(07-26-2016 02:40 PM)void Wrote:  If anybody really wants to know what psychological processes (collective guilt) were installed in the German public conscious, you should read this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazifica...man_states and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazifica...tive_guilt

It is still in effect to this day.

That explains some things...but there is a lot more.
Germans have been blind followers of authority for hundreds of years.

Also a lot of the weakening of men across the west came from feminism and the "gender equality" bullshit.

Finally, the last nail in the coffin for male power is endless free access to limitless pornography which constantly removes testosterone from your body on a regular basis, making you docile, lazy, demotivated and lacking courage.

Denazification across Europe was a classic shaming tactic...stolen right out of the feminist handbook.

When you guys talk about denazification, don't forget the propaganda that did happen in WW I. This was the first time on a big scale Germans did face international propaganda. The Huns, the Krauts and whatever Hollywood put in arms to put Germany and Germans down. The blame and shame of Germany did happen long before the denazification.
Our school education is also a joke. They want to rise citizens that are critical but actual its just some sort of tricky propaganda with some fake individual thinking. There is no really hard question of the actual system, there are no teachings about mass behavior, sociological research of human behavior. The today education is even worse because it give you the illusion that you think critical when you actual don't.

(07-26-2016 02:26 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 01:57 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  I can no longer discern your point.

The point is that they have no history of great GERMAN leaders who lead masses to fight in the streets and overthrow corrupt rulers....no matter how bad it gets. Have the Germans ever had a native born Robespierre ? An Oliver Cromwell ? A Vladimir Lenin ? A Francisco Franco ? A Chiang Kai-shek ? No. All their changes of power were done by official decree on paper.

Many people don't know that 1918 to 1933 was the worst peacetime period for the Germans themselves as it could possibly get. There was widespread poverty, hyperinflation, numerous failed governments, German refugees in territories lost to Poland, mass unemployment. Their savings became worthless, they had no jobs, they lost their homes...people were starving. It was really, really bad, but nothing changed for 15 years until a butt hurt incel beta male Austro-Hungarian immigrant came in to lead a "revolution"....in reality, all he led was an political election to power which was rubber stamped by world war 1 general Paul von Hindenburg.

In 2016 and the years to come, unless someone comes in from outside, there will be no serious resistance against what is happening in Germany right now.
Even if the far right is voted into power tomorrow with 99% of the vote in Germany...seriously what will they do ?
The foreigners acting violent who have been welcomed into Germany in the last few years will not leave without being forced.
Who's going to force them to leave ?
No one.

The idea that an Austrian is significantly genetically different from a German is ridiculous hogwash. Bad premise.

(07-26-2016 01:55 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 01:46 PM)rw95 Wrote:  Foreign influence could never have caused them to become like this unless there was something within them which was willing to change. The Germans allowed this to happen. I'm not saying the Germans do not have the right to fight back, but they are not totally blameless for what has befallen them either.

Respectfully, you're wrong and need to read and research WWII more.

You're also over-estimating people in general, and under-estimating techniques of mass-control.

You aren't even "you", but a product of your environment and information to a large degree. You're only the hardware.

It seems like you guys need a convenient scapegoat, and are rationalizing that scapegoat in lieu of a rational view of history and what it means to be human and a large human population.

Besides they aren't close to being the worst in Europe. Not even the bottom five in terms of being cucked if we look at how people operate in their everyday lives.

Not so. Environment has very little significance in how we turn out as people. If this were true, second and third-generation North African immigrants would be indistinguishable from the Europeans whose countries they inhabit. Everything we do comes down to genetics, and it applies to Europeans just as much as it does "the coloreds" or "the darker races."

Nobody can force anybody to believe anything he doesn't want to believe. Nobody forced westerners to embrace multiculturalism/feminism/Marxism, etc. While there may have been forces pushing for this to take place, these forces could not have been successful if the people did not accept it in large enough numbers. Germany I'll admit was in a pretty shitty situation when it came to this, as the country was and is held responsible for two world wars. But perhaps if Germans were not so inclined to obey authority, regardless of who is in power (a genetic trait, all behavioral traits are genetic) they would not be in their current situation.

