Is "1488" the most autistic thing ever conceived?

...

Horseshoe theory is the most autistic thing ever.
1488 is pretty close, but the shit who made OP's pic is worse than any Nazi on every conceivable scale.

*twitter Nazi

Obviously, Actual Nazis were worse in many ways, what with the whole tens of millions of dead bodies scattered across the world and thinking everything was made of ice and jewish physics and cultural marxism/bolshevism and all.

What's the matter with the 14 words?

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children"

Sounds pretty reasonable for a race that's in a steep population decline in their own countries.

That happens to every race under late stage capitalism (see: Japan.)

Whatever the reasons may be, it's still a reasonable sentiment. Also, Japan hasn't imported shitloads of non-Japs that are making them a minority in their own country.

A specific group of people can't declare an arbitrary amount of land "their" land and try to prevent the natural migration of other people.

Nice spooks faggot

If a group of people develops a tract of land from untamed wilderness into a stable civilization, is it not theirs? If only to maintain its stability and wellbeing as a place for people to live in happiness and safety.

so many spooks

Is it a spook to want your children to live well?

...

Alright, then how would you define a country in the context of this discussion?

...

its not on the context of this discussion, you simply don't know what a country actually is.

So you agree that the black belt should be granted its independence as a black republic and whitey kicked out of the southern US? It was, after all, black labor that built the civilization in the Virginia, Alabama and so on.

Then enlighten me.

Blacks didn't tame that land, they were used as farm equipment. Unless you're arguing we should make a tractor republic, that doesn't make any sense.

sure. just tell me what you think a country is, in detail.

So only the wealthy property owners count, not the actual laborers? Nationalism is just a porky game?
Okay then, porky can defend "his" country and the workers of the world can unite to destroy it.

...

That's been the standard Porky argument since Locke with his whole "Property is created by mixing labor with material except when said labor is done at the behest of another via wages in which case those materials now belong the employer because lol propriety."

That's irrelevant, plus I already gave my brief definition. If you can so accurately define what a country is, then you shouldn't need my shitty definition to build off of.

We could argue about that, but we were just talking about Japan who built all their shit themselves.

The Native Americans aren't to be disregarded, but they didn't tame the land, and also they were vanquished utterly and only exist still thanks to the misplaced empathy of the white man.

No. I said "black belt" and you followed me there. You can't suddenly announce, after entering a dark alley, that you don't want to be there.

Well user, if you want to disregard previous context and talk about black populations in the American South, then let's do it. Personally, I feel that all blacks should be returned to Africa, like Lincoln wanted when he emancipated the slaves.

Funny enough, I looked up my ancestry recently and my heritage is exactly tied as far as Union and Confederate goes, over 100 on each side and exactly the same number on both sides. Not that that's at all relevant but I thought it was interesting.

Japan had been taking more and more immigrants into the country every year for like a decade now

Yes they have, unfortunately. And it's probably in direct response to their declining population and growing amount of hikkikimori faggots. Though I can't really blame them given the fucked up employee culture over there, what a shitshow.

No

What's the problem with this, I actually want to know.

Probably makes it harder for him to get a qt white gf (or so he imagines.)

Africa does not belong to blacks

It does not belong to anybody

Yes. What kind of response is that? I'm trying to argue in good faith here. I know it's extremely unlikely we'll reconcile our differences, but maybe we can learn something from one another since Holla Forums isn't much more palatable to normies than Holla Forums.

That's the kind of question I come here for because it seems so fucking outlandish to me that it really makes me think and reconsider the basics of my school of thought.

The problem with becoming a minority in your own country is severalfold. First of all, consider that that country was built by your ancestors, with blood, sweat, and struggle. They did not build it for any old fucker to come shack up, they build it first for their children, and second for their people. And so, as one of their extended children, it is shameful to let other peoples who made no struggle in the building of your nation to benefit from the fruits of your ancestors labor.

Second, you must consider that the races are in eternal struggle, and will be until their is only one. Racial struggle goes back very, very far as everyone wants their own race to succeed. This is a natural instinct and a reasonable one. Consider a burning building with your own mother and some random fucker's mother trapped inside. Which one would you save first? Your mother, of course. This instinct seems basic beyond reproach, but it's based in the genetic reasoning that your mother carries many of the same genes you do. Humans, like other animals, are in many ways just gene reproduction machines, and as such we favor other humans that have genes similar to ours, so that we might propagate our own. Having a consideration for your race is seeing it as a (very) extended family.

