Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not saying the Israeli's don't have political influence. Fabian Socialists and even Leftist Jews hate Israel and want to see it collapse. The issue in this particular case isn't really about any of those factions. We have military objectives, and one of those is the support of Israel against several Arab states. Israel is a friendly nation in MENA, which happens to be generally hostile. So, we conduct exercises with them.

And we have stayed back while Israel has been invaded before. Actually: every time Israel has been invaded US troops were not deployed.

  • In the Yom Kippur War, US troops were not involved in any meaningful way.
  • In the 6 Day war, the Israeli's explicitly lied to US diplomatic and intelligence sources about the likelihood of the war (which is why the USS Liberty was out there in the first place)
  • No US forces were sent to aid Israel during the Arab-Israeli War
  • No US forces were sent to aid Israel during the Suez Crisis (and we actually found ourselves in opposition to Israel & the UK)
  • No US forces were sent to Israel while Saddam was launching SCUDs at Israel. Instead we sent them the pre-cursor to the Iorn Dome: the Patriot missile defense system (which was mostly hit/miss or for show).
  • In an famous but memory-holed incident just before the Lebanese Civil War, a US Marine who was under Peacekeeping orders by the UN & Reagan admin put a 1911 to the head of an Israeli Tank Commander and told him to turn his armored column to turn around rather than proceeding further into Lebanon (as Israel was formally not allowed to invade Lebanon yet in "self defense" against Hezbollah).

This is mostly because, as I've said before, Israel is not our greatest ally. She is a staunchly independent country that has no real allegiance to the US or it's interests, and there's a reason she's not in the 5 EYES.

Though we are on friendly terms, and Israel would like to keep it that way, we have never been that close. The relationship has often been tense, terse, or subtly antagonistic.

Gizortnik 13 points ago +13 / -0

Juneteenth is a Black National Socialist holiday that they stole from actual slaves that marked thier actual liberation... in one town.

I'll relay the basic layout again.

After the Civil War had ended, but before the 13th Amendment was passed, a Union general who was assigned to occupy Galveston, Texas ordered that Galveston act in compliance with the Emancipation Proclamation (all rebel controlled areas were no longer allowed to own slaves)

  • The Emancipation Proclamation was the document that actually freed the slaves of Galveston, TX
  • It was announced in September of 1862 after the Battle of Antietam
  • It was enacted in January 1st, 1863
  • Slaves were still allowed in non-rebel territory so it isn't the end of slavery
  • The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the US and was enacted on December 15th, 1865
  • The 13th Amendment had no effect on Galveston, TX
  • The Union Army had already been seizing slaves as property and "freeing" them even before the Emancipation Proclamation.
  • Some indian tribes maintained slaves after the 13th Amendment for a while since the 13th Amendment didn't apply to them as were still recognized as foreign nations.

What this means is that Juneteenth literally has nothing to do with the ending of slavery in America. The Emancipation Proclamation is what freed the slaves of Galveston specifically, and slavery was only ended in the US with the 13th Amendment which came afterwards.

Juneteenth exists like Qwanza: it is a racial holiday, exclusively for American blacks, that exists to pre-empt any celebrations of the regular holiday (July 4th vs Juneteenth / Qwanza vs Christmas). Black Racial Communists / Black National Socialists are seeking racial division whenever possible.

Gizortnik 14 points ago +14 / -0

Imagine this argument around an actual DND game.

Player SJW: "Guys, I can't go into the dungeon, my character has a wheelchair."

Player 1: "Okay, I'll use Greater Healing."

Player SJW: "NO."

Player 1: "No? What do you mean no?"

Player SJW: "No. I need a wheelchair accessible dungeon."

Player 1: "It's fine, I can just give you the spell."

Player SJW: "No!"

Player 1: "... How about the healing potion."

Player SJW: "No!"

Player 1: "How about if I cast Levitate and move you there?"

Player SJW: "No!"

Player 1: "How about I enchant your armor so you can use it to fly?"

