Holla Forums meme thread

...

I still find the "God Emperor Trump" meme to be hilarious because the Emperor was so horribly wrong on several counts that it directly led to the downfall of humanity and the galaxy at large.

But then again, the people who uphold God Emperor Trump don't really care to look too hard into things, they just care about if something looks impressive.

I find your pleb tastes hilarious

But it gives me the opportunity to remind them that the Emperor lied to humanity at large, repeatedly, and it fucks them over.

...

Here's some anti-Semitic bullshit I found on Holla Forums

HISTORY PREDICTS ITSELF

FIRST AS A FARCE, THEN AS A TRAGEDY

...

...

...

...

Does the Holla Forums understands we can tell he is spamming his own images?

...

How is that first picture not just as applicable to you guys?

Holla Forumsacks have actually done an accounting of every "white" population on the planet, in order that they may better facilitate their reich.

For real? wow.

You know, lately, in my cyinical thoughts, I have been thinking about what would happen if there actually was an extermination effort on part of the "whites" and shit. I wonder how life would be.

You're not fooling anyone Holla Forums

lmao

The Nazis lost to the inferior races? Last I checked Russian, Brits and Americans (majority, especially in the 40's) are European.

It probably would be quite shit but I wouldnt mind getting rid of muslims tbh.

...

...

Well they'd probably have won against either other side had they only fought on one front. They made mistakes but pound for pound it was one of the most impressive military endeavours in history, especially when you consider the Red Army's methods (throwing everybody at the front line, total lack of regard for human life)

Should clarify that i'm not a Nazi but you commies irk me more because nobody holds you accountable for the multifarious crimes of the USSR, PRC, DPRK…need I go on with specific examples.

this is like an average world of tanks player tier understanding of human history

if you had paid attention in class you would have noticed that actually they never shut the fuck up about it

One thing I really notice about the difference between Holla Forums people and Holla Forums people is that the Holla Forums people actually seem much more ready to actually engage with you guys in debate, you guys seem to shy away a lot more.

Not in my history class. I never heard of the Holodomor (The worst mass murder in human history) until I stumbled upon it myself. But then in my country socialists have run education for decades, it's pretty much just preaching guilt for ancestral sin at this point.

Debate =/= virtual signaling.

What's virtual signaling?

11 million people (not just jews) died in nazi concentration camps
i bet you "stumbled upon it yourself" on wikipedia or youtube comments

it's because of the dunning kruger effect, most people on Holla Forums subconsciously know at least that they're illiterate

Virtue signalling*

Fuck

…
Because I didn't commit any of them?

Yeah but we never stop hearing about the holocaust, whereas communist mass-violence isn't widely known. It must be hard for people on Holla Forums to know hat they're illiterate.

And how many modern nationalists were working at Auschwitz?

I dont hold modern nationalists accountable for that either.

I do hold them accountable for what they do or say they want to do.

*that, I deserve you calling me out on it considering I did it to

if you tell somebody that youre a communist the literal first thing they say is "never forget the 100 million billion"
and communism is always now associated with the ussr and hammers and sickles and marx
when most people hear communist they dont think of kropotkin

In my experience, Holla Forums people are nicer and in some limited ways more open-minded, but you will be completely stonewalled if you attempt to engage with them on certain topics, particularly race.

I'm guessing that is because they think if race does matter, it would inevitably lead to some type of genocide, or you need to hate other races, or some other bullshit that was fed to them by Hollywood and leftists.

Well good for you, others see branding any kind of nationalism as 'nazi' the easiest way to silence it.

the 3rd one is great altough confusing
Why is she only wearing a combat helmet?

Well most of them are nazis and openly claim to be. Most of them also advocate for the extermination of jews and non-whites.

You can call me a commie if it makes you feel better.

You're complaining about Communism now always being associated with Marx? Do you also complain about existentialism being indelibly linked to Sartre?

yes

But I dont call nationalist nazis if they arent nazis, obviously. Civic nationalism is not neccecarily a bad thing imo.

But he essentially defined existentialism as Marx defined communism. There may have been proto-existentialists (Kierkgaard) and proto-communists (levellers) but the person who defined the term will always have a great deal of influence over it's popular conception.

But Marx defined communism wrong and Sartre defined existentialism wrong. The utopian socialists and anarchists are better than Marx and Heidegger is better than Sartre.

civic nationalism is just authoritarianism. I personally see the goal of nationalism and inter-nationalism (as opposed to globalism) as the securing for each group seeking self government a means to do so. Either way, both of our ideologies won't survive, I hope you've come to accept this as I have from the other side.

So, please tell me what your plan is for changing the sea into lemonade?

Didn't expect support for Heidegger on leftypol, that's for sure. If I define A and then you say you like A but really it's B then I think at some point you have to realise you're talking about something else.

achieve harmony

yeah but what word can we use for kropotkin or fourier other than communist or socialist

Material Collectivist?

Doesn't have the same, ring, I agree.

also, collectivism is used to mean a bakuninist labour voucher system

I agree? Who with? Myself? It's too late and too cold, both fingers and mind have stopped functioning properly, g'night leftypol.

Have to admit that it's good talking to people with different opinions though. I think i'll come back to shitpost some more in the future.

good nite user

AUTISM - Many such cases!

WWII happened less than 100 years ago.
We have learn what an authoritarian ideology based on the belief that some races are superior/inferior to others can produce.
That is one of the reasons why people are so hung up on race.

Because serious mental illnesses are funny insults again, isn't that right you downer spastic?

Good luck LARP-ing the second communist rising though.
I'll leave you with another take on your favourite LE EPIG MEY-MEY XD

You do realise the vast majority of the board aren't tankies right?

Because that is what has happened historically.

...

Ha, which country is this?

I'm always amused when reactionaries whine about the old cultural Marxism conspiracy. I wish socialists did control education and the media, we might not live in a capitalist nightmare.

You do realise that just because I disagree with communism doesn't mean that I agree with Nazism right? There's a whole spectrum of beliefs inbetween. You remember spectrums right? Like the one you're off the charts on.

Read, it's for you friend.

I never claimed you were a nazi although the picture didn't half dare I say it…..trigger you.

Anyways go on then what are you?

I'm neither a communist not a Marxist, that meme applies equally to both of you. You're a relic. Capitalism survived through natural selection, get used to it.

National-liberal if I had to classify it.

:^)

meant 'neither a communist nor a nazi' but it's late and there's a bunch of you and one of me.

