White Supremacy

Written by Skanderbeg, 30.01.2017 at 20:20

So you are creating victimhood but you accuse Jews when they do that? Why double standards?

Every single European majority is being engulfed in third world immigration leading to chaos and debt. The inevitable outcome will be societal breakdown and heavy ethnic violence. There is a concerted effort to minoritize Europeans. This is well documented and planned. If Jews were victims, they wouldn't have an ethnic state supported by and funded by all major powers.

Written by Skanderbeg, 30.01.2017 at 20:20

I thought fascists are proud of their historic battles and warriors, so why creating victims and not heroes? Doesn't make sense.

Except those heroes are being taught as villains in schools and their names and statues torn down as they are deemed offensive. Far Leftists in the US and Britain want the national flags burnt and banned.

Written by Skanderbeg, 30.01.2017 at 20:20

American did put a man on the moon, not that it had any significance(satellite for christ sake..),

Leaving Earth;'s atmosphere and exploring the solar system isn't an achievement? LOL

Written by Skanderbeg, 30.01.2017 at 20:20

but american space program was copy of the communist one,

Wrong. Both had space programs, both sides at 'Nazi' scientists working on these projects.

Written by Skanderbeg, 30.01.2017 at 20:20

and guess who created it? A muslim haha so gg my dear english friend with freckles but double zing on this one (muslim and a communist).

And yet it was White Americans who walked the moon.

Written by Tik-Tok, 03.02.2017 at 19:11

Moon is insignificant, forget about it. You don't need to walk on it to research it, it is so close just use binoculars. Planets are important, and moons of far planets.

America is the guy that races USSR in the neighboorhood who's goona reach the end of the street first, then he enters the first house he bump into and claim how he is superior because he did it. No that's not the point, we already knew for that house, point is to reach end of the street - in this case exit our galaxy and explore further, because we already know our neighborhood.

That's the problem with you westerners, you don't see the point, the core meaning, you only see the outer layer. Tesla invented internet, phone and tv but knew it is not significant because there is more developed technology, he had it written in his papers, yet others stole it from him and materialized it, now people think they were gods while they simply copied and didn't develop it further. Tesla knew the point is not that appliances, that's way too barbaric for him, technology goes beyond that.

Written by Croat, 28.12.2016 at 20:18

To fuck up your pretty stupid question, as a conservative, but not the extreme one, I'll make an opposition and tell you that statistically speaking, racists do have a lower IQ.

Read more here:
- http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

>trusting sociologists that cherry pick data to make accurate IQ assessments based on a widescope of politics

The study links 'social conservatism' to low IQ, which is beyond stupid. They are claiming that social conservatives are just waayyycist. At worst it correlates vague academic achievement with intelligence - failing to mention the heavy progressive bias within academia which overtly punishes any social conservative thought.

Young minds are easily convinced with sophist ideas. Any teen that goes to college is going to be inundated with progressive academic propaganda and hear almost no objection by teachers or the syllabus. Any such objection is brutally evicted. Actual studies of progressive academia shows that they are nepotistic in their hiring practices and only allowing progressive idealists to hold positions. Why are there so few Republicans in academia? Is it because all Republicans are stupid? No, it's because they openly discriminate against such teachers.

If Marxists control academia and students becoming adult Marxists, does that mean all Marxists are smart? No. How many German students in the 1930s became Fascists with academic credentials? Almost all of them, but does that mean that Fascists in 1930s Germany correlate with high IQ? No. Young minds are susceptible to any manner of ideas and politics, especially if they ostracize other politics and associate their political brand with higher social status. Kids from poorer backgrounds are usually less intelligent on average and don't have access to higher education so they don't get warped - while smarter kids that come from wealthier backgrounds tend to enter into higher education and are indoctrinated by the progressive academic maelstrom. Poorer kids suffer the consequences of the smarter kids indoctrination as the smarter kids go into positions of government. It isn't the upper middle class suffering the effects of open borders and break down in law and order. It's the poorer kids who then become resentful. The reason for these divisions are obvious and will only get worse.

Social Conservatism is very natural, after all, every civilization has held socially conservative practices for thousands of years. Progressive thought is but a blip in those thousands of years. And look what those ideals have done to the West? Utterly ruined them. Progressivism despises the working class, especially for its social conservative nature. A nature which comes naturally and has to be usurped through indoctrination.

Most actual racists I know are among the smartest and self-aware people I know. Most progs I've debated only have talking points regurgitated from their academic history. Just look at the difference between the Clinton supporters and the Trump supporters. They had no argument, no sway. They've been reduced to calling people racist, nazi and sexist - it's pathetic. There are stupid people and there are smart people. But smart people are far more receptive to ideas by an authority. They can absorb them and regurgitate them far easier and more efficiently.