Player SJW: "NO"

Player 1: "What if I give you an animal familiar to ride on?"

Player SJW: "NO"

Player 1: "Okay, maybe I can use this other spell to increase your crawl speed?"


Player 1: "How about if I teleport you?"


Player 1: "... I draw my sword"

DM: "Roll for initiative"

Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Your honor, white labor is just too expensive, so we had to get rid of them and take in some more browns."

"Please stop."

Gizortnik 7 points ago +7 / -0

These "trans woman vs woman" pictures are always amazing because it really shows you how sexual dimorphic the species is.

You can wear the aesthetics of a woman, but you will never be a woman.

You can even see it in the feet.

Gizortnik -3 points ago +2 / -5

That's a pretty hyperbolic comment for: "we are engaging in military exercises that would support allied nations."

Honestly, I'd bet money we'd be defending Jordan long before we would be sending troops to Israel.

Gizortnik 3 points ago +3 / -0

An authoritarian government that was highly meritocratic wouldn't be suffering from the IQ drop problem.

I agree, but you've missed the point, and in fairness, I didn't flesh it out fully like I have in other previous posts.

There is no authoritarian government that is highly meritocratic.

The very nature of an authoritarian system is to prevent meritocracy from supplanting the authority when the authority fails to be meritocratic. Meritocracy is wildly unstable at the highest echelons. Pick any sport for an example. It is exceedingly rare for someone who is so meritorious to win repeatedly and consistency at the highest possible position in any sport. They do, eventually, lose. Sometimes due to arrogance and overconfidence, sometimes because they pushed themselves to far to get where they are and can't endure, sometimes they lose down to sheer luck, but many times they lose because they were so successful at changing the game itself, that someone replicated their winning strategy and genuinely out-competed them.

Authoritarianism as a philosophy requires that you not challenge an authority that is dictating things in society, as it is asserted that they know best. A meritocratic philosophy assumes that the people at the top don't know best until they can prove it through competitive and constant displays of merit.

As such, the protectionism that Authoritarianism creates in society prevents authority from being challenged due to meritocratic challenges, and will even go so far as to disincentivize merit in order to protect the authority that is currently in place. Sometimes, this is simply referred to as "corruption", but typically, this is how an authoritarian system functions. Corruption and cronyism are an inherent aspect to Authoritarianism.

Leftism is a "Philosophy of War", (another thing I'm not going to expound too much on here) and as such, is inherently authoritarian when it seizes and maintains power. The 'corruption and cronyism' that come with it are not incidental, but are the primary method of maintaining that authority, and control over those institutions.

A non-Leftist Authoritarianism, let's say: a monarchy; is not exempt from this. In fact, it is highly likely that an absolute monarch will impose many highly authoritarian structures that disincentivize merit in order to protect themselves, so that the absolute power of their authority can't be challenged.

This type of authority is as you say literally training useless people.

They aren't totally useless, they are foot-soldiers to ensure the power of the authority. Their purpose is not towards generalized merit, but only into their service of the authority, regardless of whether the authority is right or wrong.

This is actually how Clown World develops. Everyone lies and participates in lies that maintain the power of the established order, no matter how far off from reality the established order is. That isn't relegated to Leftism alone, but all authoritarian systems that are in need of being torn down.

The more socialist policies that western countries implement the less people in western countries are forced to try to get ahead. This lack of trying will reduce IQs.

I 100% agree with this, and is what I would have said had I elaborated further about Leftism. Dependency systems propagate lower IQ. Socialism has additional effects like: hyper-sensitivity, magical thinking, poor nutrition, increased violence, and low-trust-societies that also promote low IQ's. Socialism is authoritarian, but it's also a slightly worse form of Authoritarianism.

Genetics are still a factor though but it's not the only factor. Why are many western countries becoming more like the above? Immigrants are a big reason for this.

Immigrants are only one tool in the kit of a Leftist. Remember that many Communist countries had strict bans on immigration or emigration. It was Socialism that founded the now discredited concept of "Autarkey" (a permanently and perfectly economically self-sufficient state that never requires outside trade).

