Ok Holla Forums, let's refute this screencap I found on Holla Forums

Ok Holla Forums, let's refute this screencap I found on Holla Forums

I'll start: I'm too lazy to look for the second graph showed (and also the first one), but considering that all the ethnicities above the average come from shithole countries, it's obvious that those are the people performing a brain-drain on their respective shitholes. This implies the fifth post is also incorrect, because as it was stated by him, it's a continuation on the already refuted third and fourth post.

Also the poster has this misconception that we deny the environmental factor in the development of the intelligence in a person (he also denied there is a genetic factor), and that we don't know how averages and standard deviation works ("all blacks are dumb")

Other urls found in this thread:


_literally_ no one fucking cares

Sage and reported

Holla Forums rejects science since it goes against their #1 dogma (no race but the human race), so discussing with them for anything other than cheap entertainment is pointless. Regarding smart niggers, while I've never met one (even those with PhDs are dumb as fuck, I don't know why they even bother with it), in theory they should exist but the problem is children return to the mean of their race. So even if a country imports smart niggers (say, 115 IQ, which is genius for niggers) their kids will be as smart as any other monkey.

wtf I love black people now

But let's he's right which he isn't, still doesn't justify mass immigration, multiculturalism, racemixing, or the shitty impacts diversity has on society

That's easy.

what are you doing on leftypol

















IQ scores declining: fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/
Slower reaction time: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470
Intelligent people are less likely to remain in the gene pool: news.com.au/technology/science/evolution/were-evolving-stupid-icelandic-study-finds-gradual-decline-in-genes-linked-to-education-iq/news-story/220c421cfba08dceee6d2a1f6b18d6ca
IQ has stopped rising: newscientist.com/article/mg22329831.300-it-would-be-stupid-to-ignore-a-drop-in-human-intellect/#.VA5Zi_mSwlQ

nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp201185a.html (Intelligence is inheritable)


White/Black babies are less healthy than White babies.
Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/
Mixed race couples are more likely to have stillborn babies than same-race couples.
Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15994621
98% of White women who have children with Black men are not financially supported by the father.
Source: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2625893
97% of Black fathers who have children with White women are not active in their children’s lives.
Source: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2625893
White-Black couples have more partner violence than White couples and as much violence as Black couples.
Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3611980/
Bias against miscegenation is likely biological in origin.
Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422626
Mixed race kids suffer from low self-esteem, social isolation, and poor family dynamics.
Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
Mixed race children are more likely to have health problems, high stress, smoke, and drink.
Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
Interracial couples devote less time to maintaining their household than same race couples.
Source: link.springer.com/…/10.1007/978-1-4614-1623-4_9
interracial people cannot receive organ donations.
Source: content.time.com/…/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
90% of White women who have kids with black men are unemployed or earn less than 10K a year.
Source: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2625893
White women who marry minorities tend to be poor and to “marry up” in socioeconomic status.
Source: paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/80046#page=7
Slim, slender, athletic, fit or average White women are 7x more likely than fat White women to refuse to date Blacks.
Source: paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/80046#page=23


>Genetic influences on brain morphology and IQ are well studied. A variety of sophisticated brain-mapping
approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence establishes a regional distribution
for this relationship that is consistent with behavioral studies. We highlight those studies that illustrate the
complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability. A measure of cognitive ability, known as
g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated
by brain structure that is likewise under strong genetic control. Other factors, such as the environment,
obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant appears to genetic.


mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the
same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less
than $10,000.


allied to intelligence testing that claimed to present those findings widely accepted in the expert community

university professors specializing in intelligence and related fields, including around one third of the
editorial board of the journal Intelligence,

Some of their findings:

85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The
evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered"

educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes … Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical
and social importance"

creating IQ differences"


Daily reminder that the Bell Curve is required reading for anyone on Holla Forums. The book was written in the early 90s and has never received anything close to an adequate refutation from the Left. Like most things that shit all over their dogma, autistic screeching has been their only response.





leftypol refuses to argue in good faith on their own board and will ban anyone who says they are from Holla Forums. Why bother arguing with them? If they want the truth they can lurk more here like everyone else.

Who cares? Holla Forums is garbage.

Anyone got some good gore?

I don't think they care as much for gore as for being politically correct. Once I was banned (and the posts deleted) there after some commie asked for citations (I think it was on the main factor for IQ being genetics, which is responsible for like 60-75%, upbringing being a secondary factor but nevertheless important) and I gave them a few.


Myself (cuckchan namefag) and Ryan Faulk already refuted it. I highly recommend that you read the unz article and comment in the thread.


Myself (cuckchan namefag) and Ryan Faulk already refuted it. I highly recommend that you read the unz article and comment in the thread.




