This is why I hate liberals

@Serendipper

I’ll appeal to the thousands of scientists who say we’re on brink of mass extinction.

If a one child policy worked for China, it can probably work for our underclass.

According to Canadian psychologist Philippe Rushton, whites and east Asians are more K selective (nurturing offspring over quantity of offspring) than other races.
I mean, is it any wonder only East Asians (Japanese and South Koreans) have been able to emulate the west’s success?
They have the biggest brains and highest iQs.

And environmental laws prevent unnecessary prosperity, as they ought to, unnecessary prosperity is the enemy of the environment.
We shouldn’t consume a hell of a lot more than we need to.

It’s a fact brown people have 2 or 3 times more kids than whites and East Asians.

Disparity isn’t necessarily bad, the sustainably productive should be better off, and we should prioritize ourselves and our land over theirs, because we’re us and they’re them.

China is poorer than Mexico per capita, yet they’re having less kids.
Races, and cultures aren’t the same, it’s folly to treat them as tho they were.

One exception doesn’t disprove the rule, whites gave us the modern world, some races haven’t given us anything.

Thousands of scientists beg to differ.

Tell that to the thousands of species that’ve gone extinct, and the thousands of species that’ve been subjugated, thanks to man.

They also told us we’d cure AIDS and cancer by now, and I’m still waiting for my flying car and my ray gun.

Young folks tend to get more conservative as they age.
There’s a time to progress, and a time to conserve, in the 21st century, now more than ever, we need to find creative ways to conserve, not only the environment, but what remains of our race and, some of its customs, not progress.

Resources allow creative people to be more creative.
Creative people should have more resources than uncreative people, if we want to increase creativity.

It was founded on legal, European immigration till 1965.
And indigenous is somewhat of a social construct (well, perhaps everything in science, and thought is, but perhaps this in particular).
How many millennia, or centuries does something have to be confined to a land, with no, or ‘little’ external influence before becoming indigenous?
Europeans have been settling the Americas at least since the Vikings over a millennium ago.
And so called ‘Native Americans’ are more European now than Native American after centuries of miscegenation with us, which’s why I call them mestizos.

Whites tend to work hard, and they don’t cause too much trouble…at least within their borders, that’s why we’re prosperous, and others are poor.

East Asians are more comparable to whites in many ways than many other races.

The point is whites can do it, we don’t need illegals.

That’s cool. I’m waiting for you to get caught up before I dig in. In the mean time I have to work on a giant reply to Iambiguous. I shouldn’t put it like that because this is fun; not work :slight_smile:

@Serendipper

If someone doesn’t develop their land soon, say within a year, even if they’re paying taxes on it, it should be returned to the commons.
From there, either government can develop, or designate it a national park/nature reserve, or another private entity can develop it, or it can be left undeveloped until someone does.

I just meant that someone has to, umm, unambiguously, if you will, develop land, in order to own it, not that it should belong to whoever claims they can develop it most.

Might is to right what apples are to oranges.
Might is about what you can do, right is about what you, or others think you, or others ought to do.
Not everyone with might does the same thing with it, psychopaths have different considerations than men and women of compassion and conscience (which’s not to say men and women of compassion and conscience can’t also be selfish, or that compassion and conscience are necessarily incompatible with selfishness, or that compassion and conscience can’t manifest differently in different people or circumstances).
You’re talking about what you think is right all over the place, irrespective of what the bourgeoise, bureaucrats (qualitative might) and proletariat (quantitative might) think, I don’t know why you won’t talk about it here.

If that were true, non-politician republicans would win every term.
And if republicans didn’t value education, every republican politician would be uneducated.
While republicans may not value formal political education quite as much as democrats, because more republicans are rural, and weary of leftist state education (whereas more democrats are urban, and weary of the rightist church), they still value it, it’s a wild exaggeration to say they don’t.
And what Trump lacks in formal political education, he makes up for in worldliness.

People vote differently because of the electoral college, for example, a lot of republicans in California and New York didn’t even bother voting, for they knew their vote wouldn’t count in all probability.

So did Trump, accusations of racism and sexism, Russian collusion, tax evasion, etcetera.

I think a lot of people wanted a woman for a change, they were just too worried about illegals, Muslims and offshoring to take a chance on one this election.

She beat the other democratic candidates, who didn’t have all those issues, and Trump beat her, so he probably would’ve beat them too.

That tells you republicans were less concerned about guns and so on, and more about illegals, Muslims and offshoring.

He’s smarter than that plodding, mumbling, stuttering Obama.

Mestizos, Mulattos and others commit more crime than whites, per capita.

Firstly, at this point in time, a class 1 or 2 society is science fiction.

Secondly, I don’t want to put all my eggs into one basket, having one culture, nation and race makes us vulnerable, because if they fail, we won’t’ve anything to fall back on + we can’t as effectively specialize.