Just look at the 'Third Wave' experiment. It is very easy to mold young minds.

Written by Skanderbeg, 03.02.2017 at 19:17

Moon is insignificant, forget about it. You don't need to walk on it to research it, it is so close just use binoculars. Planets are important, and moons of far planets.

Asteroids are important. The point is that exploration and tests are key to further study and greater feats of achievement. White Nationalism and White Nations achieved that.

Written by Skanderbeg, 03.02.2017 at 19:17

That's the problem with you westerners, you don't see the point, the core meaning, you only see the outer layer. Tesla invented internet, phone and tv but knew it is not significant because there is more developed technology, he had it written in his papers, yet others stole it from him and materialized it, now people think they were gods while they simply copied and didn't develop it further. Tesla knew the point is not that appliances, that's way too barbaric for him, technology goes beyond that.

And one day, Tesla will be reduced to nothing more than a bigot and an 'anti-semite' as progressivism continues to demolish such heroes. Only Fascism will put him on the pedestal he deserves. Only homogeneity will pull us back from the brink and back on track to exploring the stars.

This Pseudo-Intellectual battle of the idiots must end. Common sense does not reign here. But before this ceases.

Now that I've given ample time for your head to cool, international. May your tunnel-vision cease with the final response. For these mental gymnastics bore me and I need time to get re-interested in nonsense time to time.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

If A causes B and B causes C, then for all intents and purposes A is a potential cause of C. This is minor quibble.

This does not refute the point, nor make a point. These wisenheimer comments are too plentiful and irksome. Shame it continues with every word you place on the keyboard.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

I would challenge this assumption. A child is as large a burden in a less developed nation as it is in a more developed nation. Costs are lower, but so is purchasing power.

Please provide sources to support your assertion.

Costs being lower, along with lower purchasing power equates to the balanced nature of economy in every nation regardless of GDP. (In Simple terms that you'd understand, its basically that in any nation the cost will always be compensated through the income. Proportions exist for a reason. However the arrogant in "greater nations" impose their currency and idea of life onto other civilizations and deem their income to be insignificant, of course in comparison to their own) Minour Quibble is it not?
If "Sources" were everything, we'd soon be made to believe that the Black nationals are correct that Egyptians were black and not of the phoecian, tan and levant group. Of course those without integrity and identity are the first to fall for the words of a single "source" rather than multiple. I recommend toning down that nuisance of a thought process.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

This makes no sense. Fewer resources imply a lower quality of care, even if the mother invests as much effort into the welfare of the child.

Then bearing more offspring further reduces their "quality of life" that was already low to begin with, worsening the condition. Now if you do not see Love as "quality" in a child's life. Then it is merely your materialistic and pampered nature as a result of being raised in a "Well-off" nation. No refutation made. Enough of this.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

That is incorrect. Accepted theory is that "the reduction of the mortality of children under five years of age is followed by the reduction of fertility with delay." (Raivio)

So according to the opinion of that cherry-picked source. Babies that die less often equates to less fertility. However common sense dictates it should be the polar. Perhaps he means in the situation of industrialization, cultural shift and economic ability/conditions. it would decline. But as a cherry-picked source. its context bears no weight, and fails to refute the original argument. Also my friend, a theory has more context than a single line. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1670537 < This is most likely where you took it. However it makes the point of less need for spawning more children and the influence of healthcare when child mortality was low. It even goes to presume that family planning (I.e government intervention) aids this process, (I.e national change) results in the decline. This "Child survival Hypothesis" is not a theory and therefore not accepted in the mainstream. These mental gymnastics are dumbfounding as to the purpose of it.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

How does this in any way refute my primary point?

Mortality is death no? Then part of it. Making it clear how birth rates are still high.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

In what way does life expectancy increasing due to technological advancement mean that children are not necessary for longevity? Continued survival depends on multiple factors, of which technological advancement is just one.

"In developing countries children are needed as a labour force and to provide care for their parents in old age." (Nargund)

Humans are dependent on technology for survival. Increases in technology equates to a lesser reliance on human error and work. Notice how you didn't or don't need to maintain your parents. Notice how in developing nations there is a lack of said technology. No refutation made. The quote was essentially worthless. As it states the obvious.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

You have successfully introduced a point I didn't make and denounce it as irrelevant. Congratulations.