Check this out:
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/the-behavi...tics-page/

Quote:

(07-26-2016 02:12 PM)Saga Wrote:  [quote='hydrogonian' pid='1358967' dateline='1469553116']In fact, as I pointed out, the Third Reich was the revolution. WWI was also a war for their interests. Thinking otherwise is merely not being flexible enough in your historical thought to realize the reality of the two situations for the Germans.

Therein lies the problem. The Third Reich was revolutionary because fascism, like Jacobinism and Bolshevism, is a utopian-revolutionary ideology that opposes tradition, not a conservative philosophy that defends tradition. That is precisely why that regime was not in the interests of Germany, and resulted in her utter ruin, a ruin invited by unhinged policy and a scorn for traditional governance.

You're going off-topic.

The topic , specifically, was whether or not Germans have a weakness in character because they, according to the foundation-less logic, supposedly have killed less of their own rulers than other tribes.

I invalidated that logic, in finality, when I brought up the case of the Romanovs. If one does not hold the Russians to have a strength of character for executing them, than this pseudo-test of personality is logically invalid.

I'm not going to entertain a rhetorical strategy that shifts the argument because you are losing the argument at-hand.

Though, I did bold the part of your post that goes beyond wrong into the realm of logical nonsense.

And my vote is to take that basic neoreaction stuff elsewhere. It's the definition of ridiculous. "Tradition" has zero political meaning, and thus it is a dead political end if that is your sole point of political reference. It's on par with objectivism; and maybe worse because at least Rand defined her empty politics.

You would have done better to make a pure argument between utopianism and non-utopianism, instead of evoking a nebulous "traditionalism", because at least that would have anchored a political reference point for yourself.

And I would have, in turn, blown this discussion wide open and made everyone uncomfortable talking about the utopianism that no one wants to talk about, and compared it to what you are referring to. Thus, showing you that the fascism is not actually utopianism. Globalism is. Utopianism deals in an ideal that may have never been and may ever be, and fascism deals in the observable world of how people behave. But I'm not here to argue the merits of political systems. As I said, you're going way off-topic.

(07-26-2016 05:10 PM)rw95 Wrote:  Not so. Environment has very little significance in how we turn out as people.

That's absolutely false, and I say that as a believer in genetic determinism. Not even the staunchest HBD believers would argue that environment has little impact on who we turn out to be. Everything from language exposure, to caloric intake, to trauma influences our brain development.

You've taken one statement of my argument out of context, while ignoring the parts that you don't contend with, simply to argue with me. Over and over again, I made statements that point to the genetic origin of the character of Germans. Don't make essentialist arguments just to make yourself heard on the thread, because I'm already juggling multiple conversations here.

Quote:If this were true, second and third-generation North African immigrants would be indistinguishable from the Europeans whose countries they inhabit. Everything we do comes down to genetics, and it applies to Europeans just as much as it does "the coloreds" or "the darker races."

No shit, except for the bolded part. Understand this: there is hardware and software. Hardware determines how the software runs, but all of the hardware, no matter how good or bad, also depends on software for a relative good or bad result. Hence, why you have good German hardware running shitty software to a good result for the shitty software goal. For fuck's sake. These arguments are getting exhausting in their tedious, un-thought-out nature.

Quote:Nobody can force anybody to believe anything he doesn't want to believe.

You're simply wrong. You believe plenty of things that you had no input into whether you were going to believe them or not.

Quote:Nobody forced westerners to embrace multiculturalism/feminism/Marxism, etc.

Absolute bullshit. You deny the history of cultural Marxism and its research and application. All that this tells me is that you aren't yet sophisticated enough to catch the less-obvious, more effective programming.

Quote:But perhaps if Germans were not so inclined to obey authority, regardless of who is in power

This is your assertion, and an assertion on this thread, but you guys are simply inventing this assertion out of thin air and repeating it until you convince yourselves of its truth.

And frankly its coming off as jealousy. And pure hate for the Germans, which is increasingly curious to me.

I refuted this assertion, over and over, in the historical recount of German wars. Ignoring the before stated arguments against your argument, just to repeat your prior arguments, is a well worn tactic of the enemies of the Germans.

Quote:(a genetic trait, all behavioral traits are genetic) they would not be in their current situation.

A choice to follow rules is not genetic. It's a matter of the logical choices that are empowered by the free will that results from higher IQ and emotional control. Which are genetic.

If your simplistic assertion on the nature of the complexity of the German personality were true, the Germans would take to a Hitler character if he simply replaced Merkel today, without warning and without prior social programming. They would not.

They are a logical, less emotional people. And that's it. It leads to logical behavior. If they rejected their current oppressors, they'd likely be wiped out. Right now, they are surviving. And they are subject to advanced methods of social programming that also helps them to believe that what they are doing is correct.

If you want to fetishize a lower IQ and more emotional personality, then go ahead. But good luck with that society. And what are you doing in this thread? You should be welcoming the new migrants of Europe. They meet your social and IQ preference better than do the Germans.

Furthermore, you are assigning to the Germans an ability to disobey their post WWII government that they simply did not and do not possess. If you think otherwise, you lack perspective on post WWII Germany. What on earth do you think that US bases are in Germany for? The Russians? Not so much.

(07-26-2016 04:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 02:26 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 01:57 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  I can no longer discern your point.

The point is that they have no history of great GERMAN leaders who lead masses to fight in the streets and overthrow corrupt rulers....no matter how bad it gets. Have the Germans ever had a native born Robespierre ? An Oliver Cromwell ? A Vladimir Lenin ? A Francisco Franco ? A Chiang Kai-shek ? No. All their changes of power were done by official decree on paper.

Many people don't know that 1918 to 1933 was the worst peacetime period for the Germans themselves as it could possibly get. There was widespread poverty, hyperinflation, numerous failed governments, German refugees in territories lost to Poland, mass unemployment. Their savings became worthless, they had no jobs, they lost their homes...people were starving. It was really, really bad, but nothing changed for 15 years until a butt hurt incel beta male Austro-Hungarian immigrant came in to lead a "revolution"....in reality, all he led was an political election to power which was rubber stamped by world war 1 general Paul von Hindenburg.

In 2016 and the years to come, unless someone comes in from outside, there will be no serious resistance against what is happening in Germany right now.
Even if the far right is voted into power tomorrow with 99% of the vote in Germany...seriously what will they do ?
The foreigners acting violent who have been welcomed into Germany in the last few years will not leave without being forced.
Who's going to force them to leave ?
No one.

The idea that an Austrian is significantly genetically different from a German is ridiculous hogwash. Bad premise.

Well, Samseau, he's shifting his argument, from one that asserts a genetic trait for the German people, to an argument that rests on an example that supposedly shows that Germanic peoples differ in traits due only to political borders.

Though the implication is still genetic. Which makes zero sense.

He's driven by a hatred for the Germans, not any information that is founded on any type of logic rooted in history or genetics. And he certianly isn't interested in good-faith arguing. Thus, he'll keep shifting arguments ad-infinitum, and ignoring counter-arguments, until he exhausts his opponents. At that time, he'll feel a spurious victory.

I'm also sensing ulterior politics at this point in the conversation, given the fallacious arguing tactics and irrational perseverance in demonizing Germans.

Although I agree with you that Germany was an occupied country after WW2 that the Jews managed to takeover for their own sadistic revenge, I disagree that Germans are not naively trusting. Tons of Nordic Euros share this trait. It's why in America you have Minnesota voting for cucked politics despite it formerly being 99.99% White. It's why Sweden votes cuck despite not being occupied after WW2.

Germany has it the worst politically, no doubt, but they still aren't as cucked as Sweden. So these counter-examples show that the naive trust most likely has a large genetic component.

(07-26-2016 05:13 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  The topic , specifically, was whether or not Germans have a weakness in character because they, according to the foundation-less logic, supposedly have killed less of their own rulers than other tribes.