Leftism itself is the actual core threat. I'd go a bit further and say Fabian Socialists specifically.

Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have a larger argument about female sex selection being the primary driver of overall IQ based on what the females perceive as a specific need in society.

I honestly doubt that due to sex selection pressures, it could be reversed in one or two generations.

Gizortnik 5 points ago +5 / -0

I think that's still way over the top. I've got bad allergies too, but I have stuff for that, and I'm still working outside today. As for Autism, consider that they are still misdiagnosing boys literally being boys, as Autism.

Gizortnik -2 points ago +1 / -3

Look at the US military. They have jobs for people across the entire IQ spectrum… except for sub 83 IQ retards. The US military discovered that there is no place for such people in the service because they literally cannot perform any task within the hierarchy without sabotaging its effectiveness.

Oh, buddy, let me tell you something about the military.

They don't fucking test people's IQ. If they did, they'd lose too many people. They use the ASVAB. Infantrymen get the lowest allowable scores. When I was in, it was a score of 32. That means your score was above the 32 percentile of all people tested. During The Surge for getting people into Iraq and Afghanistan while the war was generally unpopular, that bitch dropped down to 28.

If you get a 28 on the ASVAB, it means you can't even fucking do fractions. Literally: 1/2 + 1/3 = ??? is going to put you in that range.

Just trust me on this, that dude with the 83 IQ is probably working in the Motor T lot or is a fucking SAW gunner.

Do you see any prosperous and functional nations with average IQs below that threshold?

Pretty much all of them prior to the modern era. Before the modern era, the majority of people were barely even literate.

IQ was basically invented to measure what could be a level of intelligence in a developed western country that could guarantee prosperity. Hence the focus on abstraction. It was invented by the progressive intelligentsia of the early 20th century, and then was slowly reformed into something with actual scientific backing. You don't actually need high levels of abstraction to form a healthy family/community unit that feeds itself and passes traditions down as imparted knowledge. If you think that the people who named their city "Ur" had an IQ anywhere near 100, you're crazy. The massive capitalization of knowledge into institutions is what allows low IQ people to prosper without having to solve extremely elaborate problems. This is the value of working institutions and good traditions.

The danger is that if those institutions or traditions are corrupted, people with lower IQ's will suffer and won't have any way of fighting out of it. They'll just continue operating knowing that something is wrong, but won't know how to solve it themselves. This is, frankly, where we are getting the midwit and "low IQ & high IQ conservatives" phenomenons from. The high IQ's are recognizing the institutions are broken because they are operating illogically, the midwits are refusing to recognize the institutions are broken because it secured them social status, and the low IQ's are recognizing the institutions are broken because "things don't seem right".

To answer your question: Almost all of Classical Greece, Egypt, Rome, China, and Sumer. Also including basically every country in the European Middle Ages. All of them were able to function, mostly because their institutions helped to maintain their vast population of what we would consider low IQ retards. When those institutions failed, the whole civilization collapsed. We happen to be benefiting from a moment in human history where IQ's are so high that even though the institutions are on fire, the civilization hasn't utterly imploded.

Gizortnik -1 points ago +3 / -4

In the new study, the researchers observed IQ drops occurring within actual families, between brothers and sons – meaning the effect likely isn't due to shifting demographic factors as some have suggested, such as the dysgenic accumulation of disadvantageous genes across areas of society.

See, this quote makes me think that that source isn't super valid. We both agree that immigration from less developed countries will have an effect. My argument is just that western societies tend to promote increasing IQs even among low IQ immigrant groups, and I haven't seen much that would challenge that.

For some reason, this source is arguing that the average IQ drop isn't happening as a result of mass migration. Bullshit, obviously. That's like saying mass migration isn't effecting housing prices.