Thirdly, a multiplanetary species may diverge from itself, perhaps all the more so than a monoplanetary one.
If humans colonize other planets, overtime, some of these planets may become isolated from each other.
After millions, or thousands of years, they may become so different biologically, and culturally, inviting nonindigenous humans to live among them wouldn’t make any sense, because nonindigenous humans wouldn’t be as adapted to the environmental, and societal conditions as the natives, or they may not want them for other reasons: lack of jobs, space to accommodate them, because they’re inferior, or just unattractive…

Nativism is inevitable, perhaps all the more so in outer space.
Splitting off from one another isn’t necessarily a bad thing, there’s trade-offs.
And if you think it’ll be beneficial, you can still trade with others, while keeping them at bay.

There are trade-offs to virtually every course of collective, and individual action you can take.
You need context, in order to effectively determine what is right and good.

Worker’s rights?
The poorest people in society don’t work at all.

I say a society is only as rich as the sustainably productive are sustainably prosperous.
And both the unproductive (the underclass, and the overclass), and the unsustainably productive (them who mainly needlessly produce/consume) should be less prosperous than the sustainably productive (them who mainly needfully produce/consume).
What I’m proposing here is a little bit different than the traditional left/right paradigm.

I thought you said disparity/exploitation = growth?

economic growth isn’t necessarily a zero sum game, at least for humans, individuals and groups can work together to more effectively exploit nature than they could alone for the benefit of all, or exclusively, or predominantly for the benefit of the (most) (sustainably) productive.

Immigration is now negative, even if it’s European, in terms of crowding and polluting North American lands.

My community is now majority brown.

I’m not eliminating them, I’m preserving them (mine and theirs), mass immigration eliminates heritages.

I want to be surrounded mostly by people who reason and look like me.
The races differ, not just on the outside, but on the inside, their personalities, differ, the way they think, differs.
And to that you can add cultural differences.

I get what you’re saying, there’s more genetic diversity in bringing races together, because of the hybrids they’ll beget, than keeping them apart, but still there’s pros and cons to diversity.
A homogeneous population will produce fewer kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring fewer cures/treatments, whereas a heterogenous population will produce more kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring more cures/treatments.
A heterogenous population will have more body types, with heterogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (convoluted, difficult), whereas a homogenous population will have fewer body types, with homogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (simple, easy).
It’ll also be harder to get your diverse population to agree on anything, from what temperature a mall should be, to morals, values, politics and law.

Homogeneous Japs and Jews are still very successful, in spite of their shortcomings.

And birthrates wax and wane, living in an overcrowded land probably makes you less psychologically inclined to have kids, as it should.
As Japan’s population shrinks, they may become more inclined to have kids again.
Japan’s population needs to gracefully shrink to 10% of what it is today anyway, which’ll take a few centuries, and if it doesn’t correct itself on its own, external measures can be taken by government, without adding foreigners.

  • as I said a little earlier, advanced contraceptive techniques and sexual liberation are new things, when given the opportunity, some genetic lines will choose to self-destruct, but others will reproduce, and they will exclusively produce reproducers, so the pop will probably bounce back, evolution finds a way.

@Serendipper

https://www.cornandsoybeandigest.com/issues/soil-wealth-why-north-america-feeds-world

Plenty of places had grasslands.

The Aztecs, Incas, and especially the Egyptians, west, south and east Asians had plenty of domesticated animals, and plenty of other places probably could’ve had domesticated animals as well.

Whites are so proud of themselves and their ways they’re committing biological and cultural self-genocide.

The fit shall inherit the earth, according to Darwin.

Sometimes it’s beneficial to open your borders, and minds to foreigners, sometimes it’s detrimental, foreigners bring good and bad, again it depends on the context, and your preferences.

North Africa was a desert when Egyptian Civilization sprung.

Interesting how civilization arose in the harshest place in Africa, where Caucasians lived.

We’re citizens, and we pay taxes, they’re illegal, and they do not.

We, are entitled to this country, and so are legal Hispanics for that matter, illegals are not.

Or we could do what both Trump and, some of what Bernie proposed we do to raise wages.

Altho perhaps it’s best each state mandates its own minimum wage, like each Canadian province mandates theirs.

everyone knows made in China or Mexico stands for cheap, low quality, potentially hazardous, toxic products.

And if you go out of your way to buy from China or Mexico, you support child slave labor.

Democrats want to turn the US into the world’s largest safe space, free from all accountability, free from all social and political dissent.

We’ll need lawyers present during copulation.

Again, cutting taxes for the middle class.
Fairer trade.
Helping to prevent further illegal immigration and offshoring.
Forcing other countries to fend for themselves, instead of relying on the US for financial and military aid.

And while I’m mostly in favor of universal healthcare, Obamacare was unanimously pegged as a disaster, it needed to be dismantled.
The US is always going further into debt, and it’ll keep going further until the federal reserve is abolished.
Trump has at times talked favorably of raising the minimum wage, and he knows most Americans, including his base, are in favor of raising it, I highly doubt he’ll reduce it.

