2
dekachin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Everyone ignored them so they launched another missile.

NorK missiles are like a fat neckbeard screaming for his mom to buy him tendies.

We should just bomb North Korea a little bit every time they fire a missile. Not a LOT, just blow up 2 or 3 of their military bases and tell them we will glass their whole fucking country if they try to fire a nuke in response.

They will back down like cucks because they don't want to die and know they're weak. When they realize they can't counter-escalate to gain any advantage, they will stop the missile launches entirely.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

I dont' get butthurt that East Asians have on average higher IQ because that has nothing to do with my individual intelligence. I don't even begrudge Ashkenazi if in fact their real IQ is 115 or something. I think there are reasons to doubt that, but I don't care if it's true.

It's because liberals try to use ethnic tribal identity groups to exploit for votes. So they need to use white supremacists as a boogieman that doesn't really exist in order to rally their minority tribes to vote Democrat. Meanwhile white people are just trying to live their lives.

9
dekachin 9 points ago +11 / -2

Women have mental problems -> women seek therapy -> women come to see therapists as power figures -> women lust for that power themselves -> women become therapists.

FYI a huge percentage of male psychologists are jews.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're wrong on your semantic nonsense and I'm not wasting any more time on it. You're acting like an autist.

These differences are not set in stone. Back during the First World War, low mental test scores among Jewish soldiers in the U.S. Army led one mental test expert to declare that this tended to "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent."

  1. Even if true, smart jews would have gotten out of service. Army jews are not a representative sample.

  2. Your quote doesn't refute my evidence and extensive source at all. My source details multiple studies showing that jews were smart even 100 years ago.

  3. Brigham was a eugenicist, and pushing an agenda, so he is not a trustworthy source: "In 1923, Brigham published his influential book, A Study of American Intelligence. Analyzing the data from the World War I army mental tests, Brigham concluded that native-born (Caucasian) Americans had the highest intelligence out of the groups tested. He proclaimed the intellectual superiority of the "Nordic Race" and the inferiority of the "Alpine" (Eastern European), "Mediterranean", and "Negro" races and argued that immigration should be carefully controlled to safeguard the "American Intelligence"." Harvard Professor E.G. Boring suggested that Brigham was not collecting data with scientific purpose which biased his results in favor of his ideas (1923).

  4. I saved the best for last: "In his 1930 paper "Intelligence Tests of Immigrant Groups", Brigham recanted his 1923 analysis of the results of the Army Mental Tests." Due to having used prejudicial test administration and analytical techniques in his original research (he had not taken into consideration that the first language of some of the people he studied was not English), he acknowledged that his conclusions were "without foundation" and stated "that study with its entire hypothetical superstructure of racial differences collapses completely."

Sorry about your sore asshole, bro. Better shepardize your sources next time. [since I know you like legal terms]

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Russia bombed Ukraine to stop its invasion of the Donbas.

Ukraine wasn't invading the Donbass. This is unlike what Russia did in Georgia where they baited the Georgians to attack South Ossetia [who actually started it by shelling the Georgians] as a pretext to attack immediately after staging all their troops right over the border on a pretext of "exercises". By contrast, Ukraine was just minding its own business when Putin launched his naked war of aggression against it in February.

Your statement obviously means "no one who is gullible believes this". Again, you try to blame others for your own slip-ups.

I've told you that is exactly what I intended to say, and yet you refuse to accept it. As I know my mind, and you do not, my statement on the matter is definitive and undisputed. You are not qualified to contradict it. Your little pet theory that I meant to use a different word and meant to convey a different meaning is, quite frankly, a pathetic cope and makes you look like a loser who is tilting.

from a guy who believes that cricket noises create brain damage...

Cricket noises do not cause brain damage, but pulsed microwave radiation does.

At other times, you're just batshit crazy.

Imp is batshit about women. You are batshit about the US and Putin in general.

Pretty crazy to think that you could get a paycheck for posting on the internet.

