fuck off

File: pr5fisoln3s71.jpg (1.19 MB, 1959x2119)

1.19 MB JPG

>>129376197

wtf its actually real lol
https://gnod.bandcamp.com/album/just-say-no-to-the-psycho-right-wing-capitalist-fascist-industrial-death-machine

>>129376233
>>129376241
>>129376275
>>129376317
love when newfags expose themselves

>>129376568
it's an album

>>129376568
It's a stupid title drenched in leftist drivel.

>>129376197
did the tranny redditor who came up with that album title know that fascism is fundamentally opposed to capitalism and arguably not even right wing

>>129376734
you can't accuse someone of being a redditor and then pull an "erm actually" followed by the most midwit shit imaginable. regardless if you actually understood history you'd know that fascist nations were only opposed to global capitalism insofar as they weren't the winners of that system, and that's really what they were fighting for in ww2

>>129376317
Damn, this is really good

>>129376887
>t. midwit redditor
read some books that weren't written by communists, good sir/madame

>>129376903
name me 5 books you'd recommend champ

>>129376665
you're a stupid faggot drenched in aids cum

>>129376887
>fascist nations were only opposed to global capitalism insofar as they weren't the winners of that system
If by this you mean insofar as private corporations and not the state/nation are the winners than yes, that's accurate. Fascists aren't inherently opposed to markets or trade or some level of for-profit enterprise, but for the elevation of corporate financial interests above national interests. Any successful economic system is going to on paper just be some form of mixed economy. There's no escaping that. "Communist' China is capitalist.
>that's what they were fighting for in WW2
To be rewarded as winners and hegemons in the global geopolitical game? What else would anyone fight for in war?

>>129376197
>Psycho
Meaningless attachment. Redditspeak.
>right-wing capitalist
Capitalism is not meaningfully right wing.
>fascist
Because fascists are the ones who imported 100 million people from the third world to depress wages? Fascists are the ones that gutted local manufacturing for profit?
>industrial
So now industrialization is bad? We don't want computers and food and transportation?

File: GRIvfQjXYAEDVXn.jpg (20 KB, 471x388)

20 KB JPG

>>129376734
>fascism is fundamentally opposed to capitalism and arguably not even right wing

>>129377022
What would you define as "capitalism"? What would you define as "fascism"? To you insane leftists any system where the government doesn't own and control literally everything or where a single market is used is "capitalism".

File: tydvwj3w5d1c1.png (555 KB, 862x400)

555 KB PNG

>>129377022
She's right y'know
Mussolini was an anti-racist

guys I just wanted to talk about the album :(

>>129377040
no music on /mu/, just politics.

File: better-laughing-pepe-pepe.gif (74 KB, 200x200)

74 KB GIF

>>129377030
>>129377039

>>129377040
>post explicitly and constitutionally political album
>get mad when people start talking about politics

>>129377057
Make an argument you stupid faggot

>>129377059
you cpuld bother talking about this music even a little. obvious that you are just reacting to the album cover.

File: pepe (1).gif (155 KB, 220x220)

155 KB GIF

>>129377076

>>129376197
Is it actually marxpilled fr or is it just mid petite bourgeois socdem garbage?

>>129377124
Marx was a retard too yknow?

>>129377059
if I wanted to talk about politics I would have posted it on /pol/
I mean, all art is inherently political to some extent. I didn’t think a simple album cover would make an entire horde of single-braincelled Trumpist/Epsteinian pedocracy bootlicker scum start frothing at the mouth and going potty in their panties
>>129377124
honestly Ive got no idea lol I havent even paid attention to the lyrics I just like the music

>>129377156
Epstein literally said he hated Trump though
>all art is inherently political to some extent
That's not even true
>I had no idea people would start talking politics
Sure, sure.