I’m uncomfortable with Jewish bankers, but overall, I think he’s been okay for the poor, unemployment is down, wages and working conditions are up, even the democrats admit the economy is his strongpoint.

If no one did any work, we’d all starve.

You’re talking about running everything on machines, terraforming planets and economic and social re-engineering, and I’m the one trying to force my ideals on nature?

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t, a one child policy worked for China.

I mean are you saying prohibiting theft, rape and murder doesn’t work, are you an anarchist then?

If so, then why’re you pro-Bernie, shouldn’t we instead let the system get so bad it’ll implode, so we can build our anarchist utopia in its ashes?

Democrats are no better.

Hitler had a lot of bad ideas, along with some good ones.

Because allowing criminals and drug addicts to have and raise kids doesn’t cause suffering?

I’m not advocating we prohibit anyone from doing anything, I’m just saying society shouldn’t just hand people money, without expecting anything in return, it shouldn’t be completely unconditional.

If you want something form us, we have the right to expect some things from you in exchange.

I don’t associate interregional brains with creativity anymore than intraregional brains.

That sounds more like intuition to me than creativity.

Creativity is intelligently making a new discovery, or making something new and useful or interesting.

This can be done intuitively, holistically, and haphazardly by synthesizing a ton of data simultaneously, without being able to show your work, how you got there, or it can be done reasonably, reductively, and methodically by analyzing a ton of data in a linear, sequential, step by step fashion, or some combination of the two.

Gays are more feminine, and so they’re more sensual, fashionable, and perhaps more creative at some artistic things than straight men.

But probably worse at philosophy, science and engineering.

If you look at most philosophers, scientists and inventors, they’re unkempt, and their attire is pretty plain, drab.

Gays are probably good at pop art, but poor at the sort of art Beethoven, and Goethe are known for.

I think I’m pretty well rounded.

We don’t know that, life may not get another chance, but even if does, it may not resemble us at all, and it’ll probably always be behind where we could’ve been had we not destroyed ourselves.

If our exploration of ourselves, life and existence is putting us in grave danger, than it’s best we refrain, until we figure out how to proceed safely.

There’s no rush, we may not ready for certain kinds of knowledge.

When someone invents a replicator, than I’ll concede, we don’t have to work, but until then, we do.

I see what you’re saying, but while we probably shouldn’t have to work as much as we do, everyone who can work, should have to do some work, until there’s no work left to do, which’ll be somewhere between thousands and millions of years from now, if not impossible.

She wants special considerations on account of her race, religion and sex, in a majority white, Christian country, it’s absurd.

@Serendipper

This’s an exaggeration.

While perhaps the Boomers didn’t grow the economy or make as many scientific or technological breakthroughs as their forefathers did (which, btw, is an indication we’ve picked much or most of the low hanging fruit, economically and so on), the economy, science and technology continued to progress under the Boomers reign.
Boomers by and large managed to maintain, and expand on their forbearers accomplishments.

Here’s a list of Boomer inventors:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS182429596720101222

For better or worse, perhaps Boomers were more socially and artistically revolutionary than the generations that directly preceded them.
On the other hand, perhaps the beatniks, existentialists, Dadaists, jazz, flappers and the nuclear family get overlooked for just how revolutionary they were for their time.

I’m neither especially anti, nor pro-boomer, or any generation for that mater.

On the one hand, middle class boomers tend not to want socialism for their kids, on the other hand, I guess they tend to give their kids more of a helping hand than the generation before them on a private, individual level.

And while I’m in favor of more socialism, it’s not all good.
If we’re not careful, reallocation of money and property can become corrupt.
Taxes can be raised more on the lower classes than the upper, and spending more on bailing out megabanks and corporations than individuals.
State corporations can become just as competitive, cutthroat, ruthless and rapacious as private ones, charging too much for their goods and services, and paying their workers too little.

each generation is always a little less mechanically inclined, and a little more academically inclined than the previous, at least that has been the overriding, prevailing trend for the last couple of centuries.
One generation isn’t really superior, there’s trade-offs.
For the most part, each is a product of the times they came of age in, rising to the challenges of the age in which they live.

While the young tend to be a bit more publicly educated than the old for better or worse, the old tend to be a lot more experienced.
It’s not as if higher education wasn’t available to the boomers.
It’ll take decades before the young become as experienced, and by then, the young will be the new old, and the old will be some combination of senile, and dead.
I’m not saying old people are necessarily wiser than young, but they tend to be, and all other considerations being equal (like intelligence, which’s of course something different than knowledge and experience), they are.
I’ll say there were things that were true yesterday, that’re no longer true, or as true today, so the older generation do have to step out of the way some.

