That's because there are subgroups of White and those matter so there will always be infighting. Then you've got the mixes that still wanna be White.
You'll never get nationalists to work together when the country is all a different race. The tyrants know this which is why they love multiculturalism.
For the most part, White is German. The rivalry between the Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Americans and Franks don't matter at the moment. The Nordic countries, Northern Italians and some Greeks can be part of White along with Slavic allies. It's not hard to see, just look at the people who are superior to middle-easterners, Hispanics and Africans that aren't obviously Asian. You can literally look at a person and know if they're White, Jewish or wannabe White when you know how to look.
Most of the "Whites can't agree..." is just some Indian guy who thinks he's White and mad Whites aren't calling him fellow Aryan. There's some complications though because of all the race mixing since White people expanded their empires and race mixing started occuring. It didn't help measures that White girls were prized slaves for middle-easterners during their expansion campaigns. Lots of mixtures exist but just because mixing exists doesn't mean there isn't obviously a core race but there's definitely some subgroup rivalry. The Italians and Germans haven't always been friends and they are distinct subgroups of White. They shouldn't have to be one people and the subgroups should exist but our enemy would see us both wiped out so working together at least until the enemy is destroyed is probably preferable.
Good thing you don't have to be a Nazi to be a White Supremacist.
Once White people realize this, we'll finally be able to fight back.
Oh, and what disease is that? Socialism? Because I hate socialism. You don't listen very well.
Getting rid of White guilt won't be enough because we lived in a society without White guilt and it led to a society with White guilt. The problem is a lack of White Supremacy. Only White Supremacy can defend against the rise of White Guilt. This is why they had to destroy Germany because they knew it was the cure to the jewish disease.
You rely on social programs to survive? You're a theif then and criminals like you should be hanged.
I don't have an X account because my last 6 were banned.
Anyone who thinks free speech exists is a moron. They already control everything you're allowed to say and limit your reach if they don't like what you say.
The value of money nearly halved in that time but they're hiding that fact.
When the government takes $1t from you and spends $2t on healthcare, not much of that is fraud, though there will be some, but you specifically aren't getting equal value to what you pay in taxes. That's the whole point of ALL social programs. Someone is paying more than what someone else is receiving.
The private sector would be better. All social programs should be abolished. Taxes should be as low as possible. But that doesn't mean the spending is fraud.
I just have a problem with suggesting there's $1.5t in fraud and all we have to do is get rid of the fraud then we can abolish taxes. This is mathematically incorrect and fairly naive.
There is fraud but it's not $1.5t worth. To abolish taxes, we'd need to get rid of government spending that wasn't fraud.
Okay, so prove it to me.
From my perspective, I think social programs are a waste of money but I don't think they're all fraud.
How do we prove to people that $1.5t is going to fraud?
Yeah, I'm not a fan of laws that prevent people from living how they want to live but I also understand why cities wouldn't want slums. They should allow them but keep them segregated, imo.
The issue is that "poverty" is just made up. It's not a real thing. There's no problem with people being poor nor is there a level of poor that's too poor. The concept of poverty is stupid. If you can't afford to live then you ought not to live.
The coffee fad was for millennial boss girls looking to signal their devotion toward career advancement. Zoomer girls are locked up in their bedrooms doing onlyfans and Uber eats for Starbucks just isn't worth it so they buy Starbucks much less frequently.
We all are literal slaves. That's what you are.
Some men lead and others follow. We're here because we're the followers and the men who led, specifically led us to this point.
No individual man has any power to do anything except get themselves thrown in prison or killed. Women follow power not example and no individual man has any power to lead.
I once calculated these numbers and came to a similar result.
I did not check the current numbers generated by the AI because of the fact that they aligned with what I once calculated.
I trust them because I know they align with what I once calculated.
I used the AI because last time I calculated these numbers it took me hours to find the data. The AI did it in 1 minute. Also, I find people trust AI more than they trust my numbers because most people don't understand how to verify if my numbers were correct but they're more inclined to trust an AI who they know is programmed to know how to calculate these things to provide somewhat accurate (rough) results.
Any issue women have with men was caused by women though which means women can solve the problem they've created by changing their own behavior but men can't change the problem of women by changing their own behavior. A man who hits the gym can't make women lose weight so at best the man is just competing for a shrinking group of women with an ever increasing group of men.
If men could sell to women, sure but women don't need to buy. There is a market to sell to gay guys and no, most guys aren't doing it.
Men aren't designed to sell sex but a woman is nothing but her sex.
Especially true the younger they are. Young men are like this to an extent too. I've found the hotter the man relative to the woman, the easier it is to convince the woman of anything the hotter man says.
I have a masters in financial stats so don't worry, I know all the limitations. Even with the limitations accounted for the numbers are bleak. I once calculated them myself as best I could and got worse numbers than what the AI came out with using some estimates in the ranges of covariances for the different factors.
I literally did include all of what you spoke of before and got worse numbers. I think the one factor I did include prior-to that ended with worse numbers was also "the woman never once engaged in any sex work including having an OF account"
Obviously no correlation exists between all these factors and the data doesn't exist to calculate them yourself so no matter what you're guestimating. As is the case with all projections.
I once did similar calculations myself prior to AI, as I did say in my post... the numbers I got with Google's AI were similar to the ones I once calculated myself. I actually calculated closer to 40,000 as opposed to 150,000 (my numbers were bleaker).
It did include single. My mistake.
Many women think men have gone downhill in quality but it's the opposite. Women's quality in the last 60 years is what has truly gone downhill. Men, are mostly the same. Women and their standards of men is mostly a joke because there's nothing wrong with the men but women don't want to admit they aren't valuable themselves so they come up with ridiculous standards as a self-defense mechanism to never have to come to terms with the fact they aren't 1 of the 150,000 women out there who actually are worth marrying for a man.
That's what I said though.
If you're looking for perfect, you aren't finding it. Even reasonable standards are out to lunch.
You need to be targeting overweight single black women with herpes 2 and children to stand a chance.
Why? BECAUSE WOMEN AREN'T PERFECT. If women were perfect, my post wouldn't have made sense. There'd be tons of women out there for the men if women were perfect. So thank you for agreeing with me.
Sounds like he's refering to something else with regard to "golden age".
For sharing ideas and discussing things that are outside the confines of what the establishment wants you to conform to, the past was the golden age. It was the Wild Wild West and it was fun.
However, if you need mainstream information for mainstream uses of said information then now is better for sure. I can find every recipe and cooking technique in a second. I can find detailed reviews on nearly every product or service in a second. We have tons of information now that's useful that we never had access to in the past but if I wanted to have a serious discussion about if society was a gynocracy, if we should change the laws because they're having a detrimental impact on quality of life and perhaps we need a more serious measure of QoL other than GDP and some wiki metric because of the inherent biases in them creating limitations in the usefulness of these measures... I can't really have it anywhere and the places I can have it at are now littered with Indians, governments, political activists and liberal mods who all have different motivations for throwing the discussion. Discussions used to be better even if every second user was a troll because the trolling tended to be intelligent in itself and proving a point with the trolling. The subtle art of trolling to actually add to the discussion was lost when the average IQ of internet users came down. And don't even get me started on like/upvoted and those systems that end up burrying real discussion from ever happening. The monetization of much of the internet has led to people fighting for hits rather than quality or serious nature of content. A problem Musk realized and has discussed but he lacks the capability of fixing.
Legitimizing the concept of hate speech is such an obvious ploy by the judeo-republicans.