Forwarded from Race Realism Channel
Study: Neanderthals species-mixed themselves to extinction
"Homo sapiens may have been responsible for the extinction of Neanderthals not by violence, but through sex instead."
"A new paper, published in the journal PalaeoAnthropology, raises the prospect that interbreeding with our ancestors would have reduced the number of Neanderthals breeding with each other, leading to their eventual extinction."
(Source)
"Homo sapiens may have been responsible for the extinction of Neanderthals not by violence, but through sex instead."
"A new paper, published in the journal PalaeoAnthropology, raises the prospect that interbreeding with our ancestors would have reduced the number of Neanderthals breeding with each other, leading to their eventual extinction."
(Source)
This is so retarded.
1. This could only be enforced by ending anonymity and implementing digital identity.
2. Banning kids from social media won't protect them from filth because our entire civilization is filth.
3. Putting even more power in the hands of an openly hostile government is insane.
Conservatives are always putting the cart before the horse. They scramble to introduce all of these stupid, ineffective, bandaid policies instead of addressing the root cause.
You want to ban modern degeneracy? Okay, then un-do all of the so-called "Civil Rights" laws that allowed it to flood society in the first place. Anything else is a total waste of time.
If you're okay with more big government regulations, then why not use the government to do something that's actually effective?
(Tweet source)
1. This could only be enforced by ending anonymity and implementing digital identity.
2. Banning kids from social media won't protect them from filth because our entire civilization is filth.
3. Putting even more power in the hands of an openly hostile government is insane.
Conservatives are always putting the cart before the horse. They scramble to introduce all of these stupid, ineffective, bandaid policies instead of addressing the root cause.
You want to ban modern degeneracy? Okay, then un-do all of the so-called "Civil Rights" laws that allowed it to flood society in the first place. Anything else is a total waste of time.
If you're okay with more big government regulations, then why not use the government to do something that's actually effective?
(Tweet source)
"The words “male” and “female” should be phased out in science because they reinforce ideas that sex is binary, scientists have suggested."
"Researchers studying ecology and evolutionary biology should be encouraged to use terms such as “sperm-producing” or “egg producing” or “XY/XX individual” to avoid “emphasising hetero-normative views”, experts say."
"Other words and terms deemed problematic include man, woman, mother, father, primitive, advanced, alien, invasive, exotic, non-native and race."
"The term “invasive” or “non-native species” is also deemed to be “xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and militaristic”, and could be replaced with “newly-arrived” or “nuisance species”, they suggest."
(Article)
"Researchers studying ecology and evolutionary biology should be encouraged to use terms such as “sperm-producing” or “egg producing” or “XY/XX individual” to avoid “emphasising hetero-normative views”, experts say."
"Other words and terms deemed problematic include man, woman, mother, father, primitive, advanced, alien, invasive, exotic, non-native and race."
"The term “invasive” or “non-native species” is also deemed to be “xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and militaristic”, and could be replaced with “newly-arrived” or “nuisance species”, they suggest."
(Article)
71% of Republicans want immigration to be reduced. Only 10% are satisfied with current immigration and a mere 4% want immigration to be increased.
The top 5 Republican grievances are:
#1 Immigration (90% dissatisfied)
#2 The economy (88%)
#3 Taxes (86%)
#4 Poverty/homelessness (83%)
#5 Crime (82%)
Close runners-up:
- Energy policies (81%)
- Quality of education (80%)
- Government regulation (79%)
The data is clear-cut. So, in theory, the GOP should have no trouble devising some election-winning policies. Simply closing the borders and deporting illegals would do most of the heavy lifting.
(Source: Gallup)
The top 5 Republican grievances are:
#1 Immigration (90% dissatisfied)
#2 The economy (88%)
#3 Taxes (86%)
#4 Poverty/homelessness (83%)
#5 Crime (82%)
Close runners-up:
- Energy policies (81%)
- Quality of education (80%)
- Government regulation (79%)
The data is clear-cut. So, in theory, the GOP should have no trouble devising some election-winning policies. Simply closing the borders and deporting illegals would do most of the heavy lifting.
(Source: Gallup)
Keith Woods' retarded narrative is that the American government cynically invented Cultural Marxism (which is, of course, "not real Socialism") after WW2 as a trick to undermine the USSR and cuck the "real Left" out of pursuing economics, so that evil Neo-Liberal Capitalists could dominate the world (because they are greedy and want lots of money or something).
Easily debunked:
1. Everything that Cultural Marxists advocate was also advocated by Marx and Engels (abolishing the nation, family, religion, and traditional culture, fighting "false consciousness," etc.) and other influential Commies (see below).
2. The USSR was the first country in history to implement stereotypically Cultural Marxist policies, e.g. legalizing transgenderism, criminalizing racism, implementing radical feminism, creating "hate speech" laws, etc.
3. This happened as soon as the Communists conquered Russia, almost 50 years before Cultural Marxism was codified in America via the "Civil Rights" Act. In this sense, calling Cultural Marxism a "Soviet ideology" is reasonable.
4. The ideological theories behind Cultural Marxism were imported into America from Germany and Russia by Communist immigrants. However, no sane man would call these ideas "European," so why call them "American"?
I've explained this stuff about Marxist subversion 1000 times before. For a post with citations, see this response to Eric Striker: https://t.me/thuletide/4319
Anyway, Woods and other self-proclaimed Socialists have been pushing this historically illiterate nonsense for years, lying by omission to absolve and rehabilitate Socialism.