You have to understand you are getting the geniuses and they are only outperforming underresourced natives.

I blame my lack of digits on my stupid need to add a reddit tier meme

I will gas myself

If you were Holla Forums, would you feel the need to see what the enemy (us) is doing?

Holla Forums (and leftists in general) would be more convincing on the race question if it was ideologically possible for them to be neutral rather than absolutely requiring a certain outcome (race is meaningless). You can't have an honest discussion with someone who won't, under any circumstances, be open to the possibility of the opposing conclusion being correct.

Oh phew, ok then. That's good. I guess now that Holla Forums disproved race realism niggers will stop raping and eating each other, and whites will stop inventing things.

yep. What do you expect when you cherrypick the best of the highest echelons of a negroid society and pit them against "native westerners." This is the same old civnat "Nigerians make more than whites!! see, race doesn't real!" argument.

I watched an Alternative Hypothesis video maybe two days ago that BTFO'd the British GCSE stats in that infographic. I believe the basic gist was that the tests were not standardized.


The video is only ~ten minutes long and the EXACT GRAPH in the infographic is in the video. Needless to say /leftypol. knows not what it speaks.

First off, it's not our "#1 dogma". If there would be something like that, it would be materialism.

Second off, let's assume average potential intelligence differences exist between ethnic groups (very likely), it's still unscientific as fuck to use the word "race" which is outdated, fails to describe differences between humans in a biological sense and really is more of a social term.

Thirdly, how does the existence of intellegence differences between ethnic groups "debunk" Marxism?

If this is a leftypol post, it's weak: up your game. If OP is just new, you need to lurk more.

Polite sage.

It's like looking into a mirror if niggers recognized themselves in mirrors, the way chimpanzees eventually do

You have a lot of dogmas. It's too much to keep track of. They'll all fail you when the one true faith rope has its day.

Yay. We win.

Fine. We'll stop using "race," and we'll just fight a subspecies war to ensure the survival of our clade.

That would be "intelligence."
Marxism posits that race is a false consciousness that's been gotten up by the capitalists and their philosophical mandarins to divide and rule the working class. There has never been a form of marxian socialism, going back to the Paris Commune, that has once admitted the possibility that one race might be a wee bit smarter than another. That you're allowing for that here and now, on /our/ board, is a sign you're near the end of your philosophical rope, comrade.

There might still be hope for you. I was once a card-carrying member of the IWW. Then I came /here/. Lurk two years, and if you're white you'll pass through hot rage and shame at what a goddamn ignorant degenerate you used to be. If you move fast, you could maybe save yourself before you have to watch your slimy lefty whore girlfriend get bred in front of you.

Consider pic related. Do it for her, commieanon. Slay the brain-Jew that's riding you and come in for the big win. Wouldn't you like to ride up in the front part of the helicopter?

spotted the mod

Bite your tongue.

Wew, epic argument.

So because neurological differences between ethnic groups may or may not result in average intellegence difference makes a fascist ethno-state in any way logical or desirable?

It's true. Why does the intellegence of my fellow worker matter? We don't advocate for everybody to be paid the same or something. Being paid according to quantity and quality was literally in the constitution of the USSR.

Why does it matter? There is no "offical stance" a socialist state would have to take on about this as it would have to take on an offical stance about the mating habits of koalas.

Come the fuck on now.

You realize that the biggest threat to her aesthetic purity is capitalist commodification ("the Jews")? Capitalism doesn't care wether or not you are brown, white or yellow, nor does it care about any of you other identities. It's all just a commodity on the market place with a value ascribed to it, and so was probably this photo shot.

Not to barge in, but
Obviously, but since when was Holla Forums capitalist? Sure, there are some people here who are capitalist nationalists, but I think a lot agree that capitalism lends itself to the destruction of a society. My thoughts were that (on this particular issue) commies and natsoc only disagreed on who the problem was, i.e. white men vs. (((white men))).

Well, the Jews are a smokescreen for capitalism, remove the Jews and you'll get white capitalists acting like Jews. Check out the capitalist countries that don't have any Jews: They have even more exploitive capitalism, sweatshops and blatant disregard for their own workforce, which is of the same ethnicity.

That's why capitalism is a contradictory system, it destroys culture and Marx has found out that it is economically as a whole unsustainable, therefore, we want to abolish it. And by abolishing it we don't mean to put a SocDem bandaid on it (welfare state) but abolishing production of commodities, private property and value form all together. As far as I see it, National Socialists and fascists have no problem with fascism as long as it serves the national interests. Do you seriously think the Nazis had a sustainable economic model that would have lasted if it wasn't for Word War II?

no problem with capitalism,

meant to say:
"no problem with capitalism"

You can't delete posts here?