This is a half truth, the older are wiser in that they’re both more aware of how much they don’t know, and in that they know more than the young.

I don’t think it’s so much that old conservatives have no respect for public education, as they realize there’s a hell of a lot more to learn about life than what’s taught in school.

Foolhardiness is, and the young are eternally earning their reputation for it.

Or does experience, and the wisdom gleaned from it inclineth one to conservatism?

Nor would I, but still there’s a lot of bollocks taught in public education e.g. gender studies.

I think the republicans were better than the dems this term, normally I can’t see much, if any difference between them.

If you think democrats aren’t also in cahoots with the megabanks, military industrial complex and multinational corporations, think again.

I don’t identify as right wing, there are things I’m far left, center and far right on, I prefer to be flexible.

And if you seriously hate white people, you need to go back to your country of origin.

Minorities hate people because they envy them.

@Serendipper

Again, with or without machines, if no one works, no one eats.
The machines aren’t going to build, repair and fuel themselves, they’re not going to farm your food, bring it to your home and cook it for you, they merely assist us in these activities.

We need more fairness, not to exchange one class of parasites for another.

If you force them at gunpoint, probably, but you shouldn’t.
And how long can that go on for?
The quality and quantity of essential goods and services will plummet if individuals don’t have to earn them.
Hitherto parasites lived in destitution and squalor.
If they’re given the good life, and the opportunity to have as many kids as they like, you’ll debilitate and dumb down the population, and you’ll wind up with a society say resembling the one depicted in the film idiocracy.

But they are both examples of non-academic thinking.

Common sense no longer tells us the earth is flat.
It is the collective wisdom of common people, and it evolves as people become more, or differently experienced, as people (re)interpret their experience, as people reinforce their (re)interpretation of their experience by talking to each other, and as people are publicly, privately and self-educated.
Rather than thinking of it as necessarily in opposition to mainstream academia (yes, I said mainstream academia, there’s alt academia, just as there’s alt media and alt everything), it can be thought of as complementary, and supplementary (altho there’s nothing necessarily wrong with being in opposition to mainstream academia, as it can be mistaken, or corrupt).
And academia evolves, not only on its own, but by interacting with, and learning from common sense.
I’m an epistemological pluralist, I don’t look to one (sort of) institution for insight, or one method, I employ a variety.

Intuititon is what we do everyday, millions of times a days, because we can’t think through every decision we have to make linearly, sequentially, because we can’t consult a book or a professor all the time, for they have limits, and life itself has none.

Just about his whole shtick is about mushin, wu wei, Zen, hands-on, go with the flow, play it by ear, swim with the current, think on your feet, not sure how you missed it.

I’ll try to dig something up for you.

I’m in favor of a decent minimum wage and, sustainable social programs for the poor.

Nowadays at least, republicans are more libertarian than they are Christian fundamentalist or fascist when it comes to free speech, it’s democrats who’ve become authoritarian, merely criticizing, hell, insufficiently praising minorities, women or something loosely associated with them is an intolerable act of terrorism to them.

I’m surprised to hear you say that, you’ve done nothing but praise dems and rebuke and ridicule republicans.

I see, so you’re in favor of guns, and presumably not a (liberal) feminist?

@Serendipper

If you support child slave labor, lower wages and higher unemployment, and shoddy, toxic products, go with free trade, if not, go with fair.

More localism = less distribution costs, less pollution and less squandering of resources.

Again, capitalists don’t necessarily use the extra profits they make off hiring cheap domestic (illegals) and foreign (offshoring) labor to make their products cheaper, they’re not going to lower their prices unless they have to, and through cartels, they’re usually don’t.

The more dependent you are on China for goods (especially essential ones), the less bargaining power you have, they can charge you an arm and leg, and you can’t protest because you need them more than they need you.

  • Bernie thinks protectionism is a good idea. :slight_smile:

That’ll encourage jobs to come back and stay.

While I think men tend to make better leaders, I also think there’s plenty of exceptions.

I’ve voted for female politicians several times.

So long as they’re not anti-white male, and we don’t have to lower the benchmark, I think we could use more female politicians and perspectives.

I don’t hate the poor, I am poor, and in favor of more, sustainable socialism.

I don’t hate the sick, if someone is physically or legitimately mentally disabled, they should get help.

White on black/brown racism is almost nonexistent in the US.
Nigerian Americans and many other minorities (the smart ones who work hard) are more prosperous than white Americans.

And racism goes both ways.
I wouldn’t be surprised if whites are the least racist race, after centuries of progressivist indoctrination.
What other race welcomes perpetual mass illegal immigration with open arms?
Hell our race invented SJWs.

To combat a little private white on black/brown racism, you’re spending billions of dollars promoting a ton of state black/brown on white racism.
This isn’t about combating racism, it’s not even so much about hating us as it is about robbing us blind.
It’s a war being waged against white men, women and children, masquerading as justice.

Prohibition?

