Am I racist? 2.0

[Leshma]

Social sciences are phony constructs invented by and for lesser people so they can call themselves experts in some field of science. There is nothing useful in any of these lectures or videos posted on this page.

[Westwood]

Really tho dunno why you guys get all up in arms about some weirdos being weirdos and calling themselves different pronouns or whatever. Its kind of like bullying disguised as political idealogy and I get why people don't want it in their schools

Your weirdos don't exist in a vacuum. Their confusion is indicative of a wider social sickness which will continuously spread to impressionable minds and malleable institutions if tolerated in any of its forms. Without any consideration of how they relate to the world they live in, yes, on the surface these weirdos would seem like nothing. An infinitesimally small segment of mankind who are of no concern to me, I do agree. And yet these would-be worthless ants are the talk of the town, are they not? Something that has no meaningful reason to exist, let alone any reason to be brought to my attention, is somehow an issue of great interest, subjected to outsize media coverage, spawning special interest groups, generating controversy between people who are not themselves members of the "weirdo" segment of note. Why? You are, yourself, inclined to defend these weirdos it seems. Why?

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Social sciences are phony constructs invented by and for lesser people so they can call themselves experts in some field of science.

(click to show/hide)

Functionalist sociology is math. That's the truly wonderful thing about math, all the seemingly complex things we perceive can be reduced to numbers on some level, and likewise a simple equation can exist that defines everything we conceptualize as "life," isn't that beautiful? Beauty is also math.

There is nothing useful in any of these lectures or videos posted on this page.

this is true tho tbh

[Kadeth]

I can bring myself to hate the Normie no longer. Rather, I am oblivious to him; my mind renders no sensory input of his existence. He is null and void—worth less than the spacetime he inhabits. My eyes do not see him, my ears do not hear him, my lips do not speak to him. Some may argue that I am ceding territory to his mongoloid horde; that in not engaging with him I have somehow lost an imaginary battle. Why does one wish to validate his existence? I seek instead a perceptive genocide; to nullify him, to render my senses immune to his presence.

[Jona]

My eyes do not see him, my ears do not hear him, my lips do not speak to him. I seek instead a perceptive genocide; to nullify him, to render my senses immune to his presence.

Kinda what I wish I could do to all people with anime avatars tbh.

[Vibe]

Kinda what I wish I could do to all people with anime avatars tbh.

wow you discriminative fuck, what's next, drowning lil puppies? #otakulivesmatter

[Sniger]

we all live on the same planet. borders and nations are things invented by and for small evil men in suits.


“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

PS. “In fact, the real source of all those differences, is that the savage lives within himself, whereas the citizen, constantly beside himself, knows only how to live in the opinion of others; insomuch that it is, if I may say so, merely from their judgment that he derives the consciousness of his own existence.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

[Oberyn]

They're kind of allies in the overall culture war in America.

You see them as allies in a culture war, because you're a degenerate leftist mongoloid. A lot of people see them as enemies in that same culture war.

So here you are, going UGH IT'S 2018 GUYS JUST BECAUSE THESE FUCKING SUBHUMANS HAVE GOT THEIR CLAWS DEEP IN ACADEMIA AND MEDIA AND LEGISLATION AND CORPORATE CULTURE AND ETC...DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, THEY'RE JUST POOR CONFUSED VICTIMS AND NOT USEFUL IDIOT RANK AND FILE GOONS FOR ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

No one gives a shit what you "conceed", you turd. From the very first you are already so completely mentally twisted nothing you say can be taken as anything but the hebraic kvetching subversion of a parasitic worm. "I don't think we should treat insane people as insane because they're useful to me in my quest to annihilate my society", just lol. Again, like with Leshman, I'm going to be serious for once. Kill yourself, and take as many "transgenders" and "genderqueers" with you, if they don't kill themselves first when they realize how badly the fucked their lives and selves up because some far-left indoctrinator convinced them it was not only OK, it was morally necessary. 