I invalidated that logic, in finality, when I brought up the case of the Romanovs. If one does not hold the Russians to have a strength of character for executing them, than this pseudo-test of personality is logically invalid.

I'm not going to entertain a rhetorical strategy that shifts the argument because you are losing the argument at-hand.

That very clearly wasn't my argument in the first place, and isn't now. The premise that I question, and which is perfectly relevant to the wider subject, is the idea that WWI (and WWII if I'm reading your posts correctly) were in the interests of Germany, which seems an indefensible assertion given that history shows both wars to be disastrous and unwise in the extreme. I note that you've neglected to attempt such a defense here.

Quote:And take that basic neoreaction bullshit elsewhere. It's the definition of ridiculous. "Tradition" has zero political meaning, and thus it is a dead political end if that is your sole point of political reference. It's on par with objectivism; and maybe worse because at least Rand defined her empty politics.

You would have done better to make a pure argument between utopianism and non-utopianism, instead of evoking a nebulous "traditionalism", because at least that would have anchored a political reference point for yourself.

And I would have, in turn, blown this discussion wide open and made everyone uncomfortable talking about the utopianism that no one wants to talk about, and compared it to what you are referring to. Thus, showing you that the Fascism is not actually utopianism. Utopianism deals in an ideal that may have never been, and fascism deals in the observable world. But I'm not here to argue the merits of political systems. As I said, you're going way off-topic.

Tradition has zero political meaning? That would be the standard assumption for a revolutionary, denying the centrality of tradition is always high on the list of those who wish to tear down everything in order to pursue their grand schemes. To a conservative, however, tradition is political meaning: the objective of conservative politics is the maintenance of what is received and the insurance of what is to be given. As Burke wrote, it is the continuity of inherited rights that binds a community and society, whereas the speculative and theoretical "rights" of revolutionary states are subject to the whims of convenience. This, of course, is not nebulous, rather contextual, and therefore varies in application from society to society, which is anathema to universalist politics. The fact that you confuse contextual principles for nebulousness speaks volumes.

This also allows us to distinguish from legitimate rulers like Tsar Nicolas II, and usurpers like the ones who took over Germany in the crisis of the 1930's. One provides a constitution to be reformed, the other typically attempts to displace civil society in favor of its own state power. The fact that the Third Reich had, by its end, alienated virtually every single pillar of traditional German society (the church, the nobility, the military leadership) is all the more reason to conclude that the regime was never Germany's champion, but rather used Germany as a tool for its own ends. This inversion of the national interest is a hallmark of utopian ideologies.

Additionally, radicals always claim "rational" grounds for their lofty ideas (Jacobins with their "natural law" and Marxists with their "historical materialism)...yet in every case, this proves an empty boast, and as in Berlin 1945, as in Paris 1794, as in Moscow 1991, these visions are exposed as the nightmares they always were at their bitter and ignominious end. If you wish to deal in the observable world, those would be important observations to begin with.

(07-26-2016 04:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The idea that an Austrian is significantly genetically different from a German is ridiculous hogwash. Bad premise.

I never mentioned genetics in my argument.
He was still a foreigner in country he didnt come from and grew up outside Germany until 1913.
Austrians have never wanted to be part of Germany and feel insulted if you call them German.
Austria Hungary was made up of Austrians, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, Serbians and many others that all spoke their own languages. Germany was just made up of people that spoke German and the large polish minority in the east.

After world war 1 austria hungary, the ottoman empire and the russian empire all split into various small countries based on language and ethnicity. Apart from some territorial losses with the poles getting their country back after 100 years, germany remained intact after 1918. There was nothing to split apart.

Sure Austrians and Germans may be genetically similar but politically and historically they are wide apart.


I dont know if the german condition is a genetic one or an environmental one...but you have to go back to to the time of the Hanseatic league and the Teutonic knights to find a time when germans defied and challenged their rulers.

(07-26-2016 05:47 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  He's driven by a hatred for the Germans, not any information that is founded on any type of logic rooted in history or genetics.

The only thing i hate is blind obedience to authority when that authority becomes detrimental to your own survival.