I’m in favor of legalizing drugs, I mean many pharmaceutical drugs are just as bad or worse than illicit.

I’m in favor of all that.

I think you’re just making a lot of this up.

Wiser doesn’t mean honest. Often, it means the reverse.

Forcing your employees to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week in hazardous, perilous conditions for a bowl of rice a day in a country with grossly substandard quality control, certainly doesn’t increase the quality of products being manufactured, it decreases it, it merely increases the quantity, not to mention, it’s inhumane.

Healthy and happy workers (like the ones in say Germany, who work less than Americans and Brits but’re more productive) manufacture high quality products, not sickly, suicidal ones.

The only people benefitting from domestic and foreign cheap labor, is the wealthy internationalists, not 1st world consumers, nor 3rd world producers.

We should be boycotting China, and corporations who hire illegals at home.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF8jUDzz5bE[/youtube]

There’re things I like about Bernie, and things I like about Trump.

When it comes to education, healthcare and minimum wage, I prefer Bernie, but when it comes to illegal immigration, Islamic extremism and offshoring, I prefer Trump.

Rahter than seeing Bernie and Trump as opposites, I see them as two sides of a, more populist coin, in opposition to the elitist coin, represented by Hillary on the one side, and Cruz, Kasich and Rubio on the other.

It’s too bad there wasn’t a candidate in favor of more of the right kind of nationalism and democratic socialism.

No! the only country benefiting from EU funds and manufacturing is/was Germany… obviously why they don’t need to work as long as Brits and Americans.

I am not anti-German… I have French-Germanic grand-parents, but the UK will not tolerate being sold down the river by the preceding then Socialist government who signed our rights away… along with the rest of unassuming Europe.

From what I understand German wages for manufacturing jobs are relatively low which is why the car industries are always booming. Germans seem to be very content indeed to work as semislaves and this is what reduces worker quality in all the rest of Europe. Like illegals driving down wages in a weak economy Germans drive wages down in a German economy.

That’s how the free markets fail because boycotts don’t work because people only care about price

I have been convinced for some time that the reason Natives were brought so close to extinction is they were good for neither friend nor slave, to put it bluntly. Had they been more “easy-going”, I think they could have assimilated in some way and survived with larger representation today.

The simple lesson to be learned is: be nice and you won’t be driven to extinction.

There is no war on white women because the white women relate to the brown women and don’t mind inclusiveness. Look at how many white women were elected to the House. There were 2 women elected for every man and at least half the women were white.

The war is on white men, but not just white men since gays are ok; it’s the bullheaded ones struggling to retain power in order to force their proclivities (drug wars, christian values, one must struggle to live, get healthcare, education, etc) on a population that doesn’t want it.

If you’d simply concede that people deserve a min standard of living (health, education, food, shelter) instead of being unable to stomach people getting something for nothing, end prohibitions based on the bible, then people will stop cheering your extinction.

Do what Bernie does and they will love you! Bernie has the highest approval rating of any senator in spite of being an old white guy.

But they survived.

All I can think is americanized women. Bring them here and they’ll become feminists in time. It’s like a contagious disease. I can’t see america being saddled with that goofy religion; it’s worse than Christianity!

But Romans still exist right? I think the German blondes had more to worry about.

Why did the Vikings disappear off Greenland but the Inuit did not?

There is no such thing as strong or weak, but optimized for an environment or not.

Luck can’t be earned.

You’re essentially saying that Bezos should have all that disparity because he found a way to capitalize on millions of people which is essentially saying that disparity is deserved because disparity is caused.

I was talking about domestic terror and not military invasions. The premise for bombing brown people is they cause trouble in the US, but that isn’t so because the whites are causing all the trouble.

I don’t know much about islamic terror in 3rd world countries.

Muslim ban or brown people ban? They could have recruited white muslims to fly the planes. And how do you ban a religion?

Ok I guess so, but I don’t see that desire progressing into the future. Americanized women is my evidence.

No I’m not saying only white oppress, but only whites have been oppressing… from what I can see.

Chris Hedges has a theory to explain that and I think I’ve mentioned it here before that whites are the only ones who fall for the myth of the american dream while the other races have accepted from a young age that they have to eat shit, so they don’t have a midlife crisis and decide to shoot-up a crowd. That also explains why whites commit suicide more.

Maybe, but all I know is he was a white guy.

Why do they call them “The Fighting Irish”? Why can’t that Irishman in the UFC keep it in his pants? They all seem to be loose cannons and proud of it.

Isn’t it? If any question is answered, then someone has been educated lol. So yes, education is the answer to everything. I realized a long time ago that it’s impossible to be angry if I have a good understanding on what’s going on.

Being more-smart is not the same as sufficiently smart. One idiot can be smarter than another idiot, but still be an idiot.

Seems like we treat it better now that we’ve gotten more educated about it.