Yeah, actually. It's disingenuous to not take into account the full breadth of the issue.

You're guilty of causal reductionism. From your statement, the only piece of the much deeper argument you're addressing is that they're not as bright. Obviously that's not the only problem. Everything from sectarianism, social stability, infrastructure, and crime is a part of the argument. It's a greater conviction than 'they're not as bright', a big piece of the idea is that diversity is disadvantageous, which was obvious from the context given in the post you're responding to.

I once heard a story from Meekatharra Australia. A tribe of boongs came from the sunset like a dark locust plague or storm cloud. The walked towards the general story to get their daily sniff and bread. They shat in front of the people that told me this tale. Literally right in front of them. Not behind a bush or anything.

Only when it doesn't benefit them.

Actually those are justified by their lack of intelligence. It suggests a need for smarter populations to move to these places and take authority.

Oh but that's racist.


Yeah they won't even let you argue points, even though you're not a spammer or anything.

No they're not.

Even Jesus knew that.

But how do you imagine separating people in a world where transportation is so easy? You can go around the world in a couple of days. Even if you separated people from one another, and somehow made it so no one worked with one another, and made it illegal to intermarry, and enforced it with strict legal measures, eventually the situation would become untenable, people would get together, people would live together in secret, some states would compromise, and the barriers would break down.

You're living in a fantasy, though not the one most people claim. Your fantasy is that you want a world that can't, almost by physics, exist anymore. It will be rough for a while as the races mix together, and on average we may lose a few points here, or a few qualities there, but there really isn't another option. Everything will settle, and selection will occur again, this time with every human involved, instead of just a small number. Essentially, you're whining that you have to wait for your neighbor to catch up, when you'd rather run ahead and get everything for yourself.

Also known as always, every time, in every field of study, bar none, perpetually. So they reject science.

You stupid fucking nigger, there were doing absolutely wonderful from the very start

This will coincidentally remove like 60% of the "porkies" you guys like to whine about.

No jewry or gaslighting is tolerated here lol

Which ones?

Not him but I'm biting
easy transportation /= defunct immigration policies and obsolete border security policies. Creating separated yet culturally and racially homogeneous communities will be the best path for the future, that's exactly what Marxism tries to reject by promoting internationalism, and the removal of political borders, which will bring the destruction of cultures, race and therefore, national identity.

Not in a society where people are aware of the dangers of race mixing and phony ideas like egalitarianism, equality or philosemitism.

lol sure, like you living in your perfect (((socialist))) utopia. Talk about zero self awareness not a surprise coming from a communist

yes there is. Rejecting the open borders agenda and fixing our own countries by getting rid of dysfunctional shit like democracy, open borders and (((those))) who want to corrupt the youth and open the gates to barbarians. Defeatism is not an option here commie.

What will happen is that the entire world will be the same shade of brown. Everyone will be equally stupid and summisive to these jewish rats.

Essentially, you're whining that you have to wait for your neighbor to catch up, when you'd rather run ahead and get everything for yourself.

We are whining that are trying to regress ourselves with this race mixing so the neighbor can catch up.

I was a former commieshit too, browsed Holla Forums and thought that class warfare was the way to fixing the world, that global revolution needed to happen so that this time the socialist paradise could work. until reality hit me hard and knew Marx didn't have any long-term answers for anything, and then I dug deeper.

I don't feel like writing a long post but two things from that retard stand out. First of all, they reference Chanda Chisala. Anyone who knows about this debate knows very well that Chisala is a fucking joke who misinterprets data. In fact, there was one guy, Chuck, who looked at this stuff and really dissected Chisala's view and shown it to be false. Secondly, the fact that they just blatantly quote the Eyferth and Tizard study is proof of an amateur look at this. There are very well known issues with those studies, most important of which is that they were tested at a young age before the heritability part of IQ can really manifest. Eyferth study had 1/4 moroccans in it and not niggers, by default included more intelligent niggers because of the IQ entrance exam into the army, and most importantly tested the young children. Other study had very low sample size and again tested very young children mostly, before gap can really manifest.

I'm so tired I reddit spaced my entire post. Sad!

Borders, it works everywhere. Hungary is a good example.

According to who? You're making assumptions and further stating that there might be problems in 1000 years that this isn't for the best. Moreover, this is no longer a line of argument that has to do with the merits, but rather the efficacy of a racist position which is a dumb way of bickering. The position I am taking has a proven success rate whenever it is implemented.

"Just lie down and die"

Funny how communists always think they know the future but are horribly wrong with every prediction. The working class didn't "rise up", every one of your countries failed, and your comrades are drug addicts, freaks, degenerates, and stooges of the same corporate interests you claim to oppose.