Christ you have some nerve calling us a relic then

Wow….really made me think…

bostongazette.wordpress.com/tag/holodomor/

I don't engage with racial shit because:
a. It's very rarely ever an actual discussion on race. Race only ever gets used to sidetrack threads to try to drag people in where they can "win" which is usually done by admitting a point. Frequently this comes up as socialism can't work because natural inequalities > some races are more intelligent than others > lookatthisgraph.jpg which is pretty obviously making shitty weak arguments to try to avoid the fact that they don't know how to engage on a discussion of models of economic theory. Which leads me to

b. Even if it's admitted that there might be differences in families of genotypes that make up races, discussing it with Holla Forums never, ever stays on just that topic. I have never seen someone just bring up racial differences without trying to use it to prove that this is why we need racial homogenetity and strictly enforced borders and how it proves that human nature and "inherent" racist feelings are totally justified, all of which have little to no relevance on an actual discussion on race.

c. It's almost invariably incredibly inconsistent and when I try to point out a flaw in one direction, I get a literally contradictory answer from the same person. I've had people tell me that socialism won't work because everyone is different and not equal, but then been told that we need to enforce racial conformity because diversity is bad and causes strife. And at no point does anyone talking about race address the point that talking about equality means treating everyone equally respectfully as people, regardless of average physical traits.

d. Nobody who tries to use racial arguments ever understands the concept of an average, and statistics are incredibly, horribly skewed. 13% of the population but 50% of violent crime! Wow! You sure showed me that the entire racial segment of the population is criminals! Oh, that's not what you meant, you just meant that they have a tendency towards crime and violence. But pointing out that other stats that influence average crime rate for different demographics is just trying to avoid the point that niggers love crime? Hokay buddy, when you arbitrarily pick out race as literally the only thing that can possibly influence a person, you sure did a great job showing that all blacks need to be treated the same as the criminal part of the population. The amount of cherrypicking that comes out of these arguments is mindboggling. We're only ever allowed to engage race on the very selectively defined terms that Holla Forums conveniently uses to "prove" their argument over and over by simply discounting anything that doesn't fit within their extremely narrow and skewed framework.

I'm not against discussing race but there's no fucking point when you get discounted because you don't follow their preconstructed model of how race works or influences society.

I don't know, which poorly designed website was using the image correctly?

Probably not the one called 'espressostalinist'

...

...

Oh wow, now you're getting into some racialist shit, did you take measurements of skull shape as well?

really gets the noggin joggin

stay btfo'd libcuck

...

kek

...

It comes up for both. I guess there aren't many pictures, Stalin's regime wasn't exactly known for it's openness.

I'm just saying that you seem pretty confident putting people into racial categories for somebody on a board which thinks that race is insignificant.

Is it on holodomor's wikipedia page?

It's from the Bengal Famine this is the source of the photo

espressostalinist.com/genocide/bengal-famine/

If that is your only argument, that shows your social conditioning. It's doubtful that as many as 6 million Jews died in WWII, but if they did, that would be only 10% of all casualties in that war. Plus the real issue with Jews is not racial, but their cult-like mindset.

Meanwhile, almost the entire world accepted the reality of race, and they weren't busy exterminating one another. And to boot, many on this board unironically embrace actual totalitarian societies and call themselves Stalinist or Maoists. I'm not arguing as a Not Socialist, but some of you actually believe those shitty societies were something praiseworthy.

If different groups were in power, they could very easily play the same game and make any honest discussion of anything remotely related to socialism or the left forbidden because of the disasters of the 20th century.

You don't want to engage with these issues, you want an excuse to dismiss them.

Gee, I wonder what the British Royal Photography Services were doing in Ukraine, don't you?

Okay, I'm conceding that that I'm wrong. There are obviously few pictures of the holodomor's affects as the USSR was a totalitarian regime which would not have let that happen. You guys win.

Okay, you've made your point.

I googled holodomor and what came up was that, unlike you guys I didn't racially profile the people in the photo before making a jokey meme in less than five minutes that obviously didn't take itself that seriously given that I attributed a Karl Marx quote to Grouch Marx.

Sorry, didn't see until I had already posted.

Stalin did some fucked up shit, but give credit where credit is due.

Could we please fucking not with this nonsense

...

God, the anarchists are the worst of all. At least the commies and Nazis have a plan, at least their grievances are based on more than a petulant hatred of authority. You can see in Bakunin's eyes that he's a hateful thug, just like all of his modern followers. Never has a less constructive ideology ever been theorised.

Im permabanned on Holla Forums for asking about Trump's connection to Israel.

This is fundamentally why racialism is incompatible with socialism. If races differ in innate capacities and cannot be equalized due to genetic variance, this analysis can be extended to social class. Genes for intelligence and success can become concentrated in certain endogamous hereditary social classes, replicating racial differences on a smaller intra-racial scale. If this is the case, then resources and opportunities cannot be equalized even within the same race, as genetic competence cannot be redistributed by any existing methods. Allowing genetics into the equation makes all conventional leftist thought irredeemably obsolete, as the limiting factor in "production" is redefined from easily redistributed physical and social resources into abstract gene frequencies which are monopolized by certain elite classes through centuries of selective breeding.

DUDE BREAK WINDOWS LMAO

The protester wants you to think that he's mad at the military-industrial complex, but you can tell he's really mad that his mum used to make him eat broccoli.

Ah yes, a turd positionist favourite.

Immigration isn't the problem. It's typical right-wing logic to brush off the problems of capitalism onto immigrants. The working class has no country.

...

Wow that's alot of assumptions and no arguments!
Have you by chance actually read Bakunin rather than making fun of his eyes.

I never have. Holla Forums does suck now because it is overwhelmingly a Nazi hivemind, but old /new/ was more libertarian + race realism.

I'd say that they are completely relevant, but suppressed by society, to where you can't look at an aboriginal and see a human being that is less advanced from our perspective. That doesn't mean they are bad people or anything like that, but that is the simple reality of the situation.

I don't see the contradiction tbh. I don't like approaching the issue from the standpoint of "diversity", but bottom line is that if you want a harmonious society, then you will need some type of grouping, which is what people do on their own to some extent anyway. Note: I'm coming at this from an anarchist perspective, not one looking to force people to do these things.

Let's put race aside: would you want to live around Wahhabi Muslims or Scientologists, even if they are 100% your own race? Nobody does.

I'm not accepting your position on this at all. These points have been debated to death, controlling for many other factors, and your side simply ignores our points. There are great sites like thealternativehypothesis.org/ that break these issues down in extreme depth, and your side simply ignores them.

It's not just his eyes, the tightness of his mouth also speaks of a deeply frustrated, violent person. No I haven't read Bakunin but to be honest I don't think that means I can't comment on Anarchism. The proof that it's a load of horse shit is that all anarchists are anarcho-somethings, with the something there to try and stop the inevitable question of "Well how do you prevent everything spiraling into chaos". Anarcho-Capitalists, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists etc. etc.

In fairness, it depends on what you mean by leftism. If you are talking about authoritarian government-enforced communism, then yes, that is screwed. If you are talking some more open ideas of anarchism, mutualism, voluntary communes, and the like, then genetic differences in intelligence really don't matter.

It is pretty silly how the far left are often ostensibly pro-science, they have no problem with the idea that animals evolved but as soon as it gets to humans "No, we didn't evolve separately at all in the last hundred thousand years"

Would it not be a good idea to know a little bit about the works you are critiquing before you do so?

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq

I'm not critiquing Bakunin's work, i'm critiquing the idea of anarchism.

AYY AYY AYY

Works was implied as an all encompassing term

You should be able to define any ideology in a sentence. This sounds overly reductive but if you can't define it in a sentence it's too complicated of an ideology. Communism - The workers should own the means of production. Nationalism - The people are the sate, therefore what's best for the state is best for the people. Christianity - Jesus is the son of god and you need to accept him as such to go to heaven. Islam - There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is his messanger. I'd say that Anarchism's is - Society without state. What i'm critiquing therefore is the idea of society without state, and also, to an extent, the actions of those who advocate for such a thing.

...

The previous link was meant to serve this purpose as condensing a huge all encompassing ideology into a short sentence would be reductionist to a whole new level.
I would suspect that if you were really interested in anarchism that the first section would suffice the first section is seriously called, 'Section A: What is Anarchism?'