>>129376929
the road to serfdom (hayek)
human action (mises)
vampire economy (zitelmann)
a theory of socialism and capitalism (hoppe)
any book by one of the actual fascists and try to muster all of your 110iq points to understand what they're actually saying and its implications (hint: they aren't friends of private property and free markets, aka capitalism)

>chatgpt, load me up a list of books i never actually read to own this guy on 4chan

>>129377268
they're literally sitting on my shelf at home, sorry if i made you realize you don't actually know what you're talking about

>>129377288
take a picture of them then.

>>129377268
yet the commie couldn't even be assed to do the same, how embarrassing

>>129377304
do commies not understand how context clues are? what do you think "at home" meant?

>>129377320
to be fair, as a commie the idea of working at a job during the day is pretty foreign to zhem

>>129376956
If we stop replying to that cancerous newfriend, hopefully he'll go back.

>>129377259
no offense little man but I don't understand why austrian economics (far more fringe and discredited) is worth reading if marxism isn't. and don't worry, I had a libertarian phase in high school so I know all about that stuff
>private property and free markets, aka capitalism
this is how I know you have no clue what you're talking about. branch out from the right wing stuff and you'll learn a lot more. capitalism first and foremost about the accumulation of capital as the ultimate goal, hence why we call it "capitalism" and not "marketism", "propertyism" etc., restricting trade can and has been used as an end for this goal historically, and private property is something that well predates capitalism (unless you're so stupid that you genuinely think capitalism has existed forever)

>>129376197
i can't believe i cringed at this when it came out but now i agree with it

>>129377724
Marxist "economics" are literally not economics. It's not a science. You can say Austrian economics are wrong but Marxism is as wrong as it is possible to be. At least the Austrian school can have some insights. Sounds like you have an inferiority complex.

>>129377783
stop being dismissive, move on from the right wing stuff and you might learn something. I was like you once and I'm now embarrassed by how stupid I was. branch out a little and you won't regret it. also austrian economics is basically self admittedly anti science

>>129377820
I don't believe in Austrian economics. I'm not particularly opinionated or ideological on economics. Marxism is just so monumentally stupid that it's on a tier below any right wing lolbert slop. And the fact that basically every Marxist just supports infinite immigration which will so obviously destroy the West makes it so much worse. You love science until it's time to discuss race and IQ.

>>129377844
it really is sad that some people's worldviews are unironically shaped by /pol/ lol

>>129377865
Yeah I mean this kind of response is just ridiculous. Totally dismissive, condescending, but offering nothing of substance. As if white nationalism didn't exist before /pol/. What's the problem with what I said? Do you support deportations and shutting the border? What's your gripe with race and IQ?

>>129377820
my favorite commie trope is "heh, yeah, i was a lolbertarian in high school too, little one. now that i'm a wise and learned 23-year-old marxist i've *truly* got the world all figured out."

>capitalism first and foremost about the accumulation of capital as the ultimate goal,
btw this is how i know you're a self-unaware stooge who fell for the grift, using their pseudointellectual glossary as if it's an own on anyone, unaware to your own level of propagandization. "errm ackchually the sky isn't blue because we greenists define it as green. read more, child"

i'm not an austrian either fyi, just thought you might benefit from reading some material from outside your midwit echo chamber since you seem pretty oblivious to how much you've been misled

>>129377923
>some material from outside your midwit echo chamber
/pol/ is not valid material

>>129377844
>You love science until it's time to discuss race and IQ.
what retarded take you have on that oh big peepee one

>>129376197
Just say no to low-resolution publicly performative pontification for the purpose of the signaling of the superior moral authority. (you are a faggot if you think like this)

>>129376197
Thanks, will download it

File: 3216.jpg (22 KB, 485x319)

22 KB JPG

>>129376197
Sounds like sage advice!

>>129378028
Why don't you make an argument as to why racial intelligence differences aren't genetic?

