Orwell was a social conservative, not a socialist. Prove me wrong. Protip: you can’t

You might be on to something there

DemSoc is socialist now?

...

Again, you are all referring to his earlier years. He experienced a gradual experience to conservatism which you can see starting in Homage to Catalonia. By 1984 he had fully rejected leftism altogether, with anti-communism being his focus.

"It cannot be said too often— at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough— that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of."

"To this day it gives me a faint feeling of sacrilege not to stand to attention during ‘God save the King’. That is childish, of course, but I would sooner have had that kind of upbringing than be like the left-wing intellectuals who are so ‘enlightened’ that they cannot understand the most ordinary emotions."

"It is all very well to be 'advanced' and 'enlightened,' to snigger at Colonel Blimp and proclaim your emancipation from all traditional loyalties, but a time comes when the sand of the desert is sodden red and what have I done for thee, England, my England? As I was brought up in this tradition myself I can recognise it under strange disguises, and also sympathise with it, for even at its stupidest and most sentimental it is a comelier thing than the shallow self-righteousness of the left-wing intelligentsia."

"One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England."

You haven't even read the full essay where this is from have you

In his last novel, Coming Up for Air, he criticized Capitalism for ruining England

The guy on the right lacks self-awareness, the guy on the left is on the verge of becoming a Not Socialist.

DemSoc =/= SocDem

...

...

Nothing is more devoid of intellectual thought than communism and anarchism. Human beings are obviously not meant to be equal nor should we attempt to turn 'freedom to do whatever the fuck you want' into a virtue.

"I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before." Orwell in Spain.

"a real Socialist is one who wishes – not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes – to see tyranny overthrown." -The Road to Wigan Pier

I hope this isn't some American shit of, "all socialism is soviet style socialism." Orwell was a huge proponent of democratic socialism. His real battle with the soviet communists began with Homage to Catalonia (where he continually praised the socialist experiments by the anarchists) and continued further on through his works since he saw as a totalitarian disaster. I really don't understand where you're getting your shit from

He was critical of the leftist intelligentsia? I am too. Those sons of bitches hardly contribute to any real movements or struggles and masturbate with their highly inaccessible (to the proletariat) works. Chomsky, for instance is as well so I guess that makes him a right-winger.

well memed son

Don't call me son, son.

Whatever you say son

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

Critique of the Gotha Programme - Karl Marx
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

You seem to forget that the book where this quote comes from, Road to Wigan Pier, was not only published before the quote which you claim to be his ""early beliefs inc ommunism"", it was also a direct criticism of Capitalism in North England, and that this quote put into context is him discussing why not enough people are taking up socialism against his wishes. How about you fucking read Orwell first before you make claims about his beliefs

Wrong, some people are meant to be used, others are meant to rule. Holla Forums is for the worms. Also this statement implies equality which is completely deluded from reality. Hierarchy is both natural and efficient. No amount of social conditioning will stop that. Also Marx advocated abolishing the family, if that's not proof of autism I don't know what is.

You are someone else's tool until you assert your own superiority over the masses. The few will always rule the many, Robespierre, Napoleon, Marx's advocacy of establishing a state, Lenin's vanguard, Stalin's gulags, all proof that the few inevitably manipulate the masses for their own personal gain.

was an incorruptible and unwavering warrior of the revolution and he died for your freedom, polyp.

The rest of your post is shit so that's all I have to say for now.

Read the first book of The Republic, faggot. My nigga Socrates destroys all of your fascist masturbation fantasies.

...

This is your brains on concentrated spooks.

Na my boy i am a high level jew warlock and with my genetics and my rabbi powers i assert my rightfull dominance over the inferior european race haha!

holy shit this is like 13 y/o reads nietzsche tier

Oh, well…… good luck enjoying getting fucked by Porky you fucking class traitor.

Smooth meme son

Also that guy looks like the meme rapper who died

Mostly because he saw capitalism and the coming of industry already annihilating it piece by piece. Fast forwards a hundred fifty years and the family as it was known prior to and during the beginning of the industrial revolution is completely gone; the familial mode right now consists of two parents and one to three kids. No longer is an entire family under the same roof. Incidentally, countries where industry still thrives, such as China, still have this mode of family, because it's actually necessary and efficient.

Jeessssus christ this entire fucking post

You don't get laid very often do you?

You mean Plato? Aristotle destroys his socialist-tier notions in Book II of the Politics. Justice is for the weak.

...

Marx meant with abolishing the family as abolishment of inherent wealth. Marx wasnt against the family unit but Engels was against the male dominance of the father in the family wich he beleaved was based upon being the sole controller of income for the family. It wasnt Engels specificly being anti father but more about anti financial monopoly of the family.

Yeah, I mean Plato, but Socrates is the character he uses obvs.

So does Xenophon, Aristotle, and a lot of other people. Get on my level pleb.

Then teach me, asshole.

Can I though? Even if you are willing, can you handle the truth?

ya

Nazism is a hell of a drug.

I wish there were more honest right-wingers

The guy on the right is getting his dick sucked. The guy on the left is on the verge of sucking his own dick.

KEK No 1

KEK No 2 (It's about EVERY revolution, and how the sheep fuck it up. You should know. Sheep.)

KEK No 3
1984 isn't about "Marxist" ideals. It's about the ultimate Capitalist authoritarian State.

BE FREE OF YOUR IDEOLOGY!
THE SPIRIT OF MARX COMPELLES YOU!

why do you insist on being so fucking wrong?
the man blamed capitalism for ruining england in his very last novel and homage to catalonia was written AFTER the spanish civil war

please stop posting

oh god this is autism

I really hope that you are not implying that socialism = social faggotry.

Ok.

:(

...

Why do people insist in talking about stuff they don't know shit about?
Believing that nothing has INTRINSIC value =/= believing in nothing.
What this means is that since nothing has intrinsic value then YOU are FREE to analyze everything and to come to YOUR OWN conclusions that are YOURS and not some spook that it's the way it is just because "god wanted it to be like this" or something stupid like that.

Real marxism is ultimate capitalism.

"Real" marxism is deluded anarchist fantasy.

…

Wat?

All communist countries were/are authoritarian controled by a small rich elite.

And the real communism is stateless thing is just a lie made to fool people into supporting the rise of the actual authoritarian one.

You make me lose hope in humanity with every post.

Yeah, that's pretty close to what actually happened with the Marxist-Leninist movement in the 20th century.
I don't see how that refutes socialism or communism in general, except that it's a pretty neat indicator that it cannot ever be achieved through the state.

Marxists and anarchists are two political factions who are vehemently and historically against each other, which kind of threw me off.

Also, it does not make much sense to claim that if someone criticises Marxism-Leninism and hippies, one is a social conservative.
Would that not also make Mihail Bakunin and Murray Bookchin social conservatives, even though they're both Libertarian Socialists?

TL;DR you're well on your way, but your logic is faulty when you reach your conclusions.

Those two things would in fact equate to each other.

