Eugenics: Why are "racist" white countries so much richer?

again, you are demonstrating that you are not very well informed on these topics.

 

Well unless you demonstrate why that is this is nothing more than empty rhetoric and my point stands.

 

The celebration of the cult of ignorance by the Right is interesting. On the one hand there are those stupid people who just cannot follow an arguments that deviates from a succession of grunting soundbytes. On the other hand there are some very clever conservatives who are experts at weaving webs of deceit. That seems to be about the sum of "conservative" debating nowadays. Anything that requires the slightest intellectual vigour is dismissed, Stupidity, ignorance and superficiality are celebrated as virtues. The contempt for ordinary people, or the visceral self-hatred is palpable.

The Sophists were at least intelligent. Your garble here is bizarre. You actually think that just saying "they are Marxist, they are Marxist" without a single reference to Marx, is actually worth writing? This style of argument is very similar to that employed by Stalinists in real Marxist-Leninist political parties. They just sought to smear people with labels: petty-bourgeois counter revolutionaries, bourgeois capitalists...that sort fo thing. Your "commie, commie, commie..." stuff is in the same tradition. No interest in ideas. No interest in logic. No interest in reason or argument. Just windy, farting abuse. This is what passes for "politics" amongst conservatives today: smears, lies, deceit and ignorance. As the USA and Europe decline, what hope is there for a world that sees libeal capitalism reduced to such a state?

 

Bro, save yourself some time and just write "u r stupid n ignrant".

Maybe you could could also admit that you don't have any valid arguments, but I doubt it.

 

Hey...if the cap fits...

The arguments were made. You preferred not to deal with them and to dismiss them out of hand. In the light of the fact that you made this "your points are not worth discussing" dismissal of my arguments, your above post is stunningly dishonest, as anyone reading this thread can see.

It didn't need to be like that. You could have supported your arguments or specifically addressed mine. I suppose when you label something as Marxist, and you have not really ever read anything Marx wrote, this would be a problem. I suppose then that abuse, condescension and smear are the obvious ripostes.

This is typical of those who bandy about the accusation of "Marxist" as a smear. When asked to show which bit of Marx you based this on, you refused (I imagine you have read none as you consistently fail to define Marxism in any way that relates to anything argued by Marx - it's clearly just a term of abuse you use). When I cited Marxist arguments which contradicted your interpretation, you windily dismissed them.

Such a wilful refusal to engage in any discussion about the substance of your remarks invites speculation as to the motivationm of those - like you - who post such "because I say so" smears. My view is that in general this is either because such people are incapable of rallying a logical argument in support of their abuse, or it is because they are engaged merely in flamebaiting and trollery - the sort of thing that gets a rabble roused. This is now what the Right is reduced to.

 

I did provide a quote from Marx and extracted a working definition of the essence Marxism. You failed to challenge this with anything from Marx and just dismissed my point, saying "you don't know Marx you are ignrant n stupid". Prove that.

 

I'm asking for the second time because I couldn't find it. Which quote?

As I didn't see this quote and I asked you specifically to show it to me, I did not just dismiss this point. I asked for you to restate it or show it to me. Please don't post lies. I am quite prepared to discuss any argument you make. You, on the other hand, have refused to engage with any of my arguments; arguments which point out how your definition of Marxism is wholly at odds with what the real Karl Marx actually argued in reality.

The Labour Party is opposed to the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It has explicitly rejected this. This, however is the essence of Marxism: the transfer of the means of production, distribution and exchange out of the ownership and control of those who own capital, and into the ownership and control of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The Labour Party supports capitalism, something that no Marxist does except as a preferred system to feudalism (why Marxists are supporters of the American Revolution for example).

The problem is that to have this discussion you have to have read Marx. And I don't mean one soundbyte or quote, I mean at least a whole argument. I know this is inconvenient for a whole group of people for whom study, analysis and intellectual rigour are only signs of liberal elitism. Inconvenient or not it is why using the term "Marxist" as a term of abuse, as opposed to the basis of real political analysis, is the act of a whole section of the Right for whom ignorance and stupidity are badges of honour to be worn in some infantile culture war they have invented for themsleves to fight in.

 

They support nationalization combined with "equality". That's Marxist.

Obviously they will not come right out and say "we plan for the government to control everything and everyone to get the same stuff", but they push in that direction more than other parties.