They don't actually explain how America transitioned from being institutionally White supremacist, sexist, Christian, etc. to being institutionally Cultural Marxist basically overnight, they just say "This is all a natural consequence of Liberalism; these woke Leftists have been tricked into opposing their own class interests by the evil Monopoly Men and the CIA."
We can easily and objectively pinpoint when America was subverted and who was responsible (same for every other Western country). The "anti-woke" crowd became popular by doing exactly this. They looked at the basic historical facts and presented a genealogy of modern Leftism.
Their observations on Cultural Marxism closely align with those made by "Far-Right" anons on /pol/ several years prior (e.g. this image from 2015) and with genealogies presented by Leftists themselves. See these Commiepedia articles, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudo-Marxism
Plus, the "anti-woke" crowd often point out the role of financial oligarchs in pushing "wokeness" — Rockefellers, BlackRock, WEF, etc. Nobody who talks about Cultural Marxism denies the existence of bankers, but CEOs in corporate boardrooms didn't invent modern Leftism; Marxist intellectuals in academia did.
Easily debunked:
1. Everything that Cultural Marxists advocate was also advocated by Marx and Engels (abolishing the nation, family, religion, and traditional culture, fighting "false consciousness," etc.) and other influential Commies (see below).
2. The USSR was the first country in history to implement stereotypically Cultural Marxist policies, e.g. legalizing transgenderism, criminalizing racism, implementing radical feminism, creating "hate speech" laws, etc.
3. This happened as soon as the Communists conquered Russia, almost 50 years before Cultural Marxism was codified in America via the "Civil Rights" Act. In this sense, calling Cultural Marxism a "Soviet ideology" is reasonable.
4. The ideological theories behind Cultural Marxism were imported into America from Germany and Russia by Communist immigrants. However, no sane man would call these ideas "European," so why call them "American"?
I've explained this stuff about Marxist subversion 1000 times before. For a post with citations, see this response to Eric Striker: https://t.me/thuletide/4319
Anyway, Woods and other self-proclaimed Socialists have been pushing this historically illiterate nonsense for years, lying by omission to absolve and rehabilitate Socialism.
They don't actually explain how America transitioned from being institutionally White supremacist, sexist, Christian, etc. to being institutionally Cultural Marxist basically overnight, they just say "This is all a natural consequence of Liberalism; these woke Leftists have been tricked into opposing their own class interests by the evil Monopoly Men and the CIA."
We can easily and objectively pinpoint when America was subverted and who was responsible (same for every other Western country). The "anti-woke" crowd became popular by doing exactly this. They looked at the basic historical facts and presented a genealogy of modern Leftism.
Their observations on Cultural Marxism closely align with those made by "Far-Right" anons on /pol/ several years prior (e.g. this image from 2015) and with genealogies presented by Leftists themselves. See these Commiepedia articles, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudo-Marxism
Plus, the "anti-woke" crowd often point out the role of financial oligarchs in pushing "wokeness" — Rockefellers, BlackRock, WEF, etc. Nobody who talks about Cultural Marxism denies the existence of bankers, but CEOs in corporate boardrooms didn't invent modern Leftism; Marxist intellectuals in academia did.
Before the New Deal crypto-Communists took over America in the 1930s, we had the Progressive Era, which was driven by a desire to "purify" politics and society.
The systemic ideology of America at this time was:
- "White supremacy"
- Segregation
- Immigration restriction
- Social hygiene (anti-degeneracy)
- Eugenics
- Class collaboration
- Free enterprise
- Trust busting / anti-corruption
The only thing that was slightly "Cultural Marxist" about this era was women's suffrage, which was largely motivated by racism (reducing the Black vote).
Socialists like Keith Woods are trying to convince everyone that this ideology naturally produced the Great Replacement and transgender toddlers.
The systemic ideology of America at this time was:
- "White supremacy"
- Segregation
- Immigration restriction
- Social hygiene (anti-degeneracy)
- Eugenics
- Class collaboration
- Free enterprise
- Trust busting / anti-corruption
The only thing that was slightly "Cultural Marxist" about this era was women's suffrage, which was largely motivated by racism (reducing the Black vote).
Socialists like Keith Woods are trying to convince everyone that this ideology naturally produced the Great Replacement and transgender toddlers.
The people who lived during the Progressive Era were incredibly intelligent btw. 15 IQ points smarter than us, on average. The average person then was as intelligent as the average college graduate accountant is now.
I don't agree with all of their policies (e.g. Federal Reserve + too much welfare), but Progressive Era progressivism seems to be a pretty solid ideological foundation.
They were on their way to fixing the problems caused by modern industrial society (before Communists destroyed America) and had a positive, forward-thinking attitude that was still predominantly rooted in conservative values.
Sources:
- Were the Victorians cleverer than us?
- Why g matters
- A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation
I don't agree with all of their policies (e.g. Federal Reserve + too much welfare), but Progressive Era progressivism seems to be a pretty solid ideological foundation.
They were on their way to fixing the problems caused by modern industrial society (before Communists destroyed America) and had a positive, forward-thinking attitude that was still predominantly rooted in conservative values.
Sources:
- Were the Victorians cleverer than us?
- Why g matters
- A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation