/abdl/ - Adult Baby - Diaper Lover★

Im center right and so I look to history and try to learn from what worked for people in the past. In the most successful, prosperous societies throughout history women were cherished and protected in a similar way to children.

It helps that most women I have met are still children emotionally. So putting them in diapers doesnt really seem in conflict with modern society.

My fetish has nothing to do with my political leaning, and most diaper fetishists are leftist because most diaper fetishists are pathetic cuckold feminists white-knight faggots.

I would rather say that most of abdl community are anarchists. I just like diapers on adults.

center-right, I try to be reasonable and not conspiracy based but from time to time I realize there was a lot of things in the background of the media I was consuming when I was young and 90% of the media is controlled by lobbies usually run by jewish people, not a lot of math there.

TL;DR

hypocrite

>>42007

If the kink is not related to your political leanings, is it related to the intensity with which you care about political/social issues?

I used to think that I was right-wing in spite of being ABDL rather than because of it -- today I think that's true as far as left/right is concerned but I dunno about intensity

>>42014

I think it makes it difficult to be openly right-wing among diaper fetishists, that much is clear based on any interaction with the Fetlife crowd, but I hate those people anyway and I have no relationship with the "ABDL community" so I couldn't fucking care less about that stupid shit

I'd say I'm a right winged. While I don't blame society for the fetish, i do blame it in cartoons. There's always that one episode, even in today with diapers, the main character in diapers, ect.

(((R.L. Stein)))

It has nothing to do with politics. If you feel guilt for your urges, you can rationalize it in anyway you want, but it has nothing to do with your political leanings.

I don't agree with the idea that most AB/DLs are leftists to begin with. If anything, I feel like they are more likely to be libertarian style right leaning sorts.

Of course, I could see how you could get the opposite impression by looking at places like Fetlife. However, if you go back just a little ways in time(I'm talking like 10 years even), you would have run into a bunch of rednecks in most diaper chats on the internet.

The thing is places like Fetlife get polluted with a bunch of newthink 'safe, sane, and consensual' type talk. Not to say those three things are bad in and of themselves, just the sort of people who use that phrase tend to be…well PC nutjobs.

I don't really correlate my fetish to my political views.

Most abdl's are leftists because humans are creatures of comfort, being leftist is easy in abdl communities, so people are leftist.

>>42022

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

ITT: Degenerates calling other degenerates degenerates

>>42030

woops forgot to remove my shitposting trip

>>42029

I agree with this generally, but how does it apply to meta-modernity? Aren't 4chan, 8chan, ABDL Twitter, etc. public and available to youngins? Would people be better off if they hadn't been able to google "why do l want to breast feed" or "I want to wear diapers" as young as 12 or 13 years old?

>>42032

I think it's a parents responsibility to monitor kids internet use. They shouldn't be online unattended until at least after puberty, or their parents should find a way to record their kids browsing/install childblock. If they play an M rated fantasy game or watch South Park that's venial and won't do much if any damage; but if they start spending time on deviantart or /d/ that's a problem

>>42049

I usually go with younger rather than older mommy fantasies but in this case I'm gonna have to go with the iron lady

>>42049

Thatcher, because hearing old British women say nappy always gives me a stiffy

>YWN get a nappy change by Angela Merkel

Why live?

>>42062

>pitiful state of leftist politics

>>>/leftypol/

Just so you can realize the error of your statement.

>>42003 (OP)

Cute Diaper.

I think you must find peace within yourself.

What I find really really funny is how few people actually acknowledge that American politics is simply "Red Elephants v.s. Blue Donkeys" and most people have been tricked into the same sort of home team fanatic nonsense that "intellectuals" mock sports fans for. But yeah, keep focusing on race and sexual orientation and the war on Christmas, I'm sure that none of that is a distraction.

I’m not sure how there can be much correlation between something an individual is unable to fully decide for themselves (a niche fetish such as diapers), and a multilayered discussion that offers many leanings and sides to personally choose from (political identity). The only real possible relation being how their views affect how they see themselves in relation with their kinks, as well as how they go about their interests. I.E. indulging vs. withholding. Which OP touches on, I know. But in a way, that seems less like actual discussion and more, asking how it feels to fit this assumed stereotype that we apply to these ideas. (Not that these stereotypes are unearned. But I just find it limiting to “paint” such discussion points when asking someone how x affects y, on a personal level)

I’d wager, if the majority of diaper indulgers are leftists, it would have to do with the more “open” and “accepting” aspects of being a liberal. Nothing about rooting for the weaker team. All it boils down to is, if these sorts of things don’t bother you, then of course you’ll be more likely to fit with the side that has less qualms over silly things like diaper fetishism. (Which isn’t to suggest that left leaners aren’t judgmental or disapproving, it’s just a matter of what type of issues each side is quick to jump on. With kink shaming and belittling such “degeneracies” seeming to be more right oriented.)

If a right winger is ashamed of their kink because of it in itself. Then that to me, just seems like the result of self-indoctrination, and the extremist idea of labeling a “whole” under one title, rather than examining your own personal life and how you go about such things as an individual. Getting upset at society or the Jews because you so happen to have a weird kink, just feels silly. Any evidence that these factors are the reason you have weird sexual desires, from what I've seen, appears to be speculation at best. And if you want to argue that diaper jokes are put into cartoons to help create adults for the sake of feeding the diaper market (I guess?), just make sure you bring a source to support that claim.

And to finish off, if someone is unable to look past a personal aspect of the individual, and as a result fails to see the point that is being made in the context of the conversation. That is a failure on the other person, not the diaper lover. (Though I suppose it could be argued that the diaper lover is at fault for allowing such things to become publicly known)

>>42066

No, /leftypol/ is pretty awful too. Half the board is made up of tankies, neo-luddites, feminists, antifa LARPers, and a variety of other idiots. The moderation manages to be simultaneously overzealous and totally insufficient, so half the threads are just arguments about race and gender. The worst part is that /leftypol/ is the very best (or rather, least worst) place for leftist discussion on the internet.

There are undoubtedly quite a few decent people on /leftypol/, but they aren't really representative of the left as it exists today, especially not in the real world.

>>42075

I think having a very taboo fetish/sexuality can definitely influence a person's political views. If nothing else it forces you to question the status quo and possibly have a bit more sympathy for others in a similar situation.

I'd guess it's a big part of why I'm so socially libertarian.

>>42076

Nice to know I'm not the only libertarian leftist ABDL on here. Feel like most of the leftists who are here tend to be more of the authoritarian kind.

And yeah the state /leftypol/ is in (has always been in) is sad. Hopefully it improves over time, but I don't have high hopes.

LOL at the fact that people are genuinely replying to this.

Is this conversation even real?

>>42081

Never underestimate the autism of pathetic manchildren still believing in the politics fairytale.

I just emailed this thread to chapo trap house & TRS :^)

I am a SJW anarcho-communist and I feel constant shame and guilt that my desire to pirate fetish pornography constantly triumphs over my ideology by me coming to this place full of trash people.

I am surprised at the amount of diaper pic spam I see on half/pol/ from time to time. I'm a daddy type, so it would fit right in with the idea of women being just adult children, and in some cases, quite literally. I like to wear diapers from time to time, so that in itself is an ovenable offense.

What's the diaper in the op pic?

>>42121

Very old (90s?) Pampers Baby Dry.

>>42031

lel that was a good thread

fun shitposting with ya

>>42097

>Browsing /abdl/

>Forward the screen caps to TRS.

I sure hope you were smart enough to use a burner account so you don't also look like a degenerate.

>>42075

Holy shit. The amount of projection in that post.

>>42049

Bathory because

>I'm not gay

>she's pretty

>the whole vampire thing is kinda hot in a fucked up way

>>42138

>I sure hope you were smart enough to use a burner account so you don't also look like a degenerate.

And a VPN because TRS will dox their own users

>>42003 (OP)

>Are right-wing ABDL inherent hypocrites?

No.

>If you are right-wing, do you blame society for your fetish?

I only blame society for ostracizing those who are outed against their will.

>Do you consider yourself degenerate?

No, because I don't make my fetish public.

>Are the Jews directly responsible for the popularity of ABDL somehow?

The liberal elites, who happen to be predominantly Jewish, are indeed trying to infantilize the current generation, but they're certainly not pushing diapers onto people. I would notice if they were.

>>42003 (OP)

What? politics and fetishes have nothing to do with each other, I wear diapers and I am a left of center libertarian, we all wear diapers here big fucking deal.

>>42003 (OP)

I don't think most ABDLs are necessarily leftist, just that most online fetish communities lean heavily left. There's also the element that social conservative might consider it so degenerate that they try to repress it, so you don't see them. Personally I'm a pretty far-right libertarian, and I think that if you're doing something sexual then as long as you aren't flaunting it in public it's totally fine (oh, and as long as no one else is being hurt, so no rape or child molestation even in private). I think some /pol/ type ABDLs who believe that degenerates should be lynched are probably being hypocritical, but as long as you aren't super puritanical about sexual stuff, it's not hypocritical at all.

I don't have any real interest in diapers, but I have one in keeping communities alive. The quickest way of killing a community is to invite politics into it. People with inflated egos will vomit their gospel all over that community until everyone worth keeping has left.

I'm a Hoppe libertarian, race realist and pretty (((awake))) and I'm a perverted DL to the point I wear diapers 24/7. No conflict.

I am fully aware that you can't build a society based on guys fucking each other in the ass despite appreciating the act.

I utterly hate what the Pride movement has become and everything else consisting of flaunting your sexuality, and avoid every grouping advertising "queer intersectional structural critic yadda yadda" like the plague.

Hell, I am a huge fan of Daily Stormer despite the site regularly calling for people like me to be thrown off roof tops.

PS. That looks an awful lot like the very first diapers I bought in the late 90s - largest size Pampers Baby Dry available (7?). Shame I haven't kept any of them.

>>42029

I don't see how someone being gay makes them a bad parent by default. There are plenty of bad parents already and imo 2 parents who are guys/gals are better than no parents for one thing.

And what about people who come out after they've had kids? Should their kids just be taken away from them really just cause they later found out they were gay?

One problem I feel is that a lot of gay people (at least ones I've met) might be crazy. And crazy parents fuck up kids even if they are straight as well man. But I don't see an issue with two "sane" gay people raising a kid.

>>42175

complaining about how others argue about race and gender (which is the reason /leftypol/ exists in the first place) is still arguing about race and gender

>>42003 (OP)

I'm a babyfur communist (sharing is caring :33)

goals of babyfur communism are fully immersive virtual reality, immortality/anti-aging cure, and a fully automated society run by robots.

I am 100% serious

>>42075

The fuck is wrong with you?

Don't assume shit, the one thing you find out quick is that once you remove the "ddlg" "babyfur" and "humiliation" crowd you end up with a large amount of diaperfags being people with oddly respectable and well paying jobs.

Because they earn a living and don't leech one off others you find that a large majority are actually right-wing.

Kinda ironic when you remember the kind of fetish this is.

>>42189

>a large majority are right-wing

imagine unironically believing this. 80% of gay men vote left m8, there's no way a majority of ABDL are right wing.

>>42200

>gay people make up 1.5% of the worlds population

>1.5% = majority

Escape your bubble friendo

>>42210

I think you misunderstood his post. I took it to mean that sexual minorities in general tend to be left leaning. That said, given how much "the left" (read: liberals) dislike "creepy guys", "manbabies", and generally any man outside of the narrow confines of the LGBTQ acronym, I'm not sure it's true.

>>42175

Did you somehow miss the daily "how will we deal with niggers under communism" thread, or the regular "porn is evil and should be banned because it hurts women" thread?

