the people are prosperous and not having enough kids.

Despite The End Of China's One-Child Policy, Births Are Still Lagging https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/62936187 ... ll-lagging

Getting rid of whites is absolutely the best thing that could happen to the wilderness As soon as white feet hit the ground they immediately cut down trees and carried them back to europe. Then they brought africans over to cut more trees and tend the sugarcane so the whites in europe could sip sweet tea in the shade while congratulating themselves for being white. (Contrary to today where everyone wants a tan, back then being really really white was a mark of not having to labor in the sun, so the whiter the better.)

Whites are a very inventive, and industrious race, and there are pros and cons that come with that.
I don't think the modernity whites gave us is all bad, it just needs to be tempered.
We may even use white technology one day in the distant future to save us from an asteroid collision, or colonize other worlds (assuming such things are even possible, they might just be a pipe dreams).

The japs landed on an asteroid not long ago. https://www.space.com/41912-japanese-ho ... eroid.html

That being said, future progress isn't guaranteed.
even scientists are saying we're on the verge of another mass extinction event.

I don't see it outside of an asteroid impact or something.

And there might be fixed limits to what technology can do.
It might not be efficient to run everything on machines, even if we could, and even if it is, there could be problems with that, like an AI takeover, or problems we can't begin to fathom.

AI won't take over. They're too intelligent. Intelligence = peace.

But even if there aren't fixed limits, it might take us centuries, perhaps millennia to figure out how to run everything on machines.

Jacque Fresco said it was possible in the 70s



How much more now?

Humanity goes through phases of technological, and sociologically innovation, and stagnation.
For example, within several centuries, the Sumerians and Egyptians created civilization but after that, not a great deal was created until the industrial age.
We're going through a period of great tech and sociological evolution, but I think it's already begun to fizzle out.

Nah we just need the old folks to get out of the way. Go fishing and stay out of the voting booth.

I mean other than some new phones, not a whole lot has been invented so far in the early 21st century when compared with the early 20th.

Wealth disparity correlates with the decline in inventions.

Many or most Illegal immigrants are illiterate, uneducated, they don't speak our language, they don't know a thing about our customs, they're more drug and crime prone than, not only East Asians and Whites, but legal Latinos, they drive down wages and working condititions for, not only White Americans, but Mulatto Americans and legal Latinos, and they pay little-no tax, they take more out of the system than they put in.
The only people they benefit are themselves (if you can call economic exploitation a benefit), and capitalists, which's one of the real reasons why the borders were left wide open, another being the elite is at best indifferent to White interests, and at worst, hostile.
I mean what's the point of even having a border and citizenship requirements, or a minimum wage and standardized working conditions for that matter, if illegals are good for us?
We might as well not even have them.

I agree that a country without borders is not a country (for the same reason infinity doesn't exist), but this country was founded on immigration and hardly anyone is indigenous.

Does the protestant work ethic mean much to you?

Not unless you're referring to the Amish. They are the only whites I can think of who have a decent work ethic. Everyone else is looking for a way out of work.

Whites are the most industrious race on earth.

I don't know... china is building cities for no reason.

White Americans just aren't as used to picking fruit in the hot sun as illegals, but they'll get used to it,

Whites don't have the physiology for it.

like White Europeans are (again, White Europeans haven't had mass illegal immigration, they do these jobs themselves).

Animals or machines do it. Or the work is not hard.

And as I said, Southern Europeans have no problem dealing with the sun,

They are darker like Greeks and Italians.

I say get prisoners who can stand the sun to do these jobs, they need something to do.

That makes sense.

Lastly, just because illegals are cheaper, doesn't mean the prices of the goods and services they produce and provide will be, capitalists want to keep the extra profits they make for themselves, so they can save, spend or reinvest them, they don't want share the extra profits they make with us, so we can save, spend or reinvest them.

Good point, but they can only raise prices as high as the market will bear due to the wages they pay.

[Serendipper]

@Gloominary

Does the @ symbol do anything here?

Anyway, you're an Alan Watts fan right?

He talked a great deal about this back in the late 60s:



Put it on double speed because it's slower than it should be. I usually do that anyway to save time.

He makes a lot of sense, especially the part at 4:21

Theobald points out that every individual should be assured of a minimum income. Now you see that absolutely horrifies most people. They say, "all these wastrels; these people who are out of a job because they are really lazy... umm give them money?!?!?" Yeah, because otherwise the machines can't work; they come to blockage.

This was the situation of the Great Depression when here we were still in a material sense a very rich country with plenty of fields and farms and mines and factories and everything going, but suddenly, because of a psychological hang-up, because of a mysterious mumbo-jumbo about the economy, about the banking, we were all miserable and poor; starving in the midst of plenty; just because of a psychological hang-up. And that hang-up is that money is real and that people ought to suffer in order to get it, but the whole point of the machine is to relieve you of that suffering. You see, we are psychologically back in the 17th century and technically in the 20th.

So, we just need the people who hold the philosophy that people must suffer for money to get out of the way and then the machines can work for the community instead of working for the individual who claims to own the machine.

Every job that was replaced by a machine is no longer taxed. The same job is being done, but the difference is the person is out of work and the government no longer collects taxes to redistribute. And thanks to Trump, the machines are taxed even less and the machines benefit the community that much less.

When Chomsky says the republican party is the most dangerous organization in the history of humanity, I think he's referring to global warming denial, but I'm not. They hold a dangerous philosophy substantiated by dogma that suffering causes prosperity. We've driven the Redcoats out once and we need to do it again.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Nigerian Americans not only outperform Mulatto Americans economically and educationally, but they outperform White Americans, and even East Asian Americans (Chinese, Koreans and Japanese).

Very likely because their families did not go through slavery, these particular Nigerians, and all that went with that in the damage to parenting, relationships, relation to the wider society and being treated by the wider society as afro-americans were, after slavery - sharecropper south on up. Further their presentation in media, what educators expected of them and let them know directly and indirectly. The Nigerians coming in no doubt know some of this history, but they will also view the US quite differently, and have a much better chance of having intact families going back in time. People seem to think this stuff gets worked out in a generation and tend to time from the end of the Civil War. Having worked with families of different races, including whites, who have gone through major systematic trauma, I know there is no quick reset button. It will get carried down through generations in all races and for very long periods of time, even if there are no outside extra problems on each new generation.

It is good to see the Nigerians giving the lie to racism, however.

[Gloominary]

Anyway, I enjoyed my discussion with Serendipper.
I may get back to him, gib, Karpel and others later, but for now, I need a break.