White people have about the expected amount of power given their representation and arguably less power than they ought to given that western civilization is based on white people. Jews have a disproportionate amount of power.

The reasons for that is historical and racial. Due to circumstances, Jews took up different professions than whites. These professions are professions that are vastly more important today in modern society than historically. Jews also apparently have racial characteristics which make them excel at these professions.

I am not against the fact that Jews have a disproportionate amount of power. I am against how the Jews use this power. My argument is that Jews have a racial tendency to use their power in a manner counter to the interests of white people. Arguably, because white people's power is more evenly spread, while Jews have specialized dominance in certain areas, the ways in which Jewish power manifests in a society is much different because of racial differences and this difference in specialized power. My argument is that our outcome as a society would be better if the people in power were white because the outcomes overall of white people would be a better benefit to society as a whole than the outcomes Jews push for using their power.

Again, I would have no problem with Jews if the Jews with power didn't use their power in a manner that doesn't align with what I consider to be good. You can make the argument that replacing Jews with white people would lead to the same outcome. I disagree because of the racial differences. Do you believe if we replaced all white people with black people our society would look identical or do you accept due to racial differences with black people, that leads to differences in culture? Culture is downstream of race.

I'm not denying Jews are XYZ. Categories are simply that, categories for differentiating people. Jews are different than non-Jew whites at a racial level and whatever you call them is irrelevant as long as we separate them out.

You are correct. Just because it's the same argument structure but opposite doesn't mean I must be wrong because leftists are wrong. In a war, of course both opposing sides will say the exact opposite thing but reversed to favour their side. That is expected. The winning side usually creates the reality in which they are right. You taking the 3rd position as promoting liberty and race neutrality over authoritarianism and race reality doesn't make you any better. It's just another perspective. I would be fine with liberty and race neutrality if I thought it was capable of leading to a better outcome but I do not believe it is. Ideally, perhaps but given the current realities of society, it isn't workable.

Liberty doesn't work because the power differential between organized well-financed forces and unorganized not so well-financed forces is far too high in modern society. That means all societies will converge to authoritarianism. I would rather have an authoritative government that serves my interests. Ideally, I prefer liberty but the reality is liberty cannot happen right now. 1700s-1800s liberty focused western society happened because the first industrial revolution reduced the differential between well-financed organized forces and not so well-financed unorganized forces. This led to more individualism and liberty, which was good and I like that but I understand modern society does not have these factors in play anymore. Authoritarianism will reign supreme in the end until the situation changes again.

Race neutrality doesn't work because it is a total denial of reality. Race neutrality always leads to race realism because you can only deny reality for so long before the truth starts to seep in.

Jews aren't Aryan, even if you want to call them Caucasian. For whatever it's worth, they are different at a racial level than what most people consider to be White (not including Jews).

Hi, Stormfag here. I just want to clear up some misconceptions on here.

1. I don't think the Jews are behind all the problems in society and without Jews everything would be better. This is a strawman argument against Stormfags. To clear things up, I do believe Jews is a race and their racial differences have a predisposition toward behavioral characteristics which tend to lead to Jews taking actions toward ends which do not align with what I, as a White man, consider to be an ideal society that works for me. Nietzsche for example described people as having slave morality and master morality, I believe Jews, given their race (historical jobs chosen in society not being military or labor extensive but the opposite as well as thus female selection of mates leading to racial differences) is one in which slave morality is highly prevalent among Jews. Since we live in an era where the power differential between peasants and government/elites is high, Jews tend to submit easily to authorities which is counter to White men's more master morality and individualistic/liberty/masculinity roots. I do believe our current social structure is one which is highly beneficial to careers where Jews have a history of being situated in which gives Jews a huge disproportionate amount of power of non-Jews and Jews use that power to promote outcomes that White people don't inherently agree with. Thus the interests of the Jews and Whites do not agree. I do believe getting rid of the Jews will help solve our problems but won't entirely solve them all.