It's a very common and open thing with Chinese. Hell, I just got lit up by wumao accounts on reddit yesterday when someone posted that China has the lowest suicide rate in the world and I replied "China also has the lowest COVID rate in the world according to China. LOL." Had wumaos reply saying it's true. LOL. They're either ethnic Han who have been brainwashed into doing it for free out of misguided ethnic tribalism, in which case they're traitors who ought to be deported, OR they're paid members of the 50 cent army.

Russia does the same thing, just on a smaller scale, and they're sneakier about it.

You also failed to address the rest of the comment.

I purposely do not respond when something you wrote is just trivial or bitchy. It clutters up the reply and adds nothing of value. If you write substantive things that I haven't already responded to such that I'd be repeating myself, then I respond.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

You bombed Serbia and Libya to smithereens

So I opposed both of those so idk why youre coming at me with those. In both cases the US was only going along with Euros and willingly acting as their enforcer and muscle so Democrats could ingratiate themselves to the filthy, degenerate, globohomo euros. Clinton bombed Serbia. Obama bombed Libya. I doubt that Trump would have been willing to join the Euros in either endeavor.

But those weren't "wars of aggression" anyway. Serbia was bombed to stop its invasion of Kosovo and to stop a fake genocide that was believed to have been happening. Libya was just a civil war where the Euros + US gave air support to the rebels.

Yes, the credulous people believe in false flags. (This is why my English better than yours. I actually know what the word means.)

My statement obviously meant "even gullible people would not believe that excuse because it is so obviously bullshit", and you stupidly misread it and assumed I am an idiot who meant to use fastidious or something. Your ego is suffering right now, and you're desperate to cling to anything that will help you feel smarter. It's sad.

You're getting tilted because (1) I've been landing too many hits on your lately, and (2) your Daddy Putin's war is going very poorly and there is a general malaise and frustration among Russian warmongers these days. Losing Izyum was bad, but the shills thought "ok we were caught sleeping, but we will shorten the lines and recover" BUT THEN UKRAINE KEPT ON GOING and now has successfully taken Lyman, with the Russians just getting bitch slapped around now for a month straight with no end in sight.

This must weigh heavily on you and your coworkers.

Putin doesn't lose, Putin doesn't fail. You'll do well to remember that, before you force him to turn all of America into Chicago.

lolololol I honestly hope you're getting a paycheck for this, bro.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Does this mean that they are "on average" stupid, corrupt and immoral? Does it mean that they are more so than others groups? Does it mean any number of other interpretations that you can make up? No, it means all lawyers are.

No, it means generally. It's a general statement, not a specific one. Take your L already.

"People" are stupid and irrational.

I'll take that as an admission.

Some? Nearly all, you mean. And I'm pretty sure I do know it better than you do.

LOL.

You play expert at all sorts of things that you know very little to nothing about.

Wrong, I'm actually very knowledgeable, and if you were capable of laying a glove on me, you would. You're just frustrated you can't. I get that a lot.

Morgan Freeman is dark, and while he's not exactly my type, he's pretty good-looking.

Bro if Morgan Freeman is your proof that dark blacks are seen as just as good looking as lighter skinned ones, you took the L. Dude is Steve Buscemi levels of ugly.

Dude, pogrom-fleers are not the "elites" of their respective society.

Getting all the way to the distant United States was not easy. The jews who got here were not a representative average of european jews.

They started in menial occupations and scored so low on IQ tests that one IQ test advocate proclaimed that the results proved the falsity of the widely held belief that the Jew is intelligent.

So here we go where I need to educate you again:

"Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004).... Ashkenazi Jews are just as successful as their tested IQ would predict, and they are hugely overrepresented in occupations and fields with the highest cognitive demands. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards".

This high IQ and corresponding high academic ability have been long known. In 1900 in London Jews took a disproportionate number of academic prizes and scholarships in spite of their poverty (Russell and Lewis, 1900). In the 1920s a survey of IQ scores in three London schools (Hughes, 1928) with mixed Jewish and non-Jewish student bodies showed that Jewish students had higher IQs than their schoolmates in each of three school, one prosperous, one poor, and one very poor... The Hughes study is important because it contradicts a widely cited misrepresentation by Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of the tests (Seligman, 1992).

https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Took me 5 minutes to pull that up and read through it to find the relevant text and quote it to you. I did all this without you even citing your source. I'm pretty good at this lol. This is basically just practice for me for what I do IRL.