>>129377923
well don't worry because like I said, I am already familiar with austrian economics. how would you describe capitalism? just those two characteristics (free trade and private property)? where/when would you say it originates? just would like to know what you're actually talking about.
>>129377877
white nationalism does indeed predate /pol/, in different circumstances than the ones we find ourselves in today. I don't think it's a coincidence that every white nationalist I've ever encountered is just some loser who lives his entire life on the internet. I'm not convinced that IQ measures anything other than how good you are at taking tests, and I think the differences in development in different places around the world are better explained by what you would call "material conditions" than "these people are just smarter than those other people". doesn't china have an average IQ higher than europe? why did europe end up dominating china and not the other way around?

>>129378055
NTA but there's many arguments to be made, such as for example, the fact that humans are highly transient and as such, there is no point in human history where significant evolutionary divergence between other humans is even possible. Humans left Africa far too recently, and furthermore, humans did not migrate from Africa in a single wave, but rather multiple waves over the course of tens of thousands of years, if racial intelligence were genetic, we should see these genetic patterns reflected in migration patterns, but we don't, in fact it's overall fairly inconsistent, it would imply that Native Americans have the highest IQ for example. We do, however, see a very clear link between IQ and access to reliable food sources, which isn't genetic, and we have more evidence that IQ is impacted by nutrition than we do that it's impacted by genetics.

>>129378095
>don't think it's a coincidence that every white nationalist I've ever encountered is just some loser
All of my friends are young educated intelligent white guys with our shit together. We're also mostly white nationalists. Anyways, judging an idea by the character of its adherents is bad practice, especially if you're a leftist.
>I'm not convinced that IQ measures anything
This is provably false. IQ positively correlates with just about everything you would expect to go along with increased intellect.
>the differences in development in different places around the world are better explained by "material conditions"
Black Americans are far richer than most Europeans. Why do they commit so much more crime and have such lower IQs? We also have studies where black, white, and mixed race kids were adopted into white families, and the black kids scored about 17-18 points lower on IQ tests than the whites, with the mixed kids scoring almost exactly in between the two. That should be pretty strong evidence. There's also the fact that poor whites score higher or similar on standardized testing to rich blacks, and the same pattern can be observed with crime.
>doesn't china have an average IQ higher than europe?
No, it's probably around the same. I've seen some people suggest that whites have a wider bell curve, meaning we have both more idiots and more geniuses. Not sure how true that is. Could be totally false. But China is successful; they have the largest economy in the world.
As for why we're more successful, it's complicated. China was one of the great ancient civilizations and created some important inventions like gunpowder. They were devastated by their civil war and WW2, and bad communist leadership held them back until about 1980. After Mao died, they were poorer than sub-Saharan Africa and almost as poor as India. But today they're much more prosperous than either per capita, and in the future it looks like they'll be the West's primary competition.

>>129378108
>there is no point in human history where significant evolutionary divergence between other humans is even possible
It was long enough for us to look different. Why shouldn't it be long enough for us to act different?
>if racial intelligence were genetic, we should see these genetic patterns reflected in migration patterns
The migration patterns you're referring to happened about 10,000 years ago. More than enough time for intelligence to evolve.
>would imply that Native Americans have the highest IQ for example
Why?
>We do, however, see a very clear link between IQ and access to reliable food sources
Correlation, not causation. It could also be true that more intelligent people just become more successful by nature of being intelligent, and that this leads to better food security.
>and we have more evidence that IQ is impacted by nutrition than we do that it's impacted by genetics.
Wrong. See the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Also looking at crime rates, we can see that blacks and Hispanics are more criminal regardless of income bracket. Crime is negatively correlated with IQ.