Seriously, that sort of shit is on the front page most days. When the BO eventually gets around to bump-locking the thread (they're never deleted), two more pop up and the cycle continues.

>>42189

You're assuming that "respectable and well-paying jobs" correlates with far-right views. They're more likely to be centrists or Hillary supporters.

Anyway, this is all a very pointless argument.

>>42210

untreatable brain damage or too much baby hypnosis and forgot how to read?

>>42211

>>42211

this post verbalizes something very close to how I feel. I'm sorry it has to be this way anon

>>42212

don't fool yourself… furries and cuckolds are both lefty, why would babykin be any different?

>>42214

People with well paying jobs dont like to have it taken away and given to niggers.

Broke dumbasses enjoy having people with jobs pay for them.

>>42216

Attack the argument not the person friendo.

Maybe if your representatives tried that they wouldn't have lost the election, the senate, and the house

>>42076

I understand what you’re getting at here. In my head, the point I was trying to make was how things that seemingly happen at random, (fetishes) seemed disconnected from personal philosophies that we can willingly choose (politics) Which admittedly isn’t much of a point to make and kind of sort of goes without saying. This is what happens when I make posts while half asleep at 4 in the morning, but I won’t make excuses for my stupid ramblings.

If anything else, I think there is something to be said about fetishes, and how much influence they have in our lives. And the sort of political leaning that may hint at for a person.

>>42140

I was hoping to word my sentences in a way that made it obvious that I was speaking from my own, (admittedly narrow) perspective.

>I'd Wager

>I think

As to allude my own ignorance and maybe help spark those who were more well informed to speak up. But going back, I can see how some of my sentences would feel very “matter of fact,” in tone. So, you’re not wrong in your criticism. However, saying shit and leaving it at that is hardly a conversation feeder. And though I realize the futility of such desires, I truly do wish that say nothing posters like these were wiped clean of the earth.

>>42189

No shit removing the degenerate majority will leave you with a decent minority. That can be applied to just about anything.

>Assuming the group of people who earn a living and leech off of others automatically makes the majority of them right wing

So to argue against my assumption, you provide an assumption of your own? Now that’s meta. I’m not even saying you’re automatically incorrect, but if there’s anything I’ve learned, shooting off shit with nothing to back it up beyond your own mouth isn’t all that convincing.

>>42225

furfags, ddlg, and the faggots into humiliation aren't actually diaperfags.

They are people looking for sexual release and this happens to be a good tool.

furfags= an austistic special snowflake attraction to animals that they need more special to solve their needs

ddlg= faggots with daddy complexes and dom men

humilliation= literally bdsm that ran out of candle wax so why not diapers instead

>>42225

>Assuming the majority of people who make a living and don't leech off of others are automatically, marginally right leaning

that might be more coherent for what I was trying to say.

>>42226

so you're argument is assuming people who have a fetish don't actually have said fetish?

>>42224

I'm right wing, you just misunderstood my post. i was not insinuating 51% of Americans are gay as that would be totally unrelated to the thread you goof

>>42226

In my experience many babyfurs are more into the ABDL side than furry for sure. In addition many LGs are very much into wearing and using diapers to the point that it's a focal point of their self-gratification.

In fact, I think many "little girls" are just trying to rebrand away from the hideously autistic, unsexy and blunt label of "Adult Baby Diaper Lover". Seriously, "Adult Baby" is awful and there's a reason the phrase is rarely used outside of meta discussions. It's not hot at all and is actively repulsive. Women have rebranded in such a way that marginalizes hairy men in diapers and puts the focus on themselves.

But I digress. If you're the samefig I think you are you clearly are engaging in motivated reasoning, posting that oh obviously a plastic wearable toilet is so much better than buttfucking and fursuits lol

>>42223

You can't simultaneously believe that the entire upper stratum of society is conspiring with the Jews to increase taxes and welfare spending, and also believe that rich people are all right-wingers. They are completely contradictory beliefs.

If you actually want to find out people's political beliefs there's plenty of polling data available. You shouldn't trust anything a random anon says.

>>42244

The rich are not right wingers they are leftists.

The middle class are right wingers.

>>42226

You sound like you know a thing or two about autistic faggot snowflakes.

>>42250

Wew.

>>42141

>I'm not gay

My post was a joke, I picked nothing but total assholes.

>>42250

I can just simply tell you that I am on my own side.

>>42226

When someone is so pathetic and sad they're a diaper fetish hipster

>these aren't troo ABDLs, they're just diaper posers

>>42250

needless to say, this poll will likely skew more right wing than the general population because it's 8 chan

>>42811

No

https://0nedirtyboy.tumblr.com/post/156841985572/your-staying-locked-up-until-your-diapers-wet

I don't think Lauren is small enough to fit into Pampers.

>>42815

How do you know that isn't her?

>>42817

How do you know it is?

>>42250

>63% right

>37% left

Given that this site is 80% /pol/ and has a reputation as a neo-nazi clubhouse, I'm actually surprised at how many leftists there are.

>>42825

I think it's because the ABDL community in general has a lot of people desperate for a no-bullshit place to talk about the fetish. And chans are the best place for that.

>>42822

http://archive.is/U4fu

>>42857

Well you sure showed me

Who else here is a TRS listener? Mike is a kike but FtN is some good fashy goy shit

>>42003 (OP)

I'm a "leftist" in a loose sense of the word. Really I'm just a utilitarian who wants to maximize net happiness in the universe and the leftist economic policies I support are a means to that end. I don't support any of the SJW/feminist/antifa insanity and I don't think the USSR (or any other past communist societies) are good models. For all non-economic (and even some economic) matters I'm a libertarian, although I also believe in the necessity of a benevolent (AI?) dictator to preserve liberty which would probably upset most libertarians.

The only thing having a weird fetish/sexuality has done has made me spend a bit more time thinking about philosophy and the ways in which our society is currently flawed.

>>42003 (OP)

I don't like that I'll never have enough money to really indulge in 24/7 fun, and even if I did, I still have to do god damn yard work, house cleaning, jury duty, and other public obligations. Like the only way it'll happen is if I'm too old to help it, and society spits me out after it's done using all my useful years, if I even make it that far.

>>48858

>Really I'm just a utilitarian who wants to maximize net happiness

So you want your bike to be stolen by someone who is more happy to have it than you are sad to lose it.

>>42118

>>42811

Lauren and Invanka regulars on this forum…. Confirmed.

>>48858

Bike cuck guy confirmed for /abdl/

Confession: I listen to the daily shoah and think mike is not a jew even though he married one

i'm unable to believe this thread exists.

this fetish is for people who ritually shit themselves because of child abuse. what the fuck why are you worried about politics?

I've never considered a link between fetish and political leaning, not even slightly.

As to whether the Jews are to blame, overwhelmingly people seemed to have memories of things that happened in cartoons they watched as a child where someone got diapered and it's definitely weird though not necessarily a Jewish plot. On the other hand there can be no doubt Disney is deliberately promoting furries with Zootopia, many furries seemed to have been awakened by the old Disney Robin Hood movie. But aside from Boss Baby I can't think of anything remotely comparable for abdls

As for being taken seriously in diapers, you can't be, that's the point. I had a boyfriend who was really socialist and lefty, but knew I supported Trump etc, I was really stubborn in arguments so eventually he started silencing me with a pacifier or telling me when he'd heard enough of my big girl opinions, would knock me into little space right away, I loved being submissive to him and treated like a dumb diaper baby who's opinions don't matter

>>48860

If you want you can go and read what real philosophers have to say about that idea. Commonly known as a utility monster, it's relatively old and widely discussed.

The problem with almost all arguments against utilitarianism is that they take the form of describing a shitty, horrible world and then trying to come up with some clever trick by which to claim that that world somehow has more utility than our current world.

By definition, if the world you are describing is worse than our current world, utilitarianism would reject it. We can argue all day about the exact metrics used to determine utility, but that isn't an argument against utilitarianism.

>>48900

The biggest flaw in utilitarianism is demonstrated by Bike Cuck though. You may be acting in a the interests of the population at large but there will always be selfish people who take advantage of you, and without arguing from your own self interest it is difficult to suggest why they should not be able to.

>>48879

…if you ever need a more /pol/ oriented dominate boyfriend. Don't hit me up. Meeting people from 8chan is always weird.

>>48922

K

>>48879

Whoa, a girl on 8ch. I'll try to contain myself

What's your number?

>>48930

1488, call me any time

>>48931

And here I was half expecting you to throw a Hail Mary. My imagination is pretty wild nowadays

>>48952

stoneylittlefox?

I don't bring my political views into my fetish and it has nothing to do with which side I lean.

I'm a leftist but not hard left think it's better to say I'm more of a centralist.

>>48954

correct.

>>48952

I don't know a ton about tumblr, but who even sends a message asking someone to follow them? Is this considered a normal thing to do?

>>48952

I have a tsundere relationship with jewish girls

>>48916

Fine, if you really can't think of any way in which random niggers stealing people's bikes might not be utilitarian, I'll explain:

1. It's infinitely more efficient to just produce more bikes.

2. The drop in utility from everyone having their shit taken without warning is far greater than any conceivable benefit to the people who can take things without warning. Societies are a lot more efficient when the availability of tools and resources is predictable than when anything could go missing at any moment.

3. Utility monsters do not exist outside of life-and-death emergencies, and not many people are going to want to take your bike to get to A&E.

>>48970

Let me put this another way then. If you have 100 people and 1 of them is exceedingly wealthy, is it not the benefit of the majority to steal from that 1 person and distribute his wealth amongst themselves?

It benefits more people for one man to have his property stolen. There is no utilitarian argument for not stealing his stuff because he is just 1 man and property rights are his own self interest.

Congrats you just made the utilitarian argument for communism.

>>48971

>Congrats you just made the utilitarian argument for communism.

Communism is more utilitarian than capitalism. I told you I supported leftist economic policies at the beginning.

However nobody would be taking anything as trivial as a bike. Nobody would be stealing your toothbrush just because some homeless guy needs it more. What would be seized and re-purposed towards maximizing utility would be things like large factories, useful areas of land, intellectual "property", etc. Under capitalism those things are used purely as investments by the people who own them - they serve to concentrate wealth among a small number of individuals at the expense of humanity as a whole. It would be far more efficient to use all of those things to produce the goods and provide the services which are most needed rather than those which are most profitable.

>>48974

And just like that, your opinions are discarded.

The problems with utilitarianism are thus:

-- The goal is arbitrarily constructed (fetuses, vegatables, animals, the lowest agency africans/abos/rednecks?)

-- Utility is intangible and can only truly be ranked relative to one's own preferences. Interpersonal comparisons arent actually taking place and are proxied by social signaling or the whims of central planners

-- Utilitarians almost never take time into effect. Utilitarianism is usually attempted via democracy, and the time preference of voters is usually very high. This is actually an extreme contradiction because utility today (childcare, food, welfare, child support, healthcare for the weak/poor) is directly in opposition to utility tomorrow (having an intelligent, productive, peaceful populace, and not a mob of rabbit-breeding blacks/arabs/white trash). This is basically inarguable unless you are a postmodernist lunatic who believes literally everyone on the planet has the same innate potential, and the dysgenic result is apparent across the world today.

>>48878

Read Industrial Society and It's Consequences. The part on why gays/trannies tend to express leftist tendencies basically explains why so many in ABDL are obsessed with politics

So I come from a relatively small town in buttfuck no where. Municipal electio s are coming up and there's been a lot of people urging me to run. To preface this, I don't think I would win anyways but with a lot of incumbents on the way out it's not entirely unrealistic.