I wouldnt care so much if this was an internal german thing....but this is affecting all of europe.

At this stage only a Turkish SECULAR man who speaks perfect German and is voted into power may be the only type of person with the balls and political correctness immunity to fix the German migrant question.

Im sure such a political candidate is already being prepared behind the scenes.

(07-26-2016 06:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Although I agree with you that Germany was an occupied country after WW2 that the Jews managed to takeover for their own sadistic revenge, I disagree that Germans are not naively trusting. Tons of Nordic Euros share this trait. It's why in America you have Minnesota voting for cucked politics despite it formerly being 99.99% White. It's why Sweden votes cuck despite not being occupied after WW2.

Germany has it the worst politically, no doubt, but they still aren't as cucked as Sweden. So these counter-examples show that the naive trust most likely has a large genetic component.

I accept your premise, with the followng expansion:

You can either live with high trust people or low trust people. High trust people are innately naive, as it comes from being innately honest. In my opinion, being innately honest is not a character flaw. But it can be exploited. Living with low trust people is the opposite of what most people would consider proper civilization.

Though, this is also different than the current argument. They are arguing that the Germans are genetically flawed because they don't kill their Kings, that is when they aren't shifting arguments.

(07-26-2016 06:41 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  Austrians have never wanted to be part of Germany and feel insulted if you call them German.
Austria Hungary was made up of Austrians, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, Serbians and many others that all spoke their own languages. Germany was just made up of people that spoke German and the large polish minority in the east.

Thats not true. Austrians have seen themselves as Germans, like Saxons, Prussians or Bavarians. The Austrian identity as we know today just did start after the second world war. Before there wasn't an Austrian identity. Habsburg did rule over Germany for long time. For the modern Austrian identity you can blame the Allied Forces and of course it was then easy for the people there to say, we had be occupied and are not guilty. This is some kind of their deny identity today. Even that many Nazis in high positions had be from Austrian origin.

(07-26-2016 06:38 PM)Saga Wrote:  That very clearly wasn't my argument in the first place, and isn't now. The premise that I question, and which is perfectly relevant to the wider subject, is the idea that WWI (and WWII if I'm reading your posts correctly) were in the interests of Germany, which seems an indefensible assertion given that history shows both wars to be disastrous and unwise in the extreme. I note that you've neglected to attempt such a defense here.

It's absolutely not "indefensible". Your opinion is over-used propaganda that can only be stated from the position of a politically motivated armchair general.

As I before stated, this logic would only hold if you can apply it to a hypothetical British loss in WWII and still admonish them that their participation in WWII was indefensible.

You are dishonestly attempting to make a political values judgement based on the outcome of war. It's nonsensical on its face, and its commonly used by globalists.

Quote:Tradition has zero political meaning?

Explain to me the political framework of "tradition", including how it incubates political power for the populace.

Quote:That would be the standard assumption for a revolutionary, denying the centrality of tradition is always high on the list of those who wish to tear down everything in order to pursue their grand schemes.

You haven't defined "everything", let alone anything. You simply bandied about a semantically empty word that can be filled with more florid, non-political meditations on whatever you think it means.

Quote:To a conservative, however, tradition is political meaning: the objective of conservative politics is the maintenance of what is received and the insurance of what is to be given.

Still, nothing.

Quote:As Burke wrote, it is the continuity of inherited rights that binds a community and society,

Still, nothing.

Quote:whereas the speculative and theoretical "rights" of revolutionary states are subject to the whims of convenience.

The communist-globalist political framework is well documented. It's even logical, in its blueprint for social evil. I bet we could even merge it with the undefined "tradition" because of the latter's inherent vagueness.

Quote:This, of course, is not nebulous, rather contextual, and therefore varies in application from society to society,

You admit that it is exactly nothing.

If it varies, it does not exist as a political framework, and it does not offer a political framework that can defend itself against the very specific, and politically strong framework of communism.

Simply, if it varies, it offers no coherent way to incubate political power.

Thus, it is politically defenseless and useless assuming it can ever be defined as something specific at-all.

