Hello. I am here to tell you some things about yourselves in hopes that some self reflection occurs. I will do this in list form.
Your worldview is rooted in one thing: fear. First example: the alpha/beta dichotomy. Well adjusted people with healthy self esteem do not engage in this sort of masculine posturing. The first time I heard someone declare themselves an alpha male I felt an immense amount of secondhand embarrassment. This artificial division of men into weak and strong categories is ironic given the men who claim alpha male status tend to do so as the result of some disconnect from their emotions that is leading to insecurity. Gender is a construct: you produce estrogen, men.
Second example: the widespread belief in racial superstition. Most of you seem threatened by other races, or at least seem to spend a lot of your time thinking about them negatively in a way that suggests you would be uncomfortable with a society that accepted racial difference. However, despite changing demographics white men are still by far the dominant political power holding group in the United States and abroad. Take the US, for example. The vast majority of congressmen are white males and the black people in congress represent the white elite anyway: the congressional black caucus recently voted in favor of police militarization despite the events in Ferguson MO. If black people held political power, such events would play out differently. More importantly, your theories on race are absurd: all modern scientists who aren't complete wingnuts believe that race is socially constructed (90% of genetic difference actually occurs within local populations, therefore within supposed races there are immense genetic differences). Sociological explanations for human behavoir have proven far more tenable than the race theories that had an obvious political motivation: hierarchy
Moving forward, look to foster healthy relationships in your life. Reclaim your feelings and humanity.
inventing things requires resources and social capital that are denied to many people. Einstein himself was a socialist for this and other reasons. The rags to riches stories are exceptions, meritocracy is a myth
>Your worldview is rooted in one thing: fear. First example: the alpha/beta dichotomy. Well adjusted people with healthy self esteem do not engage in this sort of masculine posturing. The first time I heard someone declare themselves an alpha male I felt an immense amount of secondhand embarrassment. This artificial division of men into weak and strong categories is ironic given the men who claim alpha male status tend to do so as the result of some disconnect from their emotions that is leading to insecurity. Gender is a construct: you produce estrogen, men.
Somewhat right, as alphas never declare themselves as such, it is just known. But natural hierarchy exists, regardless of how you FEEL. It is ironic that you say our views are a product of fear, when you are afraid of looking in the mirror and realizing you cannot lift your own bodyweight. Posturing is too extreme, but so is this "accept my inferiority" nonsense.
>Second example: the widespread belief in racial superstition. Most of you seem threatened by other races, or at least seem to spend a lot of your time thinking about them negatively in a way that suggests you would be uncomfortable with a society that accepted racial difference
I am uncomfortable because my views no longer matter, as they are now trivialized and the media paints a caricature to try and discredit my views on things like guns and immigration.
Upsetting of a demographic always leads to unrest, but it isn't ok if you are a male, straight, or white. God forbid you are all three combined.
>race is socially constructed
That would mean that race is nonexistant and that we would not be able to tell blacks from whites, therefore we are just being silly and no black is being discrimined as they cleverly pass for white with their genius
there's actually quite a bit of evidence behind the claim. if you're so dripping with ideology that you still believe our society is somehow meritocratic i fear for you. it is hard to come up with good ideas when you were born into a cycle of poverty and have to work minimum wage all day (potentially several labor intensive jobs, actually), and even if you did again it takes starting resources and social capital to enact on an invention. if you can't defend your views with reason, maybe you should be questioning them
the categorization of people into racial groups exists and has consequences, that doesn't make it scientific. take for example the system in south africa during apartheid: even as a racist today you likely arent familiar with all the categories used to differentiate race by S.A.. You have a different conception of race than the white elite in SA did. Here we see the differences in racial construction even among dominant group members. Also, the timeless example of the irish not being considered white and now they are by the vast majority of people.
>(90% of genetic difference actually occurs within local populations, therefore within supposed races there are immense genetic differences)
And we do what to remedy this inherently unfair world?
Throw everyone else under the bus?
Tell white kids and men that they aren't allowed to learn anything to equalize society?
I would side with your ideology if it wasn't so sick and twisted in its methods. That isn't equality, it is subversion.
>Your worldview is rooted in one thing: fear. First example: the alpha/beta dichotomy.
Maybe the /r9k/ shitposters.
>you produce estrogen, men.
This does not prove that gender is a construct.
>However, despite changing demographics Jews are still by far the dominant political power holding group in the United States and abroad.
>all modern scientists who aren't complete wingnuts believe that race is socially constructed
Blatantly false, unless you reckon that the majority of those who study human biology are "complete wingnuts".
>TL;DR /pol/ is one person, skewed reasoning, and made-up assertions
If race is socially constructed, then why are all the top sprinters black? Is this physical prowess granted because this is what evolution required of them having lived for centuries in physically demanding environment? Do the evolutionary changes stop at the body and not affect the brain?
i'm sincere. i dont really like tumblr. but im speaking from a position outside the echo chamber and you might want to listen before you slip deeper into conspiracy ridden white supremacist ideology
The only possible answer to your post is ignore it. You have chosen every single absurd, every single fallacy, every single outright lie, and condensed in one single writting.
We have no time for this shit, really.
"the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance"
i dont know if youre saying you believe in race but yeah that was in the article and that about sums up my position, without going into a rant.
the fear of "cultural marxism" and stuff is hilarious when you realize that the dominant ideology in this society is definitvely neoliberal capitalism. your white supremacist ideology is actually coded into the vast majority of media despite your fear of being overrun by racial and political boogeymen.
white kids can learn things, absolutely. start by reading a people's history of the US and getting some real facts on why things are imbalanced. we should be dismantling these racial divisions entirely through education, i value those kids you call white and want them to live in a world without race at all. segregation has probably prevented many interesting exchanges of ideas and friendships.
>meritocracy is a myth
the first clause of this sentence is
>The rags to riches stories
>acknowledge rags to riches stories exist as fact, claims meritocracy is a myth
my complete sentence was that those stories are exceptions. you let a small number of oppressed people rise through the ranks and assimilate and the vast majority will keep working despite not having a chance. take the ideological blinders off, please.
I was told to read that Howard Zinn stuff, but it is not just facts. It is an espousal of his views.
Education and indoctrination are two very different things, so please remedy this bullshit.
>literally persecuted for his race/religion to the point he had to flee the continent of his birth.
>still unanimously regarded as the most brilliant and largest single contributor to scientific progress.
You and OP can eat a dick with your "muh inherent and undetectable systematic inequalities."
I have a better quote for you.
Zinn has a bias, sure, but its a bias that accounts for a hard bias in the other direction throughout education. And he surely isnt making up historical events. Imperialism, colonialism, suppression of freedom are very much part of American history whether you ignore it or not
i mean, they are detectable. we live in a vastly unequal world with people beginning life in vastly different circumstances and showing vastly different achievement as a result. power is held by a small elite and the idea that these elites have some inherent superiority is a myth they create to justify their dominance.
Keynesian economics were mostly abandoned in the mid 20th century and replaced with neoliberal ideology around reagan's time. both are just variations on a system trying to sustain itself against the crises it creates in pursuit of endless growth.
why would i not say i was from tumblr? you guys see your boogeymen everywhere. in a world of casual rape jokes, you see the one in one hundred person uncomfortable and say "THE SJWS ARE SUPRESSING ME!"
for fucks sake are your thoughts really so cut and paste that you cant believe im not from tumblr? to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. to a white supremacist, everything looks like some social justice boogeyman that HAS to be from tumblr
Of course it is, but now there is a more subtle suppression of freedom occurring because of the knee-jerk reaction brought about by this sudden academic epiphany.
In reality, this ideology is nothing new, but thinking every person is as valuable as the next is literally retarded.
This is why I hated college, every pseudo-academic in a humanities class would call for rectification of this "unfair society", but don't realize they are now working in opposite fashion.
I'd point out 40 cents of every dollar made in profit in the united states goes to people who inherited the companies, stocks, bonds, real estate etc.
Basically a huge amount of capital is going towards people who have done nothing more than be born in the right family.
So is this a sustainable economy? Is this a society where innovation can prosper?
I'm not talking actual communism but the rich and powerful have become so much so.
George washington said it best when he said A impoverished people can not be a free people.
We need to strengthen certain socializing agents because of the family unit break down.
why is human life not valuable? why shouldn't we want a society in which people are judged based on their individual actions rather than broad social categories? there isn't any real suppression of freedom in most institutions, if you can somehow call the minority disagreeing with hate speech a suppression. The most radical our society gets en masse is liberals who think that all this shit ended with the civil rights era.
>bank bail outs
>going to war on broken window fallacy
Yeah just because it's not called Keynesian doesn't make it fucking Laissez faire.
We are and have been effectively communist despite the yellow paint.
communism has to do with the abolition of class society. how can the most stratified capitalist economy in decades be communist? you need to talk to radicals before you make claims about radical politics.
-a wealthy elite
-private ownership of the means of production
-'public' institutions controlled by private backers
-a state, whereas communist society is classless and stateless.
your ideas are based on mutually beneficial cold war propaganda. The US got to drum up red scare fear and the SU got to make their social democracy seem utopian.
>why is human life not valuable?
Loaded question. Never said it wasn't, but be real here. Not every person is AS valuable, because they may have flaws. Doesn't mean extermination is called for, but does mean they will always be subconsciously judged by everyone.
>why shouldn't we want a society in which people are judged based on their individual actions rather than broad social categories?
Loaded question again. Stereotypes exist for a reason. Doesn't mean they are always right.
>there isn't any real suppression of freedom in most institutions, if you can somehow call the minority disagreeing with hate speech a suppression. The most radical our society gets en masse is liberals who think that all this shit ended with the civil rights era.
I have views that are not even acknowledged because it makes people uncomfortable. I'm not talking about "gas the kikes" kind of shit, but more of the "homo acceptance and feminism are just trendy things, and wont matter in the next decade"
nah i'm thinking expand the school year, set up after high school education in a technical field or a trade as well as college.
and enough region testing. that shit is embarrassing. Some of these midwest kids are half retarded and believe in creationism
u got me
even the mainstream view of "homo acceptance" amounts to assimilation into straight norms. Many queer folks dont feel at all like their material conditions are improving despite the new acceptance of white middle class gay men who enact straight norms. Feminism is still valid given superior political power held by men, though i dont think it does enough without being combined with a liberation based political project for everyone
>90% of genetic difference actually occurs within local populations, therefore within supposed races there are immense genetic differences
It's not the amount of difference it's what is different.
With a single change, just one chemical bit of information and you go from a functional human to something that wouldn't have made it a mount in the womb.
The amount of difference means nothing, it's what is different.