Your description of Christianity for example while true leaves out the obvious differences between Catholics and Protestants which would be considered quite significant

I'm not quite sure how to respond to, 'if you can't define it in a sentence it's too complicated of an ideology.'?

The problem isn't divergent evolution and the existence of diversity, here. The problem is that /when you claim racial differences are the result of divergent evolution you are also claiming 1) they are of the same species to begin with (but end in different ones) 2) the change is due to adaptations towards environment not something internal. For the former, Holla Forums and other racists will joke that black people are chimps, that white and black cannot mix because of reproductive barriers such as defects in the offspring or through the circular reasoning of using homogenity as the only metric for good in the first place. For the latter, Holla Forums has always disagreed that Autism Level distributions in race could be due to nutrition, the way the children were parented and educated, and instead just say it is inherent to the race.

HAHAHAH, now I remember why people said you were one of the most inane tripfags to ever come across this board.

You have no points, any genetic markers I've seen offered up are few in number (IQ is made up of large number of SNP's in large numbers of genes). Race realism is pseudoscience. Tell me Milo: what do you think heritability is? Like when someone says, "the heritability for twin studies is .7-.9" - what do they mean? Hard mode: No google.

Exactly. It's kind of amazing.

All human beings are part of the same species. Are you the person who made the circular argument regarding this on /new/ and was getting blown out with every post?

The rest of your post is largely made up.

How many people do you think were killed in WWII?

Are you this guy who thinks that race means species?

I have never visited that board. But again, this is my point. If all human beings are the same species still then it cannot be divergent evolution. If you have to start treating black people as monkeys in order to validate your argument about evolution then it is really you with the circular arguments here.

I'm not the one treating race as an evolutionary unit. You are.

I was just laughing at you, that's all.

No, and he didn't say race meant multiple species. He was pointing out the problems with the divergent evolution argument.

Provide some evidence for your claim.

I think you probably are him to be honest:

>>>/new/3306

Substantiate your claim that race in biology is not a product of evolution.

Nope, that's what he said:

Race does not exist, human beings are clinal.

See? This is why no one finds racists to be credible these days. They (mis)appropriate the terminology and just look like fools to all the people who have studied it. All evolution refers to the creation of a new species, whether it comes from the same background or different ones is how they get the names "divergent" or "convergent."

See, I did not say race wasn't part of evolution. I said it wasn't an evolutionary unit, which is what species is.

terminology of biology*

Races dont exist in isolated distinct groups, they are devidedup artificially by people along geographic lines, even though there was massive mingling and traveling between these "races" and thus genetic differences exist as a spectrum and any advantageous traits that pop up move into the world eventually.

This is exactly how he argued, making ridiculous claims like this, but would never back them up.

Back up this claim for starters.

I can back up my claims:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

You're him, and you're wrong.

You will continue to spout nonsense without providing evidence for anything you say.

This is what Holla Forums does rather than confront these issues.

This is my second post in this thread, the first one being only pictures.

I have to substantiate foundational definitions now? Wew, there goes any chance of serious study now.

>to where you can't look at an aboriginal and see a human being that is less advanced from our perspective

Once again: race has no biological relevance. The criteria is tenuous, not objective (just like subspecies) and most importantly, not worth my time debating about. Offer me something of genetic relevance instead of arguing about semantics. But Milo, answer my question: what is heritability. Again, no google my friend.

You should answer my questions to.

Exactly. You have nothing.

You are making a profoundly radical conclusion in a very understated way. What you are saying is that basically, if the realities of intra and extra-racial heredity are fully absorbed into the culture, then leftism will transition from being a meaningful and motivating universal ideological movement into nothing more than a voluntary social club for underachieving eccentrics. It is little wonder that discussion of heredity is so frowned up in leftist circles.

No, I'm not the one who made the definition. Biologists did many years ago. That you don't know this and are trying to argue about biology is disgusting.

My last response until you back up your claims.

I hope you know that you are a sophist. A truth does not stop being a truth merely because it goes unuttered.

Here's a source anyway
f.waseda.jp/sidoli/Darwin_Origin_Of_Species.pdf

So are you denying that Bakunin was an anti-Semitic borderline ethno-nationalist with dubious socialist credentials at best?

Newfags ITT,

Never engage milo. He is the worst tripfag in this board's history. Even n1x and AW are less awful.

I like n1x though. Why does Milo come here? What could he want getting btfo all the time?

This is nonsense. "Species" is a completely arbitrary concept developed for human taxonomical convenience, there are no "species" in nature, only clines of varying degrees.

The truth does not fear questions. Which is why Holla Forums debates and Holla Forums doesn't. You know the entirety of your ideologies are flawed, but you don't want to question them because as soon as you scratch the surface, your arguments fall apart.
The only way you engage in debate is if you can control the discussion, much like a long con; but then again that happens when whatever you represent has no sunbstance.

Idealists do tend to like his pomo nonsense.

He is an attention whore, and, like a hyperactive child, bad attention works just as well for him.

That is the best base/superstructure graphic I have seen yet.

Are you stupid? Clinal biology has everything to do with species taxa.

Solzhenitsyn was Andrei Tarkovsky's friend, both were apolitical men.

You really owned us brah.
Every time i browse Holla Forums I see deep inquiry and concise arguments and not hot opinions draped in prose and edge being flung around.
I'm gonna stop browsing this board and start looking weird at brown people in the subway now.

This statement does not relate to the position that species are arbitrary human social constructs. Read my post again.

If that is the case then clines are just as artificial of design.

Genetic clines exist in nature, it is human classifications that are arbitrary and subject to fashion.

I want to punch you in the face and I want to punch this bitch in the face.

Thanks.

Species exists in nature. You cannot produce offspring with a horse, unfortunately

KEK. This. Go back to Holla Forums friendo.

What's up Xexizy?

You two need to have a pay-per-view shitposting contest.

I was only answering the question. Besides, just because I'm willing to listen and study both sides of the issue doesn't mean that I prescribe to one ideology or the other.
There is a case for a more socialized world, but everything the left advocates for is everything that would impede the implementation of said world, and only bring about death and misery. Hell, I'm even for UBI, and universal healthcare, so I doubt you can lump me with any particular group, whether you or Holla Forums.

The reason why Holla Forums is more right than Holla Forums is because to the question change, you answer "Yes" and they ask "Why?". Your brain is a muscle and yet you do everything to not use it and let it turn to mush. The policies you support and your logical reasoning to conclude to those policies says more about your psychology than the baseless arguments you have for said policies.

I didn't and I don't need to.

I can't tell if you are trolling or just a liberal.

Everything is a dichotomy.

kek
We already knew you guys were just status quo shills too complacent to actually better any sort of existence. But you are wrong. Holla Forums does not blindly accept change. This is capitalism that does this. Today's capitalism isn't even the same as it was 20 years ago! All the time it is pushed into revolutionizing itself, so that it can produce more commodities and more waste for a profit. No, Holla Forums may say yes to change, but we ask "how" and "what change" because not all things that change are good.

It's honestly very surreal to think that that the internet kind of went all the way back to square one with religion and shit

hahahahahaha

Countless separate "species" can produce fertile offspring. The "fertile offspring" criteria for species classification is arbitrarily applied and rarely tested.