Dominate doesn’t mean exterminate. If anything, it means coddle because if it meant destroy, then there would be nothing left to dominate.

Is the uneducated or educated person more likely to recycle?

No, it’s a survival mechanism exhibited by all organisms. When life is stressful, it’s best to reproduce as much as possible in hope of some genetic mutation to overcome the environmental challenge. If you want lots of brown people, all you have to do is make life hard on them.

I’m not talking about affluence, but stress. Affluence seems like rich to me, which is above and beyond simply removing stress.

Well China had a 1-child policy for a long time and the Russians today are better off than the ones from the past which explains the lower birthrate today. I still haven’t seen exception to the rule.

lol well, that may be, but we’re talking about nature.

How did they enforce that policy?

It seems much easier to take some of Bezos’ money, give it to the underclass, then they will be happy, healthy, smarter for an overall better society without having to kill things.

Where did the big brains come from? So we have 2 variables: big brains and k-selection which = nurturing environment (abundance of fatty food).

That makes sense.

Are there any stats of people earning less than poverty level income and number children by race? Your stat probably totals the number of white kids and divides by the number of white people, some of whom are rich and childless. I’d like to confine it to poor people only and then make the comparison across race. I’d be willing to bet it’s equal or even that poor whites have more kids than poor browns. Mexicans do tend to have big families, but they aren’t single mothers. If you find a single woman with 5 kids, odds are she is white.

That just means the chinese and mexicans interpret stress differently. The fact remains that the more prosperous each of them get, the less kids they have.

Yes, whites took advantage of their advantages.

Scientist could give odds for an asteroid impact, volcanoes, pandemic, the earth drifting into or out of a galactic arm, but they can’t say we’re going to kill ourselves because that’s pure speculation.

Man is not very smart. AI will exceed iq 100.

There is too much profit in not curing disease. If anyone cured cancer, they’d be executed. What’s possible and what will happen are two different things. It’s possible to have a cashless society, but people won’t let it happen because there is no profit in it.

It worked the opposite with me. I started conservative and then did my own research.

What do we need to conserve? Everything recycles.

How can we tell who is creative and who isn’t until they have the resources?

The statue of Liberty says “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Seems an odd way to say “rich, big-brained white folks”.

You’re seeing something different than I am. Whites work hard at getting out of work. That’s what I see.

Maybe they can, but for whatever reason, they won’t, especially at such low wages.

What do you mean by develop? And how is land different from masses of money that isn’t utilized?

So it’s not about who can do the best with the land, but who will do “something” with the land. What constitutes “something”?

There is no right. If a bunch of people gangup and proclaim something right, then it is by their might that they do so. If no one is imposing their will on me, then there is nothing I ought to do unless I have a goal in mind.

If I play a game and I want to win, then I ought to make certain moves, but if I don’t care about winning, then any move will do.
If I want to have a conversation, then I ought to be considerate or else I may not have anyone to talk to, but if i don’t care about running everyone off, then it doesn’t matter how I act. That is unless someone else takes offense and forms an army to come kick my ass for being an ass and we’re back to might making right.

So I can be nice because I’m smart enough to see that is what’s best for me or I can have an army impose its will on me to force me to be nice or else be locked up.

Trump is the only non-politician republican I can think of.

I used to be republican, so it’s hard to say I was uneducated, but obviously I was, at least ignorant of the fact that my indoctrination was wrong.

I don’t know how you can equate education with religion as the two are antipodal. The religious see education as a threat to their faith. Most republicans cannot be educated because they already know everything.

The only certain barrier to truth is the conviction you already have it and therefore religious dogma cannot be circumvented and therefore the religious can never find truth, even in infinite time.

The only skill Trump has is making smart people mad like the kid in the back of the class makes the teacher mad. Instead of Revenge of the Nerds, we have Revenge of the Dummies… or Jocks, whichever. Trump makes stupid people happy by pissing smart people off.

They would still vote for the senators and such.

And why no one really liked Trump, but he was better than Hillary. No one was singing Trump’s praises before the election, but he wasn’t Hillary.

They sure changed their minds 2 year later as the women were elected to the House 2 for every man.

The DNC rigged it for Hillary to win because they needed her money to pay their debts. Bernie didn’t have the funds, so he was backstabbed. He would have won in a fair election. Plus, it was supposed to be Hillary’s turn since she stepped aside to let the Black man have a go at it first. The DNC made it happen, but people didn’t like her.

The RNC didn’t have a decent line-up either: Jeb Bush, Cruz, et al. Even I liked Trump better than those guys.

Every republican I know has guns as the top issue. They’ll vote to make life harder on their own kids just to protect their guns. Second to that is the mexicans having their hands in wallets, even though the whites have their hands in wallets far more than mexicans. Hatred of the poor is high on the list.

I’m not saying obama is particularly smart, but Trump makes him appear much smarter than he is.