And so, breaking things down to simplest terms. a proud man who takes pride in his ancestors and wishes to make his descendants similarly proud will reject foreigners attempting to colonize his homeland because they threated his genetic superiority in that region.

Smh

God fucking dammit.

Here's a better answer.

>>Second, you must consider that the races are in eternal struggle, and will be until there is only one. Racial struggle goes back very, very far as everyone wants their own race to succeed.

Alright, I believe in shit like this because life so far has shown itself to be a competition of competing genetics. And if your genes aren't on the winning team, you lose, goodbye. They will be wiped out and lost in the sands of time, as will your entire genetic legacy.

Well I'm glad to have you here then. It's good to see the quest for truth even when others come to very different positions.

True enough, but I'm not beholden to them.

How do you know that? Who's "their people", when you consider that everyone on earth is related genetically when you go back, and it's usually a lot closer than you'd think. Most people share a common direct ancestor when you go back as little as four generations. But that still doesn't explain why I should care about why they did what they did? Should I not be allowed to follow my own intent on what to do in life?

I'm sorry, but I don't see this, or any evidence at all for it. Sure, there's a lot of racial conflicts, but there's lots of other conflicts, and just because people tend to instinctively stick with their race doesnt' mean their instinct is right. I might have the instinct to punch someone for doing stuff I don't like, but that doesn't mean my instinct is right.

No, I'd save my mother because she's someoene who I've gone and spent the last 25 years of my life deeply enjoying living with. I have no reason to care about the other person. If I spent my whole life estranged from and having zero contact with my mother, I don't really see why I should save her over anyone else.

I don't give a shit about what my DNA proteins "want". They're inanimate objects. I'm not going to be ruled over by the sheer fact that DNA does replicate. My genetic lineage is going to die with me, and I'm a-okay with that. I have more important things that I would rather leave to the world than some random pieces of genetics.

so dumb

Your gene lineage might die out. That doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to suffer. And the lineage itself is not a living
thing, it is just the group of beings similar in some particular way. It's just an association.

It's like trying to say the solar system changed when Pluto was reclassified. The system didn't change, just the way we categorize it.

haven't seen this many spooks in a post for a while now

This an extremely vulgar abstraction considering we all came from a common genetic ancestor.

Show some intellectual integrity. He made an honest post giving what he thought and looking for others to show him differently. Give him a thought out reply or don't say anything.

That's true, unless you believe in any sort of afterlife. Still, to me it seems only reasonable to honor their struggles.

But we're only related when you go back very, very far. For example, the higher races (like whites and Asians) both have a similar amount of Neanderthal DNA in them, but Africans have none. Regardless, what we can know is that we are of very distinct bloodlines, as evidenced by our very different adaptations to the environments our ancestors evolved in. Now, did they consciously think they were trying to build a prosperous society for their descendants? Probably not, except in a few rare cases maybe. More likely, they were just struggling to survive and to ensure the survival of their immediate family. But if you're alive today, your ancestors succeeded in that struggle in one way or another, and here you are.

It's far more indirect in this day and age, I'll give you that. In ages past it was racial groups outright raiding one another for various resources, including women. Today it's far more subtle. And regardless of how you look at it, getting bred into being a minority in your own country is shameful. Whites aren't welcome in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, or in South America. But we're to welcome people from all those regions into our countries unconditionally? I don't buy it.

As for the concept of racial struggle, I think it will always be that way until one race triumphs and either eradicates all others or drives them into submission Arabs, through Islam, are working fervently towards that goal. And I guarantee you that if they win this eternal struggle, humanity will never colonize the stars and fulfill our immense potential.

Even if you didn't, your instincts would drive you to her defense. For entry level reading on this subject, I recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".

You can leave a genetic legacy and a greater framework for it to work with. It's shitskin tier to just have a lot of kids.

u2

No, I probably won't suffer. I'm doing alright. But my children or theirs might suffer in a world where they are the minority in white countries. Whites tend to be very compassionate with vanquished foes. We gave the Indians reservations. We let other groups exist within out territories without harassment. But look at how whites are treated when they are the minority. Look how blacks treat white minorities. Look how Muslims treat white/Christian minorities. Not well.

2spooky, eh?

We did, but we've split up significantly since then since we've adapted to significantly different environments. The difference races have far more in common than different, but the fact remains that we evolved to suit different environments so we have different strengths and weaknesses.

...