I can just as easily take one moment in time when whites were not highly civilized and make a judgment based on that. In fact, many did. One Arabic traveler to Europe wrote that the more you travel north, the paler people get, and the dumber they get.

Cool story bro. Totally irrelevant to what we are talking about. The fact that various ethnic groups might have done better in the distant past doesn't mean anything now. Italians ruled the known world at one time. Now they're below average Euros. Obviously things changed in the last 2000 years, including in genetics.

You wouldn't need to enforce it if it were true to begin with.

Socialism and leftism in general begin with the premise that their false ideology is reality. Then, when the rubber meets the road and their ideology is contradicted by reality, they just start using mass murder to try to bend reality to conform to their ideology. It's a truly sick mental illness.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0
  1. The US isn't helping Ukraine because it is scared of Russia, it is helping Ukraine because Putin's war of aggression is morally wrong, as well as an unacceptable attempt to engage in empire-building, which is inconsistent with the desires of the guarantors of free trade.

  2. Nobody credulous really believes the "training exercise" excuse, as it is obvious bullshit. You only "believe" it because you're a partisan.

  3. Yes, Philip Short being 77 is a small strike against him, however that was not a significant part of my refutation of him, so I don't know why you singled. Oh wait, I DO know: you lack confidence on any of my substantive points.

  4. I disagree, I think Biden cares about US soldiers far moreso than Putin cares about Russian soldiers, which is admittedly a low bar. People who shill for obviously evil people love the cope that they pretend that everyone in the world is equally evil, the "good guys" just hide it better. That's a childish world view.

  5. Americans absolutely would not blow up the WTC, because they have morals and ethics and do not want to murder their fellow Americans. They aren't heartless killers like Putin, who routinely engages in murder of anyone who he simply dislikes, even if they are not a threat to the regime.

  6. I knew you'd whine about my citing the NYT. NYT book reviews are one of the most famous and well known.

  7. I don't worship Republicans. You worship Putin, a loser and failure who tricked you into thinking he gives a fuck about your political goals so that he could get you to be an internet janny shill for him. You're a useful idiot for his desire to rebuild the USSR, and she doesn't give the slightest shit about you or what you want culturally or politically. Republicans, on the other hand, are actually fighting the culture war and in the trenches and starting to get some victories. So yeah, my support of Republicans is moving the ball in the direction you claim to cherish. Your support of Putin is not. Hence why I suspect the possibility that you're some kind of agent. You claimed goals and what you write don't actually line up. Your devotion to and shilling for Putin cannot be explained away by the mere fact that Putin doesn't like gay pride parades. Like why the fuck do you need to shill for him on Ryazan? You wouldn't give the slightest shit if you only saw Putin as a useful tool against the wokes.

  8. "The moment anyone tells you what you want to hear or believe for ideological purposes, you take it as gospel truth. The evidence doesn't matter." Outstanding job describing yourself, not me. "accuse your opponent of that of which you are guilty" is probably in your employee handbook.

  9. "Those stockpiles are a joke and won't get Germany through the winter" Sure they can, because of course Germany still has months to obtain more energy before and during the winter from other sources. Russia didn't have a monopoly on gas. The stockpiles are there as a cushion. Nobody believes that all energy supplies are going to get cut off and Germany is going to have to solely ration out the stockpile.

  10. "Pangs of conscience over what you did with their pipeline if they end up starving and freezing?" Accusing me of what your Daddy Putin did, "accuse your opponent of that of which you are guilty" twice in one comment. If you remain this predictable you might get replaced by an AI.

5
dekachin 5 points ago +5 / -0

Liberals just want to destroy every single aspect of traditional cultural values.

Again, I posit the ideal solution: pick 1 place and send all these freaks there, and let them turn it into their "paradise" as a cautionary tale to everyone else.