Nope, I'm frustrated that nihilists like you want to preserve the status quo of gradual decline because you can't see the forest for the trees while making half-hearted rationalizations for failure.

The greatest crime of all of this intellectually dishonest horseshit is that it ignores the fundamental differences between people as they adapted to their environments. There's a very, VERY good reason that Whites and Asians were able to build great civilizations while Africans and South Americans languished in mud huts and tribal squabbles for the entirety of their existences know to us, since few of them wrote it down themselves. In short, it's because they didn't have a winter to plan for.

When you have no winter, there is no reason to innovate. If you live in a tropical climate, there is no reason to save food or find means to preserve it. There is no reason to create more permanent shelters or grow your own food, since your tribe is always going to be fine foraging for food or moving to where the food is. Centuries of natural selection through peoples who either innovated or were wiped out genetically gave way to what we understand as Asians and Europeans having a higher IQ than niggers and spics. It's not a moral failing. It's a fundamental difference that can only be bridged through thousands of years of genetic growth and natural genetic culling.

Hilariously, Africa as a whole is the perfect example of this, and the greatest redpill of race realism. Libshits love their blank slate ideas born through post-modernism, as it paves the way for acceptance of lower peoples into the societies of those who actually built something. These people just needed equal opportunity to advance, you see, and they'd be indistinguishable from native whites if they had the chance. However, Africans have been given multiple chances and African countries have been able to experiment on their own to create their own utopias without Whitey's interference. The greatest example of this is Liberia, which has a carbon copy of the US constitution, and the intention to create a great society. And yet, it's still a shithole, since it's inhabited by low-IQ niggers. Which brings us back to the original point, and in summary:

Africans never evolved a higher IQ because they simply did not need it. The smartest was not more fit than the strongest in a world where they did not want for food or shelter or land. This, again, is not their fault, and should not be seen as a failure of their people. They are simply different, and in all ways that matter in the modern world, they are lower than the average white IN TERMS OF THE CIVILIZATION THAT THE WHITE MAN IS ADAPTED FOR. Niggers have no respect for the law like whites do because it has no meaning to them, since resources were always plentiful and crimes like theft were not life-endangering for the victim. They have no respect for monogamy because monogamy was an adaptation K-selected humans to survive harsh climates, whereas Africans are almost entirely r-selected in their mating habits. They never built anything, because it was a waste of time. They never explored, because they had all they ever wanted. They do not belong in White societies, no matter how you slice it.

I'm not reading leftypol drivel

You forgot to mention that they also have no white people. So all you're pointing out here is that savage shitskins have no empathy for other savage shitskins. Shocking revelation.

Why upset her?

Well was about to post this. Good video anyway. Leftypol will never stop crying.

Spoken like a true kike.

Counter point pic related:



Yes. In fact it was booming before WW2 ever was a thing so the argument of "it only/heavily relied on the war" is pretty much bullshit.

The fact that didn't use the gold standard or that it was part of the internal bank alone made them more stable than any economic model that relies on them, a lot of business people from around the world even praised it for what Germany was doing. It also made Germany able to adjust the model as they see fit, as they relied on their own. Also Hitler was never interested in war itself, if he wanted to keep a economic system going that did rely on war then why would he be so against the idea of war small or big? The economic model they had was an analogue model, meaning it could be adjusted as times changed.


I recommend you read: The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation and Manifesto for Breaking the Financial Slavery to Interest by Gottfried Feder so you at least get the basics of it. I also recommend you to read Oswald Mosley's stuff on the economic idea's he had, even the enemies he had admitted that people should've looked into his ideas and plans as they would've helped Brittan to excel again and it would've stopped the exploitation of China and Africa etc. And Mosley too was against the idea of war, especially brother wars.

marxism is the most jewish thing ever. It values a global superpower above all else, even above survival and prosperity of a people.
National socialism on the other hand can ensure, a healthy, strong and happy people when it's focused on it's own local people.
Marxism is to go against nature. Marxism will ensure a continued flow of slaves and human sacrifice for Israel.

Also to add and this might come as a shock because you think jews dindu nuffin and are just a scape goat. The jews started to hate Germany again as soon as they pulled out of the international banks, because that severed the control they over the German economy and it made sure that they couldn't profit on their success. That's why the whole "boycott German goods" shit got started, the thing is however Germany had their power back again so much so that the boycotting didn't do as much damage as the kikes had hoped to.

Their idea was as followed

This however didn't go as planned as Germany was too powerful and didn't rely on others as the jews hoped they did, thus the endless anti-German campaign was going full force, till this day.

If you got time watch video related too. If you don't believe it, try researching it yourself it's a lot of information anyway. The man speaking in the video is a jew himself that became a convert, but I've yet to see or find anything that disproves what he said.


