Five of swords

The theory that Hitler was jewish was started by a guy in the nsdap who wanted to delegitimize him. Strasserites did the same thing with Reinhard heydritch. In fact, this is just an absurdly common smear tactic in all nationalist circles, even today. Everyone accuses everyone of being secretly jewish. Race is a product of many generations of adaptation to a certain environment. Environment is not merely climate or diet, it is also the way of life chosen by a people. People will genetically adapt, for example, to feudalism...because that political system does place selective pressure on reproduction.

Hitler certainly did not behave in a Jewish manner. You can of course say that all the various races of humans share certain genes, but that is also true with humans and bananas. And I can tell the difference between a human and a banana. If you accumulate a lot of information about the way different races behave, you can pretty much tell what race a person is from their behavior. For example, I can tell you are not jewish already.

I read the dialogue of Plato where Socrates mentioned Atlantis...which is the only source we have that such a thing existed at all. But in that dialogue Atlantis was not all that remarkable. He suggested they had some excellent idea for social justice or something, not that they had advanced technology or anything. The hype that the 'mainstream' associates with Atlantis is just myth and disconnected from any reality

Lol. Well now you just want to change the subject. Transgender affirmers equally suggest that the difference between men and women is simply cultural. And this is just stuff they assert, like yourself, merely because if it isn't true then that means their entire society and political system is based on a lie...so it has nothing to do with objective reality...but rather the nightmare that would follow if it were false. I don't really need or care to explain to you the whole science of human biodiversity, which I have in fact studied a fair amount. Nothing about that needs to be relevant to this discussion. All you need to admit is that it is actually possible for genetic differences COULD IN THEORY cause different races to construct and thrive in meaningfully different societies....because they are different genetically. For example, the only reason no oyster has ever been a great mathematician is because of the genetics of oysters. It is not because of cultural differences. The biggest wall to break down ideologically for the masses is just getting to admit that genetic differences could be meaningful in theory. Once they are willing to even consider that possibility I find that the rest becomes obvious and agrees with everyone's personal experience.

If you start saying the differences are 'too small' then you invite a lot of questions...like how small is small enough? What empirical data do we have on this? Are there any differences between black majority countries versus white majority countries, etc. So people avoiding admitting that Adolf Hitler was right are forced to just deny that genetics matter at all, and they sidestep all those questions. People opposed to transgender ideology see the absurdity in that case, but remain blind to the exact same issue with their raceblind ideology.

Please try to refrain from commentary. You have no idea what is going on but couch seems to be capable of understanding.

He is not arguing that racial differences are 'too small'...him and the consensus in the western world in general is that intrinsically there CANNOT be significant differences between races, despite the fact they have different genetics. Because genetics just don't really do anything. The people who argue that all the races are the same are using exactly the same logic as the people who argue that men and women are the same...you could just substitute biological sex for race and get exactly the same argument. Nobody even bothers with a more 'nuanced' position like you are suggesting they COULD do....because even admitting the possibility that genetics could alter whatenvironment a human thrives in willnaturally result in the total collapse of liberal philosophy...so smart people know it is too dangerous to even consider that as a possibility.

I didn't say races cannot get along. I said they do not thrive equally well in exactly the same environment. Ergo, youvannot construct a society that is 'fair' for every race...just like forcing women to compete with men in the Olympics is not 'fair. So your logical fallacy was strawman. And I don't see how you can deny how my analogy fits exactly. Genetics does make people different in meaningful ways...whether it is genetics relating to biological sex or your racial group.

Nah. You are both just severely retarded. Anyone following the discussion with at least 70 iq can also see that. There doesn't need to be any commentary here.

Okay. You and your buddy really struggle with statements like 'if x then y'. You have no idea what it means. You just assume it is the same as 'x is true'...but anyone capable of abstract reasoning knows otherwise. But I can't make you capable of abstract reasoning...so it's just a pointless discussion

So you clearly can't do simple logic either. You also failed to address my point.

You are just repeating what I already know: simple logic is too hard for you.

No, even you yourself would deny that genetics matter. If I suggested that different races cannot thrive in the same environment because they have different genetics, you would insist that genetics don't work that way. Okay whatever. Just expand that to male vs female and make the environment a boxing ring. It all follows from simple logic...but you are spared from cognitive dissonance because you are incapable of simple logic

Well the consensus in the western world is that genetics do not matter so you cannot define a woman on the basis of genetics. So women don't exist. This obviously makes it very confusing to determine what woman's boxing is. I don't see why they don't use polar bears.

Well...based on your argument there is am easy fix, lol. Just make it illegal. Then we would have a lot more than 0% say.

No, it isn't very common because very few people can actually afford to raise a child. Many of the kids just wind up living with a pedophile who systematically rapes them, often because the pedophile has been informed by 1960s intellectuals that sexual repression is the source of fascism. Our economy is more focused on killing random people across the pacific ocean who are inconvenient for Israel than it is maintaining the possibility for replacement level childbirth. And this is by design. And the state that has designed the society that way has no justification for making it more difficult for people to just try their best to enjoy their individual life as difficult as it is.

Having an unwanted child is far more of an imposition on a mother than Iran attacking Israel would be. It doesn't make any sense what your excuse is for shunning the killing of one person but not the other. Just isn't internally consistent.

Okay so 'thou shalt not kill' is negotiable? It only applies to abortion? Is that what Moses said? Are we assuming the premise anyway that whatever Moses said is correct?

So...thou shalt not kill unless vietnam goes communist?

The usa elected an old boring liar The usa is a great country that deserves high quality leadership Pick one.

Planned Parenthood Doctor Admits To Selling Aborted Baby Body Parts (Disturbing Video!) Psalms 36:1, “The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.” http://www.lovethetruth.com/jis_images/slaughtered_child-abortion.jpg So what do you think about your country having a military? Are you going to quote Moses about not killing for that?

Funny. I care about my posterity which is exactly why I think this country must be destroyed.

Media that tries to act like any political party is important is lying to you.

I'm telling you the facts lol. You are the one who cannot accept them. What somebody wrote down somewhere has zero impact on power. Power is a function of money and narratives and belief which inspires loyalty...wither loyalty from love or from fear. Nobody is inspired by what somebody wrote down as technically a law somewhere lol.. give me a break. The king of England is irrelevant. And English royalty has been irrelevant since Edward viii...who I am sure you heard abdicated for some marriage issue...but that is a fake story. In reality he was forced to abdicate because he was fond of Adolf Hitler. And indeed Hitler and Edward viii were in communication during the war and if Hitler had ever gotten around to invading and taking over England (which, however, was not a priority of his)...he was going to install Edward viii as dictator. But as you may know, Hitler lost ww2 and with that the English royal family and indeed the British empire itself became irrelevant. The uk today is just a vassal state of the usa and is poor and powerless, and that is a direct consequence of their 'victory' in ww2. Put that in your law books lol.

Lol...Trump did not manage to get any of those rioters in prison. Instead he was all about the first step act etc. Under his administration, criminals were si.ple set free from prison under the pretense that they might get covid in prison lol. But you don't have to believe me lol, it's irrelevant. You will get to hear this from Trump himself. In his campaign against Kamala, he is going to be going on and on about how Kamala throws too many young black men in prison. And when he himself says that, you can remember me and just imagine me saying I told you so. And then you can just tell me if you think you are 'winning'?