h/t Justin B.
h/t Justin B.
Thank you, as an Indigenous Person in my native homeland.
It’s nice to see you dropped the racist falsehood of Magic Dirt.
And the lie of warmongering ethnicity, to embrace righteous nationalism.
The right-wing after all, has always striven to represent the voices of the the indigenous and native over the colonialist and oppressive.
One question remains
The Indigenous People’s Front
The Front of Indigenous Peoples.
This is important.
Source: Sassy Socialist Memes
It’s fun to watch them chant about killing the rich then ask them how many are Jews?
Why is that relevant?
How could that not be relevant if you wanna murder and eat them?
“Jewish Americans make up 2% of the population. 44% of these Jewish Americans are in the top 1%,” the poster reads.
While Jews do on average earn more than the national average, the percentage of Jews found among the top 1% of earners is far less than 44% of the Jewish population- The 44% figure, which cites a 2009 study by the Pew Research Center, is in fact a misquote of the Pew report, which only shows that 46% of Jews earn more than $100,000 a year.
It’s impressive that they lie in the same paragraph.
The term “Jewish Privilege” has been employed both by white supremacists and anti-Israel elements on the far-left, including +972 Magazine.
They do know.
Stock up on kosher salt.
See bottom of post for details.
SMS are already encrypted.
They don’t understand how employment contracts work either.
Self-employment is MORE capitalist.
ONE OF US
ONE OF US
ONE OF US
Maybe I misjudged them.
Maybe they’re not all bad.
So who are these billionaires and how’d they get so much more money? Forbes listed 1,645 billionaires in 2014, one-third of whom started their lives wealthy. Ninety percent are male and 85 percent are over age 50. According to Oxfam, the top 80 billionaires have seen their collective wealth grow by $600 billion between 2010 and 2014.
So the old white male they complain about isn’t White or Christian?
As in previous years, Jews are disproportionately represented on the roster of the world’s wealthiest, with 10 Jews among the top 50.
Religion is not discussed here: http://www.economist.com/node/21543178
Taxes are death
You picked the wrong fucking field to have feelings.
Especially if those feelings involve censorship of facts you disagree with.
Do you know how many people continue to object to evolution?
Still true. We can see a fetus undergo the stages of evolution in real time.
It’ll never not be true.
We’ve found plenty of Missing Links, and Creationists move the goalposts.
That’s crazy, like suppressing crime and IQ data.
Scientism isn’t real, whatever your false idols tell you. They’re false by nature.
Nurture, as you call it, is mostly measurement error.
You are wrong in MATHS.
Only now, at the end, do they understand.
The multicultural experiment (official media term) was always going to fail because their core premise was that human nature itself could be controlled and experimentally manipulated.
Yeah… people rebel against that.
And it was just colonialism in reverse, instead of going to the poor people to feel superior (missions), they come crawling to you.
“What’s interesting about Haidt’s alternative interpretation of the liberal progress narrative is that he mentions two elements central to the narrative—private property and nations. And what has happened to a large extent is that as the failures of communism have become increasingly apparent many on the left—including social scientists—have shifted their activism away from opposing private property and towards other aspects, for example globalism.”
There’s no such thing as globalism, it’s a void of values. Like there’s no one language, a single language would be the starting point.
Empires unite nations, that’s why the British Empire taught everyone English.
It’s the best language, so you’re still using it.
Globalization has failed because the East has outcompeted the West. A world without white people will not be dumb enough to hand the enemy in various wars your very factories for slightly cheaper Nikes.
In real terms, they bred more, we paid for it and called it ‘aid’ and the future belongs to them barring famine.
Accept your death began with manufacturing. You gave away future prosperity, that’s gonna affect the birth rates.
“But how do we know a similarly disastrous thing is not going to happen with globalism as happened with communism? What if some form of national and ethnic affiliation is a deep-seated part of human nature, and that trying to forcefully suppress it will eventually lead to a disastrous counter-reaction? What if nations don’t create conflict, but alleviate it? What if a decentralised structure is the best way for human society to function?”
jesus my sides
genophilia is a dictionary word
ingroup preference is a well-studied phenomena
genetic diaspora exist, ask HBD chick
they’re so close to the pendulum of r/K, aren’t they?
nations formed of genetic tribes to alleviate conflict when weaponry advanced and made mass slaughter possible but, duh, undesirable, ask a forensic anthro or any evo biologist
hell, ask sacred cow Dawkins if supranationalism, the true name for globalism, is even genetically possible
chimps can’t do it, softy peaceable chimpanzee frequently murder one another for literally no reason than territory
it’s been filmed, I’ve seen it
“What if the type of mass-scale immigration
dictionary definition of invasion met but ok
even without weapons, you can ‘rape’ a nation’s women and state coffers (“economic migrants” literally invaders) and that is their intention
search weapons cache European mosque or something like it
happens all over
just the ones we find
currently occurring in Europe,
meanwhile, Christian genocide in MENA too
Look! A distraction!
containing relatively large amounts of people with different nationalities, cultures, and religions, is going against some of the core features of human nature?
Show me one place multiculturalism in history hasn’t involved a genocide at some point.
Look up Neanderthals, it’s now in our blood because it’s the reason we’re here and they’re not.
Maybe it isn’t, but if it is, do we have to wait until after the fact to say ‘well, globalism doesn’t work’, as we did with communism? Surely there is a better way.”
Picking up a fucking history book?
The burden of proof was on the pushers. They never did. Not even in their neighbourhoods or schools. The People never consented. When asked (see Brexit), they reject it.