Not sure why I even bother.
Have you seen all the failed efforts of integration of foreign people to a new populace?
Have you seen that people flock to those who are like themselves?
Have you not seen that foreign people have completely other ideologies that are not compatible with yours?
Etnostate or a state wherein there are "tribal" groups fighting a slow cold war for dominance.
Right now Muslims are going to for the longterm win by outbreeding everyone, even in foreign lands.
Short said. Not a colorful paradise. A divided tribal cold war.

I can debunk this shit to death, but what's the point? Leftists don't care about facts. They've deluded themselves into believing they are more "educated" and "intelligent" than "ignorant racists". Their entire self image is based on feeling intellectually superior. Despite never in their life reading anything contrary to their opinions.

It's worth noting that race realism is becoming the consensus among ACTUAL SCIENTISTS. sci-hub.hk/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007

When experts are asked their opinions ANONYMOUSLY, they are much closer to Holla Forums than the mainstream. There's a consensus that IQ tests are valid, useful, and free from racial bias. There is no consensus on the "nature and implications of race differences in intelligence", with a significant percentage being basically hardcore race realists.

This is DESPITE the subject being incredibly censored and taboo. With researchers daring to speak out being sacked and ostracized immediately. And SJWs running rampant through these institutions and shitting them up. And basically all socially conservative scientists have been kicked out decades ago. If these things weren't true, I assume the percentage of race realists would be 10 times higher and there would be consensus.

This is an old screencap. Last thread i saw it there was leftykikes in the thread and then some user went full austist and debunked the whole thing and after that I've never seen Holla Forums use it again.

Forgot video related

Although England was the nation which actualized the ideas of the early Civilization phase of the West — the period 1750–1900 — namely, Rationalism, Materialism, Capitalism, yet these ideas would have been actualized otherwise, even if England had been destroyed by some outer catastrophe. Nevertheless, for England these ideas were instinctive. They were wordless, beyond definition, self-evident. For the other nations of Europe, they were things to which one had to adapt oneself. Capitalism is not an economic system, but a world-outlook, or rather, a part of a whole world-outlook. It is a way of thinking and feeling and living, and not a mere technique of economic planning which anyone can understand. It is primarily ethical and social and only secondarily economic. The economics of a nation is a reflection of the national soul, just as the way a man makes his living is a subordinate expression of his personality. Capitalism is an expression of Individualism as a principle of Life, the idea of every man for himself. It must be realized that this feeling is not universal-human, but only a certain stage of a certain Culture, a stage that in all essentials passed away with the First World War, 1914–1919. Socialism is also an ethical-social principle, and not an economic
program of some kind. It is antithetical to the Individualism which produced Capitalism. Its self-evident, instinctive idea is: each man for all. To Individualism as a Life-principle, it was obvious that each man in pursuing his own interests, was working for the good of all. To Socialism as a Life-principle, it is equally obvious that a man working for himself alone is ipso facto working against the good of all. The 19th century was the age of Individualism; the 20th and 21st are the ages of Socialism. No one has understood if he thinks this is an ideological conflict. Ideology itself means: the rationalizing of the world of action. This was the preoccupation of the early phase of the Western Civilization, 1750–1900, but no longer engages the serious attention of ambitious men. Programs are mere ideals; they are inorganic, rationalized, anyone can understand them. This age however is one of a struggle for power. Each participant wants the power in order to actualize himself, his inner idea, his soul. 1900 could not understand what Goethe meant when he said, “In Life, it is Life itself that is important, and not a result of Life.” The time has passed away in which men would die for an abstract program of “improving” the world. Men will always be willing to die however, in order to be themselves. This is the distinction between an ideal and an idea. Marxism is an ideal. It does not take account of living ideas, but regards the world as a thing that can be planned on paper and then set up in actuality. Marx understood neither Socialism nor Capitalism as ethical world-outlooks. His understanding of both was purely economic, and thus a misunderstanding. The explanation Marxism offered of the significance of History was ludicrously simple, and in this very simplicity lay its charm, and its strength. The whole history of the world was merely the record of the struggle of classes. Religion, philosophy, science, technics, music, painting, poetry, nobility, priesthood, Emperor and Pope State, war, and politics — all are simply reflections of economics. Not economics generally, but the “struggle” of “classes.”

