Thoughts?

Reperations are stupid, I'm not paying anybody shit for something other people did just because they share my skin color. But you're still an edgy faggot. You can realize that what the colonists did was fucked up without feeling sorry for it.

>I actually like this. The right balance of truth and boast

>le silly hat meme

stay mad roach

>We

Even without witnessing you being sodomized by an African-American (probably not a rare event), I'm certain a pack of them would be smarter than you.

European isnt a race

erotic fiction belongs on

problem with the logic is that it sets a precedence

I mean it's never a problem if you and your race is always on top, but if you are at the mercy of someone else they can do what they want to you and it will be purely your fault because you were simply too weak to prevent it. Not to mention the constant bloodshed and paranoia needed to stay on top in that scenario

like we never justify the actions of the Mongols, or the Ottomans, or the USSR (unless you're a commie strawman) as "they were winners, so stop whining." No, we call them brutal, violent savages that do brutal, violent savage things, so we shouldn't give the western world a pass either just because we live in it.

African is a race so Europe is one too

it's only fair

No it isn't

truth

>tabula rasa originates from Marxism

user...

>unlike us Italian folk
>we never get conquered :^)

>African is a race

The great question is, "Can you swallow your own words?"

If you can unironically say that as a rightist, can you do the same when a non-cowardly leftist does it to you. Or will you beg and dishonor your ideas?

...

Christopher Columbus never said that, and he's probably the worst spokesman for the West.
>Dude we're better than you because we're immune to our own diseases lmao.

Astonishment is very much justified, but if deep in their hearts, the rightist has enshrined the likes of Columbus and the Conquistadors, why can't we idolise their later counterparts, the Jacobins and communists?

Now post the muslim one :^)

Dear European Peoples,
The history of humanity is one of constant conflict and competition for resources like land, food, water, and women. You whine about the fact that migrants were and are better at this contest than any other race of pasty white bois in the world. You losers want us to regret being better at taking your jobs and fucking your woman than you were. You want death and deportations to people who were stronger and more virile than you, people who unequivocally won. We aren't sorry and we owe you nothing, deal with it.

Everyone's a hypocrite. They'll LARP and fantasize about their favorite mass murderers while getting triggered by jokes about the ones they don't like.

Eh, I mean, I kinda agree.
Given the means and ways, the Zulu's or the Iroquois would of had no qualms with raping and enslaving all of Europe.
Not to say its right, but the attempts to hold a moral high ground on this issue are retarded.

Humans are all garbage

Why is the tone so butthurt?

True white supremacists believe in welfare and reparations. Niggers are lesser and they need a helping hand.

nothimbut you're deluded if you think merit is the only thing that determines success in life

Nah, you are only worth something in your conquest if you bring a decent legacy afterwards(if that applies here is another discussion).
Being an edgy conquering asshole is relatively easy.
I mean, steppeniggers did it across the planet.
Yet no one sings the praises of the barbarians that brought down Rome, and the mongols that destroyed the House of Wisdom.

Social Darwinists do not have any moral code. To them there is no such thing as good and evil, only strong and weak. Unless the Social Darwinist ends up in the weak position, then he'll bitch and moan about the unfair treatment that he suffers while openly or not-so-openly admitting that if he was ever in a strong position, he'd be far more brutal.

I don't think you really understand social darwinists

On one hand, it's certainly true.
On the other hand, caving to the social and cultural pressure of the sjw is just as much losing as being rekt on the battlefield, so beware.

>he'll bitch and moan about the unfair treatment that he suffers
And what's wrong with that? He's concerned about his own station, not about fairness of treatment between himself and others.
A social darwinist ought to want social services when poor and tax breaks when rich, else he's doing sometihng wrong.

>tfw belgians ruined your country
We could have been a great empire if it wasn't for the eternal waffle

Lotta people are hypocrites

>*invades and outbreeds you* ;)

Exactly, they make arguments for conventional morality when they are not in a strong position but when in a strong position they'll reject all morality in favor of their own self-serving desires. It's pure hypocrisy.

Going further with the thought, a social darwinist who doesn't make any moral objections to getting dominated by someone but instead plots and schemes in silence to put himself in a better position I would still consider to be a nasty piece of work but at least he's consistent in the application of his ideology.

Someone like a /pol/ack is not this type of social darwinist, being in the dregs of society but blaming his failures on those he accuses of being evil while praising the foul actions of groups that he likes.

>It's pure hypocrisy.
And the soical darwinist should care why? Morals are your business, not his. He doesn't give a shit.

>a social darwinist who doesn't make any moral objections to getting dominated by someone but instead plots and schemes in silence...
...Is a bloody moron, especially if the dominator is a moral entity. Sure a social darwinist cannot coherently think that others are immoral for dominating him, but he surely doesn't need to believe it to complain about it. If he thinks complaining could help him in any way, he certainly ought to.
The average polack does indeed just blame his failures on others and believes it. But a social darwinist may very well whinge while scheming away. After all we can all see how effective whinging is in modern society. The vocal minority gets its way more often than not.

>Morals are your business, not his. He doesn't give a shit.
>but he surely doesn't need to believe it to complain about it.
The Social Darwinist who follows his ideology understands the concept of morals but doesn't care about it. That's known as sociopathy. The only way a Social Darwinist could exist and not be a hypocrite is to be a sociopath.

It's a pretty stupid meme because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who post it would NOT be okay with being conquered, they wouldn't say "oh, I guess you're better at competing then I am, so I'll just have to be content to spend the rest of my life as a slave."

There's a reason why "might makes right" isn't really taken seriously as an ethical philosophy. It implies that no immoral act can be performed - since if one CAN do a thing, it is RIGHT to do that thing. But most people don't want to be robbed, murdered, or raped, even though the "might makes right" ideology says that if someone were to do those things to them, it would be perfectly ethical. So they end up coming up with various loopholes which end up basically reducing to "it's okay when WE do it".

To answer the question "are there meaningful genetic differences between human groups?" one must first define "meaningful" and "human groups".

Columbus lived during the Spanish Inquisition and was arrested by Spain for cruelty.

Well the standards of the people who follow that idea are 'oh these people did things I like that I can claim credit for based on race' so really it is stupid as fuck.

define "define"