2. I am very much aware I am racist and in regards to racism alone, I am the same as the left. Both the left and I are racist. I am fully 100% aware of that. As far as I am concerned race neutrality is a denial of reality and I believe the real cucks are conservatives pushing this delusion of race neutrality that will never be met. The left understands it is not real and so do I. The false ideal of race neutrality only serves to prevent conservatives from actually adapting to reality and take the proper steps to promote their own interests. I do not believe there is anything inherently bad about being racist and I believe being race neutral is actually inherently bad. The left and I have racial interests which do not align. The race neutral conservatives are just living in a fantasy world that will never exist just like how we've never had "real communism" yet. We'll never have a real race neutral society. Adapt or perish as far as I'm concerned and race neutrality is acting as a handicap which is preventing you from taking proper actions.

3. There likely are more Stormfags here on KA2 and I suspect it has been growing because you guys actually have a fairly decent grasp on political issues overall compared to say TDW for example. I'm rather new here and I'm not going to spam anti-Jew stuff but I'm here because I enjoy your community's take on things more than the average TDW user.

It is in fact very true. I have a book here sitting on my desk titled "Germany and the Jewish Question" by Dr. Friederich Karl Wiehe. Published in 1938.

It is a very well sourced book. Half the book almost is sources. The author says the same thing:

"A veritable storm flood of Jewish immoral literature, obscene films and plays then broke over Germany. Cinemas and theaters have been exhaustively dealt with (reference to how he discussed these topics earlier in the book). It remains to be said that in literature all authors of obscene works were Jews in every case.

Among the hundreds of thousands of books confiscated by the National Socialists in 1933 very familiar names repeatedly cropped up. Together with publishing firms such as Benjamin Harz, Richard Jacobsthal, Leon Hirsch, M. Jacobsohn or Jacobsthal & Co. mention must be made of the publishers of Kulturforschung ("Cultural Research"), a Vienna firm whose production was sufficient to fill many libraries.

The titles speak for themselves. Sittengenschichte des Lasters ("The Moral Story of Depravity"), Sittengeschichte der Schamlosigkeit ("The Moral Story of Profligacy"), Bilderlexikon der Eorik ("Illustrated Lexicon of Eroticism"), Sittengeschichte des Geheimen und Verbotenen ("The Moral Story of Secret and Forbidden Things", etc. etc."

Worth nothin that the photo in the top is used in this book. The book describes the top photo as thus: "Students of the Deutsche Studentenschaft parade in front of Hirschfeld's "Institute for Sexual Research" in Berlin on May 6, 1933. The infamous "book burning" which took place four days later, was mainly comprised of books seized from the library at Hirschfeld's building."

Modern politicians are all mostly whores. The Romans would have be disgraced by modern politicians.

Good, that will ensure we keep a hard patriarchy and don't fall for their tricks into giving it up for a soft matriarchy.

No, you misunderstand the issues at play. Women are okay with it because it's about submission to the system. There are tons of women who aren't okay with it but these women are being cancelled just like the right and anyone who refuses to submit to the system.

The long game here is that winning might stop being the objective and Olympics might not be based on country anymore. It's all about submission to the system.

No, men wouldn't once women have to once again make themselves attractive enough that men will want to provide for them. In the end both men and women would be better off for it.

Men will, as they did for thousands of years.

It's only genocide if it's permanent. A few years of this with no one's daughter coming back home, we'll have a little pop issue but the long term gains could be worth it. Obviously I'm joking.

I agree with your approach even better. In my opinion, women do not belong in industry or politics. If I had dictatorial powers the first two laws I would make are no women allowed in politics and for careers outside of politics, it is illegal for companies to hire a woman if there is an equally as qualified man who applied to the role.

Those two policies would pretty much fix society overnight.

The irony of course is that modern society is integralism but with secular humanism and there's an aristocracy but it's unofficial. Democracies are mostly a sham and societies are run by oligarchs.

The right's fantasies are already a reality just not in the manner the right wants and the left fails to see reality.

No one has ever denied that woman are human. They literally just make stuff up.

