Aldo @Aldo2@gameliberty.club
I don't know man, whatever...
Joined Nov 2021
Daily reminder that real life James Bond shit isn't done by the West.
However, it is done by the East...
"The democratic camp must respond with a genuine populist agenda involving an expansion of social programs, higher taxes on the wealthy and the growth of a communal economy that is no longer reliant on economic growth to obtain social stability"
Real populism has never been tried, unironically.
And I thought Wordpress blogs were a thing of the past...
"The secret of Nietzsche’s appeal to people from opposite ends of the political spectrum is thus revealed: To the radical right, it is his rejection of equality and the democratic ideas that are based on it that is scintillating and rings true (besides his often and—as I have argued—misunderstood flirtations with the concept of race); to the left, it is his anti-essentialism with its emphasis on the plastic nature of identity that promises liberation from societal oppression. But, as it is typical in politics, the catch is that each side, to maintain its political ideology, has to reject the other’s Nietzscheanism: The radical right cannot easily accept the idea that identity, including racial identity, is dynamic and malleable, and the left, in order to promote its progressive agenda in the democratic public forum, cannot easily give up on the idea of the moral equality of all."
Can't believe this came from TabletMag...
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/nietzsche-left-right
The problem that anti-eugenecists have with eugenics is that eugenecism makes sense. You can only argue against it from an irrational, selfish perspective ("we have to remain, even if we are bad"). And the problem with eugenecists is that the end stage of eugenecism is essentially conceptual death.
A eugenecist wants the best people, the best society, the best relationship with nature, the best it could possibly be. They will tinker and tweak, until they reach that greatness; that harmony; that perfection.
The only issue is, when all the populations of the world become high-income societies that are then at or below replacement due to "universal education", none will be able to replace themselves without one group of people effectively dying off.
And even then, if everyone would be the same, would nations or "different" people remain? What would be the point? We'd truly, at that stage, have more need for a one-world government than a patchwork of nations. A eugenecist utopia, as it were. But that would be the death of the "world" as we know it. Conceptual death.
Even worse, if by some irrational "miracle" nations do remain, then people will, ironically, demand, and then force another people to become them, even though there is no difference between them. Tragically, this irrationality will just kill even more people as the various states (and the people within them) become desperate to survive by any means (return to the animal kingdom).
And, at the end of those wars, at that point, when the survivors start dying of old age, what is left?
The last person may then think that it's better that they kill themselves to "benefit nature" or something like that, rather than continue on as a parasite. Or, if AI achieves singularity, they may ironically choose to become "more than human", becoming something else entirely; a new species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrBdYmStZJ4&ab_channel=BrianR
Agent Smith InterrogationYouTube
Women's rights and reproductive education is eugenics. There simply is no counter to this. Margeret Sanger was a eugenecist. Feminism is eugenics. Progressivism is, in a way, eugenics.
This paper makes that clear.
However, eugenics aside, once/if the "target universal education by 2030" is reached, you still have to maintain population levels.
What do we do then?
OK, I'm keeping it 100% man.
Look, OK.
I'm more attracted to a cute little European girl than I am to a cute little African girl.
I'm not saying the little African girl isn't cute, it's just that I'm more attracted to the European one.
@frost I just did some more reading, and it's essentially the same across the board (I've looked at France, Spain, the UK, Italy, Germany and NL).
There may be some small spikes here and there but the trend is still unquestionably downwards.
It's like a bouncy ball.
The crazy thing is, this trend appears to be global. Even "developing nations" are experiencing a decline in their fertility-rates. The fertility-rate of Yemen (once the highest fertility-rate on the planet, and one of the world's poorest nations) is dropping like a stone.
We are definitely living in interesting times...
GIF
@frost while they were higher in the past, American birth-rates were still steadily dropping year after year, even as far back as the 1800's (the birth rate in 1900 was almost half that of 1800).
Looking to the past to address current problems will most likely lead to people repeating the same past mistakes all over again ("we learn from history that we do not learn from history").
Guys this is super important to me, because I, you know...I like cute little girls?
Like.
If we don't do something about this, then there'll be no more cute little girls.
I mean, at that point, is life even worth living?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSdL1zeOfdk&ab_channel=MultiversodosHerois
@frost likely won't work long-term and will probably lead to fucked-up children.
Orphan Nation?
Total Nuclear Family Destruction?
5th-Wave Feminism?
Breaking the "Egg Wall"?
I used to say "I'm racist against anti-racists" or "anti-racism is code for anti-white" when I was in my "Alt-Right" adjacent/"pro-white" phase.
Nowadays, I'm more inclined to say "I'm racist against racists", which I think is a more correct, consistent and based opinion.