Take Sniger "basic bitch we are all human kumbaya hippy bundle of sticksry" with you as well, thanks. Go somewhere that's not a majority white first world country and preach your dogma, you fucking retard. See how well it passes to the other humans that are just like you and obviously shouldn't care about border or identity or tribes. What a fucking deluded soyboy devoid of any realistic perspective on the world.

[Angantyr]

(click to show/hide)

we all live on the same planet. borders and nations are things invented by and for small evil men in suits.


“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

PS. “In fact, the real source of all those differences, is that the savage lives within himself, whereas the citizen, constantly beside himself, knows only how to live in the opinion of others; insomuch that it is, if I may say so, merely from their judgment that he derives the consciousness of his own existence.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau had a very romantic view of human nature, to say the least. His thoughts sprang from Enlightenment philosophy that believed in the 'noble savage', the inherently good nature of Man before society/civilization, as opposed to the earlier Hobbesian selfish and uncivilized competition (as seen in his 1651 work Leviathan) where the structure of the social contract between government and society is what kept humanity from plunging back into the anarchic condition that Hobbes called the 'state of nature', which, given human nature, human desires paired with scarce resources to fulfill these desires must be a 'war of all against all'.

We know from modern archaeology that while the 'state of nature' wasn't necessarily all Hobbesian in the dawn of Man, it was still exceedingly violent. As for a modern example Steven Pinker argues in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13543093-the-better-angels-of-our-nature) that violence in the world has continuously declined throughout history, the main benefactors, according to him, being the growth of the clearly defined nation state, increased commerce, increased literacy and communication and rational philosophy.

[Oberyn]

Ugh no man nature is like, totally peaceful and stuff maaaaaaaan *hits bong*. It's just like, capitalism that's the problem dude. If we just let Mother Nature into our hearts it's aaaaaallll goood, man. Tribalism is totally a social construct, like, built by the capitalists, right? *huffs paint*. We should just go back to nature and and be like bonobos maaaaaan, they have the right idea. *sniffs line*

[Angantyr]

A view on the role of genes in civilization, the genetic evolution of Europeans between 1000AD and 1800AD http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/03/15/first-worldism-part-5-the-european-revolution/:

From 1250 to 1800, the top 35.4% of the population by wealth or other status indicators of status had 32.9% more offspring than the bottom 65% did within “Europe and North America”, according to a paper by Vegard Skirbekk in 2008

And so what this means is that, assuming these numbers are roughly accurate, the top 35.4% of the population produced 42.16% of the next generation. And so in ten generations, the bottom 64.6% was effectively replaced by the top 35.4%.  If we assume a generation time of 25 years, there were 22 generations from 1250 to 1800, and so the top 35.4% “replaced” the bottom 2.3 times. Of course in reality it wouldn’t have happened exactly like this, as there’s no rule saying that certain genotypes were necessarily wiped out, just that they kept getting mixed in with constant waves of downwardly mobile offspring from the “upper class”.

Another factor that would reduce violent behavior and, more important and interestingly, the other traits that go along with a violent personality – is that from around 1000 AD to around 1750 AD, countries in Catholic Europe had very draconian punishments against criminality.

What Henry Harpending and Peter Frost argued in their paper Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification was that from around 1000 AD to 1750 AD, about 1.5% of the male population was executed for some sort of crime, either by court of by mob. Over 30 generations, this adds up to 45% of the males, or just 22.5% of the population. But the effect on whatever genotypic correlates with criminality will be greater than this.

This is an important point. It is not merely that those criminal individuals got removed. It is that their genes got removed out of the collective genetic tumbler. And so it is not merely that a few bad apples got removed each generation, but that those genes then couldn’t spread throughout the rest of the population. Each criminal can thus be seen as vessel in which a cluster of more criminal genes. And so when executed, those genes got removed throughout.

So conceptually, removing 0.75%% of the population each generation for 30 generations could remove something like 50% of the “criminal genes”, since you’re removing the most concentrated clusters of those genes each generation, not just the equivalent of the top 22.5% of a single generation.

