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.
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
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.
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).
Just got back from another trip to the bar with friends (5+ pints).
Met a liberal guy from uni who I haven't seen in years and years.
He has a Turkish girlfriend, and we were talking about Turkish domestic politics (protests) but also the irony that Turkey, regardless of whether Erdogan or the opposition is in power, would still pursue a Turkish expansionist policy in the region.
Also it was funny, my friend introduced me to the other friend's girlfriend by calling me a "that Fascist guy from uni".
Fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6htT-aVJup4&ab_channel=SlothfulRacoon
Many things that this graph shows.
1.) FDR/Truman progressive "New Deal" policies gave the U.S. the highest economic growth it ever saw. No Republican or Democrat "neoliberal" or otherwise ever comes close.
2.) The economy under Republicans generally tends to fall during their second terms (if they get one). Furthermore, the growth that they experience in their first terms is also generally dwarfed by their Democrat successor in their first term.
3.) Democrats generally do better on the economy in their second term (if they get one). There is no fall-off.
4.) The economic growth observed under Democrat administrations during the "neoliberal" era is most likely less due to deregulation and more due to raising taxes on the wealthy and investing in social services.
During the FDR/Truman era, taxes on the wealthy were very high, and the investing in social services/protections for workers was also very high. The economy had very high levels of growth.
While there was growth in the Clinton/Obama eras, there possibly could have been more if they were even more progressive.
In fact, some argue that Bill Clinton's deregulations (championed by right-wing economists and hated by progressive "New Deal"'ers) directly helped facilitate the recession of '07-'09 (which itself occured under Bush's second term mismanagement).
Tl;Dr: Keynes was right.
Keyenes also was bi and liked people on the younger side. Wow! Pedos getting tired of winning here...
Even though it's impossible to deny it, Sky News wants to instill doubt in the viewer over whether it was actually the IDF who butchered the medics...
I don't know man, whatever...
Joined Nov 2021