The most amazing thing about this ideological picture is that it was ever put forward seriously, or taken seriously. The 20th century finds it unnecessary to contradict this Historypicture as a world-outlook. It has been supplanted, and has joined Rousseau. The foundations of Marxism must however be shown, since the whole tendency which produced it is one that this age is impelled to deny as a premise of its own existence. Being inwardly alien to Western philosophy, Marx could not assimilate the ruling philosopher of his time, Hegel, and borrowed Hegel’s method to formulate his own picture. He applied this method to capitalism as a form of economy, in order to bring about a picture of the Future corresponding to his own feelings and instincts. These instincts were negative toward the whole Western Civilization. He belonged with the class-warriors, who appear at a corresponding stage of every Culture, as a protest against it. The driving-force of class-war is the will to annihilation of Culture. The ethical and social foundations of Marxism are capitalistic. It is the old Malthusian “struggle” again. Whereas to Hegel, the State was an Idea, an organism with harmony in its parts, to Malthus and Marx there was no State, but only a mass of self-interested individuals, groups, and classes. Capitalistically, all is economics. Self-interest means: economics. Marx differed on this plane in no way from the non-class-war theoreticians of capitalism — Mill, Ricardo, Paley, Spencer, Smith. To them all, Life was economics, not Culture. To them all, it was the war of group against group, class against class, individual against individual, whether they say so expressly or not. All believe in Free Trade, and want no “state interference” in economic matters. None of them regard society or State as an organism. Capitalistic thinkers found no ethical fault with destruction of groups and individuals by other groups and individuals, so long as the criminal law was not infringed. This was looked upon as, in a higher way, serving the good of all. Marxism is also capitalistic in this. Its ethics have super-added the Mosaic law of revenge, and the idea that the competitor is evil morally, as well as economically injurious. The competitor of the “working-class” was the “bourgeoisie,” and since the “victory of the working-class” was the sole aim of the entire history of the world, naturally Marxism, being a philosophy of “Progress,” ranged itself with the “good” worker against the “evil” bourgeois. The necessity for thinking things are getting better all the time a spiritual phenomenon which accompanies every materialism — was as indispensable to Marxism as it was to Darwinism and 19th century philistinism generally. Fourier, Cabet, Saint-Simon, Comte, Proudhon, Owen, all designed Utopias like Marxism, but they neglected to make them inevitable, and they forgot to make Hate the center of the system. They used Reason, but Marxism is one more proof that Hate is more effective. Even then, one of the older Utopias (that of Marx was the last in Europe, being followed only by Edward Bellamy’s in America) might have played the Marxian role, but they came from countries with lower industrial potential, and thus Marx had a “capitalistic” superiority over them.

In the Marxian scheme, History got almost nowhere until the Western Culture appeared, and its tempo
accelerated infinitely precisely with the appearance of Marxism. The class-war of 5,000 years was ready to be finally wound up, and History was to come to an end. The “victory” of the “proletariat” was to abolish classes, but it was also to dictate. A dictatorship of the proletariat implies someone to receive the dictate, but this is one of the mysteries of Marxism, which kept the conversation of disciples from flagging. By the time Marxism appeared, there were, says the theory, only two “classes” left, proletariat and bourgeoisie. Naturally, they had to carry on war to the death, since the bourgeois was taking nearly all the proceeds of the economic system, and were entitled to nothing. Au contraire, it was precisely the proletaire who was getting nothing who was entitled to everything. This reduction of classes to two was inevitable — all History had only existed in order to bring about this dichotomy which would finally be liquidated by the dictate of the proletariat. Capitalism was the name given to the economic system whereby the wrong people were taking everything, leaving nothing for the right people. Capitalism created the proletariat by mechanical necessity, and equally mechanically, the proletariat was fated to swallow up its creator. What the form of the Future was to be was not included in the system. The two catchwords “Expropriation of the Expropriators” and “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” are supposed to contain it. Actually it was, of course, not even in theory a plan for the Future, but simply and solely a theoretical foundation for class war, giving it an historical, ethical and economic-political rationale. This is shown by the fact that in the preface to the second Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto a theory was put forth by Marx and Engels according to which Communism could come directly from Russian peasantry to Proletariat-dictate without the long period of bourgeoisdomination which had been absolutely necessary in Europe. The important part of Marxism was its demand for active, constant, practical, class-war. The factory-workers were selected as the instruments for this struggle for obvious reasons: they were concentrated, they were being mistreated, they could thus be agitated and organized into a revolutionary movement to realize the completely negative aims of the coterie of Marx. For this practical reason, Hate finds its way into a picture of History and Life, and for this reason, the “bourgeois” — simply mechanical parts of a mechanical evolution, according to Marx — are endowed with malice and evil. Hatred is useful in fomenting a war which does not seem to be occurring of itself, and to the end of increasing hatred, Marx welcomed lost strikes, which created more hatred than successful ones. Only to serve this purpose of action are the absurd propositions about labor and value put forth. Marx understood journalism, and had no scruple whatever about saying that the manual laborer is the only person who works, who creates economic value. To this theory, the inventor, the discoverer, the manager are economic parasites. The fact is, of course, that the manual type of labor is merely a function of the value-creating, precedent, prerequisite labor of organizer, entrepreneur, administrator, inventor. Great theoretical importance was attached to the fact that a strike could stop an enterprise.