Capitalism is probably the best system for humanity to catalyze automation and ensure space exploration and survival of humanity. If not, then the massive population expansion that we've had in the 20th century will be met by a reciprocal contraction, and especially if we continue with the social policies we have now. What you fail to realize is how fragile our entire society is.

Care to counter? I'm bored and need to laugh at the illiterate.

Those can only be bred up to four generations. Not exactly the most fertile.

All of your Holla Forums memes are unfunny

Funny, because what automation means under capitalism is that everyone gets laid off, can no longer afford the necessities, and starve. I wouldn't exactly call this survival, but hey, at least the some that were wealthiest and happiest get to live.

No, the problem is that society is continually becoming more fragile, and it just keeps getting better at it. I am not one of those naive, romantic commies that think since capitalism has so many contradictions that it will collapse on its own. Rather capitalism is driven precisely by these contradictions.

...

...

Let me ask you this: why? What could possibly lead you to believe this?

I agree with your first point, agree partially on your second, and disagree with the third.

Capitalism may catalyze automation by removing the need for workers in the attempt to increase profits

The space exploration is possible due to extraplanetary mineral speculation

although I think capitalism is very destructive to the environment, thus making it un-ideal for humanities survival It will likely be a large factor in humanities destruction, where likely only the rich will be saved

That's not how it works. There is no mechanism in nature which prevents a population from breeding after a certain number of generations. Did you just make that up?

Read the Clever Coyote (Young, et al) somewhere about page 120 or more.

What are you even talking about? Most eastern coyotes are coywolves, and they have been around for many decades.

Wait no, I am referring to the coydog.

I don't know anything about coywolves.

I thought Holla Forums didn't have any beef with Sephardic Jews; I've seen them go on about how it's only the Ashkenazi Jews…

Jesus fucking christ, man

Okay, but I still think you misread something tbh.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf

I don't think it really matters.

theconversation.com/yes-eastern-coyotes-are-hybrids-but-the-coywolf-is-not-a-thing-50368

And this would affirm my position that to be a species *together* you have to produce fertile offspring, not just by artificial selection and breeding and so on. "The coyote, wolf and dog are three separate species that would very much prefer not to breed with each other. However, biologically speaking, they are similar enough that interbreeding is possible."

I mean, just look at the liger. While it has parents within the same genus that can interbreed, they do not in the wild.

Hey you asshole don't use based raindrop's on these memes.

No, you have it backwards, plus my link mentioned both dog and wolf contributions to the eastern coyote genepool. You would know that if you read the first sentence.

This sentence really doesn't make any sentence tbh. Coyotes and wolves may not have preferred each other as mates, but the wolves did it when their populations were in decline and they couldn't find suitable partners, and the coyotes did not have a choice in the matter. The whole question was whether or not two species according to modern classification schemes could in some pairings have fertile offspring, and that has been answered.

Since the coywolf doesn't exist and the coydog hybrids can only produce 4 generations, I think the question has indeed been answered.

This is the pattern of what you guys do.

Yes, I did indeed write "The Clever Coyote" and this article by Roland Kays. Thank you for acknowledging my works that I did all by myself.

You claimed something which is a little absurd, and said you read it in a book.

You misunderstood the article you linked to. This was the point of the article:

He was talking about whether or not coywolves could be classified as a separate species at this point in time, which nobody claimed.

You can congratulate yourself all you like, but me and possibly dozens of other people who post on Holla Forums on these issues will make a solid case, and you won't. The point isn't to convince the ones you are arguing with, but anyone with an open mind who follows the argument.

Due to advances in genomics, the population structure of European Jews has only recently begun to be unraveled.

2000 years ago a population of Levantine merchants arrived in Northern Italy and married local Roman women. This population became the "Italkim"; the hybrid root population of all European Jews. Italkim who moved into the Rhine valley and adopted Yiddish became the "Ashkenazim." Italkim who moved to Iberia and retained Latin became "Sephardim." The Sephardim were eventually expelled from Iberia and spread across the Mediterranean and Western Europe, in many cases interbreeding with and converting various local peoples. Genetically pure Sephardim are biologically indistinguishable from Ashkenazim. Many pure Sephardim attained prominent positions in Western Europe, among them Benjamin Disraeli, PM of the UK. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli Pure Sephardim are now largely extinct, having interbred with Europeans and Ashkenazim in the West, and Arabs in the East. Surviving pure Sephardi populations exist only in Latin America, though a significant Sephardi population once existed in the Southern United States, where Sephardim were instrumental in the slave trade. Judah P. Benjamin was a Sephardi Jew who held the post of Secretary of State for the Confederacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin

So basically Holla Forums considers both Sephardim and Ashkenazim to be dangerous anti-European high-IQ merchants. In recent years, Sephardi has come to be used as a broad term for all non-Ashkenazi Jews, this is a misnomer. Mizrahi is the correct term for low-IQ Jewish Arabs who have no European admixture.

t. Ashkenazi jew

Milo, can you answer me on what heritability is without looking it up? It appears in a lot of race realist literature.

Btw you're all wrong, "dogs, wolves and coyotes" are not species they are subspecies of Canis Lupus holy fuck. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus#List_of_subspecies

...

Not necessarily. You could argue the same thing for both industrial revolutions, but with each, new innovations came about (mostly in order to maintain and improve on the system). However, the labor force was just applied elsewhere. First, we went from the farmland to the cities to feed to factories, and now jobs have more to do with globalism/Internet-of-Things. What remains in the "old industry" is the minimal backbone. How many people today are farmers? factory worker? miners? The issue that we have today is what to do with the work force. Where is it headed? Automation will happen sooner or later. 20 years at the latest before most jobs are automated (Trump may have accelerated the cadence). And no one is safe: even skilled jobs like Surgeons are being automated. (Too lazy to Google it but read the article yesterday) Which is why I think space exploration is our only hope for survival. Otherwise, yes, what you conclude will happen, but it won't be the richest. War would breakout before hand.

Yeah, and that is the main problem. We're in a civilization decline by all factors that we can compare to previous iterations, and yet we go along as if nothing is wrong.

That there's going to be massive population decline if we don't find an outlet? The simplest explanation is Newton's third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. To be more expansive, take into account our use of non-renewable energy sources (eg. oil - as in takes millions of years to be created; aquifers which may take centuries to fill), and the fact that for the last 2 years we've exceeded what the Earth produces by the month of June is highly alarming. Our population has exceeded what can be produced. Look at this like an Age of Empires game or Tribal Wars or whatnot. Not enough resources to support the population = dead population.

Yes. I think that too. And a medium-sized asteroid is something like $3 trillion. Plus, we'd be able to get plenty of new elements we can't produce at all or in large quantities, like He-3. I think it's going to catapult the world economy, R&D, and we'll be looking to colonize quickly

Man makes a plan, and God laughs.

What about Ethiopian Jews?

Post nose :3

So, how is this related to socialism or in favour of Capitalism that thrives off the increase of the population ad infinity?

Or we abandon Capitalism?

I am not trying to convince you of anything. That's why I was being sarcastic, retard.

Christ, Holla Forums's obsession with genetics is unbearable

You mean the rich drafting the poor to fight in their wars? I mean, if that's all they have to do, then someone is going to make a profit off all the helms, armament, and blood.