It's called a reference, You not knowing India's culture and not understanding said reference is not my concern. Only reveals ignorance. However had you not been blinded by your bias maybe you can read clearly as I know you understand English and have some brain cells. (Active or Not)

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

High birth rates do not persist in a healthy society. Out of the dozens of countries with a child mortality rate of under 2%, those that has a fertility rate of above 3 children per women can be counted on one hand: Jordan, Tonga, and Samoa. ("Gapminder World")

Clearly the cultural factors which you have mentioned are not demographically influential.

Those are All non-white nations with different cultures you've listed known to have a need and desire for multiple children, you just contradicted yourself. With Portugal and Spain at 1.2 and 1.3 respectively, Germany and Italy at 1.4, and the US and UK at near 1.8. even with massive immigrant populations boosting it. All remain under 3. Clearly you do not take the rest of the planet's condition to suit your bias. Now if a foreign population is fully striped of their identity, absorbed and completed assimilated to the point that they are void of their previous nature via our western indoctrination then maybe they could reflect our birthing issues. however since assimilation is ludicrously slow to the point of not occurring due to mass influx and isolated populations, the birth rates amoung these groups of people will persist reflected as in their home nations.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

They are all factors that make a larger family less economically necessary. Hence, they are relevant.

The aids allows the poor in any nation an incentive to spawn. Look at US tax checks per child. Banter.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

The wording that I used was "letting them go hungry." This means a lower quality of care, not the absence of care. Apologies if my wording used was confusing.

Doesn't Change their lack of consideration of their children's well being in the fact they birth new lives they cannot support.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

Such things are indeed refutable.

Statistical evidence suggests that the inherent culture of a nation, as measured by its geographical region, is a far less relevant factor to fertility than living conditions, as measured by child mortality. This can be clearly seen from this graph sourced from Gapminder World. Each circle is a country, green circles are Middle East and North Africa and blue circles are Sub-Saharan Africa.

The point was foreign population within more developed nations, to which their genetic tendencies formed and maintains their behaviour and said continued behaviour in MDN's. The Banter and source are irrelevant and refute nothing.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

South Korea's birth rate was high prior to the war. It was a condition of that time more than it was a condition of the post-war baby boom.

poor > war > returning baby boom = increased populations. Occupation and Imposition of western culture infusing with eastern values and a nation who like japan relies on business results in work conditions that make maintaining a proper family ideal impossible or extremely difficult unless of the upper class but since this considers the majority of people it consequently incurs the subsequent decline in birth rates. In the case of South Korea. Thank you for agreeing with me. No refutation.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

The factor that you mention as resulting in the low birth rate in East Asia - working women - was a creation of the 20th Century. It's not a meme inherent to traditional Asian culture. It is, in fact, a clear example that shows that to a certain extent, culture is influenced by living standards.

Similarly, the aspects of culture that you correctly point out results in high birth rates may be a result of poverty, as opposed to inherent traditions.

Memes do not exist here, do not insult this forum. What the cultural creation in the 20th century of working women has to do with living standards is coy diversion. They bore children and maintained a healthy birth/death ratio, the case no longer exists. That was the point. One doesn't need to be poor to bear large families. Banter.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

Historical evidence suggests that nations undergo the demographic transition more rapidly in the modern era than in the European industrial revolution.

The declining birth rates in countries like Kenya are clear signs that these countries are undergoing the demographic transition and can therefore be expected to rapidly reach near-replacement fertility levels.

Historical evidence shows the cause is technology. The temporal reference is irrelevant as it shows the progress of civilization. They may have declined over time by small almost insignificant numbers. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/fertility/world-fertility-patterns-2015.pdf <<This article may help your lack of sense. 2050 and still the whole continent projected to have an average of over 3 children per woman. Ridiculous. we'd both be dead and Europe extinct by the time Africa reaches what the western world is facing currently and that not considering the possible regression to high births rates after our extinction.

Written by International, 28.12.2016 at 04:25

Again, please post sources that support your assertion that higher costs of raising children in a more developed nation outweighs the increased purchasing power that parents in these nations generally have.

Sources Cited:

Nargund, G. "Declining birth rate in Developed Countries: A radical policy re-think is required."

Raivio, K. "How does infant mortality affect birth rates?"

All above texts provided by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Gapminder World

My friend, spend some time out of your pampered neighborhood and see how the middle and lowers classes deal with the cost and expenditure. Maybe common sense will help you realize that not everyone can afford a child and the birth rates reflect this. you cannot be this daft.

-----------------------------------------------------
Lastly. Those "sources" are unimpressive.

Best regards

Your grandfather had 4 children
Your father has 2
And you will have a dog