However the real reason I don't want to even try is because of this fetish. If i somehow pulled a miracle, I'm constantly at risk for having my kink putted and never being taken seriously again. Running for public office leaves nothing off limits, and being someone who's willing to piss people off to get things done leaves a huge target.

i'm alt right. I see this as evidence of society's decadence and decay and an inherent baseness to human character, which should be disencouraged and risen above.

>>42049

Stalin because he deserves to smell it.

>>48986

I would say that you should run without fear. Good luck, man. I swear I'm not a spy my dude, but where you running?

>>48986

>trusted the wrong girl when young and insecure and hurting

>she is now obese marxist

>can never run for public office

>>48986

Small town election? Unless you have someone irl who knows about this and has a bone to pick with you you're probably fine.

But if you ever go up higher to like state or Congressional level, that's when you're in danger of having your internet history really data mined.

Also, assuming you get diapers and stuff shipped to your house, you'd probably have to be super careful about that, or just abstain entirely.

>>48994

Yet you're here

>>49025

I mean, the Torah has equally deplorable stuff in it, as well as being the originator of circumcision, ritual baby-dick-sucking, and actual religious + racial supremacy. And the Rockefellers and Rothschilds aren't conspiracy theories, they're actual conspiracies which are heavily documented from reputable, unbiased parties, and while formally their groups are disbanded, their descendents are still in high positions in politics and media.

I don't believe in illuminati garbage, but seriously, a religion which states that anyone that isn't an ethnic Jew should be treated as a slave, that you can only charge interest or taxes on non-Jews, and that Jewish law should encompass the entire world, is pretty awful. I'd argue that globalist Jews are twice as important to stop as extremist Muslims.

>>48977

>The goal is arbitrarily constructed

That's true of all goals.

>Utility is intangible and can only truly be ranked relative to one's own preferences.

Agreed. Our understanding of neurobiology is nowhere near advanced enough to really quantify things like happiness. The best we can do is make an educated guess with large error bars.

>Utilitarians almost never take time into effect. This is actually an extreme contradiction because utility today (childcare, food, welfare, child support, healthcare for the weak/poor) is directly in opposition to utility tomorrow (having an intelligent, productive, peaceful populace, and not a mob of rabbit-breeding blacks/arabs/white trash).

Ironically you're thinking too short term here.

Human genetic modification will become widespread within 200 years. No matter how many of your masturbatory eugenics fantasies are implemented, they will not be able to significantly improve human genetics over that timescale. The most you can do is make the average person fitter by killing everyone who is below average, but that doesn't actually improve our species in the long term. As soon as genetic modification becomes widespread we'll be able to give all of the next generation genomes with the same fitness as the top 0.01% of humans. Since your eugenics plan would not improve that 0.01% in any way, the long-term result is identical.

I'm not even going to make any kind of ethical argument because I understand how you feel. I regularly look at the ignorant, incompetent, self-destructive masses and wish they would all go and politely die. The fact is that it simply wouldn't help in the long run.

>>49061

Plus, if you really insisted on going down the eugenics route, the most ethical approach would be to provide free food/medicine/etc to the poor, but secretly add chemicals to sterilize anyone who ate the food.

>>49061

>>49061

>Human genetic modification will become widespread within 200 years.

Maybe. If I'm wrong some undesirables have a lower quality of life for a century or 2. If youre wrong it could result in the total destruction of civilization.

>No matter how many of your masturbatory eugenics fantasies are implemented, they will not be able to significantly improve human genetics over that timescale. The most you can do is make the average person fitter by killing everyone who is below average, but that doesn't actually improve our species in the long term.

Weeding out people who literally cant feed themselves and blame others for this fact is well worth the price of admission.

could you explain what the book says about that, about us?

>>48978

>>49007

wtf dude… ARE YOU MYSELF?

what are the odds…

>>49025

I don't care how qt is that picture, nice try schlomo.

I sometimes wonder what it would be like to have the mind of a /pol/ster. Seems like a completely alien concept to imagine. What does it feel like to see the world as they do? Kinda weird.

>>49077

/pol/ack*

And if you want to get a taste of /pol/, check out Murdoch Murdoch (shameless plug of my favorite half-meme half-serious show on the internet). Maybe watch a little Greatest Story Never Told while you're at it. Though Zionist historical revisionism isn't quite as important to me as working forward.

>>49114

>JQt's

I exhaled slightly faster and louder than normal in amusement.

>>49121

This.

https://stoneylittlefox.tumblr.com/post/173238245299/thatbitchregina-stoneylittlefox-just-incase

AB = Left

DL = Right

Hey, come here… come here, don't be afraid…

It's a fucking fetish! Stop over analyzing

>>56157

What are lolspergs? NrX?

>>56157

pretty much, yeah

>>48952

I'm Jewish and I think it's perfectly reasonable to stand up for a group of people that was prevented from exercising its first amendment rights.

>>48952

>Kosher folder

I requested this in the request thread, btw.

>>42066

At least link him to /leftpol/

Which is a non idpol version of /leftypol/ that is taking all their members.

>>42822

>How do you know it is?

People have matched up the background to photos she has tweeted.

It may not be her but its certainly someone that has been photographed in her room where she has taken photos previously.

>>49027

>the Torah has equally deplorable stuff in it, as well as being the originator of circumcision,

Actually the Ancient Egyptians invented circumcision. In fact most extreme body modification comes from them.

>>48878

I wasn't abused as a child. Not everyone who is an AB or DL was abused. I had a pretty good childhood with caring parents. That mild autism though…

>>48958

>I don't know a ton about tumblr, but who even sends a message asking someone to follow them? Is this considered a normal thing to do?

No

Mostly it just makes me want to be a libertarian.

>>56157

Not really.

I like wearing diapers and fantasize about being treated like a baby, and I like seeing girls in diapers and being "Daddy" too. I'm fairly libertarian and voted for Trump in the last election.

I think the real difference is between the people who treat this as a "lifestyle" rather than just a sexual fetish. Especially the people who are adamant that the whole thing is non-sexual for them seem way crazier and more liberal than the rest of the community.

>>56157

Seems accurate based on myself.

/pol/ is a bunch of diaper wearing crybabies. Prove me wrong.

>>56180

I second this

Who was the redhead ab girl who kept getting spammed on pol for a few months there

>>56771

fuck off

go back to leddit

>>56815

go back to /pol/

virgin.

>>56816

>>56815

You're both retards. This thread is retarded. Stop responding.

>>56832

>This thread is retarded. Stop responding.

why?

Let's take it to another direction:

If you are staunchly right-wing or left-wing, would you be open to being in a relationship with someone who is completely diametrically opposed to your worldview?

Hard for me to say. I guess it would really depend on various factors. But the prospect of dating someone pro-Trump seems off-putting. I'm not singling you guys out or saying you are bad people. My dearest people in my life are pro-Trump; It nags at me real bad, but I avoid all political discussion at all costs because I can get very firebrandy. So with saying that, while politics are important, they aren't more important than the people you care about. Although, it's different when you have a choice; I suppose.

What about you guys?

>>56849

I'd have a hard time dating either. I'm not a centrist by any means, but I think adhering to party or politicial cultist ideology is foolish and pig headed. Not only does it put you in a limited box, but you are much more likely to become a drone to brainwashing memes, mindless party standards, and manipulation through chans and social media. I value people who can think critically and for themselves, so dating some political cultist would be hard for me, whether that be your typical raging /pol/ Pepe incel or your standard Tumblr SJW pop culture feminist.

I am a conservative gay. More of a libertarian than repug. I dont feel like a hypocrite.I dont blame anyone for my fetish. I dont feel degenerate. Jews suck, but have nothing to do with my fetish. If anything, my fetish is my one escape in life totally unrelated to politics.

>>48952

>Kosher folder.

Please share.

>>57534

I hear they like diaries

>>57534

Convert to Judaism. Start going to synagogue.

>>56157

actually I find there's a subliminal element of desire for psychological regression to an innocent youth, morally black and white world, comfort from domesticity/family values, etc. in a lot of conservative identity politics. This isn't to say its an hard rule, but a lot of conservative ideas seem to revolve around a return to the norms that defined the culture of their early experiences, which they associate with the positive feelings they had in that time. This is generally paired with a rejection of the idea that those feelings are natural in the course of a healthy childhood, and a notion that one is comforted by a particular era's values because of their inherent superiority to modern values, not as a matter of acculturation and conflation with the protected innocence of early childhood. So instead of going in for individual (controlled) regression to that positive mental state, they externalize that desire and try to regress society at large.

Inversely, those that internalize that return to innocence form a partition between personal childishness and societal pragmatism. They more readily separate feelings of personal innocence and individual comfort from broader ideas of maintaining societal innocence and stability of norms. This mindset is less prone to externalize its psychological needs as societal needs, and instead tries to govern the external world with (possibly just as biased) logical calculation, strings of (sometimes quite tenuous) If-Then arguments.

This still doesn't break cleanly into right/left dichotomy (definitely not in terms of economic opinion), but more along the lines of authoritarian/libertarian impulse when it comes to social change.

>>49061

>>Utility is intangible and can only truly be ranked relative to one's own preferences.

Assuming it isn't, how can we make an ABDL roko's basilisk?

>>56157

I'm a DL and my wife is a DL with a touch of LG, we both find the babby stuff offputting. We keep this side to ourselves and only in our home.

>>56712

>Am I a hypocrite for not wanting LGBTQ++ parades, while still using diapers now and then? Not really.

I tend to agree, it's the public displays of degeneracy that decays society. What you do behind closed doors is your business and as long as you aren't hurting anyone, then have at it.

>>42003 (OP)

right-winger here, i do consider the fetish degenerate but i still have it so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>57966

>this pic

Holy shit, how mad was the eurocuck who made this?

>>58064

ikr, they should add a space

>does not realise the entire world makes fun of the us, not just europe

>>57966

>>58132

Not an american, but public transportation is for fags

>>58140

I'm an American rightwing /pol/ user and I want european style socialism and european style cities. Forcing everyone to own a car is a racket run by (((gas companies))) and (((auto loan specialists))). The other reason we don't have public transit is niggers ruining it so "hyper capitalist suburbia" is basically a Jim crow measure. If we had real Jim crow, we could have whites-only socialism. Libertarians are retarded and market capitalism is kikey shit. I want federally mandated paid vacation so I have more time to for ageplay with Jewish tinder dates.

>If you are a Centrist, how does it feel to know your attempts to be pragmatic/reasonable would be totally overshadowed by your big poofy diaper if people knew?

Do my political views exist to prop up my reputation? Nope. Black pill needs no marketing.

Would I be embarrassed if everyone knew in exactly what ways I'm weird? Probably, but only because I don't like being mocked, pitted, and feared.

Do I think being weird is bad? I think it presents obstacles that need to be overcome with great care. Aside from that and getting on the wrong end of an angry mob, nope.

>>58149

Same, I think all the an-caps and hardcore libertarians are nuts. The only way socialism can ever work is if you have a highly prosperous educated society of reasonable whites though, so there's no chance of it ever working in the US.

I'm guessing OP is lumping ABDL into the increasingly-politically-active LGBT community… or at least the media-highlighted part of it.

I can understand that, and I'm sure some ABDL's do swing that way. But not me. Also, you're on a chan, there's likely to be a lot of far-rights here.

>Does the shame/humiliation of being a big stinky baby redirect itself as rage against the machine?

No, because I'm an adult who doesn't blame others for his own problems.

>Most ABDL are leftist, is this because they view themselves as part of a weak/inferior caste and are thus driven to promote 'equality' and 'fairness' for the weak, which includes themselves?