WHICH doesn't MATTER if nothing HAS any intrinsic VALUE

Nihilism is a symptom of a problem. Anyone who calls themselves a nihilist as a matter of pride should be laughed at for not knowing what the fuck they are talking about. Might as well hold up a sign that says: please manipulate me.

Also, let me just add that most coutries that have been controlled by communist parties, have been of the Marxist-Leninist tradition, and the chases were they weren't, they were not authoritarian superstates.

That means so much coming from a communist.

...

nihilism is edgy and pretentious but cuckservatism is way more retarded.

marxism isn't a vision of society or a mode production unto itself, retard. marxism = dialectical materialism, i.e. philosophical materialism with dialectical (hegelian) thinking applied to the analysis of socioeconomics.

communism has, conceptually, existed much longer than marx. rousseau and blanqui to name a few who preceded marx already enivisioned a communistic society free of classes, money and the state.

You're using that term incorrectly. Cuckservatives are pseudo-conservatives who don't actually care about preserving their people. They are more like neocons and corporate cronies.

They're both retarded, anarchism and communism too.

Politics without politics will not achieve communism either.

irrelevant. cuckservative suits you regardless of whether you're also a zionist or fiscal opportunist on top of being conservative; you bend over to pure ideology like (ethno-)nationalism which you then justify with even purer ideology like eugenicism and traditionalism. because you're a cuck that craves domination for an ulterior cause and group to escape your perpetual fear of the haunting big Other.

You don't get to decide the meaning of that word user. Cuckold implies passivity, as you might have learned from any history book, nationa.l socialists and fascists aren't known for being passive. Ethnic nationalism is probably the only form of legitimate nationalism considering that ethnically diverse nation-states are unstable due to the tension and lack of trust that ethnic diversity creates. Also by Other you mean non-whites, which aren't very haunting, they just need to be gassed which is tedious and requires manipulating the masses, which is also tedious. I don't know what you mean by 'pure' ideology, is that opposed to a 'tainted' or 'dirty' ideology? Eugenics is part and parcel to a healthy and functioning society, unless you enjoy the presence of autism and genetic defects? Tradition is essential to the harmony of society, as well it gives spice to life. You can hear traditions in music and art. Traditions are the original memes, something that everyone can understand almost immediately and desire to repeat at designated times. Without tradition society would be extremely boring.

KEK!
If abandoning all thought, and blindly following a set of ideas, fed to you by a "great leader", is not pasivity, what is?

READ ZIZEK!

With tradition it IS boring.
Call of Duty has become American Tradition.
And it IS boring.

As for the rest…

It refutes socialism/communism because it's generally lead by people wanting to take control of everything, or even by being a tool of global bankers by putting all the countries infrastructure under the government who have it's finances controlled by them. And even if you had an anarchist society certain people will always have more influence than others over resources they manage or simply their manipulative skills.

And he said that 1984 wasn't applicable to marxist ideals.

It doesn't matter if early concepts of it existed.

And a stateless society ends with the same problems I said upon, let alone one who doesn't have money or classes.

Oh, a newbie. Welcome, this will be your first "shattering of preconceived notions" thread. IF you stay, this will happen again and again and again. Stick around.

Does it disturb you that fascism and na.tional socialism might actually have an intellectual basis? And I don't understand your disdain for leadership, have you ever led a group of people before? It's not easy, winning people's respect is no small feat. Do you think that people don't need leaders? The relationship between a student and a teacher is hierarchical, think about that. A military hierarchy functions on the basis of experience, confidence to give commands, maintain responsibility over others for better or worse, and know-how in your respective field, because these things naturally create leaders.

Speaking of abandoning all thought and blindly following a set of ideas, fed to you by a great philosopher. Yeesh. Zizek is a fucking hack, as Chomsky puts it (who is also a hack) he has no content at all. Why don't you give me a real answer rather than telling me to read someone else's work, I haven't told you to read anything yet. By the Other I definitely mean non-whites. Even niggers are more racially aware than you. I bet you supported them when they destroyed Ferguson, didn't you?

Maybe nothing can satisfy your short attention span, nevertheless tradition exists because people find their connection with past ages in it, a connection with a specific region and people. You're like those edgy fedora fags who tried to ruin Christmas when you were a kid. You're no fun at all.

That's because this board doesn't have thread IDs. God forbid you need to samefag to give the appearance that there's more than handful of people posting here.

Like the SA who got purged on day one of getting in power or the national syndicalists under Mussolini.

Ever notice how this seems to permeate most right wing thought?

Multiculturalism is a strange phenomenon not just for the West, but in general. We're at a point in history where we are seeing it's effects and there are two groups of people: those who defend it and those who attack it. The question on a lot of right-wing minds is where did it come from? I wouldn't say the jews are wholly responsible, but it does work to their advantage to dilute everyone else's genepool. They are notorious for their desire for racial purity.

That doesn't give right to pretend it's all samefagging. Let alone trying to discredit someone.

in the sense that someone thought it up sure but mussolini was basically just masturbating to muh ROME when he did
leadership isn't the same thing as being a boss or authoritarian cocksucker
yes in terms of experience and knowledge the student puts themselves under their guidance yet they have zero obligation or force making them follow.
and yet you can do all that democratically and horizontally a leader of a column in catalonia was only ever in charge as long as he had consensus approval.
holy shit you're retarded he told you to read zizek because you don't understand the big other in the sense he used it. Zizek explains the concept well.

Yeah he was a democratic socialist

But try telling that to pol/acks who take 1984 to be the gospel

In political discourse, the word "multiculturalism" is irrelevant to its actual definition. It is a buzzword for anything a traditionalist does not like. It is the right wing equivalent of liberal "racism".

I want you, without looking it up, to explain what you think the word means.

Pretty sure multiculturalism has been around forever, and no amount of MUH JEWS or other pol/ nonsense is going to change that fact. Ita not perpetuated by a specific group of people, its just the natural result of immigration and globalsation.

are you retarded? multiculturalism is fucking ancient and has always been around
see the persian empire and fucking rome the greek and phoenician colonies etc.

It's not just the samefagging it's all the damn confusion. No one here can have a conversation with another person without the possibility of someone else joining in.

Rome was one of the greatest empires of mankind. It's a worthy ideal to aspire, and his people were at the head of it. Best thing to come out of Italy besides the Renaissance.

I fail to see the point. Leaders are leaders no matter what pejorative title you give them. If people follow you then you are a leader. Authoritarianism more adequately reflects living in a society full of retards and shitskins. If we were living among white people who were properly educated in the classics, instilled with self-discipline, and imparted with a sense of tradition then libertarianism would be more worthy of consideration. We don't deserve freedom because we don't know what to do with it. Liberty and authority are just two words for power at the end of the day.

Yes they do, if you don't follow your teacher you will fail, if you fail you will be forced to leave school. Universities have security officers for a reason.

This kind of idealism is why you shouldn't be taken seriously. You assume that everyone is the same and should be treated as such. Democracy and horizontal structures imply an equality that does not exist, and Catalonia in the 1930s had a very homogenous culture/people, they would not be able to repeat that experiment with ethnic diversity. In most circumstances it's expected that draftees and militia will flee from the battle, so officers are posted behind them to shoot them if they flee, and the tactic works beautifully.