Do you take issue with that statement? If so, I'd like to hear it. I don't see how the Indians could have demanded any sort of reservation when the white man was fully capable of destroying them utterly if he so pleased.

You are a faggot and I am glad neoliberals are destroying your spooks

Everything the aut right has done in the past year has been and will forever be the most autistic thing ever conceived.

They assblasted you though, so it was worth it.

(reluctantly checked)
Post a more substantial response and maybe we can have a productive discourse, user. I do believe in maintaining racial purity among what I consider to be inferior races. If you can contest this, I'd like to see your evidence.

are you okay with this

Prickly…..you're pushing it….

Yes 100% actually. They need to be humiliated by their own fucks ups until time ends like a Curb episode

(again reluctantly checked)
No, of course I would not be okay with it as it would be my genetic similars being oppressed. But that is the way of conquerers. And I would also say that were Muslims to take control of Germany or any European state, they would not be so compassionate as to allow reservations for their enemies. They would rape and/or otherwise sublimate their enemies into oblivion.

That is why Muslims cannot be allowed to gain power in any white state. They will not play so nicely as whites tend to do.

Basically your entire argument relies are race being a concrete, biological thing, which it simply isn't, for a multitude of reasons.

Racial Autism Level can be explained through poverty and culture, although with certain other factors like blacks not breastfeeding, which can cause up to a 15 Autism Level point difference. Here's a useful post talking about stuff like this.

Also, I appreciate you civility and genuine intellectual integrity. Try to ignore the shitposters; don't worry, they hate liberals more than they hate you.

Go back to Holla Forums.

What Islam has to do with race? most Muslims aren't even Arabs.

Jesus, enough with your "muh pride, muh heritage" bullcrap user. Whether or not a person's Autism Level and genetics are predisposed one way or another, it does not matter to us. Because provide people with good food, education, and upbringing will more or less produce functioning members of society. You look in a slum in Mexico and a slum in Poland and you won't see much difference in terms of how people act. The material conditions of you life will ultimately determine who you are.

Actually, I think instead of going through point-by-point replies, I'm going to give a personal historical anecdote. I know anecdotes aren't evidence, but I want to know what you make of this.

On my paternal side, my grandmother's family was a mixture of I believe italian and german ancestry, with some other west-european blood. My grandfather is hungarian and if I recall some other slavic ancestry mixed in. Both families immigrated to the US in the late 1800s/early 1900s.

Now, my grandmother's family absolutely hated hungarians and most east europeans (romani especially), and this was a fairly common sentiment at the time. They had mae it quite clear that hungarians were vile subhumans who would destroy any society they lived in, that they would rape my grandmother if she dated them, that they would be lazy alcoholics who couldn't hold a job. They worked very hard to keep my grandmother away from people of east european descent.

Despite this, she ended up dating my grandfather and they both had to lie repeatedly to her family about his ancestry to keep my grandmother from being excommunicated with not only her family, but the local church.

Both my paternal grandparents (my grandfather especially) worked hard to avoid being racist. My grandpa still says things that are unintentionally fairly racist, but he definitely tries, and he's better about it than most people who grew up in the 1930s.

I only exist because my grandmother outright went against the racial biases of her family and risked much doing so. One generation up worked hard to get to the US and raise their family here. They would consider me a worthless racially mixed bastard who had no right to inherit anything from them.

What am I to make of this?

Easy, what you consider is literally irrelevant

Being so rood. Polite Nazi visitors are rarely polite.

It means you need to see a therapist because your race idealism faggotry can cause actual harm to others, see dylan ruff

Pft, I mean polite Nazi visitors are a rarity.

I'm arguing against it for this very reason. From any kind of racialist and traditionalist perspective, my grandmother should have avoided my grandfather. And yet she managed to have a highly successful marriage for almost 60 years with him before she passed away.

what did he mean by this?

But it is, It is often blurred around the edges, but the various groups that the edges are blurred between still exist. I'll include a sourced infopic for this claim. I read through your pic and it's a good one, I appreciate that it includes sources. But those sources are outweighed by multitudes of competing sources that report nearly opposite results. To be sure, environment is a huge influence on any human of any race's development, but genetics remains a significant factor. A simple explanation is that the higher races (whites and Asians) evolved for harsh conditions with hard winters that required they learn to plan long-term (storing food for the winter) and developing clever devices (like granaries, etc) so that they could survive long-term in their environments, while Africans remained in Africa where the temperature was always easily livable and the environment was almost always bountiful.