The European revolution went like this:

1. (1000 AD – 1500 AD) Increased yield in agriculture resulting from the privatization of common and and the creation of capitalist farms allowed for more people to live in cities around 1600.  There weren’t factories at this point, but a higher proportion of people able to be something other than a farmer.

2. (1500 AD – 1700 AD) Firms get bigger and start selling beyond their local market. They are aided by government spending on Canals and Turnpikes. This government spending is made possible by the increased tax revenue from the new tradesmen, who exist because farming is now more productive. This is commonly referred to as the “merchantilist era” or the “colonial era”.

3.  (1700 AD – 1880 AD) A “common market” is formed in England, the old local markets become obsolete and are retired or simply become part of a uniform trade law emanating from London. This makes mass production profitable, i.e. factories, because now the “market” you are selling to is the whole of England, not 10,000 people, of whom perhaps only 1,000 need new shoes every year. Factories are water-powered. This is “early industrialization”.

4. (1880 AD on) The steam engine becomes economical, which is then used to make farming even more efficient, which then frees up more labor for factories, which are also made more economical as they no longer have to rely on water-power – and at that point you have entered the world of “the economy” as we know it today.

These changes occurred over the same years that the war on murder and the downward social regression was happening. Where the bottom two-thirds was being genetically replaced by the upper-third, and the equivalent of the most violent 22.5% of the population was removed from the gene pool.

The people in Western Europe in 1525 were a completely different genetic stock from the people there in 1250. And the people in 1800 were also a totally different stock from those in 1525.

And so the commoner of 1525 was the elite of 1250, and the commoner of 1800 was the elite of 1525.

What then was the commoner of 1250? He was something radically different from the modern European. He was a serf and a perpetrator of the traditional “feudal” economy that existed, with minor variation, around the whole planet.

The conclusion just pops out at you: The Industrial Revolution, product of the Agricultural Revolution, were both a product of the European Revolution. A genetic change that involved the indirect genocide and replacement of the majority of the Western European population at least twice, possibly three times. And this process probably occurred in Eastern Europe and Russia as well, though apparently to a lesser extent.

[njames89]

2018 and the government still won't let me sexually identify as someone that doesn't pay taxes. Absolute bigots.

[Sniger]

"The thread that attempt to justify racism"

[Oberyn]

Don't really need to justify something that has always existed and always will exist. Like trying to "justify" evolution or genetics, it's not really needed. It's just something anyone who doesn't have their head up their own asses or brainwashed by idealistic claptrap accepts. You're the equivalent of a retarded peasant 1000 years ago calling someone a heretic because they do not accept the religious dogma brainwashed into them.

[Leshma]

"The thread that attempt to justify racism"

They are racists, alright. This thread is just a platform that enables them to spread their propaganda because our supreme overlords are allowing that. They can't do it on Twitter, they can't do it on Facebook, they can't do it on Reddit. Places where they are allowed are already 100% full of racists so it doesn't make much sense to spread anything in place with believers. So they choose mixed places with normal people to try to infect them with their racism. And it is working.

[Oberyn]

Yeah definetely, it's a disease trying to infect others, that's why it must be supressed and deplatformed everywhere (That is white and first world, of course. It is a given that the rest of the planet are backwards barbarians that just aren't on our superior level of ethics and morality yet, the poor dumb child-like beasts, amiright?) . How are these people even "allowed" to have opinions that don't accord with my soyboy, dogmatic, illogical, retarded worldview, fucking disgusting.

Presenting people with facts and reality? No that is bad and wrong, we cannot allow these evil, evil racists to talk, or they might contaminate others. Almost as if there were some sort of underlying logic or truth that cannot be argued or debated against, so the only solution is censorship against the heretics. How dare they speak against our noble, superior morals and values and dogmatic worldview, that are totally self-evident. So self-evident they must be protected against any and all criticism.