Like the Unis in general, the social sciences only have a shit reputation now liberals are running it.
Coincidence, this is not.
It is the love hormone because love also means protection.
“Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members.”
Have we found the hormone for the k-selected?
The higher oestrogen of women (general finding) depresses amygdala (stress) activity (this is written up on wikipedia if you want to link-follow) but oxytocin release increases amygdala stimulation over the top of the oestrogen signal, which is otherwise fine and generally neuroprotective (presumably so we don’t miscarry when a shadow looks like a guy).
So maybe the way to get women caring less about the ‘refugees’ and remember their personal safety is now their job, not a husband, is to pass out free oxytocin nasal sprays?
Or put it in the water supply?
I’m kinda serious. It’s crazy enough to work.
Compassion fatigue already set in years ago, ride the wave and reduce the maternal clucking of middle-age Boomers.
I wonder if military service induces oxytocin release for male-male bonding?
“Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.”
Dare I dream?
It doesn’t mention that when ANY ingroup meets ANY outgroup, the natural result is competition because Darwin.
It isn’t a choice or a value judgement. War happens constantly, it is the norm. When modern food supply runs low, it’ll come back, roaring back, bigger and badder than ever. We’re in the experiment.
Race to survive, anyone?
You might remember there was a BS flurry in the MSM about a chemical that reduces ‘racism’ – this was it.
It doesn’t – because ‘ingroup preference’ (the positive social term, along with the lesser known and more genetic genophilia) is totally natural. They stupidly assumed they could extend the ingroup to literally everyone in the whole world. The brain resists this, that’s why they haven’t drugged us all by now.
Since among other findings;
It increases patriotism for one’s culture and love of one’s family.
It changed freedom of association to genetic kin and love of the flag but not corporations.
It studies Asians which is a hiccup but hormones tend to have broad effects.
The men of society love strength in their social group of other men.
It also leads to monogamy and fidelity – in MEN.
Ding ding ding K-type central.
“Together, our results suggest that where OXT release is stimulated during a monogamous relationship, it may additionally promote its maintenance by making men avoid signaling romantic interest to other women through close-approach behavior during social encounters. In this way, OXT may help to promote fidelity within monogamous human relationships.”
I would bet that sluts, the promiscuous with higher and higher N counts, with damaged pair bonding, release less.
More studies on whites and women needed but otherwise, great work.
Nature is literally against these ‘social engineers’, too kind a term, for penpushers and petty meddlers.
New fave GIF, will get a lot of use.
BTW the primary source of oxytocin in humans would be ..the nuclear family. You’d have to knock that out to bring multiculturalism in.
Especially in the selfish, so the self-destructiveness of liberals (drugs, homosexuality, abortion, STDs) really is a feature, not a bug.
We already know sexual selection is genetic (r/K, HBD inheritance) so obviously natural is too.
If death is gene-mediated, then who is programmed to live longer, r-types or Ks?
“Bar-Yam and his colleagues are arguing that natural selection actually favors traits that self-limit consumption and reproduction, not selfish maximalism, including lifespan limiting mortality. In other words, organisms may be able to have longer lifespans than they presently do, but natural selection has actually favored individuals that clock themselves out early.”
Unclear. Probably K but the variables are iffy.
They’re partially basing off the false idea that more reproduction is always good/favoured by evolution when actually it was responding to the selection pressure of high mortality. Now mortality is low, they should include quality, the alpha genes for the race between the sexes.
Fitness is not N children, that only applies when there is competition from r-types.
In a vacuum, K is superior for a society.
Empires rise with K, die with r.
“Aside from August Weismann—who in 1882 did actually argue that death was programmed—it’s because when they considered the effect of evolutionary selection, they were taking averages across organisms and their environments instead of considering each individual organism in its local context. By removing the individual from its particular place or location within a given population, this average ignores the complex relationship between that individual and its environment.”
“By looking at how an individual’s local context affects their fitness, Bar-Yam and his colleagues were able to show that traits which may be an advantage in the short-term (such as an individual’s longevity or ‘selfish’ resource consumption) can actually be a significant disadvantage in the long term, and vice versa.”
Implying it’s bad for the nation, the wider genetic kin group or thede.
Nature is nationalist.
“While this may work out well for the most selfish individuals in the short term, if Bar-Yam and his colleagues are correct it could be cataclysmic for our species in the long run.
“What people do affects their environment and that affects their ability to survive,” said Bar-Yam. “This is something we’re all well aware of today. If you overexploit your resources, you’re going to be in trouble.”‘
MALTHUS, she said, screaming into the void.
“As Bar-Yam points out, if death is genetically programmed, that also means it can probably be hacked.”
The problem with the autistic, they assume they know better than nature. They don’t even know what all these genes do in all conditions and they want to go chopping them out with CRISPR. You know why CF spread? It protects you from TB.
For those who know jack-shit about evolution: the vast majority of mutations are bad, not just bad but fatal (anti-fitness, dysgenic) and that’s why it’s good when nature throws away the genetic equivalent of a shitty doodle on scrunched-up paper. That’s why humans evolved to die quickly, to spread up the overall rate of mutation as a species but also to conserve gains quickly too with shorter generational duration (more breeding in same time).
How many people deserve to live that long? Will it include youth or the shit years, extended for centuries? Who wants to slave away for centuries, cos they can’t financially retire? Biohacking is fraught with technical issues.
When I predicted a Le Pen getting in next time, I wasn’t really thinking of the one doing the concession speech. Probably an advisor though.
Even the SJW swamp of the Independent is admitting this. So I can be upfront.