What I've read show that poverty and culture does not explain the gap in achievement between blacks and whites, as even a black child adopted at birth by a rich white family will still perform worse in academic tests and be more likely to commit a violent crime than a white child raised in equivalent conditions.

And thank you also for your intellectual rigor, most respond with basic ad hominems without considering the info at hand. Holla Forums and Holla Forums may not be friends, but at least we can appreciate one another in the face of the fucking idiocy in the mainstream consciousness today.

Well, it's practiced far more among one race (or set of races if you want to be specific) than any other.

But that's just the thing user, people do not perform equivalently when placed in identical environments. Genetics still plays a distinct role.

The same user, I assume? I'm glad the relationship between your grandparents worked out. But am I correct in assuming their ancestry was not that different? Of different white ethnicities, granted, but still white?

My grandfather is darkskinned enough that you'd complain about him taking white women.

...

Same shit happened with nazbols faggots, they started as a joke and now they are a real plague

Fascism is fascism, it is bourgeoise class collaborationism and therefore must be pointed out as such, it doesnt matter if the narrator is being polite

The differences in race comes from a material difference first, and an ideological one second, his race idealism is shit and holds no weight when compared to proper anthropology studies

Maybe so. From my point of view, he should stick to his own kind. But from his, banging a girl from superior genetic stock is a good move.

Alright, so I want to know then. What is more important here: That he managed to be a successful father of five kids, that he ran a successful electronics repair shop for decades, that he made stable financial decisions, and always treated people the best he could, or that his skin was off-white?

If that is true then why was civilization first created in the Middle East and centered there continually until the Greeks, and then the Romans, both peoples who lived in lush, easy environments, while the northern Europeans were civilly and intellectually irrelevant and backwards until long after the Roman Empire?
It's a bit absurd to try to uniformly describe the second largest continent. Ethiopia might be livable and fertile, but the same cannot be said of Sub-Saharan Africa, which is extremely hot, full of shitty jungles with shitty, easily spread diseases, and has a fly that single-handedly prevented the domestication of large animals, which are very necessary to building great civilizations. But even with all of that Sub-Saharan still had civilizations and even empires like Mali, the Swahili citystates, Great Zimbabwe, etc. Not to mention how Mesoamerica shared many of the same circumstances but managed to form many great civilizations that at times rivaled Europe.
The picture I posted addresses that.

I didn't really understand your infograph; can you put it in your own words?

far right is definitely not collectivist
and the juries out on authoritarian
some want a dictator some want a king/emperor, some want a classical republic and some want what is basically anarchy

more like
the only time ive seen Holla Forums talk about idpol is when americans start larping as something they're not

you've read too much Roman propaganda friend
dont you know northern Europeans are savage backwards people who desperately need to be invaded and civilized by good Roman folk?
nevermind how much we want to steal their booming gold, silver, copper and tin mines
nevermind how their craftsmen are better than ours and produce finer gold and silver wares than out smiths ever could
never mind they figured out how to forge carbon steel, dubbed Noric steel after the Celtic tribe that discovered it and we will have to conquer and enslave them in order to take their secret from them
nevermind their shipwrights who can construct ships capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean while our triremes hug the coastline around the med
Northern Europe wasnt savage or primitive it was just an entirely different culture to the Hellenics
Mali was only an 'empire' because thats how the arabs described them when they bought slaves off of them
Swahili city states? primitive as fuck congrats on advancing to the level the ME was at in 5000 BC
and Zimbabwe? christ the Khmer and the Inca were far better than that
the only civilizations of note in Africa are all in North Africa
Egypt, Kush, Meroe, Axum and Nubia
and all of them save Egypt didnt have an independent culture, they wrote in hieroglyphs ffs
and Mesoamerica? rivaling Europe?
the Mayans did the same thing to themselves the Khmer did and almost killed themselves
the Aztecs were wiped out by smallpox and the various native tribes they had spent centuries enslaving and sacrificing en masse to their gods who had been liberated and armed by Cortez as part of that whole shit show
and the Inca were ridiculous, a civilization that conquered rival tribes with agriculture
the first time they encountered actual hostile tribes they built forts, stopped expanding and collapsed after some portugese arrived and figured out the Incas thought gold was worthless

Why are you conflating Autism Level with superior genes? From a purely evolutionary perspective, those genes are considered "superior", which manage to adapt to their circumstances and spread.

Ie. A gene is only superior, if it helps you have more offspring. And as weird as this may sound, if intelligent people breed less, they have inferior genes, since these can't compete with others.