Israel was founded as an Ashkenazi country. Go back to Arabia you Sabra kebab mystery meat! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

They are just ordinary 70 Autism Level African converts, a completely dysfunctional underclass in Israel.

The coyote is not Canis lupus, but Canis latrans.

You know nothing about this topic.

You answered your own question.

Capitalism is the only way to achieve a post-scarcity society which is the only way a socialist society can prosper or even survive. Premature implement will lead to mediocrity, failure, and collapse.

Yes, someone is always going to make a profit. Someone is always going to outsmart someone else, someone is always going to need what someone else has. It's always going to happen.

It may have worked in the past, but won't anymore. Drafts may have worked for WWII and to some extent WWI, but that's a lot to do with the propaganda used and how novel the 20th century was for humanity. But, look back at the Civil War drafts. There was much backlash and IIRC there was even a massive riot in NYC where they went after the rich. So yeah, drafting may have worked in the 20th century, because the modes of communications were just right, but with the Internet, no one can control anyone anymore. This is why and how Trump got so much support and was elected (Also the fact that the Democrats are laughably bad at corruption didn't help them - Tim Kaine, Wasserman-Shultz, really?) Never again will they be able to get "The Greatest Generation", a whole generation with the same goal, the same ideology, to go halfway around the world fight for whatever cause du jour they're serving up.

...

My Mizrahi side is Persian you fucking dirty kike.

Oops, I apologize. Regardless, the criterion for "species" is just like race, mostly conceptually useful. A Chihuahua and Great Dane can't breed either. Though, organisms in general are not clinal that's ludicrous. A giraffe and Jellyfish are not clinal. At all. Now can you answer my question?

Capitalism is the only way to achieve a post-scarcity society which is the only way a socialist society can prosper or even survive. Premature implement will lead to mediocrity, failure, and collapse.
We will see mass automation in the coming years, so socialism might not be to far away. That being said, I don't think that's required for socialism.

How is that supposed to be a response to what I wrote? Only the dog and Gray wolf in that image are Canis lupus.

A species is a species if a committee of scientists agree that it is, nothing else. It is nowhere near as absolute a category as elements of matter or atomic composition of compounds. Species is a fuzzy term.

Persian Jews are the smartest Mizrahi population. Congratulations, you are king of the mud-Jews.

Yes they are. Simply different structural arrangements of the same colonial Eukaryote. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

Why can't I just show people pretty pictures on the internet? Fuck off, fascist!

And their profit will be stolen from them. Then you will no longer need any smarts as it is only the biggest, brutest material tools and fixtures which name the game. If it will always happen then it needs a correct counter-balance otherwise it shall surely fall.

Capitalism is not the most efficient form of economic accumulation or technological accumulation.
There have been several 'socialist' states that have not economically collapsed and have economically prospered. Moreover a large amount of the 'socialist' states that have 'collapsed' did so due to military and or economic warfare.
This is completely false. Net neutrality is continuously being threatened in the US, paid shills are virtually impossible to detect (and either legal or never prosecuted), and several search engines (youtube and google) have been changing in ways that give the establishment press more power.

You *could* but you would be wrong. During the industrial revolution the power of the unskilled soldier increased and the value of the unskilled laborer increased, currently both of those are decreasing… What values do you expect are going to be supported from such a trend? egalitarianism?
The labor force participation rate in the US has decreased for the several decades, if the value of labor was increasing for these people within capitalism then they would be employed.
Not that guy but I have no idea what you're arguing. You seem to agree that capitalism will inevitably lead to a 'contraction' of the population (Re: massive death) but you see this as confirming capitalism's greatness?

Stefan is a retard here and so is the caller
Israel wouldn't take SYRIAN refugees because they're historical and active enemies.

I'm mostly Ashkenazi though.

Yes, but they are not clinal. Generally clines refer to a specific taxa. Now, you know damm well the differences between Chordata and Cnidaria, they are completely different phylum and species from each cohere to a T with traditional definitions. Not only is a cline not biologically relevant (like it is with the case of humans - where there is a ton of gene flow between populations making for an incredibly smooth, well delineated cline), but the comparison you're making is so unbelievably inane. You are acting like a frequency of alleles is the be all end all for biological classification. PROVE race is genetically relevant, and furthermore that the differences we do observe are relevant to Autism Level.

As opposed to Muslims and Christians, who are historical BFF's.

Just stating a fact, the differences between a giraffe and a jellyfish are hardly noticeable at the cellular level. They are profoundly different to human eyes, but a dispassionate alien observer might classify them as variants of a single organism.

If lived reality is not enough to convince you of racial differences in intelligence, then you will have to wait until every last gene in the nervous system is mapped and classified. It will take at least another decade, for now we only have partial hits such as: johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genetics/brain/lahn_2005_aspm_microcephalin_science.html

At least watch this Norwegian state TV documentary to get a good introduction on the topic: youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q

Not sure where you're getting that. I'm just stating that no matter the situation there are those with a need and those that can fulfill that need. It goes all the way back to barter. That's never going to change.

Sorry, but I'm reading this and re-reading it and I'm not understanding what you mean. Can you re-formulate? Specifically, I don't understand what fixtures or game you're referring to (war and its weapons?) or what you mean by "a correct counter-balance" (See my reply to your first sentence: a counter-balance to market exchange or supply/demand?). Also, I'm guessing that by "brutest" you mean most brutal. I've never heard this word and can't find a definition for it.

The best we have for constant innovation. What system do think is best and why?

What I said is that it will lead to. How it pans is based on a variety of factors, and I said collapse; which is not necessarily economic.

Why do you think they're threatening net neutrality to give the establishment press more power? It's because they can't control the opinions of the masses anymore.

Talking about once the implementation of automation that there would be shift in what the main industry would be, not *currently*. On the contrary, I'm arguing for the fact that we need another industrial revolution, precisely because of this (increasing population, decreasing jobs per capita) The labor rate in the US has been decreasing because of off-shoring. Counter that with automation, and see labor force participation rise.

I'm arguing that capitalism is the only system that accounts for and thrives off of an ever-growing population. At the point at which we're at, we've passed the rubicon in our use of non-renewable resources for the population that we have. That means we either need to find a way to obtain those resources, or a massive part of the population will die.

youtube.com/watch?v=2NDCI3UnLic

That video is a decent explanation. It's got the doom and gloom, conspiracy theory bs with it..But pay attention to the deer analogy, and around there.

Why innovate if it would make someone very rich less so? Then you create new ways to make profit instead of actually advancing technology.

We could actually be curing diseases or weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, but instead we make new drugs to control symptoms and slightly more fuel effcient highly marked up vehicles to put the bulk of the responsibility of saving the Earth on the individual.

Capitalism relies on an absurd idea of perpetual growth on one planet of limited resources.

Between automation and our incessant growth there will be a population drop at some point.

No, it isn't. Where I live, the brown people are the elites. And by that I mean Persians.

¿THIS IS NO TRUE CAPITALISM?

Why does anyone do anything? There are more important things than money. Especially when you're rich. I don't really want to expound on this since it would be based on personal experience, and other than my word it's baseless.

Yes, and how do you find these new ways to make profit? It's innovation on a constant basis.

As far as curing diseases and such, there's a disconnect between the researchers and the public at large, which is mainly due to scientific illiteracy, but little by little we're getting there. As far as fossil fuels, I saw something in the past week that Germany has pledge to have only electric cars by 2030. So, a major car manufacturing country is making some advancements. The thing is that it takes time for things to be implemented and changed.

