Like the title says. I was talking with a friend recently, and he described the board as a "cespool [sic] of elitist pseudo-vommunist [sic] redfash hitlerrite [sic] reactionaries". This made me feel a little unsure of myself. Guys, are we fascists? Is the demographic of this board really full of chuds? Reading your comments below.
No.10473
Anonymous
2026-06-08 20:29:58
Yep
No.10474
Anonymous
2026-06-09 01:45:12
>Are we _____
lets make definition. How are you defining 'Reactionary' and why are you lump 'fascist' in with it?
Labels! AHHHHHHHHH
lets make definition. How are you defining 'Reactionary' and why are you lump 'fascist' in with it?
Labels! AHHHHHHHHH
No.10480
Anonymous
2026-06-09 11:20:40
It's complicated
See >>9063
✔ white male millennial progressives with liberal arts educations who are mad they aged out of cultural relevance in 2015
✔ RS / MDE / Sam Hyde / redpill ideology
✔ the only other person on the board is a European child who tries to get attention by play-acting as a Nazi
✔ there's no need to be mean; play nice with him
✅✅✅ FACT CHECKED by Real Patriots CORRECT ✅✅✅
✔ white male millennial progressives with liberal arts educations who are mad they aged out of cultural relevance in 2015
✔ RS / MDE / Sam Hyde / redpill ideology
✔ the only other person on the board is a European child who tries to get attention by play-acting as a Nazi
✔ there's no need to be mean; play nice with him
✅✅✅ FACT CHECKED by Real Patriots CORRECT ✅✅✅
No.10488
Anonymous
2026-06-09 13:48:29
>>10485
Rule 1 of all internet discourse it to portray the other side as being mad about something. This proves that you are not mad.
Rule 1 of all internet discourse it to portray the other side as being mad about something. This proves that you are not mad.
No.10489
Anonymous
2026-06-09 13:48:58
No.10497
Anonymous
2026-06-10 18:25:24
>>10472 (OP)
No :)
No :)
No.10500
Anonymous
2026-06-10 20:56:07
to a hammer everything's a nail
No.10505
Anonymous
2026-06-11 01:43:51
we?
>>10472 (OP)
Yes, there is always the race question, not even the woman question. The geographic separation of human populations for thousands of years has led to natural selection producing average genetic population differences in many biological traits (East Asians didn't consume much dairy, so many lack the genes for lactose digestion), but somehow it has not produced average genetic differences in cognitive or behavioral traits. In this regard every ethnic group has the same innate potential. That's at least what the current Western post-war consensus has decided to believe, thanks to Hitler. Since the science isn't actually settled, this is currently a matter of your personal probability estimate. And the question of causation, whether environmental or genetic (both obviously), isn't even that relevant (unless it dictates policy, which makes it relevant in actual fact). Simply acknowledging that group differences might be a thing is currently not really an option for Western political elites. Are clannishness, in-group-preference, individualism, and an interest in transgender rights maybe not evenly distributed within the human species? Could that maybe even be the case for a scientific-empirical cognitive style? Is it noteworthy that no historical evidence of liberal societies originating among anybody but NW Europeans exists? Is it rational to treat human populations as fungible, functional human units that are arbitrarily interchangeable and compatible? If such contemplations render me a reactionary, then fuck yes I am guilty as charged.
Yes, there is always the race question, not even the woman question. The geographic separation of human populations for thousands of years has led to natural selection producing average genetic population differences in many biological traits (East Asians didn't consume much dairy, so many lack the genes for lactose digestion), but somehow it has not produced average genetic differences in cognitive or behavioral traits. In this regard every ethnic group has the same innate potential. That's at least what the current Western post-war consensus has decided to believe, thanks to Hitler. Since the science isn't actually settled, this is currently a matter of your personal probability estimate. And the question of causation, whether environmental or genetic (both obviously), isn't even that relevant (unless it dictates policy, which makes it relevant in actual fact). Simply acknowledging that group differences might be a thing is currently not really an option for Western political elites. Are clannishness, in-group-preference, individualism, and an interest in transgender rights maybe not evenly distributed within the human species? Could that maybe even be the case for a scientific-empirical cognitive style? Is it noteworthy that no historical evidence of liberal societies originating among anybody but NW Europeans exists? Is it rational to treat human populations as fungible, functional human units that are arbitrarily interchangeable and compatible? If such contemplations render me a reactionary, then fuck yes I am guilty as charged.
No.10508
Anonymous
2026-06-11 07:38:08
>>10506
The science is a bit more settled since Akbari, Reich et al. 2026. We've now observed polygenetic selection towards intelligence over short (~10,000 year) time scales.
Even then, I still wouldn't call reading a David Reich publication "reactionary"
The science is a bit more settled since Akbari, Reich et al. 2026. We've now observed polygenetic selection towards intelligence over short (~10,000 year) time scales.
Even then, I still wouldn't call reading a David Reich publication "reactionary"