File: 1740373844717096.png (159 KB, 464x348)

159 KB PNG

>>129376197
Good goy

File: 076542d6a6e4b3a7b18c20398(...).jpg (84 KB, 680x490)

84 KB JPG

>>129378234
>It was long enough for us to look different.
Superficial morphology between humans is related to adaptations to given environments but does not imply significant evolutionary divergence. You don't even need to be an evolutionary biologist to recognize that morphology is far more malleable, as otherwise you would look identical to your father, but you don't, at best you just share some of his facial features.
>The migration patterns you're referring to happened about 10,000 years ago. More than enough time for intelligence to evolve.
10,000 years is not anywhere near long enough
>Why?
Because Native Americans had the longest migration paths
>Also looking at crime rates, we can see that blacks and Hispanics are more criminal regardless of income bracket. Crime is negatively correlated with IQ.
Crime rates have gone down overall over the past 50 years, if crime was directly correlated with an innate racial IQ, then crime rates should've either remained the same or have gone up.

>>129378280
>Superficial morphology between humans is related to adaptations to given environments but does not imply significant evolutionary divergence
Why are you assuming that we need "significant" (by your standard) evolutionary divergence to have differences in IQ?
>10,000 years is not anywhere near long enough
Why?
>Because Native Americans had the longest migration paths
Total non sequitur.
>if crime was directly correlated with an innate racial IQ, then crime rates should've either remained the same or have gone up.
Uh, no? Obviously external circumstances can affect crime rates. My point is that races when compared to one another commit different levels of crime, when exposed to a roughly similar environment. If you have a 50% decrease in crime over 50 years, but the racial balance of crime remains the same, how would that debunk race and IQ?

>>129378280
You also didn't respond to my point about the transracial adoption study.

>>129376568
Holy based !

>hey guys I found a cool album
some posts later...
>transracial adoption studies

>>129378195
I was really just saying that the white nationalism of today is mostly just larpers and dorks on the internet and thus is not the same as any "white nationalism" that predates it, but that's unimportant. what are you referring to when you say "about everything you would expect to go along with intellect"? would any of these things not also correlate with how good you are at taking tests? something tells me that if you handed someone an iq test in premodern agrarian europe they wouldn't score too high, and I don't think that has much to do with genetics. I'm not sure where you're getting "black americans are far richer than most europeans" from, but something tells me it's not measuring wealth relative to cost of living. furthermore I think predisposition to crime has more to do with your wealth relative to the people around you than just your wealth absolutely. if you go to some random village in africa is it also gonna have a crime problem? I wasn't talking about the 20th century at all when mentioning western domination of china but it's interesting how all of a sudden developmental disparities are a complicated thing with many factors to consider.

>>129378574
>what are you referring to when you say "about everything you would expect to go along with intellect"?
Academic success, career success, low criminality, relationship success.
>something tells me that if you handed someone an iq test in premodern agrarian europe they wouldn't score too high
That's why we control for environment. And we do. Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.
>I'm not sure where you're getting "black americans are far richer than most europeans" from
Median black American household income is 56,000$ a year. In Estonia that's 15,000$. Adjusted for cost of living it'd be closer but Estonia would probably be around like 50% the black average.
>but something tells me it's not measuring wealth relative to cost of living
It's measuring income relative to the cost of living.
>furthermore I think predisposition to crime has more to do with your wealth relative to the people around you than just your wealth absolutely.
Then why don't poor white Americans commit more crime? And why do poor African countries without super high inequality have high crime?
>if you go to some random village in africa is it also gonna have a crime problem?
Yes lmao Africa is the most dangerous continent on the planet.
>it's interesting how all of a sudden developmental disparities are a complicated thing with many factors to consider.
I never said they weren't. With China we can see that other East Asian countries (i.e. Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong) are developed. China was the exception to the rule in the 1980s and now it's catching up. With African countries the rule is poverty and violence. Japan has been a major power for over a century at this point.