14
dekachin 14 points ago +14 / -0

Alden Bunag, 34, is accused of having sex with a 13-year-old boy during school lunch breaks.

faggot who openly identified as a communist.

-2
dekachin -2 points ago +2 / -4

I guess something can't be propaganda as long as you personally don't find it to be highly convincing. lol

-1
dekachin -1 points ago +2 / -3

Why would NATO blow up Russia's pipeline if NATO desperately wants the pipeline to supply gas?

Clearly whoever blew up the pipeline does NOT want it to supply gas, so if it was an enemy of Russia, then Russia should want to thwart said enemy by doing the opposite.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

afaik it is back to 1600 so 800/800 and so 700+ is a "high" score.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

They had to go to 1 tiny German study of mixed race kids because all the other studies show a huge disparity that can't be explained in any other way than genetics.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

I could just as easily say that for your claim to hold true, you'd have to say that stars are generally bigger than planets.

No, because as the speaker, they are my words, and I am able to make a less-precise statement without adding qualifiers and caveats. Then, if challenged with an unreasonable interpretation, all I have to do is say "you are wrong, your interpretation is foolish" instead of taking some sort of blame for your absurd misconstruction.

You have fallen prey to the fallacy the endless qualifiers and caveats are necessary in the English language. This is false, and unworkable. I do not need to be excessively precise in my language in order to idiot-proof my words against unreasonable and idiotic interpretations. The interpreter is wrong in such cases, not me. I have already supplied this information in an implicit fashion through context. You might not like it, but this is how English functions 99% of the time. It would be too tiresome and tedious to constantly be on guard against stupid and absurd readings, even if those readings could be argued as a possible interpretation divorced from context.

The REASON you are wrong here is that you are forcing a particular interpretation on my words, when, at best, you can argue that my words are open to possibly multiple interpretations, some absurd. I am not required to be on guard against absurd interpretations. You know I'm a lawyer and i don't even have to do that as part of my legal work outside of narrow situations in contracts.

Why do you always choose the dumbest hills to die on, asks my FSB colleague sitting next to me.

You're here on the same hill, and the difference is that you're wrong. No, I am not required to put dumb shit like "ON AVERAGE" in a statement that men are taller than women. The fact that I am talking about averages is implied by the context. People make that statement in the context of averages quite commonly. People do NOT make that statement in the context of absolutes, THEREFORE if your intention was to do the counter-intuitive thing and mean absolutes as on "even the shortest man is taller than the tallest woman", THEN the burden would be on you to add the extra words to clarify that unusual position.

And yes, this is 100% an issue with english not being your 1st language and you not having been immersed in native english speaking society. Perhaps in your 1st and 2nd languages, the rules are different and context has no place. Your perspective is marred by the rules of other languages and your arrogant proclamation that you know english better than some americans is irrelevant, because you sure as fuck don't know english better than I do.

On average, it will absolutely work like that.

False. Genetics is not linear. You don't even understand the concept of recessive traits. Intelligence is extremely complex and there is absolutely no reason to believe that if you take an IQ 110 person and an IQ 100 person, you'd get an IQ 105 child. It could very well be that black DNA is stupid because of genes that are deactivated even with only 1/8th white DNA intermixed. You have no idea, nobody does, which is why your whole line of reasoning is just a non-starter.

I think it's true for women, but not for men. I have seen black men who are regarded as attractive (but not by me) who are rather dark. This case is about men.

It's still true of men, it is just that all things based on looks are exaggerated for women, because women are judged more on their looks. The #1 black male model, Tyson Beckford, is mixed race. All the top black celebrity men like Cuba Gooding Jr., Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Samuel Jackson, James Earl Jones, Laurence Fishburne, Jamie Foxx, Dwayne Johnson etc are on the lighter skinned side. When you look at darker skinned men you see mainly comedians & "thugs" which aren't successful for their looks.

Are white inferior to Jews and Asians? Or are you going to BS yourself out of it by saying: actually, we're not less smart.