 

Erm what? Lost for an argument so you have to indulge in personal attack?

 

You're making this up now. They do not support nationalization. Do you know anything about the Labour Party.

The second paragraph is just paranoid delusion - classic John Birchian drivel. Of course lying about what your opponents believe is a totalitarian act. Those of us that love liberty need to guard against such evil.

 

What absolute garbage.

 

Polar Bear, Jesus called, he wants you to slit your wrists

 

Reported for gross incivility.

 

Making a dreary and tedious dismissal like this when your argument is destroyed is a bit sad. Why come to a site if your cruble when your flimsy arguments receive the slightest challenge. Is this fun for you?

The Labour Party does not support nationalization any more than George Bush did. Your only response is "that's garbage" but your unsubstantiated drivel is still unsubstantiated. You can't just stick your tongue out and run away. Show me where the Labour Party calls for nationalization (it's painful playing your game where the argument has to be drawn out in this painstaking way but I continue to assume you are not merely trolling, so I persist in trying to get you to make some sort of argument in support of your grand sweepings tatements).

I ask if you know anything about the Labour Party because the Labour Party used to include something in its constitution called Clause IV, part 4, which called for nationalization. Tony Blair and the whole clique of people who run the Labour Party now, purged the Labour Party constitution of this "aim". Many socialists then left the Labour Party. This was merely a completion of a process of the Labour Party being taken over by anti-Marxist liberals and social democrats. The Labour Party now stands for capitalism unequivocably.

Try making an argument, outlining a position. Just making sweeping assertions based on what looks like very little knowledge is tedious and boring. Research helps. Try google.

 

My own view is that they have ostensibly rejected nationalization to secure more votes.

But why nitpick on economic details when there is absolutely no question that the British Labour Party are the scum of the Earth.

New Labour and mass immigration
Iraq: A War For Israel

 

marxist socialsim is the opposite of national socialism, though both redistribute wealth, it makes the white man bare the burden of all the other inferior races.

national socialism, while redistributing wealth, allows the white man to bare the burdens for his own people.

 

Have I ever told you how much I admire your ability to post conflicting ideas so well?

 

Just because one aspect is opposed doesn't make the ideologies "opposite".

 

Hostility to immigrants, castigating all your opponents as "Marxist" and "the scum of the Earth", hostility to corporates, peddlers of conspiracy theories- all these are hallmarks of national socialism. These are the emerging political preferences on the US right today.

 

No dipsy, these are the same policies that every other country enjoys.
White people want to maintain their territorial integrity like every other country = "You're a Nazi!"
This is your one fallacious argument.

 

There is a big difference between those who support controlled immigration and the sort of racism that riddles your posts. Identifying yourself as "white" rather than a nationality is the kind of race politics practiced by Nazis. Conservatives talk about American or British, these being descriptions that mainstream conservatives recognize as being multiracial. They seek to protect their national characteristics through immigration control. You talk about race, which sets your posts apart and makes them comparable ti neo-Nazi ideology.

There is a far greater correlation between your posts and national socialism, based on similarities around racial (not the same as immigration) politics, than between the Labour Party and Marxism, which hangs on a drivelly pile of waffle about "wanting equality". You even have your little conspiracy theory about the Labour Party pretending to be something it isnt. All you need to do is to point out that the Labour leader is Jewish and the Nazi analogy would be even more apposite.

You should remember that equality is at the heart of the US constitution and that equality of outcome, though not the same as equality of opportunity (the great American value and philosophy of English Whigs), is very much constricted by it. Virtually no-one believes in equality of outcome. If you had read any leftist thinkers, rather than just the babble on rightwing websites about them, you would know that.

 

Yeah. "You're a Nazi" That's what you drive at. That's all you can drive at. Because it's not possible to logically justify one way massive immigration to white countries and only white countries.

 

Just because I don't want to wade through 20 pages of what is sure to be absolutely scintillating conversation, I'll just repost something from another stunning thread of Polar Bear's from a long time ago.

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-...xplains-white-mans-disease-2.html#post4886191

Here's a startling difference for you to consider: disease. In Europe, the most prevalent forms of disease could be eradicated through a few relatively simple measures: antibiotics, sewage systems, and sanitary food preparations.