>>129378647
all of those things would correlate with how good you are at taking tests lol (except "relationship success"). you even seem to understand that someone's IQ is gonna be shaped by their "environment" and in the west (as in the more developed asian countries), test taking is an important skill which can very well decide how good of a job you'll end up getting. as for the transracial adoption study you keep referencing, I don't even care to begin with because like I said I don't think IQ means much (in terms of someone's intelligence) but I do believe irish and italian americans used to consistently score lower as well (before they were accepted as "white"), the conclusion to draw from that being your own perceived inferiority can affect your test scores. would estonia probably be 50% of the black average? have you actually done the math or are you just guessing? please, I'd love to know. poor white americans do commit more crime and than those who aren't poor lol. is africa dangerous because of petty criminals or widespread political instability? how familiar are you with african history to declare that the "rule" with africa is poverty and violence? does this characterize the historical states of mali, zimbabwe, benin, the nubians etc?

>>129378756
>all of those things would correlate with how good you are at taking tests
It's almost like test taking and intelligence are correlated or something...
>except "relationship success"
It's true though. High IQ people are less likely to get divorced
>test taking is an important skill which can very well decide how good of a job you'll end up getting
But Asia has a much more intense test-taking culture, and they don't score much higher, if at all, on IQ tests than whites.
>but I do believe irish and italian americans used to consistently score lower as well
The evidence I've seen for that isn't good, and they were always considered white.
>would estonia probably be 50% of the black average?
Yes. PPP is normed at American living standards, and the number I saw for Estonia was in the 20 thousands range.
>poor white americans do commit more crime
Less crime than poor black Americans. And a similar amount of crime to wealthy black Americans.
>how familiar are you with african history to declare that the "rule" with africa is poverty and violence?
I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about today.
>does this characterize the historical states of mali, zimbabwe, benin, the nubians etc?
None of those really did much of note.
>is africa dangerous because of petty criminals or widespread political instability?
Both. And why does Africa have such widespread political instability?

>>129378831
then why the fuck would environment be a factor (as you said) in test scores if test scores = intelligence? what the fuck are you even talking about lol. I looked it up and china and other east asian countries have the highest average IQ scores, so there you go. break down for me why the evidence regarding the italian/irish IQ scores isn't good. show me the source that says poor whites commit as much crime as rich blacks. what the fuck do you mean by "rule" then if history is irrelevant? are you retarded? if criminality among africans is genetic than it would show throughout all of african history, right? I don't care that you aren't impressed by the greatness of historical african civilizations, have you spent no time looking into any of their histories before declaring that africans are inherently stupid criminals? how the fuck are you satisfied and confident in any of your beliefs when you know basically nothing about what you're talking about? I'd say political instability in africa has more to do with cold war era proxy wars designed to never end than predisposition to crime or whatever you're trying to suggest. and please, if you could show me evidence that petty crime is rampant everywhere you could look in africa I'd love to see it

>>129376197
>buzzwords the album

File: great-zimbabwes-great-enc(...).jpg (88 KB, 860x580)

88 KB JPG

>>129378953
>then why the fuck would environment be a factor (as you said) in test scores if test scores = intelligence?
It's really not much of a factor outside of rare extenuating circumstances.
>china and other east asian countries have the highest average IQ scores
What is "it"? Who said that? That'll probably also tell you Jews have a higher IQ than Europeans, which is a complete fabrication. Most of the studies on the topic either use PISA scores (which can be studied for) or studies on children. But IQ is famously less reliable in children than in adults. The one test on Chinese and white adults I found showed similar IQ scores
>if criminality among africans is genetic than it would show throughout all of african history, right?
Yeah see the problem is that African history isn't very well recorded lol.
>you aren't impressed by the greatness of historical african civilizations
You brought up Zimbabwe. They built this about 800 years ago, which is less advanced than European societies from literally like 3000 years ago. The Mali Empire didn't really do much. Same for Benin.
>Another analysis in 2015 studied a Nubian individual from an archeological site in Kulubnarti. The geographic ancestry of the individual was estimated to be closer to Middle Eastern, and Central and South Asians, rather than to any African populations
>political instability in africa has more to do with cold war era proxy wars designed to never end
That's why Somalia is a failure? Their civil war started AFTER the Cold War.

>>129376197
Kamala lost

>>129376197
That looks like a sticker some champagne socialist at Starbucks would have on his laptop