Or, one could say, it's predominately practised in one region, where (who would have thought) people are more related to each other.

I'm doubtful how "identical" the situation is for an adopted black child in a predominantly white surrounding, compared to a white kid in the same position. That would imply that all people these adopted children met in their life had no prejudiced when meting a black person, and these children never felt they were different.

Because if there are other factors besides genes (such as skin colour and prejudice), one cannot say that only genes determined the outcome of the experiment.

You know most people here are materialists?

You are implying that races never change, always have and always will exists. This is factually wrong. Not only do we know that we all have common ancestors, but we know that particular groups mix and split depending on their circumstances. "Races" evolve, and are not eternally divided and unchanging. You have to start thinking dialectically.

How do you make the step from "their children" to "their people" (as in race) but not "their species" (as in humanity)?

So if they help, they're fine? Take for example the "Gastarbeiter" in Germany. Most construction sites nearly only employ them, so they would have quite literally built up the nation.

...

Every right-winger seems to use this example of "well do you call Japan racist because they don't want non-Japanese? huh??" when they're arguing for race-based immigration politicies. The real answer to that question is "yes, if Japan is discriminating immigrants based on race, then they are racist."

With all due respect, the amount of work someone has put into something doesn't justify the continued existence of that thing. It may give it some value, but it doesn't justify continued existence, just as I am sure a lot of effort was put into making the slave trade in the past.

But it's human labour. The fact that you're saying it's strictly your ancestor's is drawing the line in a strange place. You can say "well it's animal labour" and you'd be right. My point is that it doesn't matter who's doing the work, and misguided intentions are irrelevant.
My ancestors probably also didn't wash their hands (they may have even been disgusted by it, taking it as an affront to something or another), but I'm not going to stop washing my hands because of that.

It's not eternal, and the struggle need not exist. Just because something is "natural" anyway, it does not mean it justifies continued existence.

I'm sure even in the past this was not true.

Of course we save our mother first, but that doesn't mean that's how it should be. Most humans have the power to think objectively about a situation, and when you do so without being overcome with emotion, not letting your senses assail you, you can consider the merits of each person better.

That's quite reductionist, but humans clearly can do other things with their time and still find value in life. People have different ideas of what life should be like.

But so are humans. Or, people with the same eye colour or bald spot.

Pride is an impairment to logical thought; it's a good feeling that we let us take control of our minds. I think we ought to defend against that, because it can stop us from making clear decisions. Being intoxicated with pride is just as bad as with sense pleasures, because in the end they cause suffering.

There are many people suffering because they are upset about foreigners. Think that if they abandoned their identity, their sense of "self", their attachments, would they continue to suffer because of that? I think not.

Also, "homeland" is a silly concept. I've found I often like other places more than the country or city I was born in.

(cont.)

No, for example Buddhism arguably encourages you to be beholden to nothing, not even your own emotions, never mind your ancestors. Yet it has rebirth and kamma.

That's the same for race, but just not as far. Why do you draw the line in one place rather than another?

Islam is not a racialist ideology.

That's why we spend a lot of time in philosophy and psychology to understand that and overcome it.

Please tell me you realise the irony of this statement, taken together with what you've said. One person considers race as one concept, and you consider it as another concept, because you see "white" where they see more divisions. Why are you less wrong than the grandparents?

You didn't have to bring in racial supremacy into your racialist thinking. That just gives you another point that people can attack you on. Why are certain races superior to others? How will you measure that superiority? Why does your definition superiority matter more than others'?

Race doesn't have a biological basis, though. There are genetics, and based on those people say "well this group of people with similar phenotypes looks similar, let's call them the negroid race" or whatever. There are only genetics. Being able to plot concentrations of genetics on a graph does not prove that race exists.

You may find this interesting: youtube.com/watch?v=epAv6Q6da_o

In short, race is not eternal, it changes with time, and racial theories have historically been based on appearance and apparent biological structure, and it continues to be so used as a categorisation system. To say that race is a concept about genetics is simply false.

this does not explain away the fact that many blacks and Native Americans live in certain conditions that affect upbringing and culture. You can't just get up and say that Native Americans are genetically predisposed to vandalism etc.

Yeah, no.

The far right is and has never been collectivist.

Where did (Me) say that? You might have replied to the wrong user.

Oops, you're right. I meant to reply to

Are you saying Capitalism in Japan is more advanced than in the US?