>Quotation from Stephen Jay Gould
Into the trash it goes. Gould was a fraud who manipulated data to support his politically predetermined conclusions.
You apparently didn't read the whole thing.
> What he found turned the whole story upside down. The smudged number was just the beginning. All the data relevant to Morton’s alleged bias—his measurements and calculations—contradicted Gould’s claim. Morton’s errors didn’t show a pattern of bias; Gould’s did... Lewis and his colleagues found several anomalies in Gould’s analysis. In addition to his erroneous figure for mean Caucasian cranial size, he had miscalculated the average cranial size of two Native American tribes and had excluded another tribe when computing the overall Native American average. He had omitted, without any stated justification, all skulls from tribes with fewer than four representatives in the sample, but he had not applied the same rule to non–Native American groups. He had also excluded—again, without stated justification—all Native American skulls that Morton had previously measured with a different technique, even though Morton scrapped that technique and remeasured the skulls so that all of them were eventually measured the same way. Again, Gould didn’t apply this rule to non–Native American skulls. All of Gould’s errors and unexplained methodological quirks narrowed the racial gaps. Perhaps the most damning thing the authors found was Gould’s copy of Morton’s book on the skulls. Gould, noting that Morton had overreported average Native American cranial size in one table, had speculated that Morton did so because it “demoted blacks” and thereby “provided so much satisfaction that Morton never thought of checking himself.” But the error, which was plainly typographical since Morton accurately reported the figure on the previous page, had been corrected in very old ink in several copies of the book, including Gould’s. Morton had corrected himself. Gould had ignored the correction.
captcha: justlie ghoveme
you're literally gonna defend the skull size science shit right now? lets say youre right and Gould fucked up in this one chapter. skull size, even brain size, dont mean superior natural intelligence.What's your fucking point mate?
I never said skull size correlated with intelligence (even though it does, pic related). I said that Gould was a fraud, and that article demonstrates that fraudulence aptly. Keep straw-manning, though, because so far, your straw-manning is making your side of the argument look even more pathetic.
IQ tests as a legitamite quantification for intelligence? oh my god, try harder. Also those categories arent even used by racists anymore everyone knows people from the same continent have vastly different body types within "races" so most racists have invented more categories by now
>Also those categories arent even used by racists anymore
They are, however, used by physical anthropologists. And IQ tests are reliable indicators of all sorts of life trends associated with intelligence.
Although, I can certainly understand why someone like you, with such an obviously low IQ, would want to discount IQ tests.
>there's actually quite a bit of evidence behind the claim
>provides no evidence whatsoever
>it is hard to come up with good ideas when you were born into a cycle of poverty and have to work minimum wage all day
That's funny, our ancestors throughout history knew nothing but poverty, for thousands of years we didn't even have indoor heating or electricity, let alone the myriad luxuries even the impoverished people enjoy today. Any poor person can go online and learn about anything they want, that was much more difficult in the past when information wasn't as cheap and readily available.
So basically, we have things easier now then ever in any point in our history as a species, and people complain that they are being kept down.
Isn't it pretty well documented that high IQ correlates with making more money throughout your life?
our ancestors? you mean like in Asia and North Africa where they invented many important things while europe was in the dark ages? Also it's obvious from the lack of social mobility and large social stratification that the world isnt meritocratic. Most people with money come from money, most working class people are in so much shit today that the important thing on their mind is survival not inventing some fucking gadget that takes immense amounts of resources and social capital they dont have. Are you one of those grandpas who thinks young people can just walk up to the CEO and get a job with a firm handshake?
people with high IQ are white men because white men make the IQ tests. White men also have many social advantages. They are the most successful economic group on the planet due to a history of exploitation so of course they make more money. You really really think capitalism awards based on pure merit? look at who is rich. Parasites. Parasites all of them.
making money = intelligence?????
smart people never die poor? Tesla? thousands of others we havent heard of? the many creative people whose work is unknown due to low class status?
>people with high IQ are white men because white men make the IQ tests
Then why do Asians and Ashkenazis score higher?
Also, I love that anyone with a brain can see the rest of your post is more aptly an indictment of the Jews than it is of white men. Way to go, faggot.
>Gender is a construct: you produce estrogen, men.
I just used my lies on the internet image in another thread. Goddamn it.
Anyway, that's actually not true. Men do not produce estrogen however estrogen is present in the male body.
Males produce testosterone from their testicles and it aromatizes into estrogen (and some of it then converts, or aromatizes, back again to testosterone).
Similarly, women do not produce testosterone but it aromatizes from the estrogen their bodies produce.
>Sociological explanations for human behavoir have proven far more tenable than the race theories
>An association between the 2R allele of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.
>5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele.
TL;DR stay retarded and get fucked faggot
>IQ tests as a legitamite quantification for intelligence?
stay retarded, don't reproduce
nice slurs pal. you might want to consider that to most people a gif is an animated image.
you realize there's some shit in here about dutch men having it a lot? how are you gonna define race if your defining traits are scattered across the world and vary amongst members of "races"
I dont care about how the estrogen gets there gender is still socially constructed
'The primate species, which lived in Africa about 2 million to 1.2 million years ago, is closely related to early humans but is a dead-end branch of the family tree. '
you found a different species closely related to EARLY humans before the rise of civilization. Digging pretty deep. Do you consider yourself an alpha male
>gender is still socially constructed
So is language, and so is social status, and so are all manner of other things. The fact that something is socially constructed does not mean that there is no underlying concrete motivator for said construction.
You are defining communism according to the claims of communists. That's like defining monarchism according to the guys who defended the divine rights of kings and said that monarchy was the rule of the elected by god.
If you want to understand what communism really is, you must look at communist countries and see the characteristics that they all share. From Cambodia to Cuba. From the Soviet Union to Ethiopia. From Poland to Laos.
There is a single thing: absolute control of every organ of civil society by the Communist Party. This is communism. That's why communism always could convive with illegal black market capitalistic economies, there is nothing about actual communism that prevents the private ownership of the means of production, it only must be under control of the Party.
Why is America a communist country, then, if the Communist Party is very weak? Because America follows a different path to communism, not the Marxist-Leninist, but the Cultural Marxist, according to the writings of Antonio Gramsci.
According to Gramsci, the role of the intelligentsia was creating a cultural hegemony and organizing civil society so that the Communist Party would become a invisible superstructure of society, regulating every organ, exercing totalitarian control, but controlled itself by the organic intellectuals.
This is exactly what has happened since the 1960s. There is not a single organ of civil society in the United States that isn't under control of communist intellectuals (or could be destroyed at will by then).
No I actually mean like Ancient Rome, the height of civilization at the time, hundreds of years before the Dark Ages
>invented many important things
Lets hear them
> Also it's obvious from the lack of social mobility and large social stratification that the world isnt meritocratic.
If it's so obvious provide some facts to back it up.
>most working class people are in so much shit today that the important thing on their mind is survival not inventing some fucking gadget that takes immense amounts of resources and social capital they dont have
The concept of being successful of your own merit isn't just about making an fucking invention that people use it's about being hardworking, taking risks for greater rewards, providing a need or service that wasn't provided before, being assertive and forward thinking.
>Are you one of those grandpas who thinks young people can just walk up to the CEO and get a job with a firm handshake?
No I'm not and honestly I don't know what cliche you're referring to but I will end with this point.
Someone is much more likely to be successful by having my mindset then yours, which is frankly just self defeating.
language exists to promote communication. gender is a class system of domination. theres a difference. im merely pointing out that biological essentialism is wrong, a step toward advocating for gender aboliton
>gender is a class system of domination
No, gender is a socially determined classification based on average physical and behavioral differences as determined by differential brain anatomy, neurochemistry, and hormones, as well as by different physical capabilities.
im an actual communist and this is batshit crazy. also you really havent heard of anti-party communism? anarchist communism? council communism? none of it? communisation theory? you really dont understand these ideas and you need to stop embarrassing yourself. Gramsci is irrelevant to most of the left, only right wing looneys talk about 'cultural marxism'
But the only reason neoliberalism has become so dominant is because Cultural Marxists in the 1960s removed the christian basis of Western civilization, releasing the materialist basis of capitalism without any restraints.
And this is just what they planned.
WHITE HOUSE TO SEND OFFICIALS TO BROWN'S FUNERAL.
But nothing for this kid
Nothing for many of the others in the pic as well
So they ARE marxists after all.
I understand very well what "council communism" means. You don't. Or you do, and expouses it for exactly that reason.
What happens in liberal democracies, where (with a bit of regulation, of course, i'm no free-market fundamentalism) the economical and political spheres of power are separate? They compete, someone who doesn't have political power can use economical power to survive, or someone who doesn't have economical power can use political power (which is what socialists mostly do).
What does it happen when political power and economical power (and social power, and cultural power etc) are concentred into a single hand (be it Stalin or the "council")?
Communism, of course. The absolute control of civil society by the Communist Party, just with a different name or social organization.
if obama cared about black people in more than a politically correct way why the mass incarceration? the racist war on drugs? bombing minorities abroad with impunity? you're nuts and you need to look at the way the american empire works
OP is not baiting or trolling, this post is a shill attempt.
Listen up you silly nigger
All actions are rooted in fear
All of them.
Your survival instinct, the fear of death, is the only thing that motivates you.
To try and argue that the motivators for any action do not ultimately stem from the survival instinct is preposterous and destructive.
How someone feels about an issue, especially something as eclectic as races as a whole, is grounded in how their survival motivator has been molded by their upbringing.
In regards to racism, look through history. Look at all the civilizations which began as a mostly homogenous group and rose to great prosperity, and this prosperity brought an eventual surge of non-homogenous peoples (non natives to the group). These civilizations became wrought with dissolved sense of purpose and were destroyed from within.
The story of Babylon is possibly the oldest and most known example of such an occurrence.
Rome's history is oft-cited on this board as another example.
And the trends seen within the USA in the past 70 or so years are fitting to the pattern.
Getting back to racism:
Non-homogenous groups self destruct due to the convergence of so many radically different cultural ideologies ripping each other at the seams. Racism is a part of the survival instinct, more specifically the desire for the group to preserve itself. What has been passed through history is a sense of "different equals bad", as it has been shown many times that large differences end up tearing down the entire group.
>Whitey is keeping us down!
>There's no such thing as races!
dat commie doublethink
Based upon this, a knowledge of what the self and group survival instinct exists for, I surmise a contemplative theory about socialist-radicals, marxists, what-have-you types of people.
Their survival instinct is broken in a sense that they care not for the people they are and have come from, but rather care for people they hold no lineage to. Effectively, they desire for their people to kill itself off so that something else assimilates the remains.