No, because AMERICAN Jews and Asians are not a representative sample, they are self-selected elites. Most whites came to the US as poor refugees, most Jews and Asians who made it to the US were the elites of their respective groups. A perfect example of this is Indians. Are Indians superior to whites? HAH. Fucking street shitters, are you KIDDING me? But what about Indians, IN AMERICA, who are largely doctors and programmers? Absolutely, they run circles around the median whites.

Now, are AMERICAN Jews and Asians on average superior to whites? Absolutely. You can say that about any immigrant group in a system where the US is "brain draining" the other country.

It's a Christian point. All men are equal in the eyes of God.

Men might be equal in the eyes of God in the sense of going to Heaven or Hell, but that means nothing about every other sense. Nothing in Christianity suggests some communistic principle that men cannot be smarter, or stronger, or more noble, or virtuous, than others. In fact, the Bible is full of stories about how great men who were not equal to their peers did great things: Samson, Job, David, etc.

Jesus didn't pretend that everyone was equal, he just suggested that those at the bottom of society be treated a little better.

Socialism is an economic idea, it's got nothing to do with human equality.

Socialism is enforced "equality" by stealing from the winners to subsidize the losers. The whole principle of socialism is that the government is going to pay the poor to keep them as an army to use to eat the rich if the rich do not agree to be eaten slowly. No wonder socialist countries all crash their economies.

The Nordic "big welfare" states are not literal socialism, but at soft socialism that can only be maintained through having a homogenous high quality population, so just wait until they muddy up their countries with poor refugees and ruin their little paradises.

-1
dekachin -1 points ago +2 / -3

Your Russophobia is off the charts.

I'm not scared of Russia. Nobody is.

The apartment bombings claim is crazy enough (like I showed you from the recent biography, only for you to call the author a 'dumbass' for disagreeing with you)

  1. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that Putin ordered the apt bombings, and his FSB agents were caught by locals trying to plant a bomb in Ryazan.

  2. You linked a tweet of pictures of a few pages of the book "Putin: His Life and Times" by 77 year old Brit Philip Short, which admits that Russians generally believed that the Ryazan incident was proof the bombings were a false flag, with further evidence found later in a similar incident in Volgodonsk.

  3. Short's arguments - not evidence - are laughably bad: (1) one of the bombing killed some military families and the Russian govt would kill civilians, but not dependas. "In Stalin's time, perhaps." LOL shit argument. Putin didn't give a flying fuck about his actual soldiers let alone their families, and choosing that target made it seem to align more with the rebel motives, which is the whole point of a false flag. (2) Other false flags were "prevented" in time. Why would they block their own false flags? Duh. The obvious answer is that while they needed a bodycount, once that bodycount was established, it would have an even better effect to "catch" the "bombings" in time since it would have the same fear effect while also making the government look competent. (3) "the sheer, bumbling incompetence of the FSB operatives" means they couldn't have done it. LOL. Yeah that's why that team got fucking caught. The others did not. This is a toupee fallacy.

  4. Short's book is as close to a hagiography of Putin as could be published in the west now. From the NYT book review: "As critics observed about those volumes, Short’s determination to present a fully realized portrait of Putin may strike some as excessively sympathetic... In fact, he does absolve Putin of several crimes. Short opens with an extended examination of the never-solved apartment bombings of 1999 that were blamed on Chechen terrorists but suspected of being a government conspiracy to cement Putin’s path to power. Short exonerates Putin."

The moment anyone tells you what you want to hear or believe for ideological purposes, you take it as gospel truth. The evidence doesn't matter. It's like arguing with a liberal. Short's arguments are trash and he clearly decided he was going to put positive spin on Putin for the book.

Germany probably agreed to them blowing it up, so domestic pressure would be relieved. "Hey, we want you to not starve and freeze to death, but our hands are tied!"

Germany already has stockpiles of energy for the winter. It bought them in August, hence why prices spiked then. The prices have come back down as supply chains have adapted and demand has softened in September. There is no reason to believe that the EU is subject to any winter gas extortion anymore.

-1
dekachin -1 points ago +2 / -3

And what would be different in their response if it was an attack by NATO or Ukraine?

I need to correct you first on your use of the term "NATO". Russia didn't say NATO, it said the US and Ukraine. Big difference.

