do people realize ethnics are ultra-feminine?

[Steppenwolf]

see Indians, Arabs, Latin Americans and Africans. what they share in common is thinner necks, softer skin in a youthful way, shorter stature (Africans are except to this) propensity to accumulate body/face-fat, and mentally they are so estrogenic that there's nowhere to be found mathematical or raw artistic talent (ex, for masc exp. architecture)

it's too obvious. there's a reason they got colonized, lmao. also, 'IQ' is simply an expression of masc/fem duality (analytical/systematical thinking v. stupidity/blank-mindedness?)

one of those continents share one of the highest tranny rates in the World (SAmerica) and i would not be surprised if the only reason Arabs are not there too is because they suicide/kill each other before they can tranny out

[lonelyjak]

see Indians, Arabs, Latin Americans and Africans. what they share in common is thinner necks, softer skin in a youthful way, shorter stature (Africans are except to this) propensity to accumulate body/face-fat, and mentally they are so estrogenic that there's nowhere to be found mathematical or raw artistic talent (ex, for masc exp. architecture)

it's too obvious. there's a reason they got colonized, lmao. also, 'IQ' is simply an expression of masc/fem duality (analytical/systematical thinking v. stupidity/blank-mindedness?)

one of those continents share one of the highest tranny rates in the World (SAmerica) and i would not be surprised if the only reason Arabs are not there too is because they suicide/kill each other before they can tranny out

/pol/posting is the worst posting. if ethnics got colonized because theyre ultra-feminine then what does this imply about the west which is currently getting (((colonized)))?

to make a blanket statement like ethnics are ultra-feminine just sounds like stormfrontcel cope. if youre gonna criticize ethnics then at least make accurate criticisms and not sloppy /pol/tier cope

[Steppenwolf]

see Indians, Arabs, Latin Americans and Africans. what they share in common is thinner necks, softer skin in a youthful way, shorter stature (Africans are except to this) propensity to accumulate body/face-fat, and mentally they are so estrogenic that there's nowhere to be found mathematical or raw artistic talent (ex, for masc exp. architecture)

it's too obvious. there's a reason they got colonized, lmao. also, 'IQ' is simply an expression of masc/fem duality (analytical/systematical thinking v. stupidity/blank-mindedness?)

one of those continents share one of the highest tranny rates in the World (SAmerica) and i would not be surprised if the only reason Arabs are not there too is because they suicide/kill each other before they can tranny out

/pol/posting is the worst posting. if ethnics got colonized because theyre ultra-feminine then what does this imply about the west which is currently getting (((colonized)))?

to make a blanket statement like ethnics are ultra-feminine just sounds like stormfrontcel cope. if youre gonna criticize ethnics then at least make accurate criticisms and not sloppy /pol/tier cope

since? you realize what's currently happening is a redistribution of wealth, and creation of a bigger inequality?

[lonelyjak]

see Indians, Arabs, Latin Americans and Africans. what they share in common is thinner necks, softer skin in a youthful way, shorter stature (Africans are except to this) propensity to accumulate body/face-fat, and mentally they are so estrogenic that there's nowhere to be found mathematical or raw artistic talent (ex, for masc exp. architecture)

it's too obvious. there's a reason they got colonized, lmao. also, 'IQ' is simply an expression of masc/fem duality (analytical/systematical thinking v. stupidity/blank-mindedness?)

one of those continents share one of the highest tranny rates in the World (SAmerica) and i would not be surprised if the only reason Arabs are not there too is because they suicide/kill each other before they can tranny out

/pol/posting is the worst posting. if ethnics got colonized because theyre ultra-feminine then what does this imply about the west which is currently getting (((colonized)))?

to make a blanket statement like ethnics are ultra-feminine just sounds like stormfrontcel cope. if youre gonna criticize ethnics then at least make accurate criticisms and not sloppy /pol/tier cope

since? you realize what's currently happening is a redistribution of wealth, and creation of a bigger inequality?

rearranging what im saying doesnt change the reality of the matter. the west is getting (((colonized))), why deny this? and if the west is getting colonized then this would imply that the west must be ultra-feminine too

keep in mind that I dont even believe the above argument, Im just using the juxtaposition to demonstrate how weak your argument is. /pol/ posters always paint in overly broad strokes, but reality is never as black and white as they like to act like it is. /pol/ glows so fucking hard these days, I wouldnt spend too much time there because youre probably talking to IDF most of the time

[Steppenwolf]

i won't write an essay to explain this, so

Belindia

[lonelyjak]

i won't write an essay to explain this, so

Belindia

if you stop browsing /pol/ for a few months youll realize how full of shit they are about everything. /pol/ is the weirdest phenomena of how people can be sort of right but in the wrong way

"Brazil" doesnt refute my original observation that the west is currently getting colonized itself and the population is soy af too. your original argument was indefensible, sloppy and /pol/tier. do better