What it is is a refuge for intellectual masturbation for so-called conservatives who can't bring themselves to face the fact that they are completely cucked by internationalists; and have no real political refuge to retreat to other than "tradition" or libertarianism because those intellectual and political phantoms are politically non-threatening to the globalists.

Quote:which is anathema to universalist politics. The fact that you confuse contextual principles for nebulousness speaks volumes.

Word salad.

Quote:The fact that the Third Reich had, by its end, alienated virtually every single pillar of traditional German society (the church, the nobility, the military leadership) is all the more reason to conclude that the regime was never Germany's champion, but rather used Germany as a tool for its own ends.

The nobility and the military leadership were obviously routed by the Globalists after WWI. The church was not a pillar if it weakened Germany's ability to resist internationalists and communists. It was a liability, and it still seems to be today. You note 'pillars' that failed to resist the internationalists-communists, and as such they were in need of reformation. Your "pillars", or what was left of them, were not going to do anything for Germany but escort it down the road to being overrun by communism; if by nothing else than their weakness.

The German people's true pillar was always its natural, genetically determined ability to create its society. That's the ability that was dusted-off in lieu of a false worship of the internationalist Church and its other weakened leadership.

Quote:This inversion of the national interest is a hallmark of utopian ideologies.

No it isn't. You just made that up. Utopianism can be nationalist, and the largest utopian ideology, still in the world, is hyper-nationalist. You obviously haven't a clue about utopianism, its manifestations, nor its history.

Quote:Additionally, radicals always claim "rational" grounds for their lofty ideas (Jacobins with their "natural law" and Marxists with their "historical materialism)...yet in every case, this proves an empty boast, and as in Berlin 1945, as in Paris 1794, as in Moscow 1991, these visions are exposed as the nightmares they always were at their bitter and ignominious end. If you wish to deal in the observable world, those would be important observations to begin with.

Maybe you should begin with noting that your examples are those of the victories of internationalists and communists, in Paris over the reign of the "Traditionalists" and in Berlin, after they were forced to fight the entire West and almost successfully did so, in alliance with the communists.

And, really, you're listing the half-assed coup attempt in Moscow with the other events? Not quite comparable, is it.

(07-26-2016 07:29 PM)Parzival Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:41 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  Austrians have never wanted to be part of Germany and feel insulted if you call them German.
Austria Hungary was made up of Austrians, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, Serbians and many others that all spoke their own languages. Germany was just made up of people that spoke German and the large polish minority in the east.

Thats not true. Austrians have seen themselves as Germans, like Saxons, Prussians or Bavarians. The Austrian identity as we know today just did start after the second world war. Before there wasn't an Austrian identity. Habsburg did rule over Germany for long time. For the modern Austrian identity you can blame the Allied Forces and of course it was then easy for the people there to say, we had be occupied and are not guilty. This is some kind of their deny identity today. Even that many Nazis in high positions had be from Austrian origin.

Austria under different country names existed for hundreds of years before that. They never wanted to join the Germans and always insisted on having a seperate country and their own kings. Austria and Germany often went to war with eachother.

See here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria%...ia_rivalry

(07-26-2016 07:00 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  The only thing i hate is blind obedience to authority when that authority becomes detrimental to your own survival.

They aren't blind. They have no choice in their current society, insofar that they are given access to usable political software.

How about another nation steps up for Europe, this time, other than Germany? How about the Brits? The last time that they fought against the globalists was during the Napoleonic Wars and the American Revolution. What do you think would have happened in Europe, much sooner, if the Germans did not do what they did in WWII?

Quote:At this stage only a Turkish SECULAR man who speaks perfect German and is voted into power may be the only type of person with the balls and political correctness immunity to fix the German migrant question

Well, why?

Because of some brand of Turkish political privilege?

Doesn't that tell you that, because this possibility is what you perceive as the only hope for Germany, that the political climate is un-navigable for the Germans and that their lack of action might be for a good reason that is out of their control?

Quote:Im sure such a political candidate is already being prepared behind the scenes.