If the Flynn Effect is reversing, I would suspect it's not due to anything genetic, but due to the exposure of a population to authoritarianism, which basically conditions them not to think. It incentivizes obedience regardless of thought, and actively disencentivizes questioning and skepticism. It makes entire societies highly cynical and suspicious. I wonder if those teenagers had their early childhood development under the UK's "Winter of Discontent" or Sweeden's experiment with Socialism.

It's the same reason we think there was a 20% drop in IQ among young children due to mask wearing and lockdowns.

I'm not entirely convinced that we're seeing an overall average loss in IQ in the west, as these two studies are for two specific groups, in two specific places, at two specific times.

Gizortnik -1 points ago +5 / -6

How do you explain all the women who started fucking Nazi occupiers before their families' bodies were even cold? Not even grieving, just right on that Nazi dick.

I can't explain things that don't happen.

The closest example I can give you is an American Colonial woman who's family was killed, and was eventually married into the American tribe which raided her home.

As she tells it, she was held captive, but under a kind of matriarchy, where the warrior who killed her family was forbidden from having sex with her, and she was transferred as a slave to the custody of the matriarchs. After about 5 years living with the tribe as a servant, in which she was never sexually assaulted, and was treated as a kind of lower-class member of the society, she became a fully integrated tribeswoman. After going through a series of courtship rituals, like all the other women of the tribe, she was planning on selecting a tribesman for marriage (one who wasn't the warrior) when she was discovered by a pioneer. She decided to go back to the colonial settlements at the time; but became distraught later on because she had no family or communal ties to speak of, even though she was living in the 'civilized world' again. She was re-married, but she had far less social influence and status than she had under the natives. When she left the tribe, she didn't leave it as a servant or a captive, she left it as a full tribal member with all the rights and privileges that community afforded. When she came back to the colonies, she was "that dude's wife", and had basically no social network to speak of, and had very little in the way of social benefits.

Again, this was her story. It isn't completely outside of other statements of women who were captured by North American tribes, whether European or Native captives. The women were typically not raped, and were more likely integrated into the tribe voluntarily. I grant you that there will be some Stockholm Syndrome stuff going on, but that's not something you can blame on women generally, that just an issue with human psychology. Most of the stories I've read of tribal capture involve the women being sold as slaves to other tribes, who also don't rape them, but after working with them for a long time, allow the slaves to be full members of their tribe. "Slavery" as a kind of path to integration, and a form of "slavery" which isn't typically much of a problem for either the slaves or their 'owners' as it were. Assuming the tribes even understood the concept of a property owner, and weren't just recognizing that the person they just bought has a temporary obligation to their society.

Again: this tends to be the norm. If a woman has all social ties severed, she will likely integrate into the society she happens to be in. Which is to be expected because women need social systems for survival and benefit.

The only thing that is even like what you are claiming is French and Belgian women who slept with Americans for liberating the country, and normally they were unmarried young women who wanted to sleep with a soldier-boy/hero archetype in their minds.

Gizortnik 2 points ago +3 / -1

That's not even sort of true. IQ is not a threshold. IQ is just an assessment of the ability for someone to understand complicated abstractions. Most human civilizations would never have even been close to the level of IQ the average American has today. Most Americans in previous centuries had lower IQ's than they do today. This would be more obvious if IQ wasn't constantly being inflated so that higher level abstract thought kept being given a lower scores so that the averages of the populations stayed relatively the same through time.

Adopting shit cultures that don't promotote literacy, saving, communal bonds, building families, and entrepreneurship will cause your society to fail regardless of your IQ, and overall the average IQ of an population will suffer as an effect of that.

Gizortnik 1 point ago +3 / -2

That's absolutely ridiculous nonsense.

Germany split in two, and the East adopted communism, while the West had to mass import immigrants for labor. As bad as low-skill mass migration was, East Germans had a 1 SD deviance in IQ from West Germans, likely due to the effects of malnutrition and authoritarianism. As far as I can tell (30 years after German re-unification) that has recovered. Even with the current spate of mass migration.