And to answer your question very obviously, Russia would run crying to Germany and try to make nice with Germany to collaborate against the US, while at the same time swearing IMMEDIATE repair, and IMMEDIATE re-activation and resumption of gas deliveries to Germany.

Of course none of that happened, because Russia doesn't want to turn it back on, hence why they blew it up, and also isn't going to bother trying to make common cause with Germany, because Russia knows it did the job itself and they'd never be able to fool the Germans into thinking the US did it.

-15
dekachin -15 points ago +2 / -17

The pipeline was laid in pieces by a ship designed for that purpose. Obviously all they'd need to do is send the ship out there and take out the damages sections and then replace them.

Notice how he glosses over that "There are technical possibilities to restore the infrastructure" because he doesn't want to talk about that, HIS priority is to talk about who did it: "As of today, we proceed from the fact that it is necessary, first of all, to figure out who did it, and we are sure that certain countries, which had expressed their positions before, were interested in it. Both the US and Ukraine, as well as Poland"

This is exactly what I would expect if Russia blew up the pipeline themselves in order to play the victim and rally domestic support for the regime by pretending to be under attack.

Hey, people are mad about this whole conscription thing, what are we going to do about it?

THEY BLEW UP OUR PIPELINE! IT'S A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY AGAINST MOTHER RUSSIA!

nice one, we distract with a false flag attack, right out of the FSB playbook comrade.

3
dekachin 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's just a false statement.

No, you're wrong. Qualifications are not needed. I get that english is not your first language, so don't argue semantics with me.

If stars are bigger than planets, then no one in his right mind is going to conclude that the average star is bigger than the average planet.

And therein lies your mental defect: you presume to dictate how a statement ought to be interpreted, and you are, of course, wrong. "Stars are bigger than planets" is a generally true statement. The fact that a person can find 1 example of the biggest planet being bigger than the smallest star does not invalidate that statement. You would need to say "ALL stars are bigger than ALL planets" for the statement to be absolute as you presume.

Actually, it does - because you'd be able to see the effect of the 25% that you assert. If someone with 100% black genes is on average N IQ points less smart, then someone with 50% should have N/2, and 25% N/4, on average.

No, that is completely wrong. Genetics does not work in a linear fashion like that.

'Lighter skin' is not seen as more attractive in Europe. Nor in the US.

It is with blacks. When you look at blacks seen as attractive in both the US and Europe, they are always mixed race, not the dark black sub saharan africans. Halle Berry looks nothing like a sub saharan african, for example. The fact that white people might tan does not invalidate this. Apples and oranges.

People who have a somewhat lower IQ are not 'inferior'.

Of course they are, by definition.

Only liberals define their self-worth by self-congratulating themselves about their supposed intelligence.

No, you are a socialist, and liberals/leftists are also socialists. You and they agree on this point. It's a communist point, that everyone is equal, even though they are very clearly not.

But I do think you exaggerate. It may not account for the entire current difference that is measured.

I didn't suggest that it accounted for everything. There is, however, SOME clear difference that is not allowed to be spoken about.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

You must be confused. The Luftwaffe didn't start out bombing cities because of Hitler's order, until the British started bombing German cities in retaliation for an accidental bombing of London.

I obviously know that the British arguably "started it", but so what? Hitler was quick to normalize the bombing of civilians against the UK for the rest of the war. He escalated it and went open season with it very quickly. Hitler had also previously been more than happy to bomb civilians in Poland. So even though the war started with a slight taboo against it, that quickly disappeared and remained disappeared for the remainder of the war.

Do you know what 'pretense' means? So it was not the norm.

If abortion is banned except in case of rape, and yet 1 million abortions happen per year because every girl who wants one just says "I wuz raepd", then it is both a pretense as well as the norm.

Didn't you send the troops into Iraq without sufficient body armor?

No, that's more propaganda.

But that's not to condemn it, it's a challenge. Make it better instead of just shilling for everything it does like you do.