The general feeling would be one of "change is always for the better, and we don't like how things are so we want to force change to our liking"
Nevermind that these people barely understand how to quantize their theories, make up facts based on cherry picking sections of supportive studies, and generally have a feeling of self important righteousness which cannot be wrong.
Never mind that these types of people have been proven to conspire, and that their testing methodologies cannot be trusted
Never mind that very, very few works actually pass any sort of review standards for research.
Never mind that from the GamerGate scandal more and more information is being discovered which shows the rampant corruption within these people, groups, and societies.
tl;dr OP is real and SJW/radfems have a broken survival instinct.
yeah a general assembly of people in your neighborhood making decisions about your community together is communism. not exactly a central authority when you imagine how that would be implemented. you buy into far right red scare bullshit when what communists advocate for is the abolition of centralized authority
>gender is a social construct
Congratulations. You just invalided your whole post and proven to everyone you're a complete utter moonbat who doesn't know jack shit about what he's on about.
>you realize there's some shit in here about dutch men having it a lot?
It was discovered in a dutch family, it says nothing about the frequency of this. It's separate from the R2 allele.
>how are you gonna define race if
>I dont care about how the estrogen gets there gender is still socially constructed
Why? Because you say so? What does that even mean? "Gender is socially constructed". What the fuck is your point here? That we're the same? Because I already demonstrated how you're wrong if that's what you're saying. I hope you're trolling and not actually this fucking retarded.
>read the wiki
Nope, i done better, i've read books.
Leszek Kolakowski - Main Currents of Marxism, vol III
José Guilherme Merquior - Western Marxism
Paul Gottfried - The Strange Death of Marxism
Roger Scruton - Thinkers of the New Left
Basic bibliography to understand what Cultural Marxism is (though they never use that name).
Basically, it can means two things. The first is the use of Marxism as a culture, a "philosophy of praxis" in the word of Antonio Gramsci, instead of a rigorous aparatus of social analysis as it was understood by early Marxists like Karl Kautsky. That means that Marxism becomes a culture that unifies the working-class (actually, it's just the intelligentsia).
The second meaning, which is what we actually mean when we talk about Cultural Marxism, is related to the first, but more insidious. It means basically using the praxis of Marxism as a tool of critical analysis to attack the superstructure of capitalist society. They began that when they realized that the revolution wasn't going to happen alone, as they expected, when the Second International collapsed at the beginning of World War I, the Marxists saw that their greatest enemy was not the capitalist class (the capitalist class could be easily coopted, see Jacob Schiff or George Soros), but Western culture itself.
>there are racialized groups but that doesnt make them scientifically based.
>it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time
There is only a 10% genetic difference between Humans and Mice.
What is wrong with the belief that we as Humans are a subdivided species stemming from the same Genus
Have you ever seen a "general assembly" on those mold? It's mostly a few of the most influential politicians who do most decisions and the rest just follow their steps. Central authority is not a thing that is imposed from above, it's a thing that arises out of the very needs of any organization.
>Who says organization, says oligarchy
>muh white tinfoil hat conspiracy
Then why the fuck does this shit happen?
The corporate media that whitey owns and the government should do nothing but sieg heil the greatness of whitey and a single incident against whites should be plastered nationally all over the media and government decrying niggers but all it does it shit like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six and so on. It's clear to fucking everyone you're just a batshit commie. Oh and speaking of commies.
So what you're saying is that something that has been observed by people for millennia and that is now supported by genetics is invalid because it wasn't supported by genetics before it was observed by people? Truly, you are a master of idiocy.
Eagerly waiting a rebuttal from the other guy
>really dumb guy does post-structuralism
Yeah, no thanks.
>Stephen Jay Gould
>gender is a social construct
>gender is a social construct but then cries about the evil white race that supposedly doesn't fucking exist
Since many people have already torn you apart for the other shit, I'll finish you off now
>>>Stephen Jay Gould forged skulls in racial records dispute
>The late scientific icon, Stephen Jay Gould, botched and perhaps faked his critique of a racist 19th-Century scientist's skull collection, suggests a second look at his efforts.
>In a 1978 Science paper, Gould (1941 - 2002) , reported that the Samuel George Morton (1799-1851), "a prominent Philadelphia physician," had mis-measured the cranial capacities of his 1,000-skull "American Golgotha" collection gathered from around the world, to suit his racist beliefs. The finding led to one of Gould's best-known books, The Mismeasure of Man, a critique of scientific racism.
>Overall, they find, Morton did make mistakes in measuring skull capacity (he first stuffed them with seeds, and later lead shot to measure their brain size). But the mistakes were random. The random mistakes didn't favor any racial theory of larger brain sizes for white people over others.
OP should just kill himself, shamfur dispray.
literally all conjecture. i am an actual communist right here and literally none of us think this way. i dont work within a party and dont know anyone stupid enough to do so considering the CPUSA is just democrats. it's very weird seeing a loony conspiracy about yourself and knowing its bull
>More importantly, your theories on race are absurd: all modern scientists who aren't complete wingnuts believe that race is socially constructed
You mean soft scientists agree race is governed by soft science, biologists agree race is governed by biology. And then people wonder why people look down on the soft sciences, when SJWs try to take over more and more of soft science topics and
The "red pill" isn't motivated by fear any more than any political position is. For me, I don't really have fear or any emotional reaction about politics: the stuff I'm afraid of has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I have no emotion regarding niggers, or jews, or homos. ]
I only have emotion with regards to the (mostly white) commies that preach the style of insane double think of "Judge others as individuals, not for what other members of their race do... except your race is privileged and has oppressed people, so now you need to pay for it! btw your race doesn't exist!"
All I need to know about leftists I learned when I found out "celebrate diversity" means "celebrate less whites." You're the only kind of person I hate and I have absolute visceral hatred for you.
>an obvious political motivation
Why don't you read a book instead of wishful thinking about your perfectly non-hierarchical social movement that never existed?
I can recommend some to you.
Robert Michels - Political Parties
Gaetano Mosca - The Ruling Class
Vilfredo Pareto - The Mind and Society
Basical political theory. These guys studied the working of organizations and social movements, they studied how circulation of elites work and how political power can be exerced by a tiny oligarchy with the full support of a aparently "horizontal and non-hierarchical movement" by the use of clever political formulae.
Or you can stick with Foucault, Negri or whatever bullshit you like to read to feel better.
Because niggers nig and drugs are illegal, you subhuman. Your shitty mental gymnastics is utterly pathetic. You'll always make some shitty excuses for why niggers are shit but people throughout the centuries have known why long before America existed or whites came along that niggers are inherently shit.
I've said in my first post that Gramscianism doesn't follow the classical model of the Communist Party. Instead the Party is diluted through the organized social movements that the intelligentsia holds an stranglehold upon.
You literally just proved the point of the post.
>tfw I finally understand the definition of a useful idiot
Prediction of Continent of Origin using randomly selected SNPs
One of the arguments of those who deny the existence of biological races is that their reality is subjective. Some extremists have argued that race is totally socially constructed; this is, however, disproven by the fact that socially constructed race is correlated with physical characteristics. Thus, rather than being separated from biology, the social phenomenon of race is rooted in biology.
A different argument holds that race is correlated with biology, but the differences are "skin-deep", i.e., involve only superficial, visible, (and by some strange logic unimportant) characteristics. According to the proponents of this view, the idea of biological race places an undue emphasis on a set of traits: it is a result of the subjective choice of a set of traits as race-defining. Thus, the commonly recognized races of traditional physical anthropology are discounted as subjective organizations of the biological data: we could just as simply speak of a "lactose-intolerant race" according to this view.
In forensic science and admixture analysis scientists often discover and use polymorphisms which exhibit large inter-population differences. Decoding DNA isn't free, thus, it makes sense to use the most informative, most "biased" markers when one is trying to discover the origin of a biological sample. For example, if Africans have 55% of gene version A and 45% of gene version B, and Europeans have 53% of A and 47% of B, it makes little sense to type this particular gene, since it cannot really tell us whether a sample is European or African. A gene where Africans have 90% of A while Europeans have 5%of A would be much more useful. Race skeptics claim, as with the physical anthropological data, that to privilege such carefully chosen genes is to stress the differences between groups; the implication is that in randomly chosen genes these differences are minor.
im familiar with those texts, dont really like foucault, and still believe that outside the bullshit context of representative liberal democracy run by a spectacle that encourages obedient behavior people would obviously exhibit different behavior
The new paper is one of many (you can click on the Clusters label to find more) recent papers that have discovered that no matter what genetic markers you choose: SNPs, STRs, no matter how you choose them: randomly or based on their "informativeness", it is relatively easy to classify DNA into the correct continental origin. Depending on the marker types (e.g., indel vs. microsatellite), and their informativeness (roughly the distribution differences between populations), one may require more or less markers to achieve a high degree of accuracy. But, the conclusion is the same: after a certain number of markers, you always succeed in classifying individuals according to continental origin.
Thus, the emergent pattern of variation is not at all subjectively constructed: it does not deal specifically with visible traits (randomly chosen markers could influence any trait, or none at all), nor does it privilege markers exhibiting large population differences. The structuring of humanity into more or less disjoint groups is not a subjective choice: it emerges naturally from the genomic composition of humans, irrespective of how you study this composition. Rather than proving that race is skin-deep, non-existent, or unimportant, modern genetic science is both proving that it is in fact existent, but also sets the foundation for the study of its true importance.
>the fear of "cultural marxism" and stuff is hilarious when you realize that the dominant ideology in this society is definitvely neoliberal capitalism.
There's no contradiction there. Cultural Marxists focus much more on identity issues than class struggle.
>your white supremacist ideology is actually coded into the vast majority of media despite your fear of being overrun by racial and political boogeymen.
Who's your dealer? That must be some quality crack you're smoking.
Humans share 60% of their DNA with pineapples. Does that make us 60% similar to pineapples? How about 50% with a banana? And how much with a chimpanzee again?
Face it, it's obvious these lefty lunatics hate science.
how does the ability to trace people to a continent of origin constitute different races of humans? Darwin actually argued that "if we used the techniques that naturalists used to identify race in nonhuman species, we would conclude that there really were no races in anatomically modern humans"
I don't understand how people can deny race when it's so obvious that it exists.
1. They clearly look different and you can easily identify what race a person belongs too just by looking at them.
2. If you're ever actually around them, you can see they behave differently too, and that you can't expect the same of them as people of other races.
3. Children always look like their parents and often have the same dispositions as them. Obviously these characteristics are inheritable and not just some "social construct".
4. If you can be bothered to look things up and read the material presented on race by BOTH SIDES, there is a scientific basis for race and an emotional basis for race denial.