I don't get how you guys don't see that the national average IQ is not, in and of itself, purely genetic. But is a statistical abstraction of something that is a measurement of other genetic factors. The fact that France's IQ has pushed lower is probably due to the fact that migrants are younger. Older populations have higher IQ, because your IQ plataeu's after it gets to it's peak, until you start facing slow cognitive decline after 40.

By aging alone, you would see an increase in France's average IQ.

The idea that 4 points can't be recovered in over 2,000 years is so ridiculous it defies any logical assessment.

Gizortnik -11 points ago +1 / -12

Honestly, I doubt it. normally IQ rates go up in the west in general, even among immigrant groups.

Gizortnik 6 points ago +6 / -0

This isn't really too much worse than bad 911 dispatch I've seen elsewhere. At least they didn't hang up on him, and actually deployed emergency services to him. And yes, I've seen men do it too.

Gizortnik 12 points ago +19 / -7

We see this behavior in chimps, we see this behavior all throughout human history - whole towns of men get conquered and killed, and before their bodies are even cold, their women are being impregnated by the men who killed them. The women have orgasms, and then they raise the children according to the customs of of the conquering men, completely and utterly forgetting their weak, dead fathers and brothers and husbands and sons, watching the children of their murderers play on top of their unmarked graves.

Literally all of this is wrong. As in, actually every part of it.

What we typically see is:

  • Women and children desperately fleeing invading armies due to the likelihood of rape.
  • Many times, women actually being killed in a lot of the fighting for attempting to defend their families
  • Women being directly involved the immediate fighting, and the resistance afterwards, along with their children
  • Conquering armies have repeatedly used rape as a weapon of terror and subjugation for occupied peoples, including not killing the men, but still perpetrating the rape of both women and children as to tyrannize their conquests.
  • The concept of a female orgasm was effectively unknown in a lot of societies, and was certainly not detailed by violent post-combat rapes.
  • Normally conquering armies DON'T settle the land they conquer, even tribal ones, as those will be centers of rebellion later. Women are typically forcibly removed, or sold into sexual slavery. If settlement happens, it's after the war by settlers, not during the war by the soldiers, who normally already have families to go back to.
  • Normally the rapes and pillaging are for the purposes of morale, and again, the soldiers typically already have families, and will get wives due to a successful status and loot. They typically won't take the conquered women with them (and most armies can't supply such an effort anyway).
  • When those armies abandon those women, there will be children that the mothers are left with. Sometimes those kids get post-birth aborted or abandoned, yes, we see that in the animal kingdom too.

If your example was even half correct, it wouldn't explain very well known shit like:

  • Boudicca's Rebellion - Family and husband raped & executed, went on a war path that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Roman Britain, burned Londinium (London) to the ground, and died in combat.
  • Margaret of Anjou - Whom lead the Lancasters at different points during the War of The Roses, even though her husband was weak, then driven crazy, then executed. She was a continual threat well after his death.
  • The Beslan Terrorist attack - At least 2 of the terrorists were women who had survived the 2nd Chechen War, which was a horrifically brutal war between Russia & Chechnya, which resulted in the occupation and subjugation of Chechnya.
  • Female Suicide Bomber attacks of Iraq in 2008 - I think it was somewhere around 15 that were recruited in order to attack emergency services in Iraq.
  • The French, Belgian, and Polish resistances in WW2 - All of whom had women explicitly involved in them, long after the Poles, Belgians, and French had been occupied by the Germans. All of them involved women in roles of spies, logisticians, and saboteurs. The very example of SS officers you used is an infamous picture from the Liberation of Paris, where a woman who was married to a German officer was publicly dragged out of the street, beaten, tortured, and had her head shaved by the general population of Paris. Again, if what you said was true, her actions would have been seen as entirely reasonable, and would have represented literally all of the women of Paris.
  • The rape of East Germany - Again, German women were enthusiastically raped by conquering Russian troops. Yet, somehow, even after 40 years of Communist occupation, the Germans didn't turn Russian overnight, and instead continued to try and resist Soviet Occupation, even immediately after the war through diplomatic means, since it was clear the Soviets would summarily executed anyone who was going to engage in violence against the occupation.

