“Mass immigration is insane and will lead to the destruction of any country that allows it. It only takes a few percent of the world to move to a country, where it is no longer that country. A country is its people, not its geography.”
https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1908860526400057534"The legacy media never mentions white genocide in South Africa, because it doesn’t fit their narrative that whites can be victims"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1904065163407368212Even Musk's AI is based.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1916042294018666585"The ADL is a hate group"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1973289543848829225He supports remigration.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1997700657546191314"A government that fails to protect its citizens is illegitimate"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1998131134753062943"Either the suicidal empathy of Western civilization ends or Western civilization will end"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2000078735622721927"Why is Western media so anti-White"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2000604195272163517"Call them out for the anti-White racists they are every time they do it"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2000920169531822091"Anti-White, anti-male discrimination ends now"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2001022917610758555Says DEI, and not hiring white men, is wrong.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2001529481677435100"Why is legacy media so racist?"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2002604827134787629**|!|- The last time Elon was accused of wanting to import infinity jeets he replied with "False" and said the H1B system should be reformed. -|!|**
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1996214327670648865"Feeling extra based today, might regret it later, but it feels so good"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2003503573448159495I find funny that right and left wings of capital claim he is under jewish influence because the ADL defended him when it should be the opposite, the ADL is a political tool that doesn't give a flying fuck about Jewish people so much so that they'd promote a Nazi.
Water is wet
You have to be an actual moron to take Elon Musk (or any capitalist, for that matter) at his word when he claims to be against mass immigration.
>>2901121I understand that more people means more customers but there's 2 points:
1) You can just increase the birth rate of the native population without bringing in outsiders.
2) You can just keep the outsiders in their home country and sell products to them internationally.
>>2901141> I understand that more people means more customersIt’s primarily about bringing in cheaper labor, tho.
>>2901146What about literally just building your factories in other countries instead of importing labor you export factories.
>>2901141How do you do that without decommodifying the necessities of life? TFRs across the entire world are cratering and its especialy bad where the markets have advanced the furthest into human lives
>>2901147The bourgeoisie already did that. Thing is, they still need to import cheap labor to work service jobs after financializing the entire economy and shipping all the manufacturing jobs to China and India. So as always, we get the worst of both worlds.
>>2901248lolberts are retarded every economy has been "statist" since the beginning of time or at least agricultural civilization other than singapore and 19th century america, plus again other than western society in the late 20th/21st century every society has also had "collectivism and identity politics" which is just in group preference and again historically normal. thats literally just politics. These retards tried to universalize enlightenment liberalism as some sort of human nature baseline when its anything but.
By that criteria fucking early modern absolute monarchs and ancient hunter gatherers were "leftist" for having a top down economy and not liking the tribe in the next valley over respectively. I guess ancient british kings were leftist for instituting "censorship" i.e. charging people with seditious libel for talking shit about them
>>2901121They love "illegal" immigrants because they have less if any labor rights
>>2901148Fertility rates don’t fare well under Marxist Leninist regimes either. Romania’s abortion ban backfired spectacularly. The DPRK is faring better than the ROK on fertility but they’re still below replacement rate.
The issue is people had way more kids under feudalism because within five years you had someone else helping you with chores, which was most of your day if you’re in agriculture. They literally can’t contribute under either socialism or capitalism. You get state subsidies and public school but that’s clearly not enough to offset the time and financial costs for most people.
>>2901121Yh, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that his obsession with cementing a civil war in the UK began when his support for H1-B visas became scrutinised, on the top of the UK mildly turning against Israel by cancelling a weapons deal, recognising Palestine, and now putting into motions sanctions against the illegal Israeli settlers.
>>2901879So do legal migrants and you can select for skill too unlike with illegal migrants.
>>2901970Internet Western Marxists be like:
>US Westward Expansion (millions of American Indians killed)<"hell yea, historically progressive">German Eastward Expansion (millions of Slavs killed)<"NOOOOOO, PUNCH A NAZI™" >>2904347Wow they prefer whites over indians.
Das racist.
>>2904347literally who thr fuck said that. youre the one saying nazis are based you terminally online autist
>>2906593The literacy crisis breeds LARPers
>>2901873Thanks for saying this anon. Its comforting to know people can see through libertarian less the useless thought.