Yet for some reason all over the Internet their are people who flat out deny race, refuse to read anything that contradicts what they believe, deem anyone who acknowledges differences "racist" (unless it's a non-white and especially a non-white comedian, as apparently they can't be racist) and hateful.
As for having pride in your race, I don't see why people are so against it. Isn't it healthy to not be a masochistic depressed fuck and to feel good about yourself and the group you belong too? Is not guilt for things you personally do not care about just plain stupid? I can understand having pride in yourself, a child, maybe your parents, the group (your race / nationality / ethnicity), your culture, your civilization, etc. What would you feel guilty about though and why? If anything the only thing to feel guilty about the group is the people who betrayed it, who set it back, and who otherwise made life shitty for you. Yet this is not guilt; this is more like shame or condescension.
>Gramsci is irrelevant to most of the left
Gramsci was a major influence on Saul Alinsky.
Saul Alinsky was a major influence on the entire American left. You may have not readed him, but i'm sure the chief collaborator of your totally non-hierarchical organization has read him very carefully.
Specially this part.
>when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: "You want to organize for power!"
literally most people i hang with are insurrectionary anarchist communists, syndicalists, or just plain anarchists we have nothing to do with your wacky conspiracy and none of us have read Saul Alinsky.
>Isn't it healthy to not be a masochistic depressed fuck and to feel good about yourself and the group you belong too?
It IS and studies have proven this too but leftards are so utterly insane that they forgot what it's like to be normal. Oh and hilarious how OP denies being a cultural marxist when his post is full of bullshit identity politics, something true marxists would never support and marx himself was racist anyway.
Toasting studies nao
Racial Pride Makes People Healthier & Happier, Studies find
Adolescents with positive feelings toward their ethnic group say they are happier on a daily basis than those who have a more negative attitude about their ethnic identity. The study, involving 415 ninth-graders from Chinese and Mexican backgrounds, shows the protective effects of ethnic identity on daily psychological well-being.
''The researchers focused on adolescents because that is when identity issues are at the forefront. Kiang said the positive effects of ethnic pride found in this study could suggest that parents and society in general should encourage strong ethnic identity in families.''
Study Finds That Blacks With Strong Racial Identity Are Happier
Black people who identify more strongly with their racial identity are generally happier, according to a study led by psychology researchers at Michigan State University.
''The study also explored the reasons behind the connection. Yap said it may be fuelled by a sense of belongingness – that is, blacks with a strong sense of racial identity may feel more connected to their racial group, which in turn makes them happy.''
Ethnic-Racial Socialization Has an Indirect Effect on Self-Esteem for Asian American Emerging Adults
The findings of the present study contribute to the discussion of the role that perceived ethnic-racial socialization plays in Asian Americans’ positive development.
Perceived ethnic-racial socialization, ethnic identity, and social competence among Asian American late adolescents.
They also found that perceived cultural socialization-pluralism was significantly related to social competence through ethnic identity. Results support the importance of perceived ethnic-racial socialization for Asian American development.
Racial socialization—messages about ethnic pride, history, and heritage
Termed racial socialization, race-related messages to children may have important consequences for children’s identity development and well-being.
>For the readers that are unaware, happiness (or anything positive of the sort) that is correlated with a strong ethnic identity in Whites is known as RACISM, and thus there are no such studies with White subjects - heh heh.
(really, I couldn't find any).
So everyone please ignore ethno-masochist faggots like OP please. He's nuts and a cultural marxist in denial.
belonging to a group makes you happier, therefore we should all be race nationalists?
you realize there are other group identities one can form right? that dont lead to war over skin color?
''In popular articles that play down the genetic differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetic variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetic example.''
Clustering determines race
Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
Steven Pinker: "There is a widespread myth that there is no such thing as race whatsoever, that it's purely a social construction"
Do human Races Exist - with Professor Henry Harpending
Program from Norwegian TV
Both race deniers and race believers are interviewed and their views are matched against one another
Subjects covered: Reality of Race, Racial IQ Differences
>Brainwash 6:7 - Race (part 1/3)
i am truly astounded if you believe you've achieved some kind of ideological victory. the case for race and gender essentialism isnt very strong here, and most of you have fallen into this hilarious cultural marxist conservative glenn beck conspiracy. the echo chamber continues. i thought there would be some self reflection and for some there seems to have been but most of the white supremacists seem incapable of stepping out of your ideology. im truly concerned.
Cultural Marxism does not mean Communism. What it means is persuading a society, through the slow infiltration of Academia, Banking, Media, and politics to turn its back on the formula that made it what it successful and self determined.
Modern liberalism and, to an extent, the policies of the democratic party as it is today, is very much so a product of the "long march through the institutions" that is required to implement cultural Marxism.
Just because what you believe in the political and economic spectrum doesn't perfectly line up with cultural Marxism doesn't mean that a lot of what you currently believe is a product or stepping stone of cultural Marxism.
im not a syndicalist and ive heard of sorel through a quote once but never read him. sorel was ideologically weird as hell from what i hear, kind of all over the place. he might have been the one who said "there is no better representative of the bourgeoiuse than a representative of the proletariat" repudiating party politics but that could have been someone else.
Christ, how many times have we been over this...
An argument is that there is more variation within races than between them, therefore race does not exist. This is known as Lewontin's fallacy and it is fallacious because it:
>"ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors"
Another false argument is that human populations have not been separated long enough to be considered different races, yet one study listed 11 other mammal species with major phylogroups that diverged around the same time the human races did:
It is a statistical fallacy which works by ignoring correlations or combined effects. Genes vary much more within than between human populations only if we look at one gene at a time. The pattern reverses if we aggregate variation at several gene loci. The more we aggregate, the more the genetic variation will exist between populations and not within them.
This point was first made by Cavalli-Sforza back in 1966 and later by Mitton (1977, 1978), Edwards (2003), and Sesardic (2010).
Steve Hsu, who has recently been involved at the Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI), also explains this here:
>"No scientific basis for race"
>"It's just a social construction" - a picture is worth a million words…
>One thing commenters seem particularly confused about is the difference between phenotypic and genetic variation. The clustering data show very clearly that, in certain subspaces, the genetic variation within a particular population cluster is less than between clusters. That is, the genetic "distance" between two individuals within a cluster is typically much less than the distance between clusters.
>This depends on the number of loci or markers used. As the number gets large the distance between clusters becomes much larger than the individual cluster radius. For continental clusters, if hundreds or thousands of markers are used the intercluster distance dominates the intracluster size.
Further technical comment:
>You may have read the misleading statistic, spread by the intellectually dishonest Lewontin, that 85% percent of all human genetic variation occurs within groups and only 15% between groups. The statistic is true, but what is often falsely claimed is that this breakup of variances (larger within group than between group) prevents any meaningful genetic classification of populations. This false conclusion neglects the correlations in the genetic data that are revealed in a cluster analysis. See here for a simple example which shows that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if every version of every gene is found in two groups - as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. Sadly, understanding this point requires just enough mathematical ability that it has eluded all but a small number of experts.
Steve Hsu's blog:
<The top image is from the Nature paper: European Journal of Human Genetics (2008):
Each point is an individual, and the axes are two principal components in the space of genetic variation. Colors correspond to individuals of different European ancestry.
Some interesting points from this study:
>1) Significant East-West and North-South substructure is apparent already from the figure. The resolution of the study is sufficiently high that Swedes and Norwegians can be distinguished with 90 percent accuracy (Table 4):
>2) Genetic distances between population clusters are roughly as follows: the distance between two neighboring western European populations is of order one in units of standard deviations and the distance to the Russian cluster is several times larger than that - say, 3 or 4. From HapMap data, the distance from Russian to Chinese and Japanese clusters is about 18, and the distance of southern Europeans to the Nigerian cluster is about 19. The chance of mis-identifying a European as an African or E. Asian is exponentially small (Table 5):
Human genetic variation - major continental groups ("races") form distinct clusters:
you're so full of shit it's coming out your damn ears
This is 4chan, you don't even need to admit that either you were wrong or whatever you may have attempted has failed
Just close the thread on your browser and ignore /pol/ for a few hours.
Go watch some videos of Stalin marching men through the streets or something. Sheesh.
i mean the arguments for biological race here just havent been convincing. and the cultural marxist shit is hilariously ill informed conspiracy nonsense. you literally think "communism? stalin" and dont see how ridiculous that is
That's exactly what it is and you'd fucking know that if you were old enough to know about the fucking events that happened back in 1968 ALL AROUND THE WORLD and how badly society changed forever after it. These idiots with their idiot government got into society and all the top levels of government and it was all revealed to be TRUE when the Venona Papers came out. It proved everything true and the worst part is those shitty marxists in all the institutions ARE STILL THERE. The end goal is the fucking same, the collapse of western society so you can have your insanity that never came like Marx said it would with the collapse of capitalism.
This issue, as with most others, is connected to the problem of the needs of the many vs. the needs of the individual.
We often go on and on in circles regarding this, but I think it can be solved if we restated the problem: short term needs vs. long term needs.
In the short term, an individual can have radically different needs from the majority. But the longer the time period you focus on, the more the needs of all converge.
This is the biggest problem with society as it stands. Not that capitalism is bad. Not that companies or even government is bad. But that people aren't taught to think more long term about things.
Seems devilishly simple. But I'm serious. Start a cause and effect chart of every societal problem you can think, and try to do it without bias. You'll likely arrive at more or less what I just said.
>the case for race and gender essentialism isnt very strong here
Let's see you respond to the evidence, then.
>most of you have fallen into this hilarious cultural marxist conservative glenn beck conspiracy
Historical fact is just a ding dang dirty conspiracy theory now?
Also, Glenn Beck and his fellow "conservatives" are nothing but racial cuckolds and economy-worshipers.
Marxism as a rigorous method of studying history and society through the analysis of it's material production and class relationships died with the Second International. Louis Althusser built his entire career pretending that it wasn't so.
But Marxism as a philosophical culture that unites radical intelligentsia into a single political culture is very succesful.
Even guys like Derrida, whose philosophy was ultimately anti-Marxist, felt the need to pay lip service to Marx to keep his revolutionary street cred.
You've officially lost. No one who has a valid side to an argument attacks the character of their opponent.
Biological race absolutely exists, from DNA to phenotype, someone with an anthropology or genetics education can identify race extremely easily given a skeleton or genome respectively.
Liberalism is the opposite of intellectualism.
>gender is a construct
Sex isn't. Whether a man produces estrogen is irrelevant, since sex hormones are not the defining features of one's sex or gender.
And your argument on the second part would have been much more effective if you hadn't used the bullshit Ferguson example.