First, was there a census to determine who was who? I know I wasn't included in that count. Second--and this is the part where I start pissing people off–the vocal minority of the leftists which cry about 'fairness' and such are often nothing more than leaches looking for a hand out. This is an epidemic, and the defining trait of the entitlement generation. This is the worst type of degeneration, and it will ruin society if it isn't fixed. (and I don't think it will be)

>Are right-wing ABDL inherent hypocrites?

I'm not sure how that even applies.

>If you are right-wing, do you blame society for your fetish?

No. My interest in diapers goes back to the moment I was out of them; it remains the one thing I can't fully explain.

>Do you consider yourself degenerate?

My interests, and sexual interest deviate from the norm. I wish it weren't so, but my dick still likes it so…

Are the Jews directly responsible for the popularity of ABDL somehow?

No. Stop blaming others for your own problems. (And yes, I'm calling it a problem.)

>If you are a Centrist, how does it feel to know your attempts to be pragmatic/reasonable would be totally overshadowed by your big poofy diaper if people knew?

I don't know what I'd call myself in terms of political alignment, if asked, I'd probably say "fuck you and fuck your politics." But the question does apply because pretty much everything else about me would be overshadowed if people knew about my big poofy diaper. That's why they don't know.

My political alignment is nothing. Right and left change places throughout history, and what governments do is a slow descent into collapse. You can't fix society with government.

Let me say that again.

You can't fix society with any government.

You need to fix people first. People are in the government. If those people are corrupt, then the government is corrupt.

I see humans as animals unless trained otherwise. Early-life discipline is key to raising a decent human, it must be strict and consistent. Don't believe me? Just take a look at societies with no fathers. Do they look like decent humans to you?

Mothers have instinctual empathy, that's why they care for kids.

Men don't value anyone other than themselves unless they're trained to do so. That training comes from the example set by good fathers. Without a good father, the child grows up as a selfish creature (male) or never learns what a father should be (female; likely to be a future single mom.)

Why do you think feminists (lesbians in disguise) exist? Because they don't see men being what they're supposed to be.

Why do most blacks turn everything into a ghetto? Because their cultures never had father figures. It's not skin color, it's the culture of the people.

What about whites? Why do they greedily hoard everything they can get their hands on? Why to they shit on everyone else in their effort to attain wealth/power? Because they don't value others at all; because they're selfish; because their fathers never taught them not to live that way.

That's my political view. The human race is fucked unless we fix the culture of valuing families and raising children to be decent humans. You can vote for whatever you want, it's nothing more than putting different band-aids on a festering wound. You can numb the pain, or you can cover the wound, but until it's treated properly, it'll only get worse.

And despite that, diapers still make my bread rise. Old home videos hint that diapers were always a hot topic in my mind, long before it became sexual. Like I said, I don't understand the actual cause of this. But since I have no interest in being open about this interest, or demanding acceptance; and since I don't see it affecting any of the above--so long as it's kept private–then, in that form, I'm just going to let it be.

TL;DR if you think diapers have anything to do with politics, you're doing things wrong at a fundamental level.

>>58182

Kosher babies and mommies are best babies and mommies

Brain teaser, if Pampered Penny is mommying me does that make me a jew by extension since it's maternally transmitted

>>58284

>What about whites? Why do they greedily hoard everything they can get their hands on? Why to they shit on everyone else in their effort to attain wealth/power? Because they don't value others at all; because they're selfish; because their fathers never taught them not to live that way.

Jews are not white.

>>58290

Are Italians white?

>>58315

You know I read a lot. Especially things that have to do with history. I find that shit fascinating. In fact, I don’t know if you know this or not, Sicilians were spawned by niggers. It’s a fact. Sicilians have black blood pumping through their hearts. If you don’t believe me, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago the Moors conquered Sicily. And Moors are niggers. Way back then, Sicilians were like the wops in northern Italy. They all had blonde hair and blue eyes. But, once the Moors moved in there, they changed the whole country. They did so much fucking with the Sicilian women, that they changed the whole blood-line forever, that’s why blonde hair and blue eyes turned to black hair and dark skin. I find it absolutely amazing to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, Sicilians still carry that nigger gene. I’m quoting history. It’s written. It’s a fact. It’s written. Your ancestors were niggers. Your great, great, great, great, great-grandmother fucked a nigger, and she had a half-nigger kid. That is a fact. Now tell me, am I lying? Cuz you, you’re part eggplant.

>>58338

>I don’t know if you know this or not, Sicilians were spawned by niggers

I don't think there's anyone out there who doesn't know that.

>>58338

I'm not actually Italian, just curious is all. I'm curious as to how people define race, if it's based purely on looks or if genetic history is taken into account. Obviously it differs from person to person, but other perspectives are very important.

>>58338

You're a cantaloupe!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmwH7TOdGMA

>>58338

It's important to point out that humanity spawned in Africa, and as such we all have African ancestry. White skin came about later.

So congrats, you have nigger blood too.

"psychology of perverts in politics 101"

Things are far more simple: theres plenty documentation that proves sexual orientation is biological. most people will born hetero, a few will be homo, and fewer trans. It depends in how the nervous system, and the rest of the body forms at the beginning: what many leftist and right wingers believe about sexuality related to choice and as a fad, and so on, is based in outdated beliefs which were proven wrong (ie that "everything is a social construct", and that you could change the gender of a hetero male to a hetero female without problem: this was actually done, and it failed with serious psychological consequences for the victims).

Now fetishes and paraphilias are a bit more complex: they depend of how you grew up, what things you find fun, resentments and desires (ie most sadists are commonly frustrated about limitations in their daily life, or feel they lack power to affect their relations at professional level: they want to feel they can control others and toy with them; masochists commonly are in positions of power and feel released of responsibility by offering it to another: some may want to be cared, others might want to be punished and controlled). of course, in bdsm switching roles in relations is common for the same reason: partners may want to try to feel what the other feels, or learn new ways to play their roles. Sometimes fetishes dont start from a strong symbolical relation to and idea or desire, but just from sensibility: some people may enjoy the textures and qualities of a material, and from there they will explore how to relate to that material. paraphilias are more about role play.

the only logical reason that many left wing are openly fetishists is because in most places left wing tries to force materialistic points of view, and to archive that it will use the "kink community" to take power by rejecting any relation to the religious groups which are usually right wing ("the enemy of my enemies is my ally"). of course, to do this, the left wing will try to reduce anything to power issues rather than actually accepting scientific evidence if it contradicts or could affect its goals (this is why they try to push the believe that everything mental is consequence of culture, when in fact this is wrong: many cultural beliefs are abstractions of natural patterns).

So, there are as many "perverts" among the right and the left, but people with right wing beliefs will usually have to be more discreet about their fantasies than those in the left, just to avoid unnecessary fights. Most people have at least one fetish, even if most are common: feet, lips, ass, boobs, etc.

Even the color of skin could be taken as a fetish, because its a physical quality, but those who are misguided into "feminazism" (misguided and derailed feminism) or sjw (hero fantasies gone wrong) will say something about how everyone is equal or shoul be, when in fact, differences are what makes people worthy of knowing and what makes things work: every type of body has flaws and strengths, and not everyone should feel attracted to one or more body types like fat bodies just because some believe this is cultural. attraction to body types isnt entirely cultural: its also biological, and most people in the past were fit (or thin from bad diets), even in cultures with idols that look fat (people forget those are fertility idols, and they represent pregnancy rather than fatness). fatness was more appreciated in previous centuries not because it was physically attractive, but because it symbolized economical success. therefore, racism and classism are in part consequence of biological aspects that we must overcome, but also accept as part of natural relations. we should not destroy others from look or be different, and we should not try to force anything: to increase influence, control over the world, and improve understanding (of the world and ourselves as humans), negotiation and listening are key. Forcing stuff only reduces the tools we could use to improve. there are authoritarian and totalitarian leftists as there are right wingers, and both are usually wrong and do share similar mistakes in their reasoning that should be avoided.

i hope this helps to reduce chaos.

>>58409

You must remember its a popular theory, but still not 100% accurate. There were many "proto-human" races, and science cant figure why they didnt survived. Also the chances that more than one skin color evolved independantly exists: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2139462/Riddle-Solomon-solved-Scientists-South-Sea-islanders-blond-hair-didnt-come-Europeans-evolved-separately.html

Too early to believe in a "definitive answer".

>>42003 (OP)

>>42157

>>42244

>>48879

>>49025

>>58284

>Are the Jews indoctrinating kids to fetishes

though the Jews don't seem to acknowledge diaper they

try to remember all the weird things that happened show

you're bound to find a kinky pattern

https://youtu.be/3A8iPnSkM2A?t=42

ABDL is too obvious

if (((they))) could fit diaper into their propaganda (((they))) would.

>>42003 (OP)

>Are right-wing ABDL inherent hypocrites?

Not inherently, but if they start talking about degeneracy and purity then yes.

>Most ABDL are leftist, is this because they view themselves as part of a weak/inferior caste and are thus driven to promote 'equality' and 'fairness' for the weak, which includes themselves?

It's purely tribal for me. A lot of my friends are gay and trans and I'm not going to support an ideology that hurts them.

>>59509

>Is this because they view themselves as part of a weak/inferior caste and are thus driven to promote 'equality' and 'fairness' for the weak, which includes themselves?

No, it's because it's recognized that judeo-christianity takes center stage in politics and that their politics are antithetical to a free society. With the presidents new SCOTUS pick, gay marriage may end up being overturned and the fight for civil rights will rage on for a generation longer than it should be.

Why support political views that are counter to your own self interests?

>>59524

You have to go back.

>>59620

never gonna happen, might as well kill yourself now Nazi fuck

>>59620

good luck finding any nationalist socialists that will admit to being AB/DLs. They'll be run out of the group as degenerates before you can say it's not a sex thing.

>>59626

That's quite a rude thing to say, my left wing friend.

>>59620

>altright view and accepted race realism and the JQ.

oh boy

Not sure if this post is serious but the likelihood you'll find a combination like what you are looking for is slim to none. You're more likely to find what you search for by being with an anti-Trump conservative than a full-on whack a doo obsessed with weird anti-science shit like race realism (pro-tip, since humans were only partially-isolated, there aren't clear and distinct demarcated groups of humans with genetic boundaries. 'Race' basically just measures geographical origin, but there's so much genetic overlap that the concept of 'the white race' makes no sense genetically.)

I'm not just saying this because of my political views. But for the sake of your sanity, kick it down a notch, like at Mitt Romney level or some shit.

The more left you go, the easier time you'll find someone who'll be open minded about the ABDL thing. Otherwise, you might end up pariahed by your white nationalist bro's if the one you end up telling tells her family/friend. You may even find yourself at the bottom of the ocean.

Good luck my fucked in the head alt-righter.

>>59635

That's the continuum falicy. Just because a metric is on a continuum does not mean a independent catagories don't have a significance. ie Colors are on a infinite continuum, but blue and red and green are valuable categories and are not considered entirely arbitrary.

Also this falicy is only tried when race issues are brought up from the right. When Salon puts out an article about white male shooters no one scoffs about how whites don't enist. The writers and readers know what a white male is. If someone in South Africa is talking about killing the white devil for taking "their land" no one asks they what a white farmer is. The whole line of argument is disingenuous trash that only hold up in a limited vacuum of abstracts.

The categories used 100 years ago to classify races also cluster together to self identification of race. If you feed a computer genomic data from a large population set to 5 or 7 groups and ask people when of the 5 or 7 groups they are a part of the sorting process matches in 95-98% of the people. Yeah you might have a guy that says he's Native American, but does not get sorted into the Amerindian grouping, but for most it matches. I can find the references if needed. This has been replicated sufficiently.