Then maybe he should speak in plain terms and not use concepts that don't require to read literature in order to have a fucking conversation. How do you expect to appeal to the masses by telling them to read literature before talking to them? It makes you seem pretentious and without any creative thoughts of your own.

Yes it is. It's important to know the definition of every word you use. Using words that you don't know the meaning of makes you look pretentious and stupid at the same time.

From your skewed corner of the internet maybe. Liberals use the word all the time in a positive way.

Multiple cultures within a single locality. That's all it means. This implies multiple ethnicities in the same locality too though. Nationalism is supposed to be an expression of a single culture and ethnicity. Multiculturalism creates mini-nations within nation-states, which is a source of constant fighting, as you can see in the western world presently.

Multiculturalism as made by Romans and Persians were every culture in it's place, you just had to pay taxes to them.

"Multiculturalism" as it's said and supported today by certain people is no borders and free immigration. Similar policies of exchanging people of different places and cultures were made by early Mesopotamic kings in order to made them lost their local identities, and it's exactly what happens today.

Technically there's a difference between multiculturalism as de facto like in the US, and as state policy like in Canada. Despite constant fearmongering, it's not really much of an issue in either example.

This, I think, highlights a substantial logical conundrum in political traditionalism that espouses small government under the premise that the state is the source of a lot of societal ill. And yet, when we look at the failed cultural policies of Germany, Britain, etc, the common culprit is nigh universally an incompetent government that fosters tensions instead of easing them. They throw away a perfect example of how their views may be correct. This is because they don't want "small government", they want homogeneity.

In particular, this seems to explain why a lot of rightards start off as "get off my lawn" types, yet seem to generally drift toward a paradoxical appreciation and demand for authority, like how Breitbart prides itself on being a critic of "big government" while simultaneously lauding and encouraging government control in our personal lives and the prominence of a strong nationalist in US politics. There doesn't seem to be a limit to this hypocrisy either: they whine endlessly about religious persecution while believing people of other religions are inherently dangerous and should be excluded, by force if necessary.

Pretty sure it hasn't. Also all of those examples are terrible. The basis of the Peloponnesian War was an ethnic tension between Ionians (Athenians were Ionians) and Dorians (Spartans and Syracusans were Dorians). The Persian Wars had previously united them because they recognized they had more in common with each other compared to the barbarians. People don't immigrate willy-nilly, people prefer being around their own kind, being able to speak a common language, having common stories, common memes, etc.

Would you mind sharing this intellectual basis? Because I don't see one beyond Hitler's autobiography and a tenuous connection to Friedrich Nietzsche's writings, whereas the socialist movement has roots in the philosophy of Marx, Hegel etc. and yes, also more contemporary philosophers like Zizek. If there is any sort of comparable philosophical basis for fascism I would be interested in reading it, so please share.

There is a fine line between leadership and domination. A teacher not only respects his student, but provides value to the student in the form of knowledge. In contrast, a fascist party official rests on his laurels while periodically demanding the lower classes lick his bootheels every once in a while.

You yourself said you haven't read him.

Lurk moar. Black nationalism is still nationalism, therefor cancer.

What?

The only thing even close to this in the real world was Sweden's lax border policies, and even these were put to an end. There are no "open borders" or "free immigration" in the real world. They are a myth. The hundreds of thousands of foreigners that arrived in Europe in late years are not supposed to be there longer than necessary.

The perceived loss of identity among natives is incredibly disproportional to the actual downsides of migrants, even in places that seem to attract foreign criminals that were not even welcome in their home nations, a trend that is oddly common in Europe while others from the same home nations fare much better elsewhere.

except you're retarded if you think you can just remake it centuries later
kek nice edge
are you really this stupid? the relationship between a student and teacher is independant of our laws and system of education.
no I assume people have their own wants needs and that expressing them to find a solution is a good thing.
how?
Citation Needed
That's every concept ever you mongoloid

lel do people really believe this? The samnites, brutii, etruscans, etc would like a word.

Extremely more rarely than when it is used negatively.

Which can be brought about practically in a vast number of ways, simply because it is so basic as a concept. My point is that people blame the failures of specific policies on what they are meant to do when more often than not, government is just incompetent.

That used to be true, but now days people immigrate and move for lots of different reasons, either economic or social or whatever

Even back in the day you would have tonnes of overlap between cultures. War and conquest caused this as well.

Also consider this: Someone mentioned Rome before and called it the greatest human empire in history. Its also one of the most prominent examples of cosmopolitanism and mutlicutalralism. There was Roman supremacy, sure, but that meant fuck all in the long run when you had non-romn senators, historians, philosophers, military commanders and even emperors. Did multiculturalism have a positive, ngarive or neutral effect on the success and longevity of Rome? What about other similiar, extremely successful multicultural empires like Byzantines, Ottomans, Brits and to some extent, Macedonian empires?

This. This should be posted on very alt right Chan board, facebook page and reddit forum

In terms of real, factual inequality, it is literally everywhere, regardless of broad social classifications. Fascism in particular has the false belief that people within groups are automatically at least mostly identical. This is no less ridiculous than Lysenkoism.

By your own reasoning, why bother having ANY sort of ideal if people just aren't capable of carrying it out? We may as well try and see if it works. America is pretty damn wealthy and advanced even though the right wing of centuries old thought it would be a wasteland of rape and death with the niggy nogs off their leashes. The modern right continues this tradition by brainwashing people into believing that their generally functional social cohesion is some kind of Matrix illusion, which works by offering a scapegoat for other grievances.

I'm going to ignore how this statement is unfalsifiable and should thus be shoved back up your ass.
Rojava, aka Western Kurdistan, is a modern secular state that is tolerant of its ethnic and religious minorities, despite being majority Muslim Kurds. They unite to pump jihadis full of lead and establish Uncle Apo's ideal state, because a common goal renders identitarian divisions moot.
There's also the fact that Rome was, y'know, extremely ethnically diverse. They initially saw white Europeans as savages. I imagine you would disagree with such sentiments.

The psychology of identity adapts to the world around it. Race and ethnicity divide us simply because it is easy to see and recognize, there is no faith needed to accept its existence as it is determined by how you look and where you came from. Language, meanwhile, is fundamental in getting across the full connotation and emotional weight of information, which is lost in translation.

Everyone wants to be around "their own kind". But what really constitutes one's "own kind"? Do we really have some kind of genetic inability to get along with people of different races, or is the underlying connotations of a group what gives us feelings of aversion? According to the theory of contact, a lot of prejudice can be mediated and even eliminated simply by getting to know different kinds of people, while negative experiences tend to have much greater impacts than positive. In geopolitical areas with diverse populations, integrated communities grow closer the more they interact, but when they are segregated, they only grow to hate one another.

I bet you think the Giver is about communism too.

I claimed they are supported and envisioned, and even then they are in way of being made reality, look at Germany, hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants were let in freely; It only has a border for non-euro whites.

It's not a surprise they would eventually get their shit whooped by rebelling. Most places in the Roman Empire still had their individualities.