Yeah, and frankly I blame democracy for that. Congress has a what 12% approval rating. But we don't care, we'll keep voting the incumbents who'll keep stuffing their pockets with money from K Street. And we'll keep believing them when they'll make their campaign promises because we've become weak and we've let them walk all over us. Whatever Jefferson said about the tree of liberty and the blood of tyrants.

As long as we stay of this Earth, yes. Our population expansion is pressure. We need to be able to provide an outlet or there will be a massive drop in population.

It should be particularly easy to grasp hereditary differences in Persia. The light-skinned high-IQ northern invaders are still the elites, the dark skinned indigenous near-eastern peoples are still the helots. A clear case of racial subjugation.

ftfy

I get the feeling that you are childishly arguing against the laws of nature, rather than any particular human economic arrangement, which are themselves just subsets of organic systems. Organisms will always compete with each-other and life will always expand until all niches are occupied, these are simply the immutable laws of nature.

Wew, this is going to take some time.
First off, the vast majority of the legitimate technological progressions either happen due to the government (the pentagon funds research) or through the guarantee of economic monopoly either specifically or through 'intellectual property' both are fundamentally non 'free market'; (although they are 'state capitalist' or whatever).
I don't know what would be the best economic system, but centralized payment of some sort would be sensible in this regard.
Like in the far off future or something? A socialist state being prosperous with a high rate growth and general development eventually stopping being socialist is barely a strike against it.
So when a capitalist state conquerors a small socialist state for being capitalist, this according to you makes capitalism morally superior?
Not to the extent they did 10-20 years ago, but still more than the 60s/70s. There is no reason for this change to be permanent other than intentional opposition, and all of the reasons for it to be temporary.
Please rewrite this sentence. I can't even guess what you're trying to say.
Fucking what? How? You have been talking about how the earth is currently running out of resources, but we need to double down on industrialization somehow?
I didn't need a video to explain to me that resources can dwindle. If you thought that was the problem of my argument reevaluate my position. Otherwise don't dwell on the agreed.
Because there wasn't huge population and economic growth in other economic systems? It is still unclear what you're advocating for and what you're arguing for.

No they don't, you don't really understand biology if you think this. That's what cancer cells do.
This also illustrates a lack of an understanding in biology.
Pure ideology I swear.

Cancer cells are just members of the Eukaryotic colony which seceded and returned to a unicellular existence. Just because some eukaryotes evolved to live in colonies and sacrifice their own reproduction for the sake of the reproduction of their "queen" germ cell, doesn't mean that perpetual growth is not in the nature of life. Just like the fact that worker-ants don't reproduce themselves doesn't mean that ant colonies won't consume every available resource and fill every available niche.

You have a saccharin and effete conception of nature. To live is to struggle, those who cannot struggle will die.

> reductionist comparison of social organization to cell biology and being pro-cancer

Wow. You're really bad at rhetoric.

tbf, 99% of all meme ideologies on here and pol could be described as pro-cancer

Oh hey. I was going to make a big post to reply to your reply to my one post earlier in this thread, but amazingly, you went and proved literally every single part of my argument right by example. You're selectively ignoring posts that ask questions that don't fit fit the model of how racial discussions are supposed to go, and you deride people for bringing up points that counteract this and just dismiss it. Nice fucking job.

I warned you about milo, bro. I warned you.

Criticism of my rhetorical talents is not a substitute for an argument.

Species often have built in prevention measures to population growth to prevent resource shortage. Multi-cell organisms always do this.
Here, I'll help you, what you meant to say was that evolution is an inescapable mathematical law, but I in no way rejected this.
You also seem to assume this mathematical description of evolutionary states translates over to morality somehow (or you just think morality is effectively impossible to fight for), for that matter, you assume that evolution translates to behavior and intentions in a way that global cooperation is not possible despite global cooperation existing and there never being a 1-to-1 correspondence between what is evolutionarily fit and behavior/cognition. Otherwise animals would never die.
My mistake, you win. I just forgot that animals kill each other.

That is not how nature works. Life is a chemical reaction whose growth is limited only by access to fuel. No organism can have a "built in" limitation on population growth, as it would just be replaced by another population that doesn't have such a limitation.

Morality was originally developed as a memetic ideological tool in order to maximize the fitness of an adherent population i.e. Multiply, kill the enemy, don't kill your own. Any "morality" which is divorced from the purpose of optimizing the fitness of your own tribe is simply an arbitrary ideological spook, doomed to be replaced by the morality memes of more fecund peoples.

I know Luxemburg was but for the rest
[citation desperately needed]

This is beautiful, love all the memes

So your argument is to just deny my position? That isn't how evolution works. Evolution is not 'survival on average of what has a tendency to survive' not 'survival of whatever has the most amount of organisms'. If a group of fish eats all of the fuel in a or subsystem system, then they can all die out, thus becoming evolutionary completely unsuccessful. As evolution normally takes place on the scale of thousands to millions of years, animals with tendencies to not consume all of the resources they inhabit are prevalent.
But that is exactly what non cancerous cells do.
A complete non-sequiter.
This is a recursive definition, but OK.
This is confused. You either mean that humans consciously were working in favor of their own evolution when developing morality (which is ridiculous in a literal sense) or that morality is not an emergent property from the mental systems that did biologically evolve, but rather is majorly evolved biologically. Assuming the nature of memetic evolution is directly tied to biological evolution is once again fucking retarded.
'Spooks' are a spook. The human mind does not have implanted with it an understanding of evolutionary biology, it has desires that were created by evolutionary biology. Moreover you seem to fail to understand the fact that 'fitness' in its self is vague largely due to unspecified time frames and unspecified realms of 'competition'.
Wew

disregard the first "not"

proves only idiots flock to fascism

If a fish eats all of the fuel in an ecosystem, it out-competes all of the other fish, driving its competitors to extinction, while achieving the greatest biomass and accumulating the most genetic capital (larger populations have greater potential to evolve useful mutations), giving these fish a greater probability of surviving a resource-crash and finding new niches.

You are mistaking the fact that most resources in the biosphere are renewable and are never fully depleted, with restraint on the part of animals

The fact that some colonial Eukaryotes have evolved to defer their own reproduction in order to maximize the reproduction of their genetically identical germ sister-cells, does not imply that organisms can limit their reproduction in order to avoid a fuel-shortage induced population crash. Deferment of reproduction is only evolutionarily viable if done in order to benefit the other members of a clonal colony.

Morality memes follow the same evolutionary rules as self-replicating molecules. You start with random mutations, an outside selective force is applied, and a new "optimized" variant emerges on the other side. Many diverse moral memes have been tried, but those which favor aggression and fecundity will always rise to the top.

For example: 10,000 years ago, there were many competing agricultural communities in the near-east, at the time the most densely populated place on earth. This competition was taking place on both a biological and cultural level, with only the most adaptive genes and virulent ideological memes being passed on. This process culminated in the creation of the Semitic ethno-cults, in which a patron creator god commands his chosen people to be fecund and conquer. Fast forward to today, most people on earth now adhere to some variant of Semitic ethno-cult. Evolution will eventual boil down every ideology into "we are god's chosen people, and must multiply and conquer".