Oh, I'm sure some will survive a year by learning to be very obedient and submissive pieces of property.

I honestly think we should make it mandatory for ALL women in western civilization to go to the middle-east for 1 year as their "gap year" after high school and before university. They're just thrown into the country and given nothing. If they survive for 1 years then we take them back. If they don't survive, oh well.

I imagine a few years of doing this and white women would be worshipping white men and begging them to stop sending them to the middle-east instead of blaming all their problems on white men.

How's this community doing. I feel like Conspiracies, ConsumeProduct and maybe this one seem alright but yeah, it's starting to look a lot like Reddit in the overall community.

Honestly, I don't know enough about China's situation trust myself to speculate but my quick take is that almost all their debt is to their own citizens. That means China has a lot of tricks up its sleeve to solve the debt problem. Essentially, they'll just spread out any negative impacts from the debt among all their citizens. The net impact would be reducing the quality of life of the Chinese people but if they spread it out well enough it might have relatively little total impact.

The debt is likely not good for the Chinese people. I have a hard time believing a lot of the new debt China has taken on has actually had net positive value add to society as a whole (though it might, I haven't looked into it). But will it be the cause of an imminent economic catastrophe? I doubt it.

It's already approaching this in Canada. In my industry at least, people get ahead based on how much virtue signaling they do. Competence and hard work mean nothing if you don't bow down to the system.

Because it's not about you, it's about enhancing their wealth and power. Giving you a choice, gives you power and they don't want you to have power.

Honestly, the core theme sounds just like humans.

1. Woman flirts with man and when man makes advance she acts like she never flirted with him in the first place and now he's trying to sexually assault her.

2. Man keeps trying to fuck the woman but she keeps playing that game of hard-to-get so in her mind she has the man convinced she doesn't sleep around even though we all know she's a slut and is just playing stupid games so we patiently wait until she's finally ready to have sex.

3. After having sex with a woman, the man thinks everything is fine then the woman starts going all schizophrenic about that comment you made to the waitress or whether you only like her for the sex.

Correct but that equilibrium is not as beneficial to the USA then if say the bank didn't shift the savings to China so that the bank had excess savings it needed to invest in the USA (since it can't go to China and we'll ignore all other countries). The banks would start offering credit at extremely low rates to encourage investment to get rid of its excess savings. This would overall reduce the profit of the bank and increase investment in the USA which would be a net benefit to the USA's wealth but the bank's profits would decrease.

Between the two scenarios, the one I just described benefits the USA more.

Without complicating it too much, I will note that the bank's maintain and free market economists etc... that my Scenario 1 (money going to China) leads to greater global wealth and since the banks are owned by Americans, the profits come back to America over the long-term. More wealth in China for example means more potential for trade and the net benefits in the end improve the lives of Americans over the long-term. This is a very idealistic take because it assumes the profit will come back to America and won't just be used on purchases in other countries or to again further invest in other countries. Nothing says the money has to cycle back and with companies now more able to do the work by offshoring in other countries, it doesn't even necessarily lead to more American jobs. Furthermore, there's nothing to say China's increase in wealth will cycle back to the USA either because China can implement trade barriers and perhaps leverage its wealth to get better trade agreements with other countries and actually reduce America's overall wealth even further.

Both leopards and lions have exactly the same mating rituals which, when averaged out, has them mating every 15 minutes for up to 5 days. This means that if they last a full 5 days, they can mate more than 250 times.

Damn... They make even the biggest onlyfans whore look like a nun.

In Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley (a very intelligent historian), he describes the pattern of empires in the context of Expansion and Conflict.

When civilizations are expanding it is because some sort of "change" has allowed the civilization the ability to grow. This change is often some sort of technological innovation such as in weapons technology or a new economic process or discovery of a new resource etc... This growth and therefore newfound improvement in society is usually well received by the people within the civilization and thus the culture of the civilization is respect by the whole and is reinforced by the whole. You get less degeneracy because the whole of the civilization is working toward its expansion and degeneracy doesn't aid in this quest.