I had no idea Orwell was that based.

they were absorbed and assimilated into rome after the rebellion though

The fact that you cannot tell the difference between migration and asylum leads me to wonder if you are even capable of forming a coherent opinion on such current events.

Same shit.

no it isn't you autist

Asylum is just an excuse. They just like white standards of living.

It was part of what I've meant with it. They had that policy with high success, but they couldn't keep it if it kept failing.

Do you really believe that they will go back? Most of these aren't even Syrian refugees, and just look all the other who did so decades later and are still there.

so basically instead of segregating themselves from them they needed to assimilate in order to survive. I don't see how that contradicts my point

...

Most of the 'refugees' are grown adults who chose to leave rather than fight for the future of their country. They're cowards, fuck them.

GODDAM COWARDS WITH SMALL PENISES NOT WANTING TO BE RAPED AND KILLED BY CRAZY PEOPLE

UNLIKE ME WITH MY MASSIVE PENIS WHO WOULD TOTES FIFHT

They had a policy of respecting local cultures if they respected their rule. What do you think it would happen if they didn't respected it?

the only ones worth fighting for are rojava and getting to them when you're in the assad or ISIS parts of syria is fucking suicide

so the answer is not segregating but mixing with the Latin allies oh shit multicult DOES work

Why don't you go over there and fight them, then?

It's kill or be killed. Except for them it's kill, be killed, or run off to a first world country and forget about fighting for the future of your people. Cowardly fucks shouldn't be given any mercy.

It's not my country. If it was then I would gladly give my life so that my children could have a future. These fucks don't deserve to have children.

Why are you faggotws always edgy teenagers who don't know shit about fighting?

Who would you give your life for then faggot? the Jihadis or the dictator?

You forgot to mention al-Nusra or FSA. Rojava are a bunch of commie fucks who should exterminated. Assad actually ran the country well, of course the US hates seeing Baathists in power and started throwing money at the other factions. Everyone who left that war doesn't deserve to have a country let alone a life.

I never assume to know anything about an anonymous person on the internet. That's pretentious.

Assad. Saddam and Gaddafi were Baathists as well and all three created successful economies. That's why the US couldn't stand them being in power.

Al nusra are jihadis
FSA are practically all jihadis with the exception of 6 tiny groups
Assad is also a strongman faggot
so good

Saddam was a motherfucker who actually killed his own people and gassed them.
Gadaffi wasn't that bad I'll give you.

Pick one.

with little to no workers control over the means of production.
Why support the strongmen when you could support Rojava?

The whole point was about what multiculturalism means, and what it is compared to what it was in Rome and Persia and nowadays, and as I said the policy had large success, but of course it would not keep on if they didn't accepted their rule.

Shiites weren't technically 'his people' as he was a Sunni, but nevertheless they still fought and died for him ten years straight in the Iran-Iraq war.

That's because communism is retarded and doesn't work. Take the Soviet Union for example.

A failure of a war and I was referring to the anfal campaign and the repressions of the shiites his whole rule

It wasn't a failure for either side. It helped establish national identity. I know what you were referring to I just don't see those things as a problem. Oppression is necessary to keep the mob in line.

Wtf? Are you gonna publically execute them or something

"Those who cannot bravely face danger are the slaves of their attackers."

Why would you want cowards like that coming into your country? No one like that should expect mercy from anybody.

This is like right wing myths/ill informed opinions the board post. I've only seen so much spoon fed nonsense on pol/

Why do you care you chicken hawk?

schrodinger's refugee

Too cowardly to fight Islamic extremists
Too much of an Islamic extremist to not commit acts of terror in Europe

Too weak to fight in a war
Too savage to live in a first world country

Gonna take our jerbs
Not gonna work and live on welfare

doubleplus good comerade

Because these fucks are coming into my country and they need to go.

...

The fact that they aren't white is good enough reason for them to leave. And to debunk what you just said, there are mudshits who are doing every one of those things listed, some do one, and some do the other. I don't know how you cope with the cognitive dissonance tbh

Kill yourself

There is nothing inconsistent about ethinic-based nationalism. Communism and anarchism on the other hand are based on notions completely detached from reality.

Your race-based theories have been scientifically debunked repeatedly.

Please google cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure hoe that will help you break from your fantasy land but it couldn't hurt

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities

On the contrary, Darwin's theory of natural selection encourages the idea that speciation can and has occured within Homo Sapiens genes.

Communists should never mock other people about fantasies. lol

Because the negros who lived all their existence by small groups and brute force in africa would magically adapt to western style, law abiding, filled of abstract concepts, gigantic societies.

Historically illiterate Holla Forums narratives about the cultures and relative practices of nonwhites won't save you from having to admit that the scientific consensus dismantles the notion of "race" carrying any merit.

Look at this goddamn post and tell me there isn't a legitimacy to the idea that there fundamental inborn differences among human beings:

Is the idea that human beings aren't equal really all that astounding to you? Differences entail inequality, why do you think sports fans obsess over statistics?

Serious claims require serious proof, user.

Quit being disingenuous.

I think scientifically illiterate retards should stop trying to flood other boards with links they copy and paste, with no genuine comprehension of their own of course, from stormchan's library board.

...

I just fucking posted scientific evidence that race has legitimate scientific backing.

I wasn't talking about me, I was talking about Syrian cowards fleeing their nations. Personally I don't care if muslims are considered this or that, they are fundamentally different people and would gladly dispose of my people if they could. It's us or them whether or not you want to admit that reality.

You're being disingenuous if you think they will go back.

This post is proof of how willfully ignorant this userbase is. Absolutely no attempt made at considering the content provided, and yet you want me to read your utopian literature. Pathetic.

No, you posted a bunch of links that have been collected together at another imageboard by like-minded ideologues that superficially appear to support racial realism, but which you don't have the scientific education required to parse.

For that matter, you don't even comprehend that individual studies are not a decisive or conclusive form of evidence because they require independent replication; like any good fascist, you're more fixated on the presumed authority of the authors than on the content they actually contain or the academic context they exist in.

Stop before you embarrass yourself.

No, this post is evidence that I've seen people attempt this before on other imageboards, and I am not impressed.

"It's just so obvious!"

No, that is not how proof works. You are not merely defending an idea as legitimate, you are saying that all contrary evidence is false, either by some incredibly unlucky error or, more likely, because the j00z are repressing the truth that the niggers are all subhumans.

The Putnam diversity thing, debates about the taxonomic validity of race, these are all things that have been discussed before. They are not controversial, nor are they groundbreaking; they are no less pedantic and pointless than the meandering of idiots like Leon Kamin.

The Watson pic is especially telling, because it is just an appeal to authority that does not give any context. His statements and the "dissenting" works of ideologues like Nicholas Wade have seen tremendous criticism from actual experts in the related fields, but remain highly popular with bitter plebs that want to feel confirmed in their personal beliefs.

Your image is also amusing since there is an infinitesimally small chance that it was not made by someone who calls anyone who isn't alt-right/fascist a "cuck".