You might be correct. And that would be shitty because the Germans would then be guilted into pushing for Turkish EU membership as a thank you.

(07-26-2016 06:41 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  I dont know if the german condition is a genetic one or an environmental one...but you have to go back to to the time of the Hanseatic league and the Teutonic knights to find a time when germans defied and challenged their rulers.

Again a flawed social/psychological test unless you concede that the overthrow and killing of the Romanovs implies a positive personality-psychological trait of the Russians.

Otherwise, the logic of the test itself is completely invalidated.

Most historical European revolutions have been of the liberalizing variety. From our perspective, any revolutionary propensity in the populace would be historically bad.

We live in unprecedented times in terms of our capacity for production, which is in my opinion the sole basis for Western civilization becoming a Cuckocracy.

Blind obedience to authority will seem like a distant dream when the standard of living drops below a certain point. When international travel, infotainment and products are in abundant supply it's easy to think of yourself as a citizen of the earth rather than a European<German<Munichan<Amerseean.

That's the thing about authority, though. When muslims are running around beheading priests, shooting children and blowing themselves up then there quickly ceases to be a sense that there is indeed any sort of "authority" at all. Who will the indentured German look to then?

Someone quite masculine and a lot closer to home I suspect.

(07-26-2016 05:39 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 05:10 PM)rw95 Wrote:  Not so. Environment has very little significance in how we turn out as people.

That's absolutely false, and I say that as a believer in genetic determinism. Not even the staunchest HBD believers would argue that environment has little impact on who we turn out to be. Everything from language exposure, to caloric intake, to trauma influences our brain development.

You've taken one statement of my argument out of context, while ignoring the parts that you don't contend with, simply to argue with me. Over and over again, I made statements that point to the genetic origin of the character of Germans. Don't make essentialist arguments just to make yourself heard on the thread, because I'm already juggling multiple conversations here.

Quote:If this were true, second and third-generation North African immigrants would be indistinguishable from the Europeans whose countries they inhabit. Everything we do comes down to genetics, and it applies to Europeans just as much as it does "the coloreds" or "the darker races."

No shit, except for the bolded part. Understand this: there is hardware and software. Hardware determines how the software runs, but all of the hardware, no matter how good or bad, also depends on software for a relative good or bad result. Hence, why you have good German hardware running shitty software to a good result for the shitty software goal. For fuck's sake. These arguments are getting exhausting in their tedious, un-thought-out nature.

Quote:Nobody can force anybody to believe anything he doesn't want to believe.

You're simply wrong. You believe plenty of things that you had no input into whether you were going to believe them or not.

Quote:Nobody forced westerners to embrace multiculturalism/feminism/Marxism, etc.

Absolute bullshit. You deny the history of cultural Marxism and its research and application. All that this tells me is that you aren't yet sophisticated enough to catch the less-obvious, more effective programming.

Quote:But perhaps if Germans were not so inclined to obey authority, regardless of who is in power

This is your assertion, and an assertion on this thread, but you guys are simply inventing this assertion out of thin air and repeating it until you convince yourselves of its truth.

And frankly its coming off as jealousy. And pure hate for the Germans, which is increasingly curious to me.

I refuted this assertion, over and over, in the historical recount of German wars. Ignoring the before stated arguments against your argument, just to repeat your prior arguments, is a well worn tactic of the enemies of the Germans.

Quote:(a genetic trait, all behavioral traits are genetic) they would not be in their current situation.

A choice to follow rules is not genetic. It's a matter of the logical choices that are empowered by the free will that results from higher IQ and emotional control. Which are genetic.

If your simplistic assertion on the nature of the complexity of the German personality were true, the Germans would take to a Hitler character if he simply replaced Merkel today, without warning and without prior social programming. They would not.

They are a logical, less emotional people. And that's it. It leads to logical behavior. If they rejected their current oppressors, they'd likely be wiped out. Right now, they are surviving. And they are subject to advanced methods of social programming that also helps them to believe that what they are doing is correct.