The word retarded doesn't even fit, because libertarianism is a kind of "stupid" & degenerate that is a category all of its own.
>>2906593Treating the Nazis as some sort of uniquely evil entity, rather than a continuation of contemporary bourgeois-led imperialism, is radlib trash.
Plenty of Westoid Marxist retards on here praise Manifest Destiny for being "historically progressive" but in the same breath condemn the Nazis and Lebensraum, despite the latter completely copying the former. Actually, even the Nazis thought some American racial policies went too far; the Nuremberg Laws were just a watered-down, more lenient version of America's one-drop rule.
The US is infinitely worse than Nazi Germany. Imagine thinking a reactionary movement that only lasted 12 years is the worst thing to ever happen.
>>2907475>praisenot what historically progressive means,and the URSS was industrializing anyway so there was no "bringing capitalism" to them in the first place,it makes no sense to conflate the two from this point of view,but I agree with it from the point of view of "hierarchy of war crimes"
>>2907475>Plenty of Westoid Marxist retards on here praise Manifest Destiny for being "historically progressive"havent ever seen that, sounds like bullshit, because "manifest destiny" isnt historically progressive, its just colonial justification ideology
>>2907553
>So? Russia had been rapidly industrializing since Tsar Nicholas II's reign. World War I, the Bolshevik takeover, and the subsequent civil war undid that trajectory.
oh, you're making up shit because you're a retard monarshit ok
>>2907510>not what historically progressive meansProgressive for whom? When you say a genocide is "historically progressive," you have already chosen the settler's temporality over the victim's. It's chauvinist praise with a veneer of ostensible material analysis. Under this framework, you can justify Israel's Nakba against the Palestinians or Germany's Lebensraum against Eastern Slavs, and yet virtually no Westoid Marxist labels those things as "progressive" like they do for the United States' near-total extermination of Amerindians.
>the URSS was industrializing anyway so there was no "bringing capitalism" to them in the first placeSo? Russia had been rapidly industrializing since Tsar Nicholas II's reign. World War I, the Bolshevik takeover (backed by Imperial Germany), and the subsequent civil war undid that trajectory.
Regardless, Germany was still far more industrialized than all of Eastern Europe, including the USSR. The Soviets had to rely on American Lend-Lease to fill gaps in production (mostly transport vehicles, explosives, and especially food).
>>2907573>'at 'tdo monarchycux really?
>>2907607>>2907617>no argument>whining about AI>"y-you're a monarcuck"Pathetic. The Bolsheviks and the USSR were a product of WW1 German imperialism. They set Russia and global socialism back hundreds of years.
Was Stalin Necessary for Russia's Economic Development?
https://economics.northwestern.edu/docs/events/nemmers/2012/golosov.pdf<We started this paper with a question: "Was Stalin necessary?". Tsarist economy, even in our conservative version assuming that it would not experience any decline in frictions, would have achieved a rather similar structure of the economy and the levels of production as Stalin's economy. However, this structural transformation would be achieved at a significant cost in terms of economic welfare measured in consumption equivalents. The short-run (1928-1940) costs of Stalin's policies are very significant for an economy in a peaceful period. Our comparison with Japan leads to astonishingly larger welfare costs of Stalin's policies.Stalin and Soviet industrialisation
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/stalin-and-soviet-industrialisation<Therefore our answer to the ‘Was Stalin Necessary?’ question is a definite ‘no’. Even though we do not consider the human tragedy of famine, repression and terror, and focus on economic outcomes alone, and even when we make assumptions that are biased in Stalin’s favour, his economic policies underperform the counterfactual. We believe Stalin’s industrialisation should not be used as a success story in development economics, and should instead be studied as an example where brutal reallocation resulted in lower productivity and lower social welfare. >>2907642I'm not reading the words of an llm using cucktard
>>2907646>I'm not reading wordsFixed
>>2907648I'm not reading posts from llm using cucktards you hopeless wastrel
>>2899796>“Mass immigration is insane and will lead to the destruction of any country that allows it.I wonder whats gonna happen in china once they start draining africa of people
Its true.