Answer to picture: Bad things happen to good people. It is the nature of how our world works. Yes, there were people of genius-level intelligence that have lived unremarkable lives, statistically speaking. You cannot hope to liberate or save everyone, so the argument is in itself naive and childish, and to somehow push aside the intelligence of an accomplished scientist because some smart people are suffering is just plain idiocy on your friend, Stephen Jay Gould's part.
Answer to point 1: You are basically trying to disprove the alpha/beta dichotomy based on insecurity, which is a very weak premise in itself. It is as basic and juvenile as psych-analysis gets. Calling somebody a beta male does not automatically mean that person adheres to what you consider as "stereotypical" alpha male behavior, which is the straw man you put up. No one cares about your embarrassment because I'm sure they feel more embarrassment simply being in your presence. The behavior of men has evolutionary significance, which you fail to address, so weak men are held in contempt because it is not the evolutionary role of a man to be weak. Similarly, gay men are held in contempt because it is the evolutionary role of a man to reproduce. Men produce testosterone in far higher proportions than they produce estrogen, you imbecile. Your point is highly irrelevant.
Answer to point 2: There is a mountain of statistical and scientific evidence that notes the differences between races, including differences in intelligence. Because actual scientists conduct this research, some studies account for differences in socio-economic status and culture to produce conclusive findings, which indicate that some races are, on average, less intelligent than others. This is of course, supported by all manner of anecdotal evidence as well. Everything else you said is completely irrelevant.
I was going to respond seriously, but then I saw the flag. 9/10 pretty good.
Eh I'm still not sure about him, the other night I heard a segment where he had a guest on and they were talking about what it means to be a leader and have purpose within an organization.
Good stuff, and felt far removed from some of his "zanier" commentary.
Poster you replied to here. Yep. It blows my mind that Americans are unaware of the gross long term subversion taking place.
For anyone who thinks is all BS, read about it. The plan takes at least 2-3 generations (average age of reproduction in the US is ~25) so 50-75 years from the implementation of the plan for it to work properly. Just because it's too slow to see, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
The irony and hypocrisy of your post your incredible. Fucking listen to yourself. You promote shitty identity politics and crying about the evil white man while trouting Marxist ideologies that Marx never advocated to begin with. You refuse to reflect on the fact gender is extremely established in science without question unless you think X and Y chromosomes along with sexual dimorphism are a social construct too which proves you're utterly insane. You say race doesn't exist when it so clearly does and cry multitudes of mental gymnastics when people present evidence and keep moving the goalposts. Finally, you're so utterly retarded you can't even capitalise your sentences properly. Nothing you said has been truth. NOTHING. And while you cry wearing your tinfoil hat about the white conspiracy, Obama and especially Eric Holder do nothing but racist anti-white bullshit. If your bullshit was even remotely true, we wouldn't hear a damn thing about this and it'd be just a clear cut case of whites always win but whites don't always win and the media bias along with governmental biases proves this. The niggers case all their own problems and just like 2pac said "And they say it's the white man I should fear. But, it's my own kind doin' all the killin' here". Niggers and you leftards need to fucking self reflect damn hard.
the biggest fallacy in this thread has been race biological essentialists arguing that the existence of genetic trait clusters validates the literal existence of biological races as have been defined throughout history. human beings are not racially different, even if there are genetic clusters, because race was never about that to begin with. race is supposed to be an inherent subcategory, like a breed...that just doesnt exist.
>There is a mountain of statistical and scientific evidence that notes the differences between races
If you know more than the people educated and trained in this regard then you know more.
The alpha/beta is stuff for children. Discussing it is meaningless.
That is absolutely incorrect. The genetic delta between many races, especially between Eurasian and sub Saharan African is greater than between many species. If you're saying that race doesn't exist in that we ought to be classified as different species, then that would be somewhat more honest and correct. But to say there isn't a genetic delta or phenotype delta great enough to subdivide the human species into races or breeds is absolutely 100% incorrect.
"Race" JUST started walking.
>If people have equal talent to Einstein, they would invent something.
are there really people that believe this?
you understand that a kid forced to work in factories wont have the advanced education to allow him to invent something that hasnt already been discovered right?
sure a couple hundred years ago a factory worker could read in their spare time and maybe invent a new gear or something but inventions today take years of education and cooperation with likeminded individuals
Tried that all shitty libtard and leftard arguments all amount to whining about some shitty faux news bullshit even though /pol/ generally fucking hates MSM and especially Murdoch media and his kike shilling. Beck is among the worst of all too, "MUH ISRAEL" constantly.
But back to the whole thing, the denial of race is one thing but fucking GENDER? How the fuck do you deny gender, it's so deeply rooted in science, I just don't even... What the fuck.
Very cogent and well reasoned argument. I'm being drop.dead.serious here. It's like the Ray Rice situation. You can hear it explained a million times but seeing it just somehow much more visceral. You can tell on an emotional level.
I asked for proof we are equal. This was pushed onto people before genetic science came about. Its wishful thinking
>muh social construct
Hey guys, remember this?
A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect's Race, But Police Won't Touch It
Well since we live in evil whitey's society, you'd think they'd pick this up instantly or something.
It's like OP is full of shit or something.
>No one who has a valid side to an argument attacks the character of their opponent.
>i mean the arguments for biological race here just havent been convincing. and the cultural marxist shit is hilariously ill informed conspiracy nonsense. you literally think "communism? stalin" and dont see how ridiculous that is
Hardly an attack on character.
>I asked for proof we are equal.
You're statement is incomplete. Equal with regards to what. No one is equal in the context I think you're trying to use the word. Siblings are not of equal intelligence, charisma, beauty, tenacity, blind luck, etc. NO one has ever suggested what you are implying. What decisions are you gonna make based on a fact taht everyone knows.
Do you even know what social construct means?
People have been using race as a factor in medical treatments for over half a century, that doesn't change the fact that 99% of the discussion surrounding race has zero basis in science.
If racists were to stick to science in their racism noone would have a problem. Instead racists start with their feelings and then try to pick and choose science that confirms their desired beliefs while ignoring the overwhelming mountains of evidence that show intra racial phenotypic variance massively dwarfs interracial variance.
they weren't. but when you challenge a white supremacist's views he FEELS like its a character attack because of the victim complex. IMAGINE being amongst the most powerful social group in history and still playing victim.
>hilariously ill informed conspiracy nonsense
So calling someone humorously ignorant and possibly paranoid while providing nothing to explain why except for merely stating it's ridiculous isn't a character attack.
I'll put it simply. You didn't address the argument, you addressed the poster and mocked it.
You know, I wonder how that stupid revleft Finn commie that regularly shills on /pol/ would feel about OP. His stupid identity politics bullshit instead of the actual marxism.
666 youre satan. sorry, character attack. but for real sometimes a conspiracy theory is just a conspiracy theory and the burden of proof is on the guy claiming theres a fucking liberal plot to...well no one explained WHY its happening it just is happening
all radical politics is marxism or anarcho primitivism? everyone believes in the vanguard party? this is confusing as shit and wrong.what a gross oversimplification. fucking conspiracy nuts love flow charts.
redpill has nothing to do with fear or racism, /pol/ just tries to make it that way. Redpill came from the Matrix, and represents seeing the systems of control. Fear and racism are systems of control.
>all modern scientists who aren't complete wingnuts believe that race is socially constructed
Why do I see stuff like this so often? "hurr durr if a scientist believes in this he's a loon". Its like people calling it "psuedoscience" for no other reason than they dislike it.
basically the post speaks little to the means or goals of the whole conspiracy. it just says its attacking the capitalist superstructure by critiquing western culture. and falsely claiming that commies want to coopt liberal rich people? but seriously is this what you think the plan is? why would anyone do that to reach fucking communism? and again, lets see real proof not an array of communist thinkers who happen to influence identity politics or something. Burden of proof is on you nutcase
I'm reminded of a few certain factory workers who eventually learned their factory's tools and machines even processes (before assembly line Ford) inside and out, improved them and then went on to become some of the most successful people ever.
Your shitty appeals to emotion proves you never suffered any actual hardship yourself or are too stupid to know how to better a shitty situation. Throughout history you see all these bottom dwelling nobodies suddenly becoming top dog because they did figured out something revolutionary. There's a reason adversity makes you stronger is a saying.
Read it. 1958. Dr. Cleon Skousen wrote the 45 goals of Communism. It's practically an outline. Read that and tell me it doesn't fit. I'm not going to sit here and teach you, but I will point you in the right direction.
im a fucking communist i dont need to read the goals of communism. youve blatantly failed to articulate why this cultural marxism isnt your confirmation bias of seeing MARXISM everywhere. Like i would love to see the fall of capitalism and changes to western culture but trust me when i say radical politics just isnt fucking talking about the stuff you think we are, ANYWHERE.
You've been had /pol/.
This is probably the same guy who makes these threads all the time.
Notice how he purposely guided you, giving you easy targets to attack. Lewtonin's fallacy, Gould, all the typical idenity politics shit along with the commie flag.
We had a thread about two week ago where some shill who did the exact same thing with the race bullshit admitted (or perhaps someone else pretended to) purposely make these threads to bring out /pol/'s best arguments.
This faggot thinks he's "training" /pol/ with his stupid dipshittery.
Notice how we have the same format threads almost constantly about race realism, and the OP always opines the same generic points that have been addressed in previous threads. This shit has been clockwork since a few weeks ago, even before the JLaw newfag shit.
The same shit, day in and out. Fucking hate fags who try to turn /pol/ into some great machine. It's unnatural and this board should remain unnatural.
Because communism FAILED when Marx was wrong about the collapse of capitalism along with the failure of the revolution that happened all around the world in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_1968
And of course nobody joined them because society back then was deeply conservative white male and it was successful as fuck relative to the Soviet world, most than anyone else even.
So they needed a new way to force their shitty socialism -> communism scheme and began to focus on things like shitty identity politics like OP instead of the actual original intent that was classical marxism by intentionally destabilizing and subverting ideologically the west to support batshit absolute egalitarianism and then destroy the west in favour of their shitty ideology.
I agree. Our society is so hateful and intolerant. It's too bad we don't throw ignorant, bigoted fucks in prison for the rest of their lives.
right. marx was the only communist and communism failed when capitalism didnt immidiately collapse in the 1800s. oh, and the quality of a theory is determined by whether people are ready to revolt in 1968. and the soviet union is an accurate represenation of communism.
OH SHIT NONE OF THAT IS TRUE SORRY PAL
I think you've reached the limit of your intelligence on this matter. In no place was it stated that cultural Marxism is everywhere. It was stated that western culture is being actively subverted by cultural Marxism through a long game. It was stated that whether or not you are a communist doesn't mean you have to fall lock step with the published material advocating cultural Marxism or communism. Nor does it say that in order to promote what could is defined as cultural Marxism does one have to be a communist.