Again, why am I not surprised that a subculture that thrives on contempt for academia has no clue how academic study is conducted?

Are you talking about me or the Holla Forumsyps? I'm genuinely curious, since Marxism and anarchism have a very complicated relationship with academia.

That contain legitimate evidence, a quote by the man who discovered DNA, and a test done by Harvard professor Robert Putnam on ethnic diversity. Did you read any of it? Be honest.

Attempt to debate you only to have you completely ignore their evidence? Yeah, I should totally give a fuck about how impressed you are.

That is exactly how proof works nigger. You post it, and then the other person peruses the evidence.

It was actually both, and the test debunked two evidence-based theories of the time. Not that you would know.

No, it was a suggestion that there is no reason to assume that people are equal other than mere wishful thinking.

That's called an ad-hominem. I don't give a fuck who 'made' it. What matters is the content, which you haven't made comment on.

How does the Carl the Cuck support your argument at you? At this point you are just throwing shit at the wall in order to make any point at all.

Next thing you know he's going to flood the board wth links to shit that's completely irrelevant and fails to answer our points (MUH SWEDISH RAPE RATES, MUH PARIS SHOOTING)

The Holla Forumsyps, of course. To the fascist mind, science is just another source of authority, and authorities are to be submitted to with undying fervor.

It goes a little like this:

1. Science is a discipline that contains authorities.
2. Authorities, if they are legitimate, are infallible.
3. I get to decide which authorities are legitimate and which aren't.
4. Have these papers full of science (that I myself don't understand) written by the INFALLIBLE AUTHORITIES!

They don't comprehend the value of independent replication or the process of falsification; to them, science is just a body of authorities, and until a higher state authority tells them which ones are legitimate, they'll substitute their own judgement on that matter until the matter is settled.

Those things actually fucking happened. That's the equivalent of me saying MUH HOLOCAUST

So questioning evidence is only valid when you do it? Your entire post is nothing but condescending hand-waving.

The "all people are equal" thing is a ridiculous straw man to begin with, and you fucking know it. Questioning the utter insanity of the theories of people like Rushton is not the same thing as putting your head in the sand when you hear that Alzheimers and Downs are hereditary.

And you don't consider science as a mean of legitimizing a viewpoint? Are you anti-science or something?

Talk about a strawman. Lol you're pathetic, you have to make shit up in order to make my view look bad.

Questioning what evidence exactly?

I never said the evidence was "illegitimate", you just have a jejune and uneducated idea of what it takes for scientific evidence to pass muster as a basis for wider consensus. Ideas pass through tiers of examination; so far, the perfectly legitimate evidence you've supplied is only at the beginning of those tiers.

Again, this wouldn't be a shock to you if you actually comprehended how science was conducted or viewed it as anything other than a body of various authorities when it suited you, and revert to being abstract navel-gazing when they ceased to discuss topics you have an emotional stake in.

Science is absolutely a means of legitimizing a viewpoint, done correctly and thoroughly; you seem to think science consists of a man with credentials writing words you don't immediately understand onto paper and from there becoming some kind of immediately valid truth.

What the everliving fuck are you talking about? Are you on drugs? My scientific evidence is for you, I'm not trying to 'pass muster as a basis for wider consensus.' Talk about being deliberately obscure.

I'm not sure you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. You're just trying to sound educated and failing hard. Stop posting unless you have something intelligent to say.

And they are irrelevant, but that doesn't stop pol/acks from bringing it up. Hell someone brought up race just before

Why do you think I didn't understand what I posted? Because you didn't? You're the only one who failed to understand that evidence. You probably didn't even try.

They are most definitely relevant. They are proof that multiculturalism doesn't work. Two cultures that aren't compatible.

I know you think this is a really straightforward and elementary issue, but be honest with me; how can you, not anyone else, YOU, tell me with certitude that the sources you cited aren't just repeats of the Sokal Hoax? You wouldn't be able to tell one way or the other, because you're not that educated on this subject.

You don't understand what you've posted because you think it conclusively proves that race is real, and no single unreplicated study could ever have that vast a scope. It's just not academically valid. Climate change required hundreds and hundreds of papers, independently replicated from hundreds of different sources, before the matter could be settled.

Tell me why you think this issue should have a lower threshold of evidence, or be entitled to special exemptions of replication, compared to climate change.

Says the nigger who won't even look at the evidence. Don't talk to me about being educated. You're being willfully ignorant at this very moment. You're worse than fucking creationists.

Science and politics are not the same. Few political ideologies make scientific claims, or depend on them.

That by Putnam et al. Or for that matter, whether debates over the validity of "race" are even meaningful regardless of the potential conclusion.

The idea that people are "just different" just because is in no way different from saying they are "just the same" just because.

In other words you can't cope with reality so now you're just gonna make shit up and back peddle.

Just because I've already dealt with this sophistry before and I'm weary of it doesn't mean that your unflattering conjecture about me is true. Exactly why should I believe that you comprehend them? All you've done so far is post links to them and pant-hoot like an agitated chimp at any suggestions that "authority" is not being heeded here.

Things like continental movement were once completely ridicularized and discredited by scientists.

You're the one who doesn't comprehend replication. I do. Sorry, I'm the only person here who has actually specifically demonstrated a meaningful understanding of the scientific process.

And that's a good thing?

Why the fuck wouldn't those debates be meaningful?

And they were accepted once scientists provided evidence to the contrary. That's… science doing what science does.

If you're trying to imply here that race could be scientifically vindicated tomorrow, well so what? So could any concept. The phlogiston theory of fire could turn out to be correct. Until someone proves it, publishes their proof, and their publications are independently replicated, I have no reason to take it seriously and neither does any other reasonable person.

Oh lord. Only when it doesn't fit your point of view, only then.

Links to scientific evidence, which suffices to make the point.

Replication of what? You're not even on topic.

You sound euphoric as hell. lol you haven't done jackshit but sound like an asshat in the face of evidence

Oh that's what you mean by replicated? You could have just said tested, but I'm sure you love sounding more intelligent than you really are. Putnam's test on diversity has been 'replicated' to use your euphoric lingo.

pure.au.dk/portal/files/54275707/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_The_Role_of_Exposure_in_the_Micro_Context_May_2013.pdf

Exactly, atleast you can use your brain a little unlike the guy I quoted.

See, you're doing it again! You think that "science" is just infallible wisdom from men with credentials, and that all you need to do is post them in order to be right!

Here, I'll post a paper, and no matter what the actual content is, it must be correct, right? After all, that's how science works, right?

arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

You're proof that leftists have to fall back on looking intelligent because you're ideals are as deluded from reality and scientific investigation as possible. Nothing is more unscientific than the notion that human beings are equal, or should be treated as such.

Nope, "replication" does not mean "has been tested" but thanks for playing.

Hilariously, this paper has nothing to do with the original subject, but let's not interrupt stormchimp's frantic delusions of righteousness for now.

Did you or did you not read the pdf? Tell me.

Except for the fact that the science is not on your side, no matter how shrilly you screech into your pillow at night about how dumb everyone else must be for not accommodating your comforting delusions.