Shitting on the Right and attacking it as a whole does not make it better. Feel free to attack point targets like Mitt Romney or anyone else on the Right who betrays Right wing values. Do not attack the Right as a whole and pretend you're trying to make it better. All you're doing is demoralizing, like a baby who screams because he wants his bottle.

Yes, to prevent any regional or global hegemon from arising, so that you remain top dog.

Normally the top dog reaps huge selfish benefits. The US does not. We are the 1st thankless hegemon. We let everyone else freeload off of our money and blood.

It's funny though, you gorge yourself on all your neighbors, and when you're satisfied, you kick the ladder down and say: alright, alright, now no one else gets to do what we did.

Mexico started the war. Texas revolted, won, became independent, and then joined the US voluntarily. The Mexicans were butt hurt about losing and wanted revenge. "On April 25, 1846, a 2,000-man Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 70-man U.S. patrol commanded by Captain Seth Thornton, which had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. In the Thornton Affair, the Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 11 American soldiers and capturing 52. A few days after the Thornton Affair, the Siege of Fort Texas began on May 3, 1846. Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Texas."

The Mexicans sowed the wind by bullying a small unit, and then they reaped the motherfucking whirlwind with the US Marines taking Mexico City.

Nothing like that, of course, happened in Ukraine. It is a war of naked aggression by Putin.

1
dekachin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who are the Montagnards?

The people in Vietnam's central highlands. US Special forces trained them to fight the communists, and they did so on their own very successfully until very late in the war when they were overwhelmed. This was in contrast to the rest of Vietnam where the people were fucking useless and needed Americans to do all the fighting for them.

pushing Globohomo is in the interests of the US

It's not. It's only in the interests of the political Left, the Democrats. The Right/Republicans mostly despise that shit, though to some degree they're too cucked to stand up to it because they're afraid of getting "canceled".

Look what you did to Iran.

Why do you put that entirely on the US? Faggot Europe did gay marriage BEFORE the US, quite a long time before. Faggot Europe was doing gay marriage 20 years ago when the US was still arresting faggots for sodomy.

You need to accept that the globohomo movement is PRIMARILY coming from NW Europe [UK, France, Germany, Nordics, Low countries, maybe some Italy/Spain] and commonwealth Canada/Australia/NZ, and only also from the US to a lesser degree because here in the US, we actually fight back against it. As late as 2008 CALIFORNIA banned gay marriage. Saying "oh it's all the US" is fucking simple minded. It's the LEFT in the US, which is a much smaller proportion of the US compared to other white countries, where the Left is much more dominant. The US could disappear off the earth tomorrow and yet globohomo would not stop or even slow down at all.

Putin did not make Russia corrupt. It has always been corrupt, and it probably always will be.

Putin used corruption as the basis of his government instead of trying to fight it. You resign yourself to saying Russia "probably always will be" corrupt, but that is nonsense. Corruption is just culture and culture can change. Every 3rd world country has to be able to fight corruption to develop further, and all of them have. Look at mexico as one example. Is mexico stil corrupt? Somewhat. But was it MUCH worse in the 1980s? Absolutely. If the mexicans can improve, it's nonsense to say the russians cannot.

But of course they cannot as long as Putin is around, because his government essentially exploits corruption as a means of maintaining power.

Yeah, I think in a few decades, Poland and Hungary will fall to Globohomo as well.

Maybe, but the Right has not lost yet, and we are trying to make a comeback in the US to roll back the fucking disgusting excesses of the Left's perversion of our culture these past 10+ years.

Your statements about Putin are naive. Iran kept a "firm hand" and look what a shitshow it is there now. A "firm hand" only works until the government and society become disconnected enough that a revolution is triggered. The reason Poland and Hungary are different is that the people SUPPORT conservatism there. THAT is how you win. You need to CONVINCE the people to be right wing, not impose it top down and wait until they revolt. Putin's methods would eventually fail. Poland and Hungary offer at least a hope for a sustainable future.

Imagine if you do manage your fantasy of crushing Russian military power, like the allies did in 1918 with Germany. How are you going to stop Russian revanchism? Or do you think Russians will just accept your attempted destruction of their country?