Africa, however, has diseases caused by parasites that are transmitted through disease vectors. Malaria moves from person to person via mosquitoes, which are quite difficult to out and out eradicate, while the plasmodium parasites require expensive and powerful drugs to kill (also, because they're eukaryotes like us, that means drugs that can kill them also have a much greater likelihood of hurting us, whereas drugs effective against bacteria are much less likely to do so, due to differences in metabolism). Further, viruses and bacteria can be vaccinated against, whereas that is impossible with eukaryotic parasites.

We know this is a problem. WHO and UNICEF have concluded that sub-Saharan Africa has a GDP 32% lower than it would be if malaria was eradicated in 1960 (not that that was necessarily even possible)(source), while other parasites also wreak havoc on the population, causing widespread economic damage by either outright killing people or removing them from the workforce (hard to build something when you're bedridden by an organism eating your liver!).

Additionally, livestock in Africa have to deal with numerous parasites which are often deadly to the livestock, such as various botfly maggots, worms, and unicellular organisms. Whereas European livestock, much like European humans, had to contend mainly with bacterial and viral diseases which are much easier to contend with, parasites in livestock are much more difficult to eradicate. The loss of livestock is a financial burden and a healthcare burden (loss of nutrition, as most African livestock consists of ruminants, which convert plants that are inedible for humans into edible calories via milk and meat and manure for fertilizing vegetables and staple cereal crops).

To say nothing of the prevalence of HIV in Africa (which makes sense; it's where the disease originated and there's a whole lot of misinformation in the continent that helps spread the disease), which also drains the economy either through forcing the import of expensive drugs or by removing someone from being efficient in the work force.

And these diseases are much, much, much worse than war. The top four wars in the 20th century killed less than 100 million people combined; the top four diseases (of which malaria is one) of the 20th century killed 400-750 million people. The diseases in Africa represent a constant drain on the workforce and the development of the nations there, which Europe and North America were not subject to, whereas Africa has been dealing with these scourges (as have Central and South America, which also exhibit some of the same problems as Africa).

Additionally, consider the debt burdens of many of the nations in sub-Saharan Africa, which are often some of the worst in the world. Hard to invest in technology booms when excess money has to go to interest payments on debt.

So, between those two millstones, Africa's development is on a much more difficult road than Europe and North America, and I'm not even mentioning long-term effects of colonialism (such as the necessity of those loans to those African nations).

--------------

I've several other posts in that thread explaining why, for instance, Africa as a whole is less developed than say, Japan or Europe.

Similar issues plague many tropical nations, and all of them bear the brunt of centuries of European colonialism, which itself arose due to numerous reasons, none of which were due to inherent European superiority but, rather, a number of innovations which originated in Europe due to unusual circumstances (mixture of the effects of re-occurring epidemics of the black plague, the Reformation, , and willingness to readapt the government to support colonial policy vis-a-vis explicitly support of a professional military for colonial adventures, which many other rich nations outside of Europe were unwilling to do for reasons of the maintenance of their own cultures for reasons of maintaining their own grip on power, usually by making a deal with the devil, wherein they would try to be vassals to European powers, essentially).

 

I'm a white immigrant to China. There are thousands of us. Your filthy racism is drivel.

You make a drivelly point that the UK Labour Party is "Marxist", something that is characteristic of the sort of propaganda that neo Nazis spout, and you object when your racial politics is compared to the racial politics of Hitler. You complain about "incivility" which isn't even a word, and yet you condemn the Party which millions of Britons (the country in which you live) vote for as "the scum of the Earth" (what erudite and insightful wit we get from you eh?). It's prett clear where the analogy is closest and as much as you whimper that I called you anything, it is clear that I addressed the Nazi components if your posts, differentiating them from mainstream conservative views on immigration. Again, most conservatives favor controlled immigration to protect national - not racial - characteristics. They are relatively happy if numbers are controlled and different races are assimilated. It was only really Nazis in modern times who wanted racial purity, oh and other nationalist-socialists such as those in Serbia. I know people don't like this analysis as they would like us to forget the mass killings that this filth leads to. I don't think we need any diversions if we are looking for the scum of the Earth though - we can find them in the myriad of far right groups that now abound in Europe and America.

 

This is why...

So U.S. doctrine is to use harsh measures if necessary to ensure US control over 50% of the resources, and it's exploitation of the world, recognizing that objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization are incompatible with maintaining the disparity.