Are you actually implying that science can provide "shoulds"?

Than why don't you speak up and say what it means.

A paper on ethnic diversity and trust has nothing to do with Putnam's test on the exact same topic?

"In this paper we argue that residential exposure to ethnic diversity reduces social trust."

Yeah, this doesn't prove any point you were making here.

Science makes suggestions about reality. We change our behavior in order to live consistently with reality.

Already did, you illiterate, comprehensively inferior retard.

It backs up Putnam's point on ethnic diversity, which relates directly to notions of multiculturalism, coexistence, and equality. Do I have to hold your hand through all of this?

Fucking christ moron, that's some desperate level falseflagging.

Science gives us data about the world to varying degrees of accuracy. It provides us with exactly zero information on what to do with that information.

Even if global warming were proved beyond any doubt and that we would need to stop pumping CO2 or the earth will explode into a million pieces, that still doesn't tell us anything about what we should do with this information.

Darwin's theory of natural selection, genetic testing, and tests on ethnic diversity certainly are so I don't know wtf you're talking about. Equality on the other hand, not so much.

1. It is one study. One study can very well be a fluke. This is why replication is required.
2. These "notions" need not come from any basis in immutable cognitive science, and you are making unwarranted leaps in suggesting that it must be the only cause.

Again, this is what I mean by stormchimps not comprehending science; they skim a paper beyond their comprehension, spot keywords that are relevant to their cause, and then reflexively copy and paste it without the proper examination. Happens every. Single. Time.

You didn't explain what replication meant at all. Who is the retard here? You can't even follow what I'm asking of you.

...

Then you obviously don't know what Darwin said and have probably gleaned secondhand notions of his theory through Herbert Spencer, as is typical of stormchimps. We've already established that you don't know what you're posting or why there's no connection between it and the case you're making.

Science gives us the means to infer. It's not going to give a step-by-step manual on self-preservation obviously. If there is proof that equality is bullshit then you can infer that you should stop treating people as equals.

Oh but I did, retard.

No, moron, science says nothing about inferring it. It doesn't tell us we should survive, it doesn't tell us how to win at the universe. It just tells us how things are, as nothing more than dust in the void. That's it. That's where science stops. Everything outside of that is politics and, therefore, unscientific, irrational emotional appeals.

...

I posted two studies on that topic actually. I'm sure I could google more given the increasing popularity of the topic. You still haven't given me a definition of replication but it sounds like a pretentious word for testing. Don't talk about comprehension when you can't keep up with a conversation. Science requires a much more rigorous logic than I think you can handle. Nothing is more anti-scientific than communism anyway.

Darwin was an abolitionist whose scientific work refuted the commonly held racist beliefs of his time and opposed already existing eugenic concepts. It is, in fact, evolution that overturned the widely held belief in the divine superiority of the "white race".

So-called "scientific racism" emerged around the same time that Darwin published his theory of evolution, but from a completely different group of people and for completely different reasons. In the mid-1800s both American slavery and European imperialism were coming under increasing criticism. During this time the idea of white supremacy became popular among those seeking to justify slavery and imperialism. Prior to Darwin, and after Darwin by opponents of evolution, biology was a theologically based field. The primary "scientific racists" were creationists who believed that science supported Biblical scripture, and that scripture supported slavery and the domination of one group over another.

You fucking clown.

You have established nothing but proof that you're as in denial of inequality among humans as creationists are. Darwin's theory does specify on the nature of speciation through prolonged exposure over generations to specific environments, this entails that humans may have developed fundamental differences amongst each other over hundreds of thousands of years.

It's a factual thing. Opinions are valuable, and science is not opinions.
Because they have become so nitpicking in evidence that they have only served to highlight what Lewontin already proved, regardless of whatever "fallacy" he committed. The overall integrity of his research has been confirmed and can be separated from his faggy liberal views.

That's not a definition, that's an example of a use of the word. You should really not be calling other people retarded lol

That's exactly wtf I just said. It gives us the means to infer, which suffices as a guide towards a better understanding of humanity.

Cont.
Since you won't believe me without "scientific" study

"In all parts of Europe, as far east as Greece, in Palestine, India, Japan, New Zealand, and Africa, including Egypt, flint tools have been discovered in abundance; and of their use the existing inhabitants retain no tradition. There is also indirect evidence of their former use by the Chinese and ancient Jews. Hence there can hardly be a doubt that the inhabitants of these countries, which include nearly the whole civilised world, were once in a barbarous condition. To believe that man was aboriginally civilised and then suffered utter degradation in so many regions, is to take a pitiably low view of human nature. It is apparently a truer and more cheerful view that progress has been much more general than retrogression; that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps, from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals and religion."—Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

Liberals are what socialists call themselves in the US.

It's not a fact, the statement "Few political ideologies make scientific claims, or depend on them." is an opinion. None of you niggers know how to have coherent conversations.

Hate to break it to you, lardass, but there are extremely few socialists in America.

Yes, they just call themselves liberals.

slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html

This is what replication looks like. You do not have anything like this to point to, and you know it.

I mentioned earlier that to you science is just the word of an infallible authority, and that you treat scientists more like prophets than like practitioners of science. Well, that's only half of the story, because by cherry-picking which scientists you want to listen to, as you very well do, you're treating science as nothing more than a crude and vulgar justification for your predetermined beliefs. You apply it selectively to shut out ideas that trigger you and threaten you with the humiliating prospect of having to confess to the whole world that you've spent a large chunk of your life fooling yourself, because you're too weak and frightened to face the world.

Posting known-false claims about Darwin and your demonstrated incomprehension of him via Spencer isn't going to help your case. After all, you're the retard and dilettante who barged in here ignorant of one of the most fundamental tenets of science, and then put on fraudulent airs of comprehending science.

Ouch, got me.

...

Fucking leftists.

Two can play at that game.

Cont. again because you're a fucking retard that needs a timeout and a spanking

Darwin's findings on race can be broken down to:

There is no coherent conversation to be had. You are wandering in with crankery and acting shocked when we get skeptical.

Tell which word did I put in your mouth

Man are you fucking dumb, how do you manage to breathe?

Have you read the book you dumb cunt, he literally praises the martyred soldiers of CNT-FAI, all through the book. He never became a conservative, but was more sympathetic to the Spanish Anarchists after he saw their betrayal by the Soviet backed forces.

...

You realise that Darwin didn't actually say that?

fixedgear808.blogspot.com/2012/03/racist-quote-attributed-to-charles.html

Open up a fucking book.

Retard.

Again, I asked for a definition, which I could have just googled. You gave me another example. You are not listening to me at all at this point, are you?

So it's false because you want it to be or because you have proof? Because you haven't shown me that proof whatsoever.

B-b-but I saw it somewhere that looked authoritative, and that's the only criteria I value when looking through sources!

See

Sorry, but not everyone is a fucking idiot that believes everything he reads in overly compressed jpegs.

Not with someone who can't tell what my question is asking even though it was green texted right above it.

The people who are debating this retard shitposter.

Either you have the patience of Buddha and have an over 9000 power level in dialectics, or too much free times on your hands.

Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it's not.

Are you seriously suggesting that you still don't know what replication means, after the two examples I gave you and the reference to one study being a possible fluke? This is honestly beyond your ability to deduce?

You're going to have to specifically explain what it is that's going over your head here, because I'm not sure a literal definition would be in your wheelhouse at this point.

Give me citations or bullshit.

The one where it was implied in any meaningful way that you're right. You're not.

Probably a combination.
Usually I'm just trying to bait people here to increase the board activity so when a bona fide moron comes along…it's quite fun.

Why? You wouldn't understand any of them.

I asked for a definition and you never gave one. Don't blame me for your inability to understand a very clear request. Regardless your examples implied what I assumed from the outset: that replication was just another word for testing.

You realize Orwell structured the society of 1984's Oceania after Marx's analysis of capitalist society, yes?

It's one of the subtle ironies in the book.

So bullshit it is then.

And yet that is the whole basis of calling him a conservative. Rightcucks that read 1984 lose their shit when they look up Orwell for real and do obscene mental gymnastics to justify the cognitive dissonance of using a socialist's critique of Stalinism as a reason to hate socialism.

Nope, still wrong. You are making unwarranted leaps in logic and oversimplifying an idea that probably contains too much nuance for your comfort.

And yet you proceeded to do just that.

I'm not who you're replying to, I'm just observing that it wouldn't be a useful thing to do and you didn't deny it.

The basis is right fucking here:>>685456

Did you not notice the links in the picture?

So you're just really pretentious and full of yourself then? Good for you.

Did you notice mine?

No.

Cherry picked quotes are not evidence. He was an anarchist sympathizer that despised Stalin.

>so youre just and

ouch that'll learn me to interfere with stormchimp's comfort

I can't be wrong, I made a simple request and you failed and sperged out.

...

Why do I have to make the effort to explain the books you've purported to read?

If you want to shoot yourself in the foot next time because you have only a germ of an idea of what replication really is, suits me.

You're in some hardcore denial buddy.

No, I just saw an artifact laden picture with a Clansman quote.

Fine with me.

...

I said citations. I have the damn book on my shelf, just give me page numbers. Unless you were just making shit up before.

You're doing the exact same thing . . .

lol k

If it's so simple then why couldn't you have just given me a definition?

Except for the fact that I'm not just randomly picking whatever words I feel might be hurtful, I'm describing your retarded behavior with reasonable accuracy.

typical leftist mentality

everything you say ousts you as a ridiculous shitposter with poor baiting skills.

Just open the damn book. I'm not reading it to you. This isn't a bed time story.

Here's a quote for you anyway:

"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. … This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion."

I'm also fine with being in denial of the objective truth that sticking your hand in fire is pleasant.

Watson was a clansman? The guy who discovered DNA was a clansman? No shit? I guess there are some really intelligent clansman out there hunh?

Personally I prefer the truth no matter how ugly and unethical

Because then you'd build on that momentum to try and stonewall me indefinitely with escalatingly unreasonable requests for other materials. It's not my responsibility to educate a retard whose hubris is damaging his ability to be objective, and I've seen this prelude to a gish gallop many a time.

Also

Take off that fucking flag. You don't deserve it, little pseudointellectual stormcuck.

That's what I'm doing.

That's what your doing.

This is an "appeal to authority" and is based on his personal feelings toward his black coworkers.
There is an ex-astronaut that believes in UFO conspiracy theories, after all. His credentials do not justify his insanity.

Everyone who says this out loud is just trying to convince himself of a falsehood.

My reading of the book is going to be different from yours. I ask for page numbers because you have a specific point to make I assume is spelled out in specific passages. Give me page numbers or you're making shit up.

Holy fuck, there's gonna be some tears in your bedroom tonight when this is over.

Also, Nobel laureates believing stupid things is actually pretty common: skepdic.com/nobeldisease.html

That was your post, not mine?

Shh, don't tell the stormchimps that science doesn't work on the basis of authorities issuing fiats, you'll break their hearts AND their minds!

You don't usually see niggers in cubicles for a reason.

...

Thank you for admitting that you personally despise blacks and base your worldview around this.

...

Page numbers and definitions are not unreasonable if you aren't full of shit and have actually done your homework.

Let me guess, you're going to go full stormtard and openly weep that I'm not telling you what gish galloping is now, right?

It's not personal. They just aren't white and need to die. They are a waste of space, and white people could use Africa better than they ever could. Niggers are like cockroaches but bigger.

More obscurity as a substitute for being intelligent.

Hopefully this'll change when you get some healthcare coverage. Hopefully maybe some socialist will hook you up?

> will console me after this latest exposure of my retardation

Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Did I ever complained about people not releasing research about it?

Talk about putting words on other peoples mouths, moron.

So you're just reminding me of a detail so trivial it may as well not matter at all to this debate. Good for you.

...

Never stop, stormchimp.

It's chock full of examples—and indeed the very basis of natural selection—for why race-wars and eugenics are bullshit. No matter differences in appearance, common descent unites us all and is the foundation of basic human equality. For Darwin, evolution made slavery impossible. He and his family were ardent abolitionists, who were fully convinced of the "brotherhood" of man arising from a "common stock" that came into existence through a single act of creation. After all, Darwin's grandfather, Josiah Wedgewood I, designed and manufactured by the tens of thousands the Jasperware medallion depicting the black man, kneeling, in chains, bearing the caption: "Am I not a man and a brother?"

Another passage for you (probably should have posted this one first tho):

"Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man."

No.

pic for proof

gg

And you complained about me being partial.

From the perspective of a white person, yes, it's only bad if it happens to us. If other people are being genocided then I hope it's white people doing and not someone else.

You sound like an SJW false flagging.

Comparing modern cultural politics to Native American relations is fucking retarded, too.

Don't let me ruin your moment.

Yeah, white people are smart enough to see past multiculturalism. Native Americans wouldn't have even been able to grasp the concept.

...

Are you one of those retards who thinks that the major cause of Native American defeat was because of confrontations with European colonials?

The US government literally kidnapped native children and forced them to live as though their heritage did not exist. That is not what multiculturalism is. They only got their independence once they were assfucked past stability.

You are also retarded if you think native black citizens are somehow invaders. Their birth rate is similar to the white one!

...

Do you even battle of little bighorn?

...

What the fuck is that argument even anymore?

It would have been more human to gas them.

Multiculturalism is reverse manifest destiny.

I'm just using the word in the context they created and showing how they're incorrect. I agree though.

That doesn't even make sense.

No, they're liberals you fuckwit.

Maybe they haven't accepted the free market as their personal lord and savior, but that doesn't make them not liberals. Capitalism with a Human Face is still capitalism, and its supporters are still liberals.

Manifest destiny means white man spreads out over America, multiculturalism means less white people in America. Get it?

Ethnic cleansing =/= ethnic mingling.

Ethnicity is a spook, though.

I get what you mean, but that's not what the word means.
It's like affirmative action, there are good reasons to criticize it, but stormfags are too dumb to know.