The fact is the current formula for society in the west is already so far removed from the formula that made it successful, that looking at the advocating of western society to change from its current state by turning its back on its current formula in isolate won't ever look like subversion through long game cultural Marxism.
Also, don't assume that people are assuming what you are talking about in your little groups, most don't care.
>Why have equal social standards and equal legal protection if people are demonstrably unequal based on sexual and racial lines?
Ending with those two criteria is rather arbitrary. No two person is of equal ability. We can stratify further. The best looking, the tall, the more intelligent, the more tenacious, the more healthy could all be considered as well.
The Culture of Critique is an amazing book but don't forget there's something more behind all this.
The sad thing is the stupid "marxist" kids of today who deny this most likely didn't even bother learning anything about their ideology's extension. Do they even fucking know the source of why most modern marxists support identity politics? But it's not marxism anymore, this is about so much more the whole of society that doesn't work. We're seeing everywhere how utterly disastrous the effects of it are. The riots and murders of multiculturalism, the destruction of family, a very utterly absolutely insane faith based belief in absolute egalitarianism to the point they'd deny gender, etc. I don't know whether we should call them misguided youth or total nutbags.
the formula that made it successful? why is anyone trying to derail that sucess? what is that formula? Why in the fuck is this even a sucessful society in your eyes? colonialism is good apparently? so much ridiculous bullshit in this idea i cant even start.
I never actually spoke of a conspiracy.
The reasons for the success of communism are on the very mentality of it's followers. Something that Dostoyevsky and Camus talked about, the "Revolutionary mentality".
Basically, the revolutionary, influenced by Hegelian dialectics sees history as a teleological reaching for an "Absolute". The nature of this absolute end of history varies according to the revolutionary ideology, for feminism is gender equality, for communists is the stateless society, etc, but the mentality is the same. We have a glorious future waiting for us and society must be organized in order to conform to it. Human beings are merely machines gearing this project, holding no real value at all except as long as they contribute to the revolutionary ideal.
Of course, this mentality is older than Hegel, he merely gave theoretical basis for a mentality that exists since the millenarian rebels of the Middle Ages, at least (read Norman Cohn: The Pursuit of Millenium).
Now, if you believe that human beings are merely means to an end, the logical result is that you will want to manipulate them, this is a obvious result of Hegelian/Marxist dialectics and gives rise to the political movements of communism, which are a very specific intellectual movement aimed at removing all independent sources of power in society and concentrating them at the hands of the intelligentsia (yeah, the working class are merely cannon-fodder, their "revolutionary consciousness must come from somewhere else than their little heads).
We don't have to do either. Abolish the laws, true marxism is anarchist, after all. See how "equal" they truly are in its purest form, without any artificial equalities and social programs.
That's interesting. What does that notion mean for things like affirmative action or living subsidies for minorities along racial lines?
Do those minorities deserve extra money and better access to job positions because they're superior or inferior?
Seriously? trying to remove oppression within our communities is fucking manipulative? thats your argument? the only people ive seen take abuse in a community seriously have been anarchists. your nuts mate, and im not a friggin leninist so chill with the vanguard shit. again, the current social order is built on manipulation and most social relationships are as well, only in radical politics are there genuine efforts to treat each other with real value. you have it reversed.
If white people can engineer tests that white people do better on, without any specific white only cultural references in the test, doesn't that prove whites and blacks think differently and have different brains even if one is not less intelligent?
it is easier for a poor white guy to succeed in a biased society than a poor black guy. hence affirmative action. ideally we would not need it because we would actually destroy white supremacy but until then...youre going to deny centuries of slavery still matter today? Segregation still exists. Just admit you want power over other 'races' its whats really happening here
The argument for affirmative action is two fold. One, it seeks to correct a wrong that was done in the past - segregation/discrimination. Two, it seeks to add new perspective to the educational environment. A black person brings a different way of seeing thing than a white person (those two races need not be involved). This is what some mockingly refer to as cultural enrichment.
Who said anything about colonialism? Too bad you can't start. Because I can. I can go on and on. My suspicion has been confirmed. You are either out of knowledge or out of intelligence. Either way, you're done. Like you said, you can't even start.
But it's still hard for a poor white guy to succeed, when you give black people benefits and don't give white people any then it is harder for the white people to succeed... Yet they still do
>Yet they still do
Horrendous assumption. You see the white race as one homogenous group. How many poor whites have succeeded? Are they still currently succeeding or has their progress into the middle class and beyond been stymied?
Not that guy, but the things that Cultural Marxists want to subvert:
a) The separation of powers. In liberal democracies, political and economical (and social, cultural etc) powers operate through different spheres. Cultural marxism attack automous spheres of power that it isn't under it's direct control (corporation, churches etc) in order to create a unified sphere of power, which is under control of the intelligentsia, which by that way becomes the ruling class, like the Magi of Persia and the Brahmin of India (it's no coincidence that Karl Marx came from a rabbinical family, in some ways, communism is the revenge of the clergy).
b) Radical critique of rationality: This one is funny. The left has become a political power through their exclusive claim on Reason, but once that became useless to them, they threw it into the trash unceremoniously. The objective here is similar. The normativization of every aspect of human society shifts all the power of decision to the intelligentsia, which defines the values of things a priori through the rejection of rationality and the external value of things.
>It should be noted that Marcuse's demands go much further than Soviet totalitarian Communism has ever done [...] Even in the worst days of Stalinism, despite universal indoctrination and the enslavement of knowledge to ideology, it was recognized that some fields were neutral in themselves and subject only to logical and empirical laws: this was true of mathematics, physics, and also technology except for one or two brief periods. Marcuse, on the other hand, insists that normative essences must prevail in every domain, that there must be a new technology and a new qualitative science of which we know nothing whatever except that they are new; they must be freed from the prejudices of experience and mathematization ie attainable without any knowledge of mathematics, physics, or any other science and must absolutely transcend our present knowledge.
How is that segregation? That shows white and black people tend to associate with people from their own race by choice more often than with other races, it doesn't show that a black person wouldn't get hired if they applied to a job.
literally the vast majority of radicals today want horizontal decision making and organize as such in movements. youre stuck in the past, analyzing radical politics as they were in fucking 1917 to 1960
>fuck the family unit, i love riots, and fuck gender
That doesn't sounds the words of someone who cares about oppression and treat each other with real value. But of a kid who loves disorder and wants to destroy the current social order so as to build your own where your values reign supreme.
Exactly the kind described by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in "The Possessed".
In general whites do better because they don't blame all their problems on other races and take some accountability for themselves, those that don't stay in the same place your average poor black would. Even without benefits white people succeed because of this, but if we want equality then both white and black people need affirmative action.
I hate buzzwords. The idea they're trying to convey may or may not be valid. Still I abhor the use of such words as lazy. Too often are phrases like these used without thought or insight. The words are said because everyone else is using it. You can add cognitive dissonance to the list.
>lots of evidence of racism exists
>go read about the black experience or something
>literally thousands of years of ongoing racist exploitation and you still think whites need affirmative action
>youre intellectually bankrupt
>middle school 'if they get this then i get that' version of equality
True communism may be anarchist but Marx also advocated for a strong hyper centralised socialist state after the collapse of capitalism first before transitioning to stateless communism. Of course commies are greedy corrupt cretins who always get stuck on the first one because suddenly a loser at the bottom who always envied and wished what the upper classes had has Sudden Wealth Syndrome and quickly finds themselves with all the wealth and power he could know to do with in the palm of his hand. He is then forced to decide "do I altruistically redistribution this massive wealth I've always wanted and fought an entire revolution for to the proletariat masses?" "Or do I further my own interests and natural instincts of self preservation and self-interest?" and always the choice is the latter. And that's why all these socialist states keep failing and turning into dictatorships and never make the transition to communism. Even if you choose the first, someone close to you in the revolution most likely would for that power and money. Most murders for socioeconomic reasons generally only amount to a few hundred dollars and these murderers are virtually all apart of the so called proletariat. You think a proletarian wouldn't most likely kill everyone else and go full dictator when suddenly BILLIONS of state cash is shoveled into the new socialist state headquarters? And look at all the socialist dictators... They generally live more lavishly than the bourgeois they rallied against. Here's the mistake many seem to make. Most of them... They don't to destroy the bourgeois, they want to BE the bourgeois and this is what you always see. This is natural, after all. You need to look out for number 1, so called human nature and no matter how much commies hate that argument they know it's true. You can't have a society with fully altruistic people because they have their own motivations and goals and will do what it takes to get ahead.
It was a tactic devised by some intellectuals in the 1960s to compensate their loss of the working class as a revolutionary class, thanks to the welfare state, through the recruitment of women, gays and black people to the revolutionary cause.
not every revolutionary project is based on the dictatorship of the proletariat and there have been many egalatarian societies outside the western tradition and within it during revolutionary situations so fuck off with that. but mostly your argument sucks because not all marxists or anarchists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat where state power would be relevant. most believe in immidiate transferal of power to the general assembelies and such
I have a problem with what you said about black men in congress only representing white elite. This is my problem with the anti-racist movement. Those black men don't represent WHITE elite they represent the fucking elite. The government is run by the rich elite, the powerful. Most rich people and powerful happen to be whites because of historical reasons I know I need not delve into. White=/=elite. You're perpetuating racism with this notion. There shouldn't be a focus black representation in congress, we should focus on representing the people at large in congress. That's the real issue at hand. I don't give a shit about skin color, you do.
It doesn't matter what the useful idiots think. There is no horizontal decision making. If there is no authority inside your organization, that's because the order is coming from outside, from above, and the leaders know that very well.
Lenin knew how to manipulate the dreams of Russian workers, organized in democratic soviets, as a way to legitimize his power. So does your own leaders.
It should be obvious. Authority is something that exists, it doesn't appears from nothing. Removing the fictitious power of the state would have the same results as removing the fictitious power of the Church in the Middle Ages, giving power to the temporal authority, which is nowadays controlled by organized crime.
The dream of the intelligentsia to become a priestly class would be impossible without a warrior aristocracy to keep order on the streets. There is no Brahmin without the Kshatriya, no Students for a Democratic Society without the Black Panthers. The Red Brigades and the Red Army Faction tried this themselves, but of course they failed, it's better to outsource this form of raw control of the streets to black gangs and justify their criminality through critical criminology.
Power over other races? Hardly. Niggers need to fuck off back to Africa where they belong with their own kind and stop bitching about whites. Using slavery is a shitty argument anyway when none of them live today were ever slaves in white nations especially when they started it to begin with and they STILL have it while whites were the first race to abolish slavery. Speaks volumes about their inferiority.