After the expansion finally wears off you get a period of conflict. People start to in-fight and squabble over things like class, race, sex, etc... because they are no longer devoted to the expansion. This type of fighting typically leads to degeneracy. He discusses how during the Age of Conflict, the society begins to redistribute resources away from productive things and toward non-productive things.

Generally speaking in his analysis Quigley suggests that the Age of Conflict always ends with some sort of consolidation of the civilization under a new regime. He calls it the Universal Empire. Usually it's through war but it can also just be through coercion of force and cultural assimilation. Once this Universal Empire is complete, the civilization always decays until death.

If you apply his theories to modern society, essentially the USA's last Age of Expansion was after WWII and we've now entered an Age of Conflict. This conflict is essentially the culture war going on between the right and left. With the left tearing down the very foundation of what Western Society has been based off of. Society is no longer focused on productivity but is focused on non-productive things like "renewable energy" and Social Justice etc...

The universal empire is globalism essentially and how all western countries are trying to usher in a Great Reset whereby they create essentially a New World Order. This is the universal empire. Once established, it is only a matter of time before western civilization completely crumbles.

From Quigley's analysis, it's not the degeneracy that causes society to crumble but rather it's the lack of an Age of Expansion which leads to an Age of Conflict which leads to degeneracy. There truly hasn't been any major breakthroughs in the organization of society and resources to create any real growth in decades. The dot com bubble essentially marked the end of the Age of Growth with the Financial Crisis putting the final nail in the coffin for those who hasn't accepted it yet. It's no surprise degeneracy and conflict went into overdrive during this period.

I work in banking and am very well educated in finance. I can explain.

To simplify things, banks take money from savings and reallocates it toward investments through credit. Banks profit when the cost they pay to savers is low and the price they charge to investors is high.

The prices are based on supply and demand. Thus from a banks perspective, they always make the most money by paying savers in areas where the demand for savers money is low and the quantity of savers is high. The USA would count as this type of location right now. The bank also makes money where demand for investment is high but the supply of investment is low. China would constitute a location that meets this criteria.

This is why the global banking system is opposed to borders and wants globalism because the easier it is for banks to take savings from anywhere and shift it to investments anywhere, the higher their profit. A bank's profit interest does not align with any single nation's interest. Right now, China's interest overlaps and the USA is actually losing out due to the bank's interest but things could change one day for China also.

Now how does what the bank is doing impact the USA? Well, when the bank decides to throw American savings at China instead of America, that drives the price investors in America are willing to pay (the price of credit) up which reduces the overall amount of investment in the USA. The net impact of this is reducing the wealth in the USA, while increasing the wealth in China and increasing the banks profit.

Whenever people discuss the problems of the world through the lens of "Zionists", they almost always tend to miss the mark. Zionists aren't inherently bad and in fact Zionists have criticized international banking Jews before also because the interests of international banking Jews didn't necessarily align with the interests of Zionists. This is why you can get a situation where the left and Israel are fighting one another because the global Cathedral as one might call it IS NOT actually fully aligned with Zionism.

Here's a quote by Theodore Herzl who was the Father of Zionism. In this quote he is referring to banker Jews.

“There are among them a few persons who hold in their hands the financial threads that envelop the world. A few persons who absolutely control the shaping of the most vitally important conditions of life of the nations. Every invention and innovation are for their sole benefit, whilst every misfortune increases their power. And to what use do they put this power? Have they ever placed it at the service of any moral ideal – nay, have they ever placed it at the disposal of their own people, who are in dire distress? … Without those persons no war can be waged and no peace be concluded. The credit of States and individual enterprises are alike at the mercy of their rapacious ambition. The inventor must humbly wait at their doors, and in their arrogance they claim to sit in judgement on the requirements of their fellow being.” – Theodore Herzl (The father of Zionism)

Anarcho-Feminists.... Feminists that want anarchy.... Seriously? How much more obvious can they get that they really just want a dominant man to rape them? Imagine thinking feminism could exists in anarchy lol.