Russia's defeat in Ukraine will be so humiliating and total as to completely and fully discredit and demoralize everyone who supported it. They will fall from power and influence as failures, and be replaced in power by those who generally opposed the war (likely in secret) who want to take Russia in a path of reconciliation with the West, not confrontation.

Germany in 1918 did not lose the war on the battlefield. It lost because of a "stab in the back" where primarily jewish communists caused internal collapse with revolutions. While the "stab in the back" is denounced today as antisemitic nazi propaganda by the Left today, it was (1) largely true in its main elements, and (2) widely believed by the German people. Even the leftist wiki page admits "widely believed and promulgated in Germany after 1918", summarizing it as "It maintained that the Imperial German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield, but was instead betrayed by certain citizens on the home front—especially Jews, revolutionary socialists who fomented strikes and labor unrest"

LOL and what about that is in any way untrue? That's exactly what happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic Look up the leaders of that statelet: communist jews.

The point of all this is, that the German people didn't believe they were inferior or defeated, but rather BETRAYED. This gave them a lust for revenge and an abiding belief that, if the war was fought again, they would be victorious.

Show me where any of this sentiment exists in Russia today. It doesn't. The few in Russia who yearn for the days of the Soviet Union are few and a dying breed. Putin was forced to invoke conscription because he couldn't get enough volunteers even with large financial incentives.

You won't accept it, but Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine is the dying last gasp of the Soviet Union, which has been hospitalized and on life support in the hearts of people like Putin for 30 years. After this invasion fails in its totality, all Russian dreams of empire will die with it, and be forever buried. The idea that they would try again is laughable. With what army? Putin is cleaning out the old Soviet stocks even as we speak. He's lost the majority of Russia's active armored fighting vehicles already, Russia cannot produce more on short notice, and so Putin is emptying out and trying to refurbish old T-62s to fill the gap, and even then, it's not enough. If this war drags on another year, the Russian military will be a light infantry force with little remaining artillery or armored vehicles. It will take a decade to build up enough equipment even to bully a small country like Georgia.

14
dekachin 14 points ago +14 / -0

White people are smarter than black people.

Nope. On average, white people are smarter than black people.

Yes that's what I wrote. I just didn't include the pathetic little disclaimer language because I do not insult the intelligence of my reader by assuming they are so stupid as to assume I would be making the statement that "the dumbest white person on earth is still smarter than the smartest black person". That is not what I wrote. You would have to change what I wrote.

Are you going to object to a statement like "Men are taller than women"? Because they are. The fact that you feel the need to inject qualifications that are really not necessary to dance and tiptoe comes across as cucked. It's not my responsibility if someone wants to attribute an absurd interpretation of my words.

There's also the children of black American soldiers in Germany, who were no smarter or dumber than the children of white soldiers.

  1. Black Americans themselves are often mixed race.

  2. The kids of blacks in germany would necessarily be at least 50% white, and possibly as much as 75% white. So their characteristics tell you nothing about the genetics of blacks. The fact that german women fucked them and lighter skin is seen as more attractive, might mean that the fathers were more mixed than usual.

  3. This isn't a randomized group. The "blacks" involved had to be smart enough to convince german women to fuck them.

  4. sample size was super low, with only 98 mixed race kids.

  5. The mixed race kids did actually have lower IQ: 96.5. The white boys had 101, and the white girls, strangely, had 93. Considering how tiny the sample was, it would have only taken a few outlier white girls to throw off the results.

  6. There are lots and lots of superior studies with much bigger samples in the US. Discussed in detail here: https://web.archive.org/web/20151103215722/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

The only reason anyone talks about that shitty low quality German study is that it suits their biases and tells them what they want to hear. Liberals lose their fucking minds at the suggestion that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. They CANNOT accept that, no matter how clear the evidence. So they attack anyone who dares to speak the truth, and drive them out of academia and destroy their careers and screech that they are racists and white supremacists. No. Just because a true fact lends itself to use by racists and white supremacists, does not make that fact itself racist. Facts are just facts. Denying the truth because it is inconvenient to your ideology, to me, is heinous, and is one of the reasons I hate leftism so much.

view more: Next ›