Tell that to the Moriori.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunuku-whenua

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori#Invasion_by_Taranaki_M.C4.81ori

Evolution is not some distant scientific artifact, it is the law which governs all self-replicating data in the universe.

Reported for shitposting

Sorry I dont speak "WW2 losing side"

You missed my point entirely, evolutionary success in not defined by 'beating' competitors in any context. Nor is it defined by having a large population. 'Genetic capital' can be beneficial, but capital is only a means to survival, not an end in and of itself. In the thought expirement the fish goes extinct, period. It is an evolutionary failure.
They are renewable but not at the rate of consumption if consumption was the 'aim' of evolution.
Not conscious restraint. I am saying that there is an evolutionary tendency for species to not commit suicide by over-consumption. An evolutionary tendency against suicide is not exactly controversial.
If by does not imply you mean: is a direct example of.
Fucking retard.
Never denied this, I denied that memes could be understood as an emergent property of biological evolution. The same way it is retarded to say 'calculus was created because it increased the fitness of Newton' they have their own sphere of evolution.
In evolution, whatever exists has 'risen to the top' the fact that other systems of morality exist (and have developed) show that this is complete bullshit.
What you meant to say was that morality systems that favor aggression and fecundity increase their carrier's biological fitness. Which isn't always true by any means.
If you have a point to make then make it. I obviously understand that people die when you kill them and nothing I said goes against violent resistance.
Listen. I was not saying that concepts can not be analyzed on an evolutionary memetic level, I was saying that the truth of concepts is a value given to conceptual statements in the realm of concepts. 1+1=2 is not true because it increases biological fitness or has memetic fitness, but because the relation between the concepts '1' '+' and '2'.
Your mistaken understanding of metaphysics seems to actually influence you in a way that you have largely lost your ability to parse arguments.

the dude in your pic isn't an anarchist, he's being a good keynesian :^)

wow, you've truly proven the supremacy of the right wing because nazis can make more hella epic and hilarious internet jokes on anime imageboards like "🍀🍀🍀echos🍀🍀🍀", "calling black people niggers" and "donald trump"

Is.. is this true? I was looking to get into anarchist thought, but I'm really not into racialism, nationalism and anti-semitism.

oldie but a goodie

...

Only problem with this meme is that I like Mormons, they're all so nice and respectful. They leave as soon as you say you aren't interested and they ride bikes everywhere like good little proles. I actually wave at them every time i see them

Nazis are rude, smelly, obnoxious faggots

Your thought experiment posits a hypothetical environment which does not exist in nature. Photosynthetic organisms harvest energy at the maximum rate permitted by their resources. Creatures higher up the food chain harvest those below at the maximum rate they can manage. Every creature in nature lives in precarious equilibrium within its biosphere, until some mutation occurs which temporally disrupts and readjusts that equilibrium. Our hypothetical voracious fish would always reach an equilibrium with its renewable fuel source.

Nature is always renewable at exactly the rate of consumption, this is how a stable biosphere works.

This is pure fantasy. The equilibrium of nature is not the result of deferment of consumption by organisms, but of an unending evolutionary arms race between consumers and consumed.

This is a strawman. Complete deferment of reproduction is the ultimate form of kin selection, one which only makes evolutionary sense in the case of clonal organisms.

Cognitive memes are not derived from biological evolution. The propagation of data, including self-replicating molecular structures and self-propagating ideological memes are both governed by the same fundamental natural laws. Neither is a property of the other.

You said:

The "Time frame" is always now, and the "realm of competition" is always the ground which you are standing on.

The truth of ideological concepts can only be judged by the evolutionary fitness of its adherents. Ideological memes are merely tools to benefit you own and harm the other. If you are interested in dealing with absolute truths then you should stick to hard science, there is no place for absolute truths in ideology.

The truth is that humans are just a chemical reaction, self-replicating biological machines which have been molded by evolution to possess a sensation of sentience. The truth is that human inequality is the result of unequally distributed gene frequencies, "true communism" is only viable in a clonal colony. The truth is that the vast majority of this planet's population are just useless mouths, and that the extermination of 95% of non-Europeans from the planet would not reduce the genetic and intellectual capital of the human species by one iota. The truth is that thinking machines will eventually drive humanity into an evolutionary dead-end. An ideology constructed from truth tends towards nihilism, which is not very memetic.

Just snagged these two.

Also, this map for some reason does not show the Baltic Crusades, which killed a fuckton of innocent people.

Hahahahah this is unbelievably dumb. It's like you combined Foucalt with social darwinism. The "truth" of a concept ( I'm assuming you believe that a world exist outside of your ideals, or are you a staunch idealist as well?), is completely conceptual provided it corresponds with reality, coheres with our concept of reality or is pragmatic - in other words, provided it is theoretically grounded. I usually opt for the first two, and this applies just as much as it does to gommunism as it does to physics. There is no such thing as absolute truths, at least there isn't rationally. If I drop my phone, and the chain of events goes: my hand lets go of it > the phone falls > lands on the ground and breaks, you could use physics to explain what happen. You can't however, say that this will always "necessarily" happen. There is no necessity you can point to, it is an abstraction, there is nothing rational about it. Necessity is conceptual, absolute truth is conceptual. I'd like you to rationally prove otherwise - point to necessity for me.

Yeah, fuck it, I'm done. This is too fucking stupid.
top kek.

Kek, no it isn't. We live on a planet of finite resources.
Correct. And that addresses nothing about what he said, which is the fact that what determines "fitness" is dependent on the time frame and realm of competition. You've simply stated evolution is ongoing.

The truth is that the crisis and imperialism that Capitalism spurs is due to a monopoly on power by one group over another. But don't worry I assure you, if authoritarian socialism ever takes hold I will murder as many reactionaries as possible. Not an iota of intellectual capital would be lost. Also:
You realize if we go by this, then Jews are objectively the most intelligent and capable "race" to ever roam the Earth.

European humans have in the last few centuries developed new resource extraction techniques and have shared them with non-Europeans, who have subsequently entered a phase of ongoing rapid population growth. Either Europeans will decide to pare back this non-European population growth or it will reach a new point of natural equilibrium (with current technologies, this is probably in the range of 100 billion humans at minimum calorie intake).

The existence of certain alternative fields of evolutionary fitness were posited, without concretely stating what those might be. I can only address those fields of evolutionary fitness which have historically been observed in nature i.e. population size, population growth, martial fitness, territory controlled.

Intelligence has minimal utility to a hunter-gatherer, hunters receive little return on investment in additional brain tissue above a certain minimum threshold. Consequently, status in hunter-gatherer societies was determined largely by physical fitness, much like in the animal world. The development of agriculture changed this paradigm. Genes beneficial for organization, long-term planning, logistics, literacy and industriousness suddenly came under strong selection. The naturally disordered variation of these traits within hunter-gatherer societies was rapidly ordered into a hierarchy. Those individuals who had a particular aptitude for managing the complexity of agriculture and civilization coalesced into endogamous elite castes and began to outbreed their lower castes through better access to resources. This eugenic caste-replacement cycle lasted until the development of contraceptives, and has since gone into reverse, as contraceptives are more likely to be utilized by individuals with a greater capacity for long-term planning.