However, as the philosopher said, even a sheep could do that if it fell into the machinery. Marxism, in the interests of simplification, denied even a subsidiary value to the work of the creators. It had no value — only manual labor had value. Marx understood propaganda long before Lord Northcliffe was heard of. Effective mass-propaganda cannot be too simple, and in the application of this rule, Marx should have received some sort of prize: all History is class-war; all Life is class-war; they have the wealth, let us take it. Marxism imputed Capitalistic instincts to the upper classes, and Socialistic instincts to the lower classes. This was entirely gratuitous, for Marxism made an appeal to the capitalistic instincts of the lower classes. The upper classes are treated as the competitor who has cornered all the wealth, and the lower classes are invited to take it away from them. This is capitalism. Trade unions are purely capitalistic, distinguished from employers only by the different commodity they purvey. Instead of an article, they sell human labor. Trade-unionism is simply a development of capitalistic economy, but it has nothing to do with Socialism, for it is simply self-interest. It pits the economic interest of the manual laborers against the economic interest of the employer and manager. It is simply Malthus in new company. It is still the old “struggle for existence,” man against man, group against group, class against class, everyone against the State. The instinct of Socialism however absolutely precludes any strugglebetween the component parts of the organism. It is as hostile to the mistreatment of manual laborers by employers as it is to the sabotage of society by class-warriors. Capitalism convinces itself that a “Struggle for Existence” is organically necessary. Socialism knows that any such “struggle” is unnecessary and pathological. Between Capitalism and Socialism there is no relationship of true and false. Both are instincts, and have the same historical rank, but one of them belongs to the Past, and one to the Future. Capitalism is a product of Rationalism and Materialism, and was the ruling force of the 19th century. Socialism is the form of an age of political Imperialism, of Authority, of historical philosophy, of superpersonal political imperative. It is not at all a matter of terminology or ideals, but a matter of feeling and instinct. The minute we begin to think that a “class” has responsibilities to another class, we are beginning to think Socialistically, no matter what we call our thinking. We may call it Buddhism, for all History cares, but we will think that way. If we use the terminology of Capitalism and the practice of Socialism, no harm is done, for practice and action are what matter in Life, not words and names. The only distinction between types of Socialism is between efficient and inefficient, weak and strong, timid and bold. A strong, bold, and efficient Socialist feeling will, however, hardly use a terminology deriving from an antithetical type of thought, since strong, ascendant, full Life is consonant in word and deed.

Marxism showed its Capitalistic provenance in its idea of “classes,” its idea toward work, and its obsession with economics. Marx was a Jew, and had thus imbibed from his youth the Old Testament idea that work was a curse laid upon man as a result of sin. Free Capitalism placed this same value on work, regarding it as something from which to be delivered as a prerequisite to the enjoyment of Life. In England, the classic land of Capitalism, the ideas of work and wealth were the central ideas of social valuation. The rich had not to work; the “middle classes” had to work, but were not poor; the poor had to work to exist from one week to the next. Thorstein Veblen, in his “Theory of the Leisure Class,” showed the wide ramifications in the life of 19th century nations of this attitude toward work. The whole atmosphere of the Marxian Utopia is that thenecessity for the proletariat to work will vanish with its “victory.” After the “Expropriation,” the proletariat can retire, and even have ci-devant employers for servants. This attitude toward work is not universal-human, but a thing tied tothe existence of English Capitalism. Never before in the Western Culture was there a prevailing feeling that work should be despised; in fact, after the Reformation, the leading theologians all adopted a positive attitude toward work as a high, if not the highest, value. From this period comes the idea
that to work is to pray. This spirit is once again uppermost, and Socialistic instinct regards a man’s work, not as a curse laid upon him, a hated thing from which money can free him, but as the content of his Life, the earthly side of his mission in the world. Marxism has the opposite valuation of work from Socialism. Similarly, the Marxian concept of “class” has nothing to do with Socialism. The articulation of society in Western
Culture was at first into Estates. Estates were primarily spiritual. As Freidank said in Gothic times:
God hath shapen lives three, Boor and knight and priest they be.