If you want to fetishize a lower IQ and more emotional personality, then go ahead. But good luck with that society. And what are you doing in this thread? You should be welcoming the new migrants of Europe. They meet your social and IQ preference better than do the Germans.

Furthermore, you are assigning to the Germans an ability to disobey their post WWII government that they simply did not and do not possess. If you think otherwise, you lack perspective on post WWII Germany. What on earth do you think that US bases are in Germany for? The Russians? Not so much.

Samseau said basically everything I meant to say. It's clear I'm going to get little out of this conversation. You're making this a far more emotional thing than I am. I don't know where I "fetishized low IQ people."

Well, so.... I dont even want to open a new topic for this, you know the drill

Gunman on the run after shooting in Malmo shopping mall in broad daylight

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/6935...pping-mall

"The shooting is believed to not be terror-related"
"It's believed the shooting came after a fight broke out in the centre."

Im curious about the fact that these attacks are happening it seems only in the richer countries of the EU.
Spain also has a considerable Islamic population but i never hear about clashes (that is, since the media forgot they were the first receptacle of moroccan coast sprung emigrants).
Likewise for the Portugal.
I remember Greece and italy were complaining about being the dump from turkey but haven't heard much again

(07-26-2016 07:47 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 07:29 PM)Parzival Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:41 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  Austrians have never wanted to be part of Germany and feel insulted if you call them German.
Austria Hungary was made up of Austrians, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, Serbians and many others that all spoke their own languages. Germany was just made up of people that spoke German and the large polish minority in the east.

Thats not true. Austrians have seen themselves as Germans, like Saxons, Prussians or Bavarians. The Austrian identity as we know today just did start after the second world war. Before there wasn't an Austrian identity. Habsburg did rule over Germany for long time. For the modern Austrian identity you can blame the Allied Forces and of course it was then easy for the people there to say, we had be occupied and are not guilty. This is some kind of their deny identity today. Even that many Nazis in high positions had be from Austrian origin.

Austria under different country names existed for hundreds of years before that. They never wanted to join the Germans and always insisted on having a seperate country and their own kings. Austria and Germany often went to war with eachother.

See here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria%...ia_rivalry

Quote:Austria and Prussia had a long-standing conflict and rivalry for supremacy in Central Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries, termed Deutscher Dualismus (German dualism) in the German language area. While wars were a part of the rivalry, it was also a race for prestige to be seen as the legitimate political force of the German-speaking peoples.

Its just the first line from Wikipedia. Austria and Prussia seen both as Germans and fought for the domination. For an modern example you can compare it to the states in the USA. They are different states but they are all American even if they go to war.

(07-27-2016 01:59 AM)El_Gostro Wrote:  Im curious about the fact that these attacks are happening it seems only in the richer countries of the EU.
Spain also has a considerable Islamic population but i never hear about clashes (that is, since the media forgot they were the first receptacle of moroccan coast sprung emigrants).
Likewise for the Portugal.
I remember Greece and italy were complaining about being the dump from turkey but haven't heard much again

Just wait, won't be long before it starts there too.

(07-27-2016 04:06 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:59 AM)El_Gostro Wrote:  Im curious about the fact that these attacks are happening it seems only in the richer countries of the EU.
Spain also has a considerable Islamic population but i never hear about clashes (that is, since the media forgot they were the first receptacle of moroccan coast sprung emigrants).
Likewise for the Portugal.
I remember Greece and italy were complaining about being the dump from turkey but haven't heard much again

Just wait, won't be long before it starts there too.

It's possible they could get hit too, due to the sheer numbers of Sunnis imported in last year or two, they are most susceptible to being radicalised, not to mention those that are already ISIS who are awaiting their turn to be 'activated' for an attack.
Portugal though, has a relatively small amount of Muslims, compared to most Western European countries (largely because it doesn't provide very generous welfare), this fact means they're unlikely to be hit.
Multiculturalism in general is not a net positive for Europe to put it mildly, but multiculturalism from poor, low IQ, predominantly Muslim countries is even worse, endangers everyone, lowers social trust, etc
A Lose lose situation for Europe.