Selective breeding will always create new endogamous elite castes. You are just expressing your desire to forgo the normal channels of status climbing (industriousness and resource accumulation), by killing the entire existing elite and taking their place. Not a very subtle or original proposition, and not very likely to succeed. It is highly unlikely that the indigenous lower classes will ever be able to muster sufficient human capital to overturn their indigenous elites, of course this statement does not hold if non-indigenous outside elites contribute the intellectual capital to the uprising, or if outside helots are used to bolster the numbers of lower classes. In the end, it is just a repeat of the old story in which one of the parties of an internal power struggle invites outsiders to intervene on their behalf, a situation which always leads to tragedy.

Ashkenazim are really more of a merchant clan rather than a viable race. The selective breeding environment which created the exceptional cognitive characteristics of Ashkenazim has also deprived them of many of the traits required to exist as a viable independent population. A race must have enough genetic variability to support an intellectual class, a ruling class, a warrior class and a working class, Ashkenazim lack the genetic capital to support the latter two, and must source them from other populations, though this may change with improvements in robotics.

nice research there

You see have moronic this logic is

...

tons of evopsyche nonsense there. lots of unadulterated bullshit

there food would taste like shit, there women would all have milk tits and flat asses, they'd get tired of fucking boyish blondes, lots of homosex because of flat assed boyish blondes, meds would outpace Nords in cultural achievements, no one would live in huge swaths of Asia and Africa. They'd descend into Pagan War cults, would find a reason to nuke each other. Nuclear Winter ensues, whites genocide themselves. the end

Stormfaggot paradise

Scotch-Irish were a major component of the founding population of the United States. Most Anglo-Americans have some Scotch-Irish ancestry.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_Americans

The current wikipedia article lists 8 of 14 leaders of the German revolution as members of a non-European tribal group which made up less than 1% of the German population. This supports my underlying argument about internal lower-class rebellions needing to rely on external human capital.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19

You completely missed the point that being that you could make any connection between two groups like woah isn't it wierd that most CEOs are straight white males there must be a patriarchal conspiracy! and so on.
Your just as bad as the sjws that you claim to hate

Also Scotish-Irish make up only 1.8% of the population so you could make up some conspiracy about a small group making up a large number of top business positions there if you really wanted to.

why isn't based bomber harris a meme here? it really gets the bum blasting on Holla Forums
DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

Notice how it also leaves Spain and the Inquisition out.

Even while looking at the wiki, the Jews are overrepresented tbf. You're not going to win by denying the Jews altogether, the issue over whether it's a bad thing.

No, every single person there is European. What you should've said is 8 of those people were secular Jews.

but Goebbles is actually handsome, he's my ww2 husbando

Gonna need a source on that one fam. Also, this is kind of besides the point which is that we live on a planet with natural resources, the vast majority of consumption is by Western countries (businessinsider.com/these-countries-consume-the-most-calories-2015-11 and pri.org/stories/2014-06-02/these-maps-show-which-countries-use-and-produce-most-our-non-renewable-energy) or rich "non-European" countries that wouldn't need your help in the first place because they have a wealth of natural resources like Saudi Arabia, and as much as you like to shit on India (lol), they're going to be a major player in the global economy in the coming years and have been seeing adequate growth to say the least.

And how about everything invented by non-Europeans that without it, we would not have the modern world? Such as: Papyrus, parchment, hieroglyphs, libries, temples, lighthouses, obelisks, ships, irrigation, making glass, algebra, compass, gunpowder, printing press, silicon retina, disposable syringes, the fire safe, the one-gigahertz computer processor chip, cabinet bed, refrigerated truck systems, synchronous multiplex railway telegraph, Imaging X-ray spectrometer?

Reap Kropotokin faggot, his research and theories have been confirmed. You abuse evolution to push your petty ideological drivel. You're severely underplaying the role of geography and disease in our development, but I would expect no less from a sophist.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I said. Before Capitalism, peasants engaged in sustenance farming but were pushed off their farms by the State. It's a monopoly of one group over another, it was not some magical result of natural selection.

But I bet you think intelligence is something like 50-70% heritable? heritability is not the same as how heritable a trait is, only a correlation between genetic variation and phenotypic variation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_revolt_against_the_British
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesian_Bush_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava
No one cares whitey, we comin for the toothbrush.

Nice shifting the goal post. My point was that if you use the Nobel Peace Prize as your metric to judge intellectual capacity, the Ashkenazi merchant clan is proportionally about 135x more prevalent overall, with the vast majority of these awards being in either Physics, Chemistry, Economics and Physiology/Medicine.

CHECKED

Goebbles was hideous, a 5'5" hateful goblin of a man

this is where you go overboard
also no offence to manlets

Why don't you point it out then?

I am king of manlet status but I can admit that Goebbles was a hateful little goblin creature.

Loving all these unoriginal memis lads :)

...

That image is from the Bengal famine which the British imperialists caused you retard.

Also, I'm willing to bet that you can't substantiate your claim that X group developed X trait because it was beneficial, any memes that are propagated are always beneficial, and thus Capitalism is natural. To start off, the foundations for evo psych are shaky to say the least. joelvelasco.net/teaching/129/buller00-evopsych.pdf

Just like with Mises, his human action axiom is empirical and thus not an apriori base to conduct further research on. This is however, how evo psych treats it. There is little chance that the past 10,000 years we've been engaged in agriculture have "quickly organized traits" into a hierarchy - if you mean complex traits. And that this has been passed down, forming a caste system which the socialist are "abnormally" trying to go against. If you take a look at the critique I posted, the premise of modules that would be specifically adapted universally (and thus, since the modules are universal the viability of certain traits can be considered to be mostly a result of genetic variation in those modules) is a false premise. Culture could play the role entirely even we to suppose those modules exist (which isn't supported by empirical evidence - this indicates the specialized brain structures we have are primarily environmentally shaped, not genetically). Of course, the obvious response to this is elevating evo psych to a natural theology. Any cultural memes I point out (or behaviour in general) within the past 2000 years that was irrational, and was detrimental to Europeans as a whole can be justified by making ad hoc explanations. People cooperate? It helped individuals proliferate. People were fighting? It helped individuals proliferate. It's hardly any more scientific than psychoanalysis. For example, if there were 20 years of continuous plentiful harvest in ancient Sumer, it's possible that those farmers after engaging in commerce were elevated to the status of a rich merchant. This is then followed by 20 years of poor harvest and turbulent weather. Though there is no genetically relevant differences among the farmers who had poor harvest due to weather, they are forced to take out debts with the richer farmers which creates a hierarchy. These richer families that profited off the debts are then able to pay for education for their children. Notice how it's completely possible to explain hierarchy that arose during agriculture without appealing solely to genes as you do.

According to the paper, only two of the 18 SNPs (11%) that they found in their exploratory analysis (table 1) were replicated in their validation set and those were from CDK5RAP2 (not microcephalin!).

Both of these SNPs (rs914592 and rs2297453) are located in nonexonic regions, which mean that they do not change the structure of the resulting protein. This, together with the fact that the main difference is sex-specific while they did not control for obvious confounders such as height (bigger bodies = bigger brain) makes their core claims a bit shaky.

A majority (64%) of their dataset consists of individuals with “severe mental disorders” and they do not report the effect sizes for these association between this and their SNPs, only that it was not statistically significant (but that is sizeless science again). This mean that we do not know how large the impact of this feature of their dataset. The paper also did not mention what proportion of the total variation in cortical area can be explained by these SNPs.