Also the scientific consensus in Biologists and Physical Anthropologists is that race is a genetic catagory not a social construct contrary to what people say scientists believe. If someone tells you race is a social construct they are ignoring basic facts and are usually in Social Sciences.

>>59635

>but there's so much genetic overlap that the concept of 'the white race' makes no sense genetically

I'm not sure what's supposed to be relevant about there being overlap. Nothing about this invalidates the concept of race.

Consider that we share something like 98 or 99% of our DNA with chimps and bonobos. That's a whole lot of overlap, right?

Do you think the distinction between humans and chimpanzees/bonobos makes little sense genetically, or do you recognize that even seemingly small genetic differences can result in substantial phenotypic differences that are well worth recognizing?

As long as some genetic difference exists across racial lines, and as long as this results in very real average differences in traits between the races (american blacks being a full standard deviation less intelligent than american whites, for probably the spiciest example), the use of race as a biological category is totally valid.

>>59620

Here's the problem that you have to deal with. According to your alt-right philosophy, you're the degeneration being bred into the white race. They want you dead just as much as they want the gays and the jews and the blacks.

You're a pervert.

It doesn't matter what the perversion is. It doesn't matter that many of them have the same desires. What matters is that it's icky. As such it's a weakness brought into the white race by those inferior races and as such your tainted blood must be excised lest you breed with a pure white woman. You can quote genetic tests, and geneological records going back to the Caucasus mountains, but the fact of your perversion is the evidence of your aberration.

Good luck with that.

>>59656

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8209210_Genetic_variation_classification_and_%27race%27

>Also the scientific consensus in Biologists and Physical Anthropologists is that race is a genetic catagory

It's neither. The official statement by the AAA is clear on the race issue.

>>59620

The various races are most denoted solely by skin tone. A thing that can drastically change due to the difference of only one or two genes.

Dogs can have wildly different physical feature but they are all variations of the same species. Which is to say they all have the same genetic profile that has always existed in dogs. All the variations we bred in through planning to focus on specific features.

Humans don't even have the same amount of variation that dogs do. This is because we got smart before we started to really splinter off. We became efficient, complex tool users before we spread into independent regions where independent evolutionary changes would happen.

There's evidence of global trade going back as far as 10,000 BC. Transatlantic trade between South America and Europe. Not to mention Polynesian trade to every corner of Pacific. So before we had the chance to have major genetic breaks, the various independent regions were already mingling.

Which means that for humans, Homosapiens, there isn't enough variation to divide them into different races.

>>59676

You are simply wrong. There has been a significant amount of evolution in pretty recent human history.

Read The 10,000 Year Explosion by Cochran & Harpending.

And, uhm, transatlantic trade 10000 years ago? Really? What's the sort of underlying confusion that leads you to believe something utterly ridiculous like that?

]

>>59678

>by Cochran & Harpending

off to a good start

>What's the sort of underlying confusion that leads you to believe something utterly ridiculous like that?

He says, while recommending white supremacist "authors" using the neat trick of writing books to fool people into believing their shite

is this the cringe thread?

>>59680

Just what do you think white supremacy means? That everyone gets to live in peace and harmony under a benevolent, white hegemony? That we can achieve such a peaceful state by gentle, but forceful re-education of those inferior peoples that refuse to accept the obvious truth of white superiority?

Or perhaps you mean segregation. We put all those undesirables onto reservations, like the indians. All those areas that the superior white people need to occupy would have to be "cleansed" (benevolently of course) of unwanted people though.

Just how do you think you can convince those non-whites of their proper inferiority in a peaceful manner?

>>59679

>anyone daring to question my delusions about human evolution with actual strong evidence is a Neon-Nazi White Supremacist Literally Hitler and therefore automatically wrong

This book was, by the way, favorable reviewed in the Wall Street Journal and New Scientist. Both known Neon-Nazi White Supremacist hate publications.

>>59681

>Just how do you think you can convince those non-whites of their proper inferiority in a peaceful manner?

With a bullet.

>>59682

>and New Scientist. Both known Neon-Nazi White Supremacist hate publications.

>"However, Willis criticizes the authors for not discussing what the "recent and continuing evolution means for our species as a whole". Willis concludes by saying that "the book offers a limited and biased interpretation of some very exciting research"

Loads of irony coming from a guy who apparently cannot read properly, which is why he refers to a negative review as a positive one. Willis is basically saying "interesting stuff, too bad it was stained and misrepresented to further an agenda". So that's your evidence of a "good book" then.

>anyone daring to question my delusions about human evolution with actual strong evidence is a Neon-Nazi White Supremacist Literally Hitler and therefore automatically wrong

Anyone daring to question my delusions about a human (white) race being superior over others without actual evidence (or, in fact, with evidence of it not being the case) is automatically a deranged mental patient on the loose and therefore automatically wrong.

MAN, it is complicated to argue like a racist, relying on shitty parlor tricks that can only fool 10 years old is very tiring.

>>59683

"I think you're confusing 'peace' with 'quiet'."

>>59675

People in the fields listed asked anonymously their opinion of what genetics contribute to racial classifications judge it differently than the AAA. Official statements by these organizations are under public scrutiny and they have to think more of the public perception and public good than the pure scientific aspects.

(Lieberman 92 Race in Biology and Anthropology)

I don't know what you wanted me to garner from the article as it agrees that people fall into classification of long held races thoughimperfectly. As stated their is a continuous overlap, but you all know what a white boy is when talking about race issue outside of the altright. Don't do this disingenuous "Oh but what is a black person anyhow?" if you wouldn't do the same during a police shooting of a black person.

No one said the categories are perfect and they don't actually have to be. We knew what a white man was long before genetic testing and based pre 1965 immigration on.

>>59681

You're being ridiculous. The question of supremacy/inferiority doesn't even need to be addressed to justify segregation… though if you want to go there (you don't), name any trait you think the people in a functioning society should have and it can be discussed.

Just the fact that people are inherently very tribal and inherently divide themselves along racial lines is more than enough reason to organize society in such a way to keep the races separate.

It makes more sense to work with the grain of human nature, rather than against it, wouldn't you agree? It's the same reason communism is a bad idea. It's simply not compatible with people.

And try to have even a modicum of imagination, here. There are many, many ways for demographics to shift or for an ethnic group to be preserved without there being a genocide.

If the only possible means of whites creating a white majority state for white people that you can imagine is genocide, that's an issue with you.

>>59676

>The various races are most denoted solely by skin tone. A thing that can drastically change due to the difference of only one or two genes.

Yes skin was used to make classification, but that does not mean that it's the only thing different between the races. You can burn a person to nothing, but bone and still race can be identified. Also one or two genes make a huge difference. A difference of one a single gene can drasticallyalter physiology or behavior and the allele of that gene that differs in prevalencein racial groups does not have to be the original geneticallyexpressed difference used to classify them. ie. No one is saying Asians behave different from other races due to eye shape or skin tone except crazies.

>Dogs can have wildly different physical feature but they are all variations of the same species. Which is to say they all have the same genetic profile that has always existed in dogs.

What does this mean, where is it from? What do you mean same gentic profile? That term means nothing. Species itself is more arbitrary than the lay-person understands it to be and all dog breed could be considered sub species.

All the variations we bred in through planning to focus on specific features.

Humans don't even have the same amount of variation that dogs do.

Based on what? Got a number? Got a study that compares these? Are you going by visual? Also not all genes contribute to phenotypic differences equally. It only takes a few genes of high importance to a trait to be different to have a major impact. Small genetic variation can have huge phenotypic variation.

>This is because we got smart before we started to really splinter off. We became efficient, complex tool users before we spread into independent regions where independent evolutionary changes would happen.

We learned bipedal walking and running before we splintered off so any Kenyan that out runs a white guy is due to social constructs. Right?

>There's evidence of global trade going back as far as 10,000 BC. Transatlantic trade between South America and Europe. Not to mention Polynesian trade to every corner of Pacific. So before we had the chance to have major genetic breaks, the various independent regions were already mingling.

I've never heard of a 10,000BC transatlantic travel. Best I can find is maybe Polynesians in 1,000BC. Also wouldn't make a real difference cause we already know crossover and add mixture was a thing that doesn't negate useful racial categories.

>Which means that for humans, Homosapiens, there isn't enough variation to divide them into different races.

So exactly how much varation is needed to divide humans into races? Their is no number for this. It's not like you get X amount of between group variation and they are suddenly races.

>>59674

>You're a pervert.

Well you have me their I guess. :shrug:

It probably is best I don't breed and rather help my race on other ways. I'd really like to have kids cause I was abused a bunch as a kid and am now well off enough to raise great kids I think (on top of the white babies for the future race thing).

I'll probably just abstain from love and let my line end.

>>59681

>Just how do you think you can convince those non-whites of their proper inferiority in a peaceful manner?

It's not a matter of inferiority or supremacy. I think ethnic isolated groups would be better for all. Those that want mixture can do so and those that want homogeneous areas should be allowed to do so. Most go by freedom of association as a principal.

Can that be achieved peacefully? Ideally yes. It possibly can be a peaceful separation of those with differences that cannot be overcome.

Would it be violent? Yes maybe, but let me ask you this. How much bloodshed would you be willing have to force comingling upon us that wish to segregate and don't believein universal human egalitarianism of all traits? How much blood was shead for this in the past? How many are persecuted for disagreeing with an unfounded view of total human egalitarianism and thinking human groups are not fully interchangeable clay?

People mistakenly think the choice is between…

A. Possible violence to segregate

B. A totally violence free multicultural society

The choice is really between..

A. Possible violence to segregate

B. Possible violence to force mulitucuturalism

Look up anarcho-tyranny and see how it has played out the places like South Africa and Europe. People allow the bodies to stack up pretty high to force multicultural societies these days and can't prove the benifit of such societies over homogeneous ones.

Unless of course you could in taco trucks.

>>59691

>It's not a matter of inferiority or supremacy.

Oh, I’m sorry my mistake. Though you gotta admit, the name White Supremacy is a bit misleading.

>Look up anarcho-tyranny and see how it has played out the places like South Africa and Europe. People allow the bodies to stack up pretty high to force multicultural societies these days and can't prove the benifit of such societies over homogeneous ones.

Forced multiculturalism is a fallacy. In a free and open society, people go to where it’s safe, and resources and work are plentiful. In the present day people gather in cities because that’s where all the work is, as this is no longer an agrarian society. Not all those people are the same type of people. No one is forcing them to be there. It’s the circumstances that apply to everyone. Forced multiculturalism is the kind of conspiracy bullshit that Alex Jones screams about in between hocking penis pills.

But it’s okay because I have figured out the source of your dumb-fuckery: Homogenous societies aren’t.

Or to put it a different way, isolated homogenous societies over time tend to subdivide. Especially when resources become scarce, and government is weak. Divisions can be socio-economic, they can be ethnic, but they can also be arbitrary. They do this because people want an other. They need someone or something to struggle against. And when there isn’t someone to struggle against they start making it up.

Take the French Revolution for example. They overthrew the king, cut his head off and celebrated by killing a whole bunch more people. Why? Because once they’d won, and got rid of of the entrenched aristocracy they ran out of people to kill. So they started killing each other because some people weren’t revolutionary enough. So much so that they eventually beheaded the idiot that started the killing in the first place because he wasn’t revolutionary enough. Also cause he was a dick.

So again lets get back to segregation, and white supremacy. Lets say the white utopia comes to pass, and those annoying brown people and jews are all walled off in Mexico or dead (probably dead). You’ll notice that life still sucks. Some people are still poor, some people are still assholes, and some women won’t fuck you cause you’re still a dickhead. Whose fault is it? All the brown people are gone! It has to be those other inferior people… you know the ones that like to wear diapers and shit, just like those other perverts that like to fuck dogs, and dead bodies (which there are plentiful now). I guess we have send them to Mexico (or kill them all - lets be honest, we’ll probably kill them all) so I can finally get a date while still being a dickhead.