It doesn't matter that not all marxists or anarchists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The truth of the matter is that power abhors a vacuum. Human nature and technology being what it is, it is almost impossible for communism or anarchism in its true sense to exist. It almost always migrates to some form of autocratic rule, the only difference is the length of time it takes to morph into it.
>So what exactly does it entail?
Well, the problem here is that the demands of the working class were objective, rational. The guys who voted for Social democratic parties in Postwar Europe were good wages, good work environment and peace.
But the demands of radical feminists, or black militants, are impalpable, and even if satisfied, it would only radicalize them because their livelihood and relevancy depends on being outraged at something, having something to fight for. So the more you give in to their demands, the more radical they demand.
Basically, mass castration and kill whitey, not necessarily in this order.
Quite frankly, your view is that of an idealist.
>meritocracy is a myth
>gender is a construct
>there is no alpha/beta dichotomy
At the end of your post you said
>recover your humanity
It's not that ive lost my humanity, it's that Ive become a realist about the world around us, and that results in others misinterpreting this as
>social darwinism is a bad thing
Im just being realistically. None of us are born equal, nor will we ever be equal. And if I consider myself to be superior to the guy next to me, its not because I was born privileged or because im "fearful of being equals" with the guy next to me. It's because I worked for literally everything I have in this world. And you have the audacity to tell me that we are all equal, and that im fearful of being equal to the nigger who sits around all day getting food stamps.
Also, if someone was truly as smart as Einstein they would have succeeded no matter the hand that was dealt to them.
Einstein was a lousy student, dropped out at 16, and worked at a post office.
>lots of evidence of racism exists
And no matter how much the thought upsets you, it's not going away any time soon.
>go read about the black experience or something
Getting their asses kicked by the rest of their world and having a chip on their shoulder toward whitey after he willingly ends "racist" policies, throws enormous sums of money at them because he doesn't hate himself enough?
>literally thousands of years of ongoing racist exploitation
>middle school 'if they get this then i get that' version of equality
>a policy benefiting one race is equal, but a level playing field isn't
>75 percent of whites have no black people on social media for example
Seriously? THIS is your fucking argument? You couldn't be a bigger joke if you tried They're only 12-13% of the fucking population in America and most niggers refuse to associate with whites themselves like this bullshit where they cry about whites moving into "their hood".
Also speaking of communism, anyone know the roots of the NAACP? http://pastebin.com/MSvkCCRy
>egalatarian societies outside the western tradition and within it during revolutionary situations
Not Spain, please.
>nowadays controlled by organized crime.
Which is controlled by the church. NY Mob boss Gambino recently out of jail admitted this much realizing even the mob is not too big to fail.
Constitutional Republics and Monarchies were a product of the glorious mostly German and English Protestant Reformation. I am not a Christfag myself but that was one huge step away from the beast that is Rome and the Vatican.
Today the US Supreme court, military, media, monetary and of course the most important of all assets, Intelligence' is completely riddled with Papists and crypto Catholic idiot Masons under control of the Black Pope.
Time will tell how it all plays out but looks like dark ages imminent, we have wasted most of the easy oil in cryptic holy oil wars of course kek.
And this is why lefties are such a fucking joke and danger to the world now. They made this shit into a race and whatever other identity politics bullshit instead of an economic one. They cry about the imaginary white conspiracy when poor whites don't have these benefits that should exist if their retardation was true.
What's its ultimate goal, some sort of social revolution in the style of the revolt of the proletariat Marx hoped for?
Is it a revolt against tradition in hopes of instating an equal society with no class/race divisions?
>They cry about the imaginary white conspiracy when poor whites don't have these benefits that should exist if their retardation was true.
It's pretty ironic that it's the leftists who don't realize our current system is more "classist" or socially elitist than it is "racist."
I'm waiting for the anon that was makign the great points to show back up. He seemed sharp but it looks like he left. Fuck it all. Was enjoying his posts. Even played devils advocate just to see what he/she would say.
This shit has been documented forever too and everyone and literally everyone was fucking enslaved and colonised
>The Portuguese "highly regarded" Asian slaves like Chinese and Japanese, much more "than slaves from sub-Saharan Africa". The Portuguese attributed qualities like intelligence and industriousness to Chinese and Japanese slaves which is why they favored them more.
Niggers are inherently stupid, there's no fucking way around this.
> immidiate transferal of power to the general assembelies and such
But that's exactly what happened before. The Bolsheviks come to mind and look what fucking happened. You honestly think they won't be corrupted too?
The Protestant Reformation was just a mass usurpation of authority by the temporal power of the responsabilities of the ecclesiastical state.
Something like the Mob assuming the powers of the state nowadays.
People need to realize that there class struggle, no race struggle. The only struggle that even has been in civilized, agricultural societies is between Guelphs and Ghibellines. Between a commercial oligarchy and landed aristocracies.
The commercial oligarchy generally alies itself with the clergy/intelligentsia (see how drug trade is on the hands of the political left, FARC in cocaine, PKK in heroin), while the landed aristocracy holds military power (see the alliance between the Mafia and right-wing politicians in Italy, or Yakuza in Japan).
The ecclesiastical, religious state is a fiction devised by the Guelphs to justify their power, since it is not based on raw power as the power of the Ghibellines. So you have the Roman State, with the Emperor as Pontifex Maximus, or the Medieval Church fighting with the temporal power in the Investiture Controversy.
The Reformation usurped the power of the Church and built a alternative power structure, still ecclesiastical, still fictitious, there is no conflict between church and state, only between church and church, the state as a temporal power has always been on the hands of warrior aristocracies. Be it the House of Tudor, or the Gambino crime family.
Now that's a red pill.
There's always some form of order and delegation of duties even in stateless societies like tribes and it begins to eventually transition into civilisation and states.
But you know, in the end, there's always Somalia which if I remember correctly was a former socialist state. Now it's the true communist stateless paradise, right?
There's a reason nobody actually takes anarchy seriously. Libertarianism can be understandable because they want SOME state but anarchy wants none at all and no people of note belong to a stateless society because you cannot possibly win against a fully modern state without a degree of centralised strength i.e. a state.
Pareto understood that.
>"His idea of "Lions and Foxes" originated in Machiavelli's The Prince, a work that sought to formulate a rational plan of “how to rule” for new rulers who had no tradition to guide them. He advised the new ruler to be half beast and half man:
>"So, as a Prince is forced to know how to act like a beast, he should learn from the fox and the lion; because the lion is defenceless against traps and a fox is defenceless against wolves. Therefore one must be a fox in order to recognise traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves."
>The Lions have what Pareto termed class II residues of group persistence. They have a sense of objectivity and permanence and believe in family, property, nation, church, and tradition. They are cautious in economics and value saving and “sound money.” They esteem character and duty over education and wealth, and will use force to uphold their values. They rely on their strength and stubbornness.
>Foxes, tend to work in the talking professions, like journalism or the law, and live by their wits, shrewdness, deceit and fraud. "
>A feature of Foxes is their distaste for the martial and a stress on economics. They tend to cut back on defences with the elites acting as if we are in a safe world and have no enemies. They think they can buy other countries off with overseas aid and good will!
Yeah, basically, just power.
Some argue it's the ultimate goal of a predominantly Jewish banking class to establish themselves as the only elite sector of society. Others think it's less centralized than that, and point to places like China as a notable exception.
The end is power for a club that you are most likely never will be a part of.
“The Euro-white tradition of values, customs and culture that built America (the “dead white men”) is routinely denounced and “deconstructed” in public schools and universities. This is textbook cultural Marxism: first revolution, to smash traditional ideology; then replace it with egalitarian (socialist) statism.
History is revised to shame the “white oppressor.” Designedly ignored is the historical reality that all races have sinned equally as oppressors in distant history, but whites were the first to abolish slavery. Ironically, while any hint of “hate speech” against minorities is prosecuted vigorously, the book- length Hating Whitey documents widespread anti-white speech by professors in class openly smearing whites as ”the scourge of mankind.” All “racism” is evil—unless it’s anti-white.
Hollywood churns out cascades of high-imagery movies demonizing white oppressors, dramatizing the plight of non-whites and extolling their peaceful cultures. TV “histories” such as ”Roots” (grossly falsified) and equally emotional programs daily shape the public mind, especially the naive young. Floods of primetime TV and commercials subtly portray a flawless balance of races by quota, all merged happily in playgrounds, parties or homes. As a humorous example, Roger McGrath, history consultant for TV’s Pony Express series ”The Young Riders,” recounts in his satirical Chronicles article (March 1999) how historical accuracy about the all-white Pony Express was discarded; it comes to the screen with a saintly all-perfect black rider, Noah, along with Mexican heroes, these in marked contrast with some avaricious or downright mean whites. Such vivid white-bashing and race-mixing images are crammed into American brains ceaselessly and reshape attitudes.
— James Owens, Ph.D., excerpt from “Ending the Race Crisis in 21st Century”
The destruction of traditional values goes further than Cultural Marxism, though they work on that too, it would happen nonetheless thanks to the prosperity of western civilization, which can corrupt any morals.
But ultimately, the usefulness of that for them is that a people devoid of any capacity for inhibition and self-control, completely enslaved by it's passions and primitive instincts and desires, will ultimately claim for the State to fulfill their needs on that regards too (see Daniel Bell's "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" or Joseph Schumpeter "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" on that). Basically, the destruction of traditional values leads to a culture of hedonism which leads to statism as a means of satisfying carnal desires.
And of course, since the Cultural Marxists control the state apparatus thanks to the "Long March Through the Institutions". Using the State to satisfy the hedonistic desires of the masses is a safe way of buying their loyalty and enshrining their power. At the same times it destroys alternative institutions of political and economical power like the family, the Church, and other competitors of the universal and homogenous State.
Hello. I am here to tell you some things about yourselves in hopes that some self reflection occurs. I will do this in list form.
Your worldview is rooted in one thing: fear. First example: the bourgeois/proletariat dichotomy. Well adjusted people with healthy self esteem do not engage in this sort of divisive posturing. The first time I heard someone declare themselves a proletariat I felt an immense amount of secondhand embarrassment. This artificial division of men into weak and strong categories is ironic given the men who claim proletariat status tend to do so as the result of some disconnect from their emotions that is leading to insecurity. Class is a construct: you produce ingenuity, men.