@matrix your comment on empathy kinda proves it: "empathy one should have for children misplaced towards "oppressed" people". What about the children of the "oppressed"? You say you're not "racist", but you only care about anti-white racism, completely discounting all the other discrimination (some codified, others implied, some related to race, others to sexuality etc...) that has existed for decades prior as inconsequential.
When the British "ended slavery", they paid (or renumerated) the slave owners. They did not pay the slaves for being subjected to inhumane conditions. Many of the descendants of those slaves now still exist in poverty. The relatives of the slave owners still are wealthy. This is why talk of "reparations" still remains, and indeed is getting louder.
I want to make it clear that I am not denying that there exist racial differences. The argument I'm making is that the differences we can observe between groups today are not EXCLUSIVELY because of race. And, in the case that differences are because of man-made factors, why shouldn't we, as men, try to ameliorate those specific man-made issues?
There are plenty (perhaps even a majority) of private schools/universities that are only in the position they are in because of corruption and the "revolving door" nepotism that is so prevalent nowadays. The private boarding school (one of, if not the most expensive in the country) I went to is a great example of this. Celebrity parents would give "donations" to the school to keep their problem child from getting expelled for breaking school rules. We even had a rivalry with the neighborhood public school which turned violent on numerous occasions. Yet alumni from the school grace all high positions and continue the cycle of "excellence".(https://www.financialsamurai.com/why-public-schools-will-rank-higher-than-private-schools/)
How is only accepting the "good" ones into corrupt institutions helping the wider black community propel themselves out of the mire they find themselves in? Even if it did it would be an incredibly slow process that would most likely not keep up with socio-economic developments that would overtake them. I think this was one of the points made in that Reddit thread I drew from.
Are you denying that systemic racism existed for a long time? I mean, Jim Crow was only ("officially") ended in the mid-60's...(Slavery was only "officially abolished" in the 1860's etc...). Neither of these things stopped "implicit bias" (or even, in many cases, "explicit bias").
As that Redditor points out, in order to address systemic racism, you need to meet it on the same field. You can't try to address the problems of historic racism by just "blank slating" everything and letting it all sort itself out "naturally", especially when, as I just desribed, the people doing the discrimination have the wealth/standing whereas those who were discriminated against have nothing. That is just doing the British solution and then LARPing like you're "race-neutral".
If the American empire is good because it "understands" that might isn't right then why are you advocating for the concept? "If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
I mean, whatever, the Austrian school sucks. Kenyes was/is right.
Even when pro-war Zionists try to empathize with the Palestinians, it's done in such a bad way that it changes nothing. Like a Russian state official "empathizing" with Ukrainians.
The fictional "Jewish Israeli" child's father was killed at the Nova rave (recent reporting alleges that the majority who were killed were actually killed by the IDF under "Hannibal Directive" orders).
The Druze child's father was an "elite IDF soldier" "defending the kibbutz communities (settlements)". Interestingly, throughout the article, the Druze individuals are not considered "Israeli". They are just described as "Druze", not "Israeli Druze", but just "Druze". Isn't that strange...
The Canadian child's father was killed because he was in the Kibbutzim (settlements) that "helped Palestinians" (boy in the striped pajamas moment).
The Palestinian child's father is.......Just an evil man who, although a "civilian", "joined in the brutal attack"...
“It is pro-peace, it is pro-Israeli, you could say,” said Rose. “We’re not saying Israel shouldn’t exist. But it’s also pro-Palestinian as people who deserve respect and their own say, free of Hamas. It is anti-Hamas.”
That statement is just a massive inherent contradiction. It is not "pro-peace" if it is "pro-Israeli", because Israel is literally engaging in open colonization and genocide. The Kibbutzes they talk about are a key part of that colonization and genocide.
It is not "pro-Palestine" if it says they should have "their own say", but that doesn't include the option to resist against colonization and genocide and to decide their own government free of Israeli meddling.
Again, it's like a pro-Z Russian LARPing about caring for the Ukrainians, but in the end, they only "care" about them so they can use them to achieve their own aims (overthrow Zelensky, de-militarize, re-incorporate into Russian sphere etc...). It is fake empathy, put plainly. And it is obvious (at least to me).
@Jazzy_Butts my mistake, I believe the daycare incident was non-consensual and involved more-so physical beating (instead of "sexual abuse").
Not good, but still, the "plea deal" is 90 days :/
What that case actually shows is that literally beating babies until you break their legs is apparently less bad than having consensual relations with a teenager because sex isn't involved...
Wild!
I don't know man, whatever...
Joined Nov 2021