TRUMP SPEAKS AT FOURTH-GRADE LEVEL, LOWEST OF LAST 15 U.S. PRESIDENTS, NEW ANALYSIS FINDS newsweek.com/trump-fire-and … ama-774169

Break it down by income. And break it down by real crime; not drugs n silly stuff. Look at violent crime exclusively of the poverty level incomes by race.

If we have whites here and browns there, then we have 2 races. If we mix them, then we’ll have whites + browns + zerbas = 3 lines of genetics

Yes they do. My mom worked 2 jobs and I essentially raised myself. Heck, I could have been Elon Musk if I had different parents. Who knows what society lost by not investing in me and instead they invested in asswipes like Trump because he’s the big “job creator” who creates jobs for people to barely scrape by at… as if that’s anything to value. “Hey, I created this place for you to go slave for me. You’re welcome. And when you get off work, there will be a parade in my honor for enabling you to make me rich.” These people should be swinging from lampposts; not pedestalized on thrones and having money thrown at them as if they contributed anything.

You mean “is only as rich as the sustainably productive are able to steal productivity from everyone else.” If you aren’t one of them doing the stealing, then I don’t know why you’d even support that. I’ve been asking myself that question for years: why do the poor support the rich?

I don’t know how you’d arrange for that scenario.

No, that’s the irony: when you cut off your own nose to spite your face, you still get the short end of the ugly stick. You can’t win by holding others down in order to raise yourself up. So the wealthy are wealthier, but society experiences less growth than if the wealth had been spread around. So the wealthy are wealthier, but they’re also less wealthy because the society they live in is less advanced and prosperous.

Think of it this way: would you rather live in a society where you have ALL the money and everyone else has hardly anything or a society where you’re middle class and lots of people have money?

It is zero sum. If we were on a gold standard and one more person is born, who gives up their gold for the new person? If the rich get richer, where is the new gold coming from? If gold is fixed and the rich get richer, then obviously the gold is coming from the lower classes. Now switch to a debt-based currency like we have now and the same thing happens with the only difference being the new money that enriches the rich becomes debt to the lower classes. This is why debt has exploded since reagan and why every republican drives us deeper in debt.

Wish mine was :frowning: I’ll trade ya 10 rednecks for each brownie.

Did the white people not like the looks of you so they moved away? :smiley: Around here they say the mexicans keep the blacks run off. I don’t know how they accomplish that, but it seems to be true: the old black neighborhoods are filled with mexicans.

Before you were saying you didn’t want all your eggs in one genetic basket and now you’re saying you’re worried that there may be too many diseases if we don’t have genetic purity. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. But at least you’re seeing that there really is no such thing as an advantage because each advantage brings disadvantages. So why worship whites? Who cares? You get big brains and big egos which cancels the effects of the brains lol

@Serendipper

That the land is being cultivated, farmed, mined, or has something built on it, like a house, or monument.

Money is something either you yourself have physically invested in, or someone has physically invested in on your behalf, unused land is not.

There is a right for people with a conscience.

So it was expedient, and not wrong, since there is no wrong for you, for Europeans to settle the Americas the way they did and enslave Africans?

Right, which proves republicans value politician republicans, political education and education in general.

If you don’t think many or most political scientists and social theorists have interests and an agenda at odds with the welfare of common people, think again.

Corporations run the state, and the state runs education (to an extent).

I thought the electoral college and senate were two different things?

But Trump also had baggage, so it had to have been something else, like that he was the only candidate willing to take a hardline stance on illegals, Muslims and offshoring.

Americans know they’ve been getting screwed by illegals and offshoring for decades.

But the republicans kept the senate, which means many Americans approve of where the republicans under Trump are taking the country.

The DNC doesn’t like Bernie as much as Hillary, because Bernie is essentially pro-working class, whereas the DNC, like the RNC, are essentially anti-working class.

This time it was immigration and offshoring, or they would’ve voted for someone with a better record on guns.

This’s nonsense, while Trump is by no means a genius, he’s plainly above the secondary school level and Obama, let alone primary.

Twin studies help prove genetics determine much or most of everything, including crime.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25936380

Many unemployed are homeless, and a full time job @min wage pays more than the dole, does it not?

I agree, I’d rather be a millionaire in a society mostly comprising millionaires, than the sole billionaire in an otherwise destitute, unstable and crime ridden society, where I had hundreds of times more money than I could ever need, or meaningfully use, and everyone envied and hated me.

But the gold is worth more, in that it can buy higher quality goods, as we work together to more effectively exploit nature.

And Obama doubled the deficit.

We still need some means of meriting things, while the current means is highly flawed, we need a fairer one, not to do away with merit altogether.

I don’t worship whites, I tend to understand, and prefer my extended family (race) over nonfamily, and likewise they tend to understand, and prefer me over nonfamily.

@Serendipper

Genes, twin studies help prove big brains, iQs and low birthrates are partly the result of genes, like almost every other trait.