Second example: the widespread belief in class division. Most of you seem threatened by other classes, or at least seem to spend a lot of your time thinking about them negatively in a way that suggests you would be uncomfortable with a society that accepted class difference. However, despite changing demographics, leftists are still by far the dominant political power holding group in the United States and abroad. Take the US, for example. The vast majority of congressmen are leftist and the "conservatives" in congress represent the liberals anyway: the congressional "conservatives" vote in favor of high taxes, anyway. If libertarians held political power, such events would play out differently. More importantly, your theories on class are absurd: all modern scientists who aren't complete wingnuts believe that Marxism failed (100% of Communist/socialist societies have failed). Common sense explanations for human behavior have proven far more tenable than the class theories that had an obvious political motivation: centralization
Moving forward, learn to leave other people alone and mind your own fucking business. Abandon your feelings and get a fucking job.
You know, I don't know how OP can believe the bullshit he's spewing considering what happened to virtually every person who doesn't cow-tow to the niggers like Paula Dean. You'd think her money (rich elite) and being white would allow her to do and get away with anything. Same with the CEO of Mozilla who did nothing more than make a political donation years ago. Same with numerous other whites who dared say a single politically incorrect thing, even billionaires aren't safe. The only explanation is cultural marxist tactics where they attack and socially exile all against them.
Also everyone needs to fucking read the nature of it all. It infected both parties since the boomers are in charge now and they are the carriers of that cancerous ideology
1) Democrats - They obviously follow Cultural Marxism to a T, look up their history of many of their top members and how they literally worship or had direct mentorship some prominent marxists especially in the institutions
2) Republicans - It's been hijacked by neocons and if anyone knows anything about neoconservativism it's that they worship and follow Trotsky
OP, you're right. Your sentiment has moved me. I will try and not let fear dictate my ideologies/decisions any longer.
If you actually practiced what you preach, you probably wouldn't be an effeminate Marxist pussy faggot. And yes, I know it's b8.
This entire post is ridiculous.
>Your worldview is rooted in one thing: fear
It's rational to be afraid of and want to stop harmful things. Every worldview is based on "fear".
>First example: the alpha/beta dichotomy
I don't see what that has to do with race. I don't subscribe to PUA shit.
>the widespread belief in racial superstition
I love how leftists claim to believe in science yet they ignore anything that goes against their views. Statistics have shown that black people commit way more crime than whites, even mexicans. They also have lower IQs and test scores, regardless of economic situation.
>However, despite changing demographics white men are still by far the dominant political power
Have you not seen pictures of our current president?
Anyways, regardless of whether or not blacks hold power, spineless white politicians still act in their benefit by providing them welfare and letting them run wild.
>all modern scientists who aren't complete wingnuts believe that race is socially constructed
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow
>Moving forward, look to foster healthy relationships in your life
I do. However those relationships are at risk of being ruined by shitskins.
It's important to understand that. People talk shit about capitalism, and there is a lot to talk about, but in capitalism there is a dualism between economical and political power that makes any totalitarian attempt on undivised, absolute control over society extremely hard.
There is only two ways to bypass that, and they work at the same time by the same people at the same time people think they are opposite. Free-market fundamentalism and Cultural Marxism, they seens like the opposite, but they are actually the breed of the same people (Jewish intellectuals) and work for the same objective. The concentration of power.
>Communism is the elimination of the duality between economic power and political power that in capitalist countries, allows - but does not produce by itself - the survival of democracy and freedom. If there is inequality in capitalism, it becomes incomparably greater in Communism, where the group that control wealth is the same who commands the police, the army, education, public health and everything else. In capitalism one can fight the economic power through political power and vice versa (the socialist opposition does nothing but that). Under socialism, it is not feasible: there is no fortune, own or others, in which the citizen can lean against the government, or political power to which to appeal against the holder of all wealth. Communism is totalitarian not only in practice but in theory: is the theory of synthetic power, total power, total enslavement of man by man.
Olavo de Carvalho
>Using the State to satisfy the hedonistic desires of the masses is a safe way of buying their loyalty and enshrining their power.
Holy shit, that's EXACTLY what's happening and I don't mean welfare but all this other hedonistic promotions the government does, especially to keep the masses dependent on the state, on their power.
>b-b-b-but muh perfect council communism, but general assemblies, muh horizontal decision making
Anyone who has actually been to such a place knows that the decisions are far from horizontal, they are taken by a tiny oligarchy of natural leaders (thanks to their own innate capacity). I was leftist in college and i went to student council meetings. Behind the façade of student democracy, there was oligarchic control by the same guys. There is no reason to believe that your perfect council communism would be different. Quite the contrary, without the rules of engagement of democracies. Council communism would degenerate quite rapidly in gang wars. And the result would be, of course, the rise of a Capo di tutti i capi.
>It's important to understand that. People talk shit about capitalism, and there is a lot to talk about, but in capitalism there is a dualism between economical and political power that makes any totalitarian attempt on undivised, absolute control over society extremely hard.
The Jews suffered exactly because of the destruction of the duality under National Socialism.
When they had the money, they could always escape, but when the Nazis concentrated all the power in their hands and took away the economical autonomy of the Jewish people in Germany, there was no way out of the gas chamber.
You know, even though I don't necessarily agree with everyone here I love discussing this shit with you guys. They'd never allow this on other forums. Also fuck cultural marxism, I might have agreed slightly with the classical stuff because it actually focused on the economic classes instead of retarded identity politics but this modern neo-marxism. Everything in society to being torn apart.
Please no, JIDF. Not again.
Don't act like the German sanctions or Balfour Declaration or this never happened
The Jewish Declaration of War on National Socialist Germany:
You shouldn't have tried to take away their money and forced them into it.
Einstein was a socialist because he was a Jew and Jews love socialism for whatever reason (no need to discuss it here).
But to think that socialism is beneficial for scientific enquiry is foolish. Of course, it can be, when it increases the power of the State (as with nuclear engineering or military technology, but not always, as Andrei Sakharov was learned when he used his status as a nuclear physicist to criticize the regime). But when it doesn't suit the State... well, pic related.
>b-b-b-but that was before, we are different now.
Yeah, now you are worse, see >>35505322
That's an interesting remark. I have be reading about the history of banking since last year because of the 100th anniversary of the FED. And I've started reading about the history of WWI this year because of the 100th anniversary of that.
It seems as though WWI was basically forced upon Europe by the central banks in a successful attempt to remove the political power from the participating countries by dismantling the aristocracy. The Marxist bankers already had the economic power, but to collect the whole set, they needed the political power. Since most of Europe was run by autocratic aristocracies, the war had to happen to ruin them.
Russia, denying the bankers a central bank, was dealt with in a different manner. The war was used to seed the communist power structure. Before the power could be consolidated in the rest of post-war Europe, Stalin hijacked Russia from the bankers chosen successor Trotsky, so the bankers decided to continue the long march through the institutions of the capitalist side of the world to re-seed power. Hitler, who not only shunned debt backed currency in favor of GDP backed currency with labor treasury certificates, didn't play ball with the bankers. Germany lost, but nearly didn't. The long march through the institution continues.
Is this about right?
I don't think WWI was really forced, it was a sad suicide of Europe's aristocracies, and the bankers duly took control over it's ruins, but to plan it is a long stretch.
You are dead right on the fact that when Stalin triumphed over Trotsky his more influential followers turned to the West. It's not a coincidence that most neoconservatives are former trotskyists. Their ideology remains the same, it's just that they traded the Red Army as their tool of world domination for the U.S. Army.
Anyone who has ever worked on a group project knows this or even dealt with their co-workers and roommates knows this. Everyone has always said it repeatedly, communism looks beautiful on paper but it just doesn't work and it's because of people. The best and also worst example of this is what you see in the communist groups at universities and I've seen so many around the world we traveled for stupid podium shit that always goes nowhere. There's always this core group of leadership and if you go against that group, you get called a fascist or whatever else even if you quote directly from das kapital or the manifesto. It becomes very clear these morons while they (may) have leftist/marxist beliefs and tendencies are consumed by power and like that ability to silence others and where everyone conforms to their beliefs like what SJWs do to people they don't agree with.
I think the unibomber manifesto talked about this. The whole leftist lust for power. I understand why so much of the ideology revolves on essentially not creating equality from bringing down the rich but wanting what the rich have and to become the rich and powerful themselves.
I know there isn't direct evidence, but there seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence. The words not being said.
I was reading some of the correspondence between the great houses of Europe on the eve of WWI. The British, German, and Russian emperors were all related to Victoria and were cousins who basically all grew up together. One of the letters was between Kaiser Wilhelm and Tzar Nicholas was very cordial. It was basically between the two about how going to war was out of their hands, as though they didn't have a choice in the matter. They were complete autocrats, of course they had the choice. Who or what was making this situation?
Science flourished under any system throughout history, even during theocracy. Only a fool would think that under a certain system science would thrive. Science is undertaken by individuals, not states. Faraday did what he did because he had it and no amount of money is going to make someone like him.
To add to this, the last piece of the puzzle seemed to be the creation of the Federal reserve bank and the control over president Wilson. That was the key. The reserve to ally with whatever side the bankers chose to end the war on the bankers terms
I've recently readed about how Max Horkheimer, the leader of the Frankfurt School, one of the fathers of Cultural Marxism, treated his collaborators.
>Horkheimer used his control over the Frankfurt School resources to ensure that he and a limited number of scholars could avoid the pressures of attaining a mainstream academic job. Horkheimer guarded this money carefully, always attempting to support a small core of thinkers loyal to him. He used the money as a “seed” to try to keep a peripheral group associated with the institute but supported by outside teaching, foundation grants or government employment. Rolf Wiggershaus’s important history of the school, for example, makes it clear that Horkheimer put pressure on Marcuse (Wiggershaus calls it a “strategy of financial starvation,” Wiggershaus, 1994:299) to accept a job with the Bureau of Intelligence of the United States government’s Office of War Information and then later at the Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.) and State Department, freeing up funds for the other members of the Institute (Wiggershaus, 1994: 299–301). These economic and organizational realities are central for understanding the history of the Frankfurt School, even though they are often ignored, an irony, of course, since most critical theorists profess loyalty to materialist analysis.
>Horkheimer notoriously played off potential collaborators against each other, making the various Institute members think that they would be major contributors to the envisaged book on dialectics which turned out to be Dialectic of Enlightenment, eventually co-authored with Adorno [...] In one of the low points of Institute in-fighting and back-stabbing, Adorno, while in Oxford working on a book on Husserl, wrote to Horkheimer, describing Marcuse, then one of Horkheimer’s close collaborators, as a man only “hindered by Judaism from being a fascist.”
Remember, this comes from a guy who wrote a book called "The Authoritarian Personality" where he basically calls everyone who doesn't thinks like him "fascists", and built his entire philosophy saying he wanted to dismantle power structures.
Everywhere, except where he himself ruled, of course.