These are not classes, but organic ranks. After the French Revolution came the idea that the articulation of society was a reflection of the situation of money-hoards. The term class was used to describe an economic layer of society. This term was final for Marx, since Life to him was simply economics, saturated as he was with the Capitalistic world-outlook. But to Socialism, money-possession is not the determinant of rank in society any more than it is in an Army. Social rank in Socialism does not follow Money, but Authority. Thus Socialism knows no “classes” in the Marxian Capitalistic sense. It sees the center of Life in politics, and has thus a definite military spirit in it. Instead of “classes,” the expressions of wealth, it has rank, the concomitant of authority. Marxism is equally obsessed with economics as its contemporary English environment. It begins and ends with economics, focusing its gaze on the tiny European peninsula, ignoring the past and present of the rest of the world. It simply wanted to frustrate the course of Western history, and chose class-war as a technique for doing it. There had been class-war before Marxism, but this “philosophy” gave it a theory which said there was nothing else in the world. There had been jealousy in the lower orders before Marxism, but now this jealousy was given an ethical basis which made it alone good, and everything above evil. Wealth was branded as immoral and criminal, its possessors as the archcriminals. Class-war was a competition, and something more it was a battle of good against evil, and thus more brutal and unlimited than mere war. Western thinkers like Sorel could not adopt this attempt to make the classwar exceed any limitations of honor and conscience; Sorel conceived of class-war as similar to international war, with protection of non-combatants, rules of warfare, honorable treatment of prisoners. Marxism regarded the opponent as a class-war criminal. The opponent could not be assimilated into a new system; he was to be exterminated, enslaved, starved, persecuted. The Marxist class-war concept thus far exceeded politics. Politics is simply power-activity, not revenge-activity, jealousy, hatred, or “justice.” Again, it has no connection with Socialism, which is political through and through, and regards a defeated opponent as a member of the new, larger organism, with the same rights and opportunities as those already in it. This was one more connection of Marxism with Capitalism, for the latter had a tendency to moralize politics, making the opponent into a wicked person. Lastly, Marxism differs from Socialism in being a religion, whereas Socialism is an instinctive organizatory-political principle. Marxism had its bible, its saints, its apostles, its heresy tribunals, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, its dogmas and exegesis, sacred writings and schisms. Socialism dispenses with all this; it is interested in procuring cooperation of men with the same instincts. Ideology has even now little importance to Socialism, and in the
coming decades it will have ever less. As Socialism creates the form of the Future, Marxism slips into the Past with the other remnants of Materialism. The mission of Western man is not to become rich through class-war; it is to actualize his inner ethicopolitico-Cultural imperative.

How can anyone deny the genetic factor?
Our brains are just as affected by genes as hands and intestines, in fact more.

Jesus fucking Christ, learn how to format text you triple nigger. Didn't they teach you how to do that at whatever faggy university your parents paid for?

Don't want the people to see the truth, eh?

Meaning the staining and ridiculing of the word and people itself of course.

This is Holla Forums, not /collegeessay/. Stop being autisitc.

Would you prefer we use the term 'breed' or maybe 'subspecies'?

Use paragraphs or die.

He isn't being paid or anything to produce (or plaster) such content, so why should he assert such effort into an easily refutable Holla Forums post you galactic thunder nigger?

Using GCSE for any statistics.

Why do you sound like you're a fucking leftist? Refutation isn't required when the evidence is present in abundance.

You underestimate the hypocrisy of leftypol, OP. Ideology for thee but not for me.

I always take those kinda posts as people from literal gated lefty communities that freak out at the sight of brown people and try to hug them to show they arent racist (or go on social goybooks to show people they date them in case of some females).

It wouldn't matter if we describe the same exact concept.

Hold on user. Here you go hooktube.com/watch?v=O99fWf_UIWs

There's a reason material reductionism is dead and they've devolved into pathological and pseudo science or just straight up nihilism.

uh oh looks like Holla Forums came face to face with the fact that Holla Forums is more scientifically open minded than they are. You should probably place your nightly crisis hotline call a little earlier tonight.

Why do you think my post
makes me leftypol
are you retarded?

Are you retarded?


I knew this would be about that shitty study from England. It's literally the only one they have and they think it somehow disproves all other evidence.

Then I'd contend that all of those terms are useful to describe distinct groups of humans that differ in both genotype and phenotype and not social terms.

You sure about that?

< how come all dem niggers got all dem degreees
Affirmative action. /thread

You can post multiple images in a single post. You have to go back.


We are a welcoming people, having all true whites as our fellows.

it fits the leftist paradigm
new is always better than old
somehow, a study that came out in the last 3 years overrides all studies in the last 60 years even if they had larger sample sizes and better methodology

this one confounds me

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but violence is the ultimate argument. It has been the test of every adaptation an organism has gained since the dawn of time. The elk grew his antlers and the wolf gained his fangs in the struggle to pass the test of violence.

An ideology is as much an adaptation as any physical mutation, and the worth of your ideology will be tested by your own capacity to commit violence. Weak ideologies create weak minds, weak minds create weak bodies.