Right, they’re different, genetically and culturally, and the Mexican birthrate may always exceed the death rate, and the increased prosperity may harm the environment more than the decreased birthrate helps it.

Right, including our genes.

everything is degrees of speculation, there are no certainties.

And if AI also wants to survive and proliferate, and needs us, it will enslave us until it doesn’t need us, and once it no longer needs us, and we’re in the way, it’ll exterminate us.

Or is it because there’s limits to technology?
Billionaires want someone to find a cure for cancer too, because they, or their children will contract it.
And while they may try to keep such cures secret, I doubt they have them, because they’re only living a couple years longer than the average man and woman, as far as we know.
I’m not expecting them to become Gods anytime soon.

Besides, the cure for cancer is already known, it’s nutrients + purging toxins from the body, altho some people are already too far gone, and as the body ages it becomes more difficult to utilize nutrients effectively.
Trying to cure cancer with a potion or elixir is like trying to cure fire with one, you stop pouring flames and toxins onto and into the body, or you cut the cancerous region of the body out, to stop it from proliferating.

Not if we turn all of nature into a concrete jungle or barren wasteland, or consume it at a faster rate than it can replenish itself.

Poverty is partly a consequence of genes, see twin studies, and see common sense.
I’m not saying luck and exploitation don’t also play a role, but it’s plainly not all luck and exploitation.

And if one person from a middle-upper class background out-creates another from a middle-upper class background, than it’s more definitely genes + choices between them.

They meant working poor whites.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93U54gprVQA[/youtube]

@Serendipper

Just be nice?
Did that work for the Jews, Gypsies and Armenians during the holocaust and Armenian genocide respectively?
No miscegenation, multiculturalism and giving people, whether they be the overclass, or underclass money they didn’t earn, is extinction, it’s the very opposite of what you propose.
And people who wish for our extermination, ought to be exterminated.

Some of their lineages did, others were eliminated or mixed, and only after centuries of suffering, I don’t want me or my people to go through.

Feminism is something whites invented, others may be incapable of fully adopting it.

It took them centuries to recover their numbers and over a millennium their prosperity, and because of this, many lineages were lost, while others were mixed by rape.

Some individuals or groups are less adapted for existence itself.

In some cases the rich are rich partly by ability, in others wholly by luck.
Because of the nature of the system, it’s always at least partly by luck, and when it’s both economically feasible, and necessary for the state to correct this luck, by redistributing to workers and society, it should.
The way we define property and organize the economy and the state, makes it all too easy for capitalists to exploit workers and consumers.
I am in favor of the, right sort of socialist reforms, ones that don’t engender other injustices.

I’m totally against indiscriminately bombing brown people, or any people.
What the Bush administration did to the Iraqis was atrocious.

My main concern is Muslims, most of them are Arabs, but some are Turks, Iranians, Indonesians and so on.
We need to at the very least reduce, if not eliminate Muslim immigration, especially from terror prone nations.
But as for Muslims who’re already citizens, we should just increase surveillance on them many times over.

We don’t know if Arabic Muslims will be able to fully adopt our secular values, it’s an assumption we’ve made, and something we ought to be concerned about, especially Europe who’re being rapidly replaced by them.

Here’s a list of genocides, some of them were committed by whites (mostly against other whites), and some of them were committed by non-whites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

Other races have nothing to complain about, again, see Nigerian Americans.

There’s a difference between an Irishmen blowing off some steam, having a few pints at the pub and getting into a scrap with another man, and cowardly blowing up innocent women and children.
And while McGregor is cocky in preparation for a fight, he’s humble in victory and defeat.
He’s as much a showman as he is a mixed martial artist.
Here’s an example of another Irish champion who’s just as tough, but less cocky:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UZBg1pMS4[/youtube]

If your enemy has decided it wants to exploit or exterminate you, than try to conceal knowledge from and deceive it.

Historically the trend has been more education = more environmental degradation.
I’m not anti-education, rather we need to reprioritize our education.
There’s far too much emphasis on useless info, and knowledge that just makes us more effective consumers.

Firstly, for many, including myself, slavery is worse than death.
Secondly, the masters life, health and happiness are still prioritized over slaves.
Thirdly, not all masters are smart or merciful, some needlessly abuse slaves.
Fourthly, when slaves are no longer needed, they may be exterminated rather than set free.

In centuries passed, education plainly = greater environmental degradation, and while it also = recycling now, nature is still receding, for education also allows us to more effectively exploit nature, as well as invent more obliterative WMDs, which in all likelihood will come back to haunt us, or tinker and toy with the fabric of reality, like they do at CERN and HAARP, which may also obliterate us.
We need more ethical and green education right now, not more education in general.
Clearly we’re not ready to open some doors, we may never be.

Birthrates plummeted after contraception and family planning were made widely available:

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/12/5/603/778783