[Steppenwolf]

i won't write an essay to explain this, so

Belindia

if you stop browsing /pol/ for a few months youll realize how full of shit they are about everything. /pol/ is the weirdest phenomena of how people can be sort of right but in the wrong way

"Brazil" doesnt refute my original observation that the west is currently getting colonized itself and the population is soy af too. your original argument was indefensible, sloppy and /pol/tier. do better

yes it does, lmao. forgot to imbed the link, anyway 

The Brazilian philosopher Paulo Arantes advanced the Brazilianization thesis in a remarkable 2004 essay, “The Brazilian Fracture of the World.”7 Arantes began by surveying various thinkers in the Global North who had registered disquiet about the course of devel­opment of global capitalism. As early as 1995, the conservative strategist Edward Luttwak wrote about the “Third-Worldization of America.” In the same year, Michael Lind referred directly to Brazil in his prognosis of an American society divided through a rigid, though informal, caste system. White elites governed a racially mixed society but the masses, internally divided, would allow for the strengthening of oligarchy.

i have already described the future of the World as 'Egyptian' precisely because of what is described above, only recently have i found such precise essays tho. in a way, your bizarre fixation on /pol/ is hilarious, glowie

[lonelyjak]

i won't write an essay to explain this, so

Belindia

if you stop browsing /pol/ for a few months youll realize how full of shit they are about everything. /pol/ is the weirdest phenomena of how people can be sort of right but in the wrong way

"Brazil" doesnt refute my original observation that the west is currently getting colonized itself and the population is soy af too. your original argument was indefensible, sloppy and /pol/tier. do better

yes it does, lmao. forgot to imbed the link, anyway 

The Brazilian philosopher Paulo Arantes advanced the Brazilianization thesis in a remarkable 2004 essay, “The Brazilian Fracture of the World.”7 Arantes began by surveying various thinkers in the Global North who had registered disquiet about the course of devel­opment of global capitalism. As early as 1995, the conservative strategist Edward Luttwak wrote about the “Third-Worldization of America.” In the same year, Michael Lind referred directly to Brazil in his prognosis of an American society divided through a rigid, though informal, caste system. White elites governed a racially mixed society but the masses, internally divided, would allow for the strengthening of oligarchy.

i have already described the future of the World as 'Egyptian' precisely because of what is described above, only recently have i found such precise essays tho. in a way, your bizarre fixation on /pol/ is hilarious, glowie

>the white elite are still in control!
>heh this means that the west isnt actually getting colonized
>white genes are just gonna get more valuable as the white population decreases :) 
>more unintelligible /pol/ cope and non-sensical arguments

nothing about what you posted disproves the fact that the west is getting colonized. im puzzled that you even think this is an argument

btw the reason I fixate on your (likely) /pol/ habit is because of the poor quality of your argumentation. this isnt the first time i've debated with you:

https://bookism.net/showthread.php?tid=12673

you have a history of making broad, indefensible and/or uninformed arguments. I don't glow, I just have experience debating with you

[Steppenwolf]

>the white elite are still in control!
>heh this means that the west isnt actually getting colonized
>white genes are just gonna get more valuable as the white population decreases :) 
>more unintelligible /pol/ cope and non-sensical arguments

nothing about what you posted disproves the fact that the west is getting colonized. im puzzled that you even think this is an argument

if you still did not get it then i'm afraid you are mentally handicapped 

btw the reason I fixate on your (likely) /pol/ habit is because of the poor quality of your argumentation. this isnt the first time i've debated with you:

https://bookism.net/showthread.php?tid=12673

you have a history of making broad, indefensible and/or uninformed arguments. I don't glow, I just have experience debating with you

you agreed America is anticulture you drooling retard (e.g, the conversation ended there)

[lonelyjak]

>the white elite are still in control!
>heh this means that the west isnt actually getting colonized
>white genes are just gonna get more valuable as the white population decreases :) 
>more unintelligible /pol/ cope and non-sensical arguments

nothing about what you posted disproves the fact that the west is getting colonized. im puzzled that you even think this is an argument

if you still did not get it then i'm afraid you are mentally handicapped 

btw the reason I fixate on your (likely) /pol/ habit is because of the poor quality of your argumentation. this isnt the first time i've debated with you:

https://bookism.net/showthread.php?tid=12673

you have a history of making broad, indefensible and/or uninformed arguments. I don't glow, I just have experience debating with you

you agreed America is anticulture you drooling retard (e.g, the conversation ended there)

there was no point to get, you were just evading a simple point and denying that the west was being colonized itself by trying to obfuscate and make some tangential argument

no...the argument actually ended when I pointed out that europeans are not one monolithic genotype and actually differ genetically from one ethnicity to the other, something which you apparently didnt know seeing as you never replied back. you literally thought that all whites were the same lol. this was really easy to check btw, all you had to do was visit the link I conveniently provided, but you couldnt even do that. /pol/chuds are always lazy with the details and just fling shit

[Steppenwolf]