>>59705

>No one is forcing them to be there

There are literally laws forcing white people to live among other racial groups. Why do you feel the need to lie?

>>59705

>Though you gotta admit, the name White Supremacy is a bit misleading.

Yes it is. Very misleading. And your side (or just you alone?) is the one applying the misleading label to people.

No one here evidently in favor of ethnonationalism has self-described as white supremacist.

>>59705

> The name White Supremacy is a bit misleading.

Yes it is. That is why people not associated with the right use the term when discussing almost everything to do with the promotion of alt-right ideals. It's a term put upon persons of the far right not one we use. It's a common tactic and one you'd have to have no experience in political name calling to not know already the use of. I think you are playing ignorant here and the tactic is really apparent.

> Forced multiculturalism is a fallacy.

Where not in the literal law such as racial quotas and transfer of wealth between races, multicultural world views are so ingrained into common culture it's hard to operate in opposition to them. It's not an conspiracy to see that you can't run a business or a school or a neighborhood ethnically independent without inclusion either forced by the law or social constraints. To say otherwise requires ignoring so any factors that it's laughable.

South Africa for example was founder by whites dating back to the 1650s. The tribes that came later had not claim to the land and the people wished to remain separate as a distinct people. Those tribes had no right to access to whites and where kept segregated l. The entirety of the world from UN sanctions to support of violent revolutionaries forced the breakdown of the apartide separation. In every metric the place is worse off for both races now. It went from a prosperous first world type nation of separated peoples to a third world rainbow nation in a little over a generation.

On the social scale multicultural office spaces are force in large corporations even in absence of law. One of my states largest employers can exert racial quota contacted smaller businesses. They will not allow a non-mixed company to do business with them and this forces mixing of racial groups into privately own companies to be able to find these contracts. They add people on the basis of race simply to meet a social standard required for commercial success.

These ideas multicultural society are also supported in the academic. The few social scientists that go against the benifits of multi ethnic mixing are shunned as "white supremacists"

To say the forcing of multiculturalism is not forced by many factors is just wrong.

> A french revolution

No one said that an ethnic homogeneous society is homogeneous in all traits or that it would be a utopia. The far right actually has a lot of disagreements within a single ethnic makeup, but interestingly this makes a unique open dialog. We have free markets caps and commies and we actually have good discussions of this shit in the absence of racial differences. Discussion of planned economic theories prior to this for my never went beyond accusations of bigotry for thinking that a single payer healthcare system would do the least good in the US.

Now an ethnically homogeneous areas will have issues of course. You have the French and Russian revolutions. You have North Korea. But you also have South Korea, Japan, pre 1965 America at a 90%+ European hetitage, Scandinavian countries. What some consider a pipe dream of ethnic exclusive lands is actually closer to what we have been doing for all of history. Multicultural theories have only been a part of humanity for about 75 years and have not proven effective in all the cases that ethno exclusive ones have. Our ideals are actually more tested than people think and we have seen them work unlike multiculturalism or egalitarianism which have few good examples.

The French Revolution example is not really novel. We on the right actually do talk about stuff like this at length.

> Dumb-fuckery, dickhead, can't get a woman to fuck you

If you can't defend a position without insults maybe think about why you can't. It really looks bad to outside observers and will now convince the fence sitters that your ideas are worth hearing.

Lastly please listen to some black and Mexican nationalist. There movements are growing as well and they don't enjoy this grey neo-liberal paste either. A Amari can balkanization is more possible now than ever and I think benefits all ethnicities involved compared to the current state.

>>59715

>If you can't defend a position without insults maybe think about why you can't. It really looks bad to outside observers and will now convince the fence sitters that your ideas are worth hearing.

I insult you because I have complete disdain for your political affiliation. I mean I get it, you're not a white supremacist because you think ethnic cleansing can be non-violent, even as you are more than willing to go along with it even if it turns out to be a little violent. But realistically, would a white supremacist by any other name still sound like a nazi? You can call it what you want, but it takes a special level of naivete to think ethno-nationalism is just a made up word to obscure racism.

Understand also you claim I'm insulting you while you try to have a reasoned, well thought out political debate. One of the things you racists don't understand is that your very philosophy is an insult. Even the most peaceful segregation is built on the idea that some people are good, and some people are bad, and we'll keep the bad people out, and only let the good people in. And as soon as you run into questions of why people are bad or good, you have to inevitably come to the conclusion that some people are inherently better than others. In order to reinforce this idea, to really justify everything you have to boil it all down to some people are more people, and others are less.

Your beliefs are an insult, and until you stop insulting literally everyone, I won't stop insulting you.

Also what site do you think this is? Go jerk off at Stormfront or whatever garbage cesspool that protects snowflakes like you, since you can’t handle the ADBL chan board.

>>59717

"Diversity" simply does not work. It actually even reduces trust WITHIN ethnic groups.

See the famous Putnam study at http://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x , as well as many others who have confirmed it since.

> Even the most peaceful segregation is built on the idea that some people are good, and some people are bad, and we'll keep the bad people out, and only let the good people in.

But dividing people as good and bad isn't necessarily an insult. If you're dividing people based on something objective and measurable, at least. For example, the United States today limits immigration of criminals, unskilled workers, and people carrying contagious diseases. No one finds this controversial, because it's based on a fair and unbiased criteria.

If, hypothetically, you could reliably test people for their consciousness, criminality, intelligence etc, surely it would be fine for a community to put standards on who gets in. Otherwise the community would be committing social and possibly genetic suicide.

To remove the hypothetical: the average IQ of Sub-Saharan Africa is 80, and the IQ of African Americans is not much higher. We don't really have a test for criminality like IQ, but we do know that the descendents of Sub-Saharan Africans in the USA are disproportionately violent, even if you control for things like income.

I don't think these are fun facts, but accepting them isn't an insult. I also accept, for example, that men are dramatically more likely to be rapists than women. I'm not insulting myself when I believe that a man is more likely to be a rapist. It's just the way things are.

>>59685

Have you read the book? Go do it, it's not that long. I have read lots of race denialist books so surely you should be able to read one from the other perspective.

By the way, nowhere does it mention "white superiority". The only racial differences in IQ it deals with is a chapter about how the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews could have evolved.

Does that make it a Jewish Supremacist publication or something?

Hell - one of the authors has a blog at http://westhunt.wordpress.com/

Go write and ask him if he belives whites are "superior", that other races should be exterminated, that Hitler was a nice fellow, or whatever you think he (or I, for that matter) believe.

Just be prepared for quite a snarky reply as he considers those things ridiculous.

Meanwhile - please explain to a stupid evil racist like me how it can be that the drastic changes in human environment have had effects on everything from skin color to muscle distribution and disease resistance, but none whatsoever on anything related to neurological and mental functioning.

(Before you give the usual bullshit "mental functioning is too complex to change in that timespan!" answer, go learn some basic genetics, or atleast consider that several traits that even you can't deny differ between ethnic groups - such as height - are very polygenetic as well)

>>59705

>Though you gotta admit, the name White Supremacy is a bit misleading.

Then stop calling people that disagree with you White Supremacists.

You filthy fucking Jew.

>>59727

Well if we are gonna skip all the genetic and cultural arguments and just to moral ones that's fine.

I don't find it morally wrong to see that traits differ in groups. I'm never said that made other groups not real human so stop putting things like that in my mouth. It makes you argument look weak. Simply put a prefect equality between the races suggested by the egalitarian mindset is an untenable position based on theory and data. This doesn't mean their are good and bad races or that race X needs to be gased. We don't even say we are top. The Jewish diaspora and East Asians have a lower crime rate and higher IQ than Europeans all things being equal. Kinda a shit job at white supremacy if we are the best race right? I want a home and culture for every race and I don't say that only publicly with a secret evil view that I don't say here.

Now if we are on the topic of violence again are you okay with violence being used to promote diversity, multiculturalism, or egalitarianism? If a city was build that had white only schools, white only shops, etc would you be okay with government force integrating that area? Should someone promoting what I have here be jailed, beaten, or killed to protect diversity over free association? If you are okay with violence for egalitarianism you don't have a moral ground to stand on here.

>>59717

Lot to unpack here and it's a pretty good response to these issues.

Small thing first. The birthrate does not require 2.1% it's 2.1 or more children per female. 1 kid replaces her, 1 kid replaces her male mate and the 0.1 kid is for instances of infants death I believe. It's no real issue and I get what you meant it just gets me when people misuse things like this.

> Not enough white immigrants to bridge the gap.

I agree. We can't funnel enough whites into the US to replace to birthrate or even maintain the ethnic demographics. There are South African refugees that should be allowed in due to the risk of ethnic cleansing in the area that is a real issue, but that won't fix our problem at all.

> Birthrate is low in native pop.

Yes

> Refugees need to integrate economically.

Yes

> We NEED to bring in other races.

No not necessarily. I heard this said a bunch for war refugees and the statement is not absolute.

A single middle eastern refugee cost $64k according to the UN to be brought to the west and settled. Since you need two to tango you gotta have a breeding pair at $128k. How many offspring will they make together? What about the second generation?

If you hold the egalitarian mindset that environment effects all behavioral traits then kids raised in the US should not differ from the US pop by gen 2 or 3 in traits such as birthrate. To say otherwise is against egalitarianism and you'd be saying a birthrate relies on genetics of that race and results in different outcomes in the same environment (USA). That means we paid billion to resettle these people and ended up at the same problem.

Now what we could do is pay 75k to anyone pushing out 3 kids. We get an assured return on our investment rather than a hypothetical, it costs us less, and there are data that show financial burdens limit number of children people end up having. Also from an egalitarian mindset of all peoples being interchangeable it does not matter if the kid is native or not and only the number is important.

Now if you wanna help these people out of a war zone and not only to get a breeding stock you can spend an estimated 5k to resettle them in neighboring safe middle eastern countries and help a lot more refugees than the number you bring here.

If you can pay 75 or 100k to get a 2 kid household to be a 3 or 4 kid household in the US (which data suggest you can, also check out birthrates of highly religious whites) and then resettle 10 refugees into safe areas you have helped more people for the same cost and no ethnic population crossing was required.

So which method does the most good and which method bypassed the most good to make diversity?

> First generation immigrants commit less crime than native citizens.

I was trying to find a chart that countered this by showing that it purposefully ignores certain things to make one flashy chart, but I can't find it even after-looking around.

Basically 2 point were there…

1. The black population inflates the numbers and if the researchers did by race instead of native you'd see black and Hispanic being the largest and committers of crimes and the white bar being real small by comparison.

2. The prevalence is on chance to commit a crime over 12 months period and that is a super wide category and crime type matters. Petty theft and a cartel hit impact society differently.

Now one thing is that this dosen't actually matter to me. It does not matter if immigrants have a lower crime rate. If we want low crime immigrates we could just take all the Chinese girls that were gonna be aborted as they commit less crime than whites and have a high IQ. Just cause another race is better in a trait than you doesn't mean you prefer they replace you. IQ nationalists exist and they be all for this, but I'm of the type that sees each unique ethnic groups as a valuable things and should be important for members to maintain. So even if they were less crime prone, or smarter, or faster, they aren't us.

Only we uniquely can be us and ethnically homogeneous societies work historically.

The quota and SA thing I probably should have not oversimplified. All I wanted to say with those is that violence and social pressure are used to force diversity. That egalitarians have little issue with doing this to promote their ideals.