Ethnicity isn't culture. Multiethnic societies can be monocultural.

No, it means less white people as an overall share of the population. Math eludes you now as well, I suppose?

Dose darn librols

Dude

...

makes no sense under socialism
nope
stopping giving the rich free money is now demanding "free stuff"
how do you have a powerful government in a stateless society

Your definition of socialist is different from most people in the world (and those with these views call themselves liberals in the US), you probably are basically a Holla Forumslack who don't believe in nationalism, and associate your beliefs with socialism, and that only end up in supporting the ones who would do all that stuff.

We support the historical definition of socialism which is worker ownership and management of the means of production.

Are you stupid?

I prefer leftist intelligentsia instead of mouth breathing, emotive proles who get all emotional when they hear the national anthem, going to church, monarchy, and this obsession with 'tradition' and 'family'.

I don't care if the masses love such things.
It doesn't justify their stupidity.
And what 'real movements and struggles' are you babbling about?
Are you one of those morons that get sentimental when you hear some incoherent "wise" populist rhetoric that criticizes the banks and politicians?
Don't over glorify the masses and try to romanticize what really is stupid, tribal tendencies which are unfortunately common among the human race.

The way regular people and leaders understand and apply socialism is different of that. You can't deny this.

Yes I can
Watch me

So don't complain that it isn't real socialism when you are a slave to phony el presidente and all the countrie's infrastructure is owned by the government whose finances are owned by the 1% capitalist global bankers.

You people are hopeless.

...

memed

So what? People think that space-time has something to do with hyperspeed travel. They're wrong.

Now, I'm not one to be hung up on labels. I support whichever movement seeks to abolish top-down hierarchy in any form. Which labels and names that movement goes by may differ.

On this board however, we call that socialism. And whenever someone calls top-down state control "socialism" we disagree with them.

Global bankers support "socialism" as a pyramid scheme trick to destroy local businessmen and take over with a puppet state.

WUT?

I think we all know who you really mean, user

It's all about giving direct control of infrastructure and people to their puppet.

And this is not true yet, becouse?

And they need socialism, not neoliberalism, to do this, why?

Can you even create logic in your brains, whithout PURE IDEOLOGY?

Yes it is truth, all socialists leaders here in latin america fuck up local business, ban guns, trash the army, empower the government, create massive debt; Then the "opposition" liberals, who are the same thing but appeal to "muh jesus" and in favor of privatizing stuff to overseas, kick in and sell the country cheap.

The trick is happening right now in Brazil and Argentina, and will expand into Venezuela, Bolívia and Chile soon.

...

Maximum petit-bourg.

CIA instaled Dictator
IMF dictatorship till people revolted.

"It's socialist leaders, you guise!"

Your meme pic sure showed meme.

Do you even know what happens here? There were socialist governments who did all I said till recently and now there are lib presidents in Argentina with Macri and Brazil and with Temer.

m e m e
e
m
e

Now you're getting it

Business owners who work together with his employees and live on the same community aren't the same as 0,0000001% globalists.

No. They are petit.
And they are the same people that will side with the bourgies and create fascism once crisis strikes.

also,

Critquing the bourgeois class and their system as a whole does not mean giving parasitic bankers and stock brokers a free pass. We know that they are parasites and that they profit without producing but that doesn't mean productive capitalists earn legitimately earn the profits they make. The farther management and small business owners tend to be from actual production or labor the more they tend to earn.

The fact that you reduce the issue down to "businessmen who provide products and services to the community" is evidence of your eclecticism in economic thinking. A landlord for instance usually doesn't produce anything even if they can be classed as a "small business" owner; ditto with convenience store owners.

We believe the logic of capitalism show that the rise of big monopolies and the demise/subordination of smaller locally based businessmen is inevitable. We don't advocate doing nothing about those monopolies or

As you term them. That is why we advocate the struggle against imperialism, as those monopolies tend to be based in the rich countries. We are for businessmen who want to throw off those monopolies, but we warn workers that merely doing so will not be a pancea.

They are a smaller version of the same beast

His point still stands.

DemSoc =/= SocDem
Socialism =/= SocDem
DemSoc =/= Socialism

How is democratic socialism not socialism?

It is. Same as Posadism is Socialism.

We want to get rid of all leaches, the size of the leach makes no difference.

The small leaches are unimortant.
Once the crisis is one step away from war or revolution, middle class is essentialy vanished.

All that is needed is for them to grow class con.

Small leaches will side with the bigger leaches since they both get the same source of sustenance.

Then whatever small leaches are left that don't want to join us, get smashed with the big ones.

355 replies to this shitty bait…. come on guys.

They brand themselves as socialists and have almost complete support by those who call themselves socialist. In a situation like that you should start thinking if you aren't.

I don't mean that people want to give a free pass to them, but that is what usually happens, they are too strong to fall or aren't even based in the country to be affected. And that usually ends up killing the local industry.

In agriculture most of it is done by machinery now and the crops which still need people have work done by landowners, specially the ones who attend our own demand. The ones who do large scale planting are multinational corporations.

And I think Imperialism is more like the muscle to the actual thing, like the British Empire was always under the banker's thumb, or the US being used to invade other countries, and they aren't really part of the wealthier countries peoples even if residing there.

That's like claiming they are bad because they are also people, they are bad because they scheme on taking over and their business don't add to the system.

This thread pretty much confirms my belief that the vast majority of non-lolbertarian rightism (and even a fair share of lolbert) in the US boils down to a pathological, vitriolic hatred of blacks.

It sounds so improbably specific, yet it's so obvious.

Yeah, as Hudson says, finance doesn't support the military, rather the military is there to support finance.There are a number of ways ways finance capital and other monopoly-pricing firms negatively impact the economies of first world countries.

I'm sure there are ways that it allows the population of rich countries as a whole to realize benefits, but no, the super-elite and the average people aren't in the same boat or even tolerant of each other.

Many communists think that successful mobilizations in the developing world can help change the balance of class forces in the developed world.

Developing nations are in quite a pickle as I don't think the local bourgeoisie is strong enough to replicate Western industrial success. Only two former colonial agricultural nations achieved a similar proportion of industrially employed labor as the West (30-50% of population on average): South Korea, and Taiwan.

Better to plan an economy around productive labor and share work amongst the population, then waiting decades or another century to reach some magic employment proportion imo

Rome didn't allow other people to move into its cities and live there under their own laws in non Roman enclaves.

Probably has to do something with the fact that over half the crime in the US is committed by a tenth of the population.

If you didn't put blacks in ghettos, use the FBI to spread the crack epidemic,sell off all of your industry to China, and continuously target them and kill them for minor offences then maybe that wouldn't have been the case historicaly.

I'm not absolving African-americans of all responsibility, but their status as lumpenproles is obviously more related with a racist justice and law enforcement system, as well as the capitalist de-industrialization.

That's exactly what you just did.

lol so ignoring the fact that being born in the ghetto means it doesn't account for socioeconomic status?

Also nice skewered statistics like the Color of Crime, really subtle there.

Do you guys beleive the bullshit you write? At least post some thought into your bullshit.