>the white elite are still in control!
>heh this means that the west isnt actually getting colonized
>white genes are just gonna get more valuable as the white population decreases :) 
>more unintelligible /pol/ cope and non-sensical arguments

nothing about what you posted disproves the fact that the west is getting colonized. im puzzled that you even think this is an argument

if you still did not get it then i'm afraid you are mentally handicapped 

btw the reason I fixate on your (likely) /pol/ habit is because of the poor quality of your argumentation. this isnt the first time i've debated with you:

https://bookism.net/showthread.php?tid=12673

you have a history of making broad, indefensible and/or uninformed arguments. I don't glow, I just have experience debating with you

you agreed America is anticulture you drooling retard (e.g, the conversation ended there)

there was no point to get, you were just evading a simple point and denying that the west was being colonized itself by trying to obfuscate and make some tangential argument

no...the argument actually ended when I pointed out that europeans are not one monolithic genotype and actually differ genetically from one ethnicity to the other, something which you apparently didnt know seeing as you never replied back. you literally thought that all whites were the same lol. this was really easy to check btw, all you had to do was visit the link I conveniently provided, but you couldnt even do that. /pol/chuds are always lazy with the details and just fling shit

weak bait

[Steppenwolf]

you interprated it that way. my point was that culture isn't totally or necessarily expressed by genotype, which means it can be lost over time if not maintained throughout tradition

[Steppenwolf]

there was no point to get, you were just evading a simple point and denying that the west was being colonized itself by trying to obfuscate and make some tangential argument

i don't have much to say here

if you want examples of White hegemony, then there are a few, similarly to Israel ((whose people are constantly in other countries for leading roles, which, by default, being a minority, are "colonized" by the same line of thinking)). the difference is they don't draw attention to themselves, and the cost of living is artificially made expensive naturally that brainlets don't come there, such as Switzerland. this is the "Jesuit" base, and the rest are Jesuits' colony that have never been majorly "White" in the first place (i.e, main ethnic groups as Germans, Italians, et cetera)

and when you bring 'numbers' you are tiring an argument that does not compute in any time-frame of history, since Whites have never ever been a majority, at least globally. and since the West has peaked a long time ago, so have the fertility rates (for exactly 50 years in decline), of course no one is saying that is ideal, but there isn't much they can do

[lonelyjak]

>the white elite are still in control!
>heh this means that the west isnt actually getting colonized
>white genes are just gonna get more valuable as the white population decreases :) 
>more unintelligible /pol/ cope and non-sensical arguments

nothing about what you posted disproves the fact that the west is getting colonized. im puzzled that you even think this is an argument

if you still did not get it then i'm afraid you are mentally handicapped 

btw the reason I fixate on your (likely) /pol/ habit is because of the poor quality of your argumentation. this isnt the first time i've debated with you:

https://bookism.net/showthread.php?tid=12673

you have a history of making broad, indefensible and/or uninformed arguments. I don't glow, I just have experience debating with you

you agreed America is anticulture you drooling retard (e.g, the conversation ended there)

there was no point to get, you were just evading a simple point and denying that the west was being colonized itself by trying to obfuscate and make some tangential argument

no...the argument actually ended when I pointed out that europeans are not one monolithic genotype and actually differ genetically from one ethnicity to the other, something which you apparently didnt know seeing as you never replied back. you literally thought that all whites were the same lol. this was really easy to check btw, all you had to do was visit the link I conveniently provided, but you couldnt even do that. /pol/chuds are always lazy with the details and just fling shit

weak bait

you interprated it that way. my point was that culture isn't totally or necessarily expressed by genotype, which means it can be lost over time if not maintained throughout tradition

no, you were actually just wrong in this thread:

https://bookism.net/showthread.php?tid=12673

and its really easy for anyone to see that if they care enough to read each of our arguments (but nobody cares that much besides us). thats why you never responded to my last response, you had nothing to say. youre now trying to retroactively patch up your argument

as for the colonization thing, just stop dude. youre trying to obfuscate the central argument and add arbitrary qualifiers and stuff so that the current colonization of the west somehow doesnt count. its obvious what youre doing

the west is currently getting colonized in a dozen different ways, its basically getting its ass kicked and asking for more. theres no other way to reframe this. by the logic of your OP, this makes the west ultra-feminine too (which was always a pointless, meaningless argument to begin with). the entire point of me responding isnt to argue about what qualifies as colonialism, rather its to call you out for making poor arguments.

listen bud, if you gotta punch down to make you feel better about yourself or the race you belong to then that just reflects your own insecurity. if you wanna trash talk ethnics thats fine, theres a lot of funny and true things you can say about them, but you just make yourself look bad when you do the whole: "ETHNICS BAD, WHITES GOOD". that's such /pol/ tier bs and it's so chuddy

[Steppenwolf]

blah blah i'm a pedantic swarthy soy faggot 

i don't care you autist. you realize you never engaged the main observation? Christ how dense are you