If you got studies showing benefits of ethnically diverse cultures over other types I will view them with as open of an eye as I can muster. So far I only ever hear of imported food and a better world cup team as the advantage and that's not worth the proven loss of social capital to me at all.

>>59748

Your math actually doesn’t check out:

We pay a couple in the united states $75k to have 3 babies, we increase our population by 1.2 people (they would have had an average of 1.8 kids anyways)

We pay a couple $120k to settle in the united states, we increase our population by about 4 people (the couple, plus assuming they have an average of about 2 kids)

It is more cost effective to bring in the immigrants. And assuming that you bring in the couple for $120k and they pay $20k a year in taxes, they pay for themselves in maybe 10-15 years (because they're using public resources as well).

In contrast, paying people to have children creates all sorts of major problems. Mainly, people will start popping out unwanted babies (who are more likely to commit crimes in the future because of lack of love/good parenting) for easy cash.

Your second argument about ‘social capital’ is hard to argue with because it presupposes a lot that I simply don’t think is true. Ethnically homogeneous societies do not necessarily work. Historically all societies had been homogeneous, the successful and unsuccessful ones. ‘Only we can uniquely be us’ sounds nice, but doesn’t actually mean anything in my opinion.

I’ll toss this study your way if you’re looking for more on the economic benefits:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bc32/e7fa9833603f2177d43ce4eb5204c690ac20.pdf

I’d turn it back around on you and ask for citations on how immigration harms culture, because I’ve never seen anything convincing.

>>59760

>In contrast, paying people to have children creates all sorts of major problems. Mainly, people will start popping out unwanted babies (who are more likely to commit crimes in the future because of lack of love/good parenting) for easy cash.

Can you provide some stats on this as a factor on crime rates, and a comparison with race as a factor?

>I’ll toss this study your way if you’re looking for more on the economic benefits:

>https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bc32/e7fa9833603f2177d43ce4eb5204c690ac20.pdf

Does it say what you think it says?

From the conclusion:

>In the past ten years, many more brushstrokes were applied to the canvas, and the theme and shape of the picture changed. The new research established a number of new stylized facts: The relative skills of successive immigrant waves declined over much of the postwar period; it is unlikely that recent immigrants will reach parity with the earnings of natives during their working lives; although there is only a weak negative correlation between the presence of immigrants in a local labor market and the earnings of natives in that labor market, immigration may have been partly responsible for the decline in the earnings of unskilled native workers that occurred during the 1980s; the new immigration may have an adverse fiscal impact because recent waves participate in welfare programs more intensively than earlier waves; immigration policy matters, so that host countries which filter applicants in terms of observable skills “attract” immigrants who are more skilled, have higher earnings, and are less likely to participate in public assistance programs; and, finally, there exists a strong correlation between the skills of immigrants and the skills of second-generation Americans, so that the huge skill differentials observed among today’s foreign-born groups become tomorrow’s differences among American-born ethnic groups.

>>59764

>Now one thing is that this dosen't actually matter to me. It does not matter if immigrants have a lower crime rate.

I thought you just said crime rates didn't matter to you…

I'm not particularly interested in getting into a pro-life, pro-choice arguement, but chapter 4 of the book Freakonomics provides a good summary of how unwanted children commit more crime.

As for comparison with race, I don't think there is anything I can cite that won't convince you that black people aren't secretly predisposed to crime. Still, I would argue that black people don't commit more crimes, but rather that we prosecute them more heavily. You can read the book The New Jim Crow if you want more on that take.

The conclusion hedges, as is common in scientific papers because you aren't supposed to declare anything as fact. I notice you cut out the sentence literally right before that section:

>Overall, the empirical evidence

painted a very optimistic picture

of the contribution of immigrants to the

American economy

Again, do you have any citations to counter support your claim that immigrants harm culture?

>>59687

> if you wouldn't do the same during a police shooting of a black person.

The clear difference is that a black person doesn't have to be different to be treated differently based on his looks. That's a disingenuous comment to ignore people's bias of attributing certain traits with certain behaviors and expectations.

If you can't take an organization that studies anthropology seriously then I can't take you seriously.

Actually, the study doesn't say what you think it's saying. It's clearly stating that there exists no clear distinction or genetic boundary between populations. It points out that race, to mean clear demarcated groups of people, contains no scientific evidence. They are just different enough so that we can look at it geographically.

The genetic differences are extremely minor.

>>59769

I always get these comments by white nationalists/White Identitarians/or whatever you want to call yourselves because any other rose and all. There's always the statement of these organizations being compromised somehow, every time. Homosexuality removed from DSM? Compromised. More acceptance of transgenderism? Compromised. It reaches a point where it stops being a serious discussion and enters into the realms of conspiracy theories.

There is always this one tiny group of people that will say, "Look, we go against the overwhelming consensus, we are telling the truth!". I don't buy it, sorry.

>>59766

>I thought you just said crime rates didn't matter to you…

You're… not very bright, are you?

1. That wasn't me and the poster ID's should make that totally obvious.

2. The guy wasn't saying crime rates don't matter AT ALL, just that they don't matter to the question of whether it's a good idea to import a bunch of people to demographically replace the native population. All he's saying is that keeping the races separate so they can all continue to exist on their own is of greater importance to him than crime rates.

>Still, I would argue that black people don't commit more crimes, but rather that we prosecute them more heavily. You can read the book The New Jim Crow if you want more on that take.

I want less of that take because it's absolute drivel totally contrary to reality, and I've already seen more than enough of that take for a lifetime.

If anything, I think it's possible we see cops being slightly more lenient with blacks when the option is open.

Is it not telling that the crimes that are the least up to interpretation, such as murder where there is a dead body you can't exactly fake, and where the evidence usually makes the perpetrator obvious, show the greatest disproportionality of black crime?

Where do you live? Is it some lily white area with basically no black people? What in the world makes you think they don't commit even a little bit more crime than the average white person?

I mean shit, even if you subscribe to a nonsense tabula rasa interpretation of humanity and think genetics don't matter and it's all socialization, do you really, even for a second, think that black people who are much more likely to deal with not having a father, being poor and uneducated, being surrounded by and engaging with gangs, living in crumbling inner city areas, etc. aren't also more likely to commit crimes than the average white person?

>I notice you cut out the sentence literally right before that section:

>>Overall, the empirical evidence painted a very optimistic picture of the contribution of immigrants to the American economy

Okay, did you not understand the conclusion?

Let me walk you through this.

This is the first paragraph of the conclusion, outlining the breakdown to come:

>The literature investigating the economic impact of immigration on the United States and on other host countries grew rapidly in the past decade. This explosion of research substantially sharpened our understanding of the economics of immigration. The stylized facts that long dominated the discussion over the costs and benefits of immigration were radically altered during the 1980s, and a number of new questions, issues, and perceptions replaced them

The second paragraph, the one you've pulled that quote about a rosy view of immigration from, describes an older view of immigration based on immigrants from the past. It's the "stylized facts" that were "radically altered" by new data from the past decade mentioned in the first paragraph.

What it's saying is that the "very optimistic picture of the contribution of immigrants to the American economy" is a relic of the past because new data paints a different and less positive picture.

>In the past ten years, many more brushstrokes were applied to the canvas, and the theme and shape of the picture changed.

The third paragraph, the one I quoted, says current data points to recent immigrants (this was published in 1994, mind you) being unlikely to earn as much as native born people, and potentially having an adverse fiscal impact due to greater use of welfare.

I hope you can now see why I did not feel the bit I "cut" was pertinent.

>Again, do you have any citations to counter support your claim that immigrants harm culture?

Why bother? Do I even need one when your own citation meant to be in defense of immigrants seems to be doing a decent enough job, or do you think lower earning ability and higher welfare use is a great combination that can only benefit society?

>but you all know what a white boy is when talking about race

The recent shooter was called white by the police chief strictly for his looks despite being hispanic.

That's the only thing 'race' is good for. Determining superficial differences. You may be good at determining their geographical origins but it's a case in which looks does not determine race. You are under the impression that different looks proves a difference in race; Race to mean clear demarcated groups of humans. This is why we have science, so we can have a more acute understanding beyond what our eyeballs see. When you see a black guy, you are essentially observing a part of that tiny amount of genetic variation. And based on one's personal bias, may have certain expectations from that group of people. And because people have this personal bias, may react more cautiously around a black person. This is largely why blacks are far more likely to be shot especially when they are complying with a complex game of Simon says.

"Genetic variation is geographically structured, as

expected from the partial isolation of human populations during

much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn

correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is “biologically

meaningless.” On the other hand, because they have been only

partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise

genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur

between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or

races) are discrete types"

"A particular area of concern is in the genetics of human behavior. As

genes that may influence behavior are identified, allele frequencies are

often compared in populations67,68. These comparisons can produce

useful evolutionary insights but can also lead to simplistic interpretations

that may reinforce unfounded stereotypes69. In assessing the role

of genes in population differences in behavior (real or imagined), several

simple facts must be brought to the fore. Human behavior is complicated,

and it is strongly influenced by nongenetic factors70.

Thousands of pleiotropic genes are thought to influence behavior, and

their products interact in complex and unpredictable ways.

Considering this extraordinary complexity, the idea that variation in

the frequency of a single allele could explain substantial population

differences in behavior would be amusing if it were not so dangerous"

>>59773

Lots of people use VPNs, poster IDs don't mean anything.

I live in a heavily immigrant area. Believe it or not it's not a complete cesspool where M13 gangs live off of welfare and terrorists throw bombs at you when you're driving down the street.

Read something other than the conclusion would you?

And yes, please do provide a citation. If you're unwilling to open yourself to criticism, then you don't have a argument you can defend.

I have now given you three separate sources from college professors. Or are you going to dismiss all college professors as a part of the deep state liberal conspiracy to destroy America?

>>59774

Wasn't this drivel debunked earlier in this thread? In any case, you (or rather the nincompoop you're quoting) are committing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

In any case, the fixation index (look up the term) is the same between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans as between wolves and coyotes: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/06/24/fixation-index/

Noone would seriously claim that the only differences between wolves and coyotes are related to purely superficial things.

And while we generally are dealing with polygenic traits when it comes to complex things like mental functioning, I must point out that there are actually examples where a single allele causes quite a drastic difference.

Say, for example, the 2-repeat allele of the gene coding for MAO[A], which drastically increases the risk of violence.

Incidentally, this allele is a lot more common among blacks (~4% of the population) vs whites (<1%).

>>59782

>Read something other than the conclusion would you?

Why don't you read any part of your own source---at the very least the conclusion or abstract—before posting it, would you?

>And yes, please do provide a citation.

No. I am very lazy and this discussion doesn't mean all that much to me. I almost never discuss any of this stuff, least of all on a fucking diaper board of all things.

However, there is this remarkably well timed and highly related video with sources in the description, which I will now pass along:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY-yHd8Xms0

>>59794

>Writes multiple paragraph responses

>Accuses me of being a tryhard

Your video opens by referring to China as 'the largest economy and military in the world.'

America has a larger economy and military by any metric.

Are you really one to criticize my sources?

>>59795

>>Accuses me of being a tryhard

Never happened. Get over your imagined slight.

All I did was tell you I'm lazy and not invested enough to dig for sources.

That's not a slam against posting sources or caring about the discussion, I don't think there's any shame in that, I'm just telling you I personally don't care enough to dig for research and provide citations for a discussion about race and immigration on a board about pissing ourselves in diapers.

>I'm going to ignore everything in that video because of one thing said which is generally true in principle (people still don't want to mess with China's military whether or not it's necessarily the best in the world) that has little to nothing to do with the meat of the video supported by quotes and historical events and studies and such

This is about the response I expected, and part of the reason I usually don't bother discussing any of this stuff and don't care enough to engage very deeply.