What you are hapring on is that women are pre-disposed to being agreeable, rely on social systems for support, and have innate social value that can keep them alive; and you then run to an extreme and attache insane emotional baggage onto it. Women don't want their children dead because their husbands are too weak. The issue is that if a woman's entire social system is destroyed and they are left with nothing, they will most likely not be killed because they have a vagina, and that's it. If women were purely devoted towards power, this is the worst possible outcome; not the preferred one. They have nothing left, and won't have influence over any men as a sex slave.

In reality, women will adopt the social structures of all societies they move into because they are more psychologically agreeable, and the use of those social systems is what benefits women more than technical merit and achievement. There's actually a great video from Callum of The LotusEaters that goes over "How Feminist Immigration Can Save The West" (relax it's not actually Feminist). Basically: if you ban male immigration, females, in all cases: typically don't commit crimes, integrate well into the local community, adopt their husband's values, language, and culture. This is because women need to be more agreeable.

However, this is not the same as being okay with your husband and children being murdered, or even preferring it because they were too weak.

Honestly, the way you look at women is about as fucking looney as Imp gets, and frankly, says something about your own sense of security in relationships.

Gizortnik 4 points ago +4 / -0

Literally, "I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further."

Gizortnik 4 points ago +4 / -0

Tolerance requires limits.

You can be tolerated, over there, away from children.

Gizortnik 9 points ago +9 / -0

confronting homophobia and transphobia

You don't even know what those words fucking mean, because you are a Queer / Sex Communist. You think telling kids not to put money in the thongs of men doing a minstrel show of women is transphobic. Piss off.

advocating for gay people is what is required

Actually, I am doing that by condemning Queers. Gays don't need you. Transpeople don't need you. No one fucking needs you. Gays, Lesbians, Intersex, and yes even Transgenders need you like they need a bad case of Monkeypox. You don't speak for anyone but you and your hunger for power, and your lust for vengeance on those who you think won't obey your every fucking whim.

Yes. Praise me.

No, you need to learn shame. Shame is good in the proper amounts. Being shameless is wrong.

Accept me as your rightful lord.

You already told me to do that with George Floyd. Make up your fucking mind, queer.

Sacrifice your first born at the steps of my temple

I can't tell if you want me to go to Planned Parenthood and get an abortion, or hand my kid over to you at a drag show. Eat shit and die either way.

Unfurl your flags in my name

Everything previous to this you said was supposed to be a kind of satire, but the thing is, this line isn't. You literally do want me to wave around the Racial Pride flag in your honor.

Fuck you, you're trash: no one loves you, because no one fucking needs you.

Gizortnik 4 points ago +4 / -0

I have no problem removing the minimum wage. The competition for labor will likely put people like Vox journalists out of work, and society can finally begin to recover.

Gizortnik 6 points ago +6 / -0

Agreed, and then to never sell.

Bill Waterson had it right after he finished producing Calvin & Hobbes. Protect your property, and you will maintain it's cultural legacy.

Gizortnik 8 points ago +8 / -0

My friends were genuinely surprised when I wouldn't stop ranting about how much I fucking hated Star Trek: The Undiscovered Lens Flare.

People bitched about ST: ENT, but mother of God, what I would do for just reruns of that and the Star Trek: The Animated Series to be the primary mechanism of selling Star Trek right now.

I can't watch any of the new STD's or variants thereof, it just makes me too annoyed, then too angry, then too embarrassed, and then too sad. Meanwhile, I'm literally getting teary-eyed listening to The Motion Picture's soundtrack.

There's something about it that's just stirring, a level of hope, optimism, adventure, comradarie, and principles that literally no aspect of any part of the political Left are even prepared to understand. They are at best, barely making an effort to appeal to those concepts behind a skinsuit, while being filled with nihilism, fragility, entitlement, resentment, and power-hunger.

view more: Next ›