How do racist KJN's explain France?

Typical irrational illogical internotionalisticist KNR

Cata and eisenheim are the only people on this thread that I don't despise with all my being. And I'm not even familiar enough with eisenheim to have an opinion of him. All I know is that he sucks a hell of a lot less than y'all.

I know reality is harsh. I don't like sugarcoating it either. But you're still insane.

Clint its off topic. Everyone here is more extreme and like likes to shitpost more than general. Did you know that the US are a hoax created by Britain to keep the other European Countries confused?

So.....like.....my country doesn't exist? Oh my god.....my eyes.....they've been opened. Thank you.

Job discrimination. Not discrimination in general. No one can stop me from discriminating who I want, when I want (not that I will, but that's beside the point). Because of the first amendment.
Did you.....did you really just try to say that the first amendment, the most important amendment, is invalid? You're batshit crazy.

Irrelevant but it is amazing how all of Tabby's posts can be boiled down to 5-6 core beliefs. Even the goddamn examples include them in one way or another(find me a post of Tabby arguing about race/success that does not include how jews are amazing in it)

This is why you suck, Tabby. You keep repeating and reciting the same things, presenting everything is if it can be absolutely judged as good/bad.

In my mind, no matter how "rational" the things you say are, or how much evidence you have to back them up, you can never get away with painting the world in black and white, essentially throwing half of it away because you deem it unworthy.

Please stop saying the same thing over and over again. Right now you are not a person. You are an (idiotic) ideology.

Edited 5/10/2017 16:34:17

+1,000,000

how do republicans explain the new health care system?

how do republicans explain the new health care system?

Deflection.

Remarkable. So you think race/skin color has something to do with advancement ?

Yes.

Lets start with the Atlantic slave trade shall we? The largest forced mass exodus in recorded history. 9-11 million Africans forcibly removed to work as slaves in the New World. Some historians have argued that this destroyed successive generations of Africans, destroying their overall capacity to grow.

Why wasn't Africa developed at all before this?

[/quote]Go look at the world map. European borders are intricate, often very hard to draw. African countries are geometrically easy to draw. That's because the great white man arbitrarily barged onto their land, drew a line in the sand without consideration for local, religious or cultural values. When the great white master was done exploiting publicly he left a largely ill equipped crop of leaders and a multitude who don't recognize the nation state as the white man does. Any sane leader leader they got, the great white man decided to kill. Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara and Steve Biko come to mind.[/quote]Europe has had arbitrary borders, so has Asia. Yugoslavia, China includes a large number of minority ethnic groups, India is divided into dozens too. None of them are shit holes on the scale of Africa. Plus, even relatively homogenous nations (Lesotho, Swaziland, arguably Liberia since it was founded with few initial ethnic divisions) are still broken.[/quote]

Thirdly how you define progress, values and growth matters. For all intents and purposes India is more democratic in terms of civil liberties than Singapore. Yet economically, Singapore is proportionately far wealthier. Similarly, Africa's threshold should take into account the overall situation, education, healthcare and system of rule as well as intervention.

They have no education, no healthcare, no system of rule. By every conceivable benchmark except AK-47's per capita, they are terrible. They are also way behind where they were when ruled by whites.

By the same logic, I can ask why Eastern Europe is severely less wealthy than say UK or Switzerland. Nothing to do with their skin color or racial origin. Everything to do with historic circumstance.

>nothing has to do with...racial origin
Is propaganda so ingrained in you that you cannot fathom groups evolving differently and having different attributes? Eastern Europe, your example, is infinitely superior to most of Africa, despite "imperialist" Russian interference, and ethnic divisions in Ukraine, Romania, and ex-Yugoslavia.

Edited 5/10/2017 11:37:05

To name a few:

>Reproduction is bad and we should replace it(this includes the "peafowls" thing)

>High average IQ groups should rule over ones with lower average IQ, or at least have great benefits compared to them (Note that this discriminates on a level of groups, not individuals) (in other words:Jews should rule the world because they were persecuted and have thus become better than everyone else)

>Science and rationalism are good, emotions and particularly romantic ones are bad(i.e. we should all be robots)

>Some cultures are objectively bad and should be done away with

I see the both of you entirely missed the point. Exploitation and foreign interference is the answer. Lack of faith in the nation state is the answer. Lack of skilled workers and a survival of tribalism again due to centuries of exploitation.

Europe has had arbitrary borders, so has Asia. Yugoslavia, China includes a large number of minority ethnic groups, India is divided into dozens too.

Ah yes Yugoslavia. You mean the country that after Milosevic the ethnic racist rose to power and decided to ethnic cleanse for Greater Serbia right? Of course its arbitrary. The West stood by with their hands in their pockets. Don't believe me read the book 'Unfinest Hour, Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia' by Brendan Simms. India is irrelevant because the British Raj could never force their values on age old Indian customs. As far as the Indians were concerned, the white man was above their Brahmin.

Is propaganda so ingrained in you that you cannot fathom groups evolving differently and having different attributes?

Or I actually bothered to look at the facts before rushing to the racist conclusion. Racism in itself didn't exist in its modern form until eugenics came to the forefront of Empires. Something that's being overturned day by day.

In my mind National Socialism was a largely rational movement and the SS was probably one of the most clinical and calculating entities that have ever existed.[i/]

Strongly suggest you read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. As for calculating. Hahahahaha. Inhumane, barbaric and brutal. The leaders only coherent idea was 'blame everyone but us' for our faults. Don't believe me ask any history student who doesn't buy the ill conceived race ideas some jingoistic kook came up with.

Edited 5/10/2017 18:17:08

How has this not been downvoted into oblivion yet? I'm tired of seeing it.

It would be rational to exterminate all ZK's like you.

I am sorry, but to say that Native Americans were more andvanced than Sub Saharan Africa is just absurd, Tabby. The First were stuck in the stone age with the notable copper exeption in the Andes. Sub Saharan Africa was the periphery, but still part of Afroeurasia. They just lacked about 200-400 years behind. By that thesis, you could say Africa has its Thirty Years War (Kongo War) just ended. Of course it would be devastated.

Yes Europeans partly destroyed the Native American civilizations [i/]

Fully.

Had advanced civilizations actually existed in Africa at the level of China or Turkey colonialism would not even succeed in Africa.[i/]

Cherry picking once again. Turkey in its modern form did not exist until post WW1. Until that point it was the Ottoman Empire. Mind you the sole reason why the West won against the Ottomans was exploiting the New World.

I am sure your ideal solution for Africa would have been what the British did to Australia. Dump their convicts, send their worst so they can't come back, ignore the natives and lay back while the cultures died out.

You and I cannot be the judge of what cultures are relevant to this world and whats not. Because the European prevailed over other doesn't make it the 'best'. And by no means does it excuse the atrocities committed under their banner. Similarly barbaric practices of the Natives or Africans cannot be condoned. But enslavement, exploitation based on this ridiculous idea of eugenics can rightly be mocked and damned to the annals of history.

Why ? Because for every racist argument there is 100 reasons why the rest of the non-whites suffer. 9/10 thanks to the good ol' white mans interference.

^
So you are saying a high-IQ group monopoly of the world is possible? More importantly, how do you know that would be a good thing?

also you just avoided every other point eisenheim made

Edited 5/10/2017 19:48:40

thanks for reminding me that I'm living in a world where people think advancement is relative to the amount of your skin's exposure to the sun.

even better is that the ratio is believed to be inversed - believing that being exposed to sun for longer periods makes you dumber...

^
+1