And I recognize this is probably partially you being dismissive in response to me being dismissive, except the difference is I'm not hand-waving away arguments I've responded to as far as I'm aware, I'm just not interested in citing anything.

>Are you really one to criticize my sources?

Yes, when your source seemingly says the opposite of what you claim it does, I am.

Why are people so racially insecure that they unironically need to argue that Equitorial Ginuea is filled with people with lots of potenial

>>59807

>Why are people so racially insecure that they unironically need to argue that Equitorial Ginuea is filled with people with lots of potenial

Why are racists so idealogically insecure they feel the need to argue their bullshit on a fucking ABDL forum?

>>59799

I have in fact watched the entire video, and I have also watched several videos making this or similar points in the past. I've heard all these talking points before.

However, when a source starts making such blatant false statements, that automatically raises a red flag that says it's either not very well informed, or not very well proofread.

I don't deny that it is politically toxic to bring in immigrants. Politicians don't want to call attention to actions that are politically toxic. This is not the 'mask slipping,' this is them playing politics. It doesn't have anything to do with the economic benefits of immigrants.

Most of the allegories in this video are either cherry picked or misconstrued. To counter some of the main points:

-Our businesses do not have 'mexican race quotas.' We offer (very) minor tax incentives for having women/minorities, but we do not penalize companies that do not.

-The ottomans, like every other empire, sent their citizens to live in conquered lands, but it's hard to say this inherently had a huge negative effect on the locals. If anything, the fact that their government's culture changed probably had more of an effect.

-I still can't get my head around how the answer to China and the Soviet Union murdering minorities would be moving those minorities out of those countries. Wouldn't it be better to not murder minorities in the first place?

The reason we spend more on hispanics than we take in is because they can't pay taxes so long as we're threatening to deport them. Give them a path to citizenship, and we can start taxing them.

As for black people, they weren't exactly clamoring to come over here in the first place. You can't call them 'immigrants.'

>>59811

>why are people arguing politics on a politics thread

i dunno because you guys are retarded. i was just saying your view is embarrassing if you actually believe it lol

>>59760

Finally back to this and got just a few quick points.

You say the parents would pay $20k a year for the rest of their lives and get the money back. I don't know we're you got the $20k from. Large about of African migrants that have entered Germany and Sweden have really high unemployment several years after being welcome into the country. Right now these countries have increased taxes, raised the retirement age, and borrowed to get these sources of potential future income going. It's a risky investment that I don't think they were wise to take.

Now if things go well and these people pay taxes and become citizens how happy do you think they will be to pay in for the retirement of 65+ whites? Will they vote in refugee candidates that serve the interest of us or them? Would they go against their own ethnic interests?

Now the paying folks for kid production happens already. A single mom with 2 kids out of wedlock can get be nights that are the equivalent to have an 80k a year job. We also give incentives for other things with stipulations. We have scholarships that allow people to attend school and get training. We get to lay out certain requirements and be selective of who recives those scholarships and we hope for a return on the investment. We alter requirements to optimize returns (or at least we should). Likewis you could apply to produce kids and be provided the means to do so easier. We don't have to provide the opportunity to everyone. Cut out drug user, no single moms, required parenting classes, ect.

There arw also cutural changes that are needed. If you've ever been to an altright group meeting each child and mother is admired. It's a new member being brought into the community rather than seen as a mistake and a burden. A cultural shift in how parenting is seen would do a lot to help birthrate.

The social capital thing isn't my argument. Social capital is a measurable variable and is well studied. Robert Putnam has 40 years in the field and published a book about social capital that outlines it's importance. The book is really good, but also kinda depressing. Ethnic relatedness is an important factor in social capital and makes better communities independent of many other factors. You kinda have to read the whole thing to get it, but you might could find a synopsis somewhere or a review.

I only glanced at the paper and I'm on my phone right now so I can't check it again. For the 2 seconds I looked at it it seemed like it was a really large range of time (1830s to 1990 if I recall) where most immigration was from white homelands to America and it did not break down by ethnic group. If there was more to it I'll check it out deeper, but it is a misleading paper if it's supposed to cover all immigration as a single block. I'm not saying you intentionally gave a misleading paper, but that it might be misleading.

One note I think I forgot to mention on the last one was that immigrants usually are vastly different in many traits then the populations they come from, but polygenic traits can be seen in later generation. This is regression to the mean.

The newly immigrated Middle Eastern neighbor that is a neurosurgeon who loves European culture and shares most of it's ideals is likely to have a much duller kid that desires theocracy and actively hates European ideals. So you can't judge the impact by the first generation. Also you ate getting the cream of the crop from another country that country is gonna suffer from the loss of these people. This used to be a CIA tactic called brain draining and was proposed (or maybe carried out) on Cuba.

Im in two minds about this whole thing.

On the one hand, people in shithole countries are quite right to look to the US or Europe and think 'those countries are much better than mine, I wish my shithole wasnt so shitty'.

But thats not a reason to abandon your home country. Instead you need to look to emulate what better countries are doing and follow their example.

It takes more time and hard work to fix a country than illegally crossing a border. But you get much more in return. Like the pride in building your own successes rather than leeching off other people.

Center right here. What I jerk off too doesn't have anything to with me wanting closed borders and low unemployment rate. I just want small government.

I'm gay and I was on the bakers side. They shouldn't have to bake the cake if they don't want too.

>>60389

I'll be honest most girls Ive talked to ill willing to try stuff as long don't push it to far or act like idiot , just ask what there into and often there so element that they enjoy whether thats being sun and serving someone or if there into bondage you can show the lack of control side. Just act rationally as everybody even girls have kinks

>>60389

I've seen enough progressive, liberal, social justice supporters that enjoy sexual deviancy in spite of their politics that I'm inclined to say they're more likely. Might just be that conservatives hide it better

>>60415

Learn about the big 5.

Any unironic TRS listeners? Somebody should ask the Fatherland their view on fetishes (between white married couples)

>>60836

tbh, Enoch would probably just throw a fit about degeneracy or some dumb shit. imo he's just bitter he can't keep his vices stuffed in the closet.

>>60838

Like what, drinking?

>>60840

Drinking and obesity mainly. Jewish wife might be hitting a little low, but a lot of people still poke at him for that.

>>60842

Check out my new board >>>/therightstuff/

>>60398

>I'm a radical traditionalist though

>is simultaneously a diaperfag

You can only be one

>>60845

It isn't that simple. The most sound, cited summation of the term "radical traditionalist" in a political sense is as follows.

1. Resacralization of the world versus materialism.

2. Natural social hierarchy versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth.

3. The tribal community versus the nation-state.

4. Stewardship of the earth versus the maximization of resources.

5. A harmonious relationship between men and women versus the war between the sexes.

6. Handicraft and artisanship versus industrial mass-production.

This definition originates from Michael J. Moynihan's journal Tyr.

Another common understanding of the term comes from the radical traditionalist school of thought. René Guénon is typically cited as the originator of radical traditionalism in the academic sense. His work, along with other radical traditionalists (Evola, as previously mentioned) largely has to do with reforming your world view to truly understand the wisdom within ancient texts, and to avoid any spins put on them by modernity (In Guénon's case, he focused specifically on western modernity).

I view both of these definitions as accurate and applicable in different settings.

Radical traditionalism has little in common with "traditionalism" as advocated for by LARPing dorks on /pol/. It's not about being chaste, it's not about wearing suits, and it's not about going to church. Radical traditionalism is about bringing about changes to, or the end of the modern world - both politically and intellectually.

The only contradiction between being a radical traditionalist as explained above, and being a diaper fag is from an environmental standpoint. And even then, I'm sure I have a much lower carbon footprint that your average joe.

It's also worth noting that I believe sexuality is mostly nurture, not nature. Therefore, I advocate for radical traditionalism in hopes that we can form a world in which the circumstances that create people with strange and deviant sexual preferences are minimized as much as possible.

Hopefully I've explained this well enough, I've never really had to before. Reconciling my sexuality with my world view was a very, very long (and at times, painful) process. But in doing so I explored avenues of thought I otherwise wouldn't have, so I'm very glad I did.

>>42170

>I don't see how someone being gay makes them a bad parent by default. There are plenty of bad parents already and imo 2 parents who are guys/gals are better than no parents for one thing.

They have huge molestation rates. Occasionally you'll get the Jack Donovan exception, but generally gays have poor impulse control. Also children need a mother AND a father. One for nuturing and one for teaching

>>60844

nice nice NICE!

>>60415

Yeah a lot of ultra hardcore feminists are secretly in to heavy degrading male dominated BDSM.

They tend to be open about certain fetishes but that is one that they cant admit to.

>>60884

I wonder how many jewesses would be into nazi kinks. Aside from diapers and vore, jewess is my biggest fetish

>>60883

I agree with you that homosexuals shouldn't be parents, however Donovan is NOT an exception to the rule. He's kind of a hack. While I don't think he'd touch a kid, he certainly wouldn't make a good father.

>>60883

STD rates also don't decrease after gay marriage is instated. They actually increase as a matter of fact. Promiscuity and impulsiveness aren't qualities that create a healthy environment to raise a child. The more difficult problem is whether or not we should make homosexuals enter hetero relationships, given the high consciousness lifestyle, the nuclear family and white birth rates are under attack.

>>61086

And here's the problem with lolbertarians: they have no possible argument against decadence and degeneracy.

>>61104

That's like the one thing both left and right libertarians agree on. I literally have no idea what you are trying to get at.

>>61113

A bunch of people just being individuals destroys all sense of community and social norms, which in term fractures a country, which makes it really easy for either a cultural or physical invasion. That's what's happening in Europe anyway.

>>61114

>>61104

not an argument

>>59620

this post seems to be getting a lot of hate for being

>"you alt-right fucking nazi fuck. conservatives won't accept you, so better become a cuck. How dare you think for yourself, how dare look into statistical facts, how absolutely dare you!!!!1!!!!"

I'm just here to say you're not alone in this fight

>>61114

>Libertarianism is retarded because they assume corporations and the government operate differently in the absence of oversight because one is labeled "public" and the other is labeled "private."

Obviously they would act differently because of how they are funded.

But the part that you are missing is that without a powerful government, corporations wont lobby the government. Because the government cant give them what they want. That would eliminate a lot of corruption.

This thread is cancer.

You people are cancer.

The revolution isn't going to start on a fucking diaper diaper fetish board.

Please fuck off.

There is nothing cringier than seeing the crusaders against degeneracy and all fun on the Internet and real life trying to rationalize their autistic worldviews with their diaper fetish. It’s nice knowing I don’t have to live a life of guilt and force myself to make rationalizations like

<It’s okay if it’s in the h-home!

Let’s replace Himmler’s words here with “diaper fetish” or any other fetish and it will hold accurate:

>I would like to develop a couple of ideas for you on the question of homosexuality. There are those homosexuals who take the view: what I do is my business, a purely private matter. However, all things which take place in the sexual sphere are not the private affair of the individual, but signify the life and death of the nation, signify world power or 'swissification.'

Feels good to be a hedonist who does give a fuck

>>61662

><It’s okay if it’s in the h-home!

Im not a crusader against degeneracy but I think keeping your sexual fetishes at home (or at least private) is a very good thing.

Nobody wants to see your ugly diapered ass out in public.

>>42062

>Personally I'm quite far left economically

if you learned basic economics there is no way you would be leftist economically anymore

>>42079

>libertarian leftist

How the fuck is this even a thing?

You want to use violence against people on their property and abolish markets through force.

You're an authoritarian.

>>61114

lol but corporations wouldn't even exist without state power backing them up