>>2901248>IdpolAll politics is idpol
>CollectivismNot exclusive to left-wing
>StatismLol
>Command economyTowards the middle of WW2 sure, but that's why they fired Feder and hired Schacht because the industrialists did not want a command economy.
>CensorshipNot exclusive to left-wing
>Social engineeringFreud's nephew Edward Bernays says hello
>Militant activismNot exclusive to left-wing
>Gun controlRonald Reagan says hello
>Rule by lawsI thought rule of law was a conservative right-wing value?
>Politicisation of academia, judiciary and civil serviceDonald Trump says hello
>>2901873I like lolbertism but not when it is this retarded sloganeering.
>>2907557> rapidly industrializing since Tsar Nicholas II's reignYeah, keep believing that lol it will definitely make it to lol
>The Soviets had to rely on American Lend-Lease to fill gaps in production (mostly transport vehicles, explosives, and especially food)Can I get a taste of these gaps plox? More bullshit picked up from animarchy or similar losers.
>>2907557 historical progress doesn't give a shit about the morality of the oppressed. The genocide of the natives objectively could not be stopped, even though we are bound to morally condemn it because we reject oppression, the natives were indeed fighting against the tide of history. To be a Marxist is to recognize that the answer to the question "can this oppressed group break its chains?" might actually be "no", that's what differentiates it from idealism that believes that there must ALWAYS be a way out of oppression just because the cause is righteous. That's also what differentiates the latter two examples you provide, that the soviets actually repelled the nazi onslaught, because historical progress had led to the establishment of a higher mode of production that could put in the actual manpower, technology, organization and logistics with which the idea of liberation is actually achieved materially. Same thing with the Palestinians, clearly a far more advanced genocidal i$srael hasn't been able to wipe out the resistance like a 19th century settlerite could over the much less advanced natives. Dialectics determine that things turn into their opposites, from going against historical progress, liberation movements are now the way of historical progress itself, otherwise by definition liberation cannot be achieved
>>2911175>eurocentrism, but wokethis is why people in this website need to actually read marx and stop repeating buzzwords like "historically progressive" or "dialectical materialism"
>>2911178 Are you feeling uncomfortable with calling a genocide "historically progressive"? Then was the expansion of settler society historically regressive? And is therefore every historical instance of oppression by definition historically regressive? Let us ask Marx himself on the question of slavery
>Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has its two sides. Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery. Needless to say, we are dealing only with direct slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America.
>Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.
>Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.-Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy
So how do we explain Marx not only openly acknowledging a "good side" to slavery, but calling America "the most progressive of countries" not in spite of, but because of slavery? Is Marx a woke eurocentrist who should read more Marx? No, he has a dialectical materialist understanding of historical progress that is not mere "buzzwords".
Simply put, the historically revolutionary subject of the proletariat can only arise within capitalism, and from within capitalism must also arise genocidal settler colonialism whose necessity is that of primitive capital accumulation and management of the class struggle through emigration of the reserve army of labor, and its possibility granted by the vast demographic and technological chasm between settler and native societies materially enabling genocide to occur. You cannot at a historical point in time have a proletariat arise without the genocide of native peoples also arising, such is the dialectical nature of historical progress. This is no longer the case as colonial peoples acquired, through their very colonization, the means to free themselves in the form of national consciousness, educated anticolonial elites, assault rifles, and the weakening of empire via inter-imperialist struggle, this is why Algerian resistance was successful in the 20th century when it wasn't in the 19th.
Therefore, if you believe the genocide to be historically regressive it necessarily must yield you incapable of believing the proletariat to be historically progressive as they stem from the exact same historical development, or you must pose that you could somehow have had one without the other, but in order to do that you'd have to deny objective "eurocentrist" material reality and propose that the natives could have somehow resisted with bows and muskets, no industrial levels of productivity, an order of magnitude less population, and no political centralization. If it was possible for the natives to stop their genocide then what happened? what differentiates native resistance from soviet resistance that one was successful and the other wasn't? were the settlers just too morally evil or was the soviet cause simply more righteous than that of the natives? or maybe idealism is useless and in both cases history progressed towards where material conditions were more advanced?
>>2911271Or maybe Marx was wrong in the first place and there’s no such thing as progression or regression, history being nothing more than a pile of shit and an albatross on the neck of the living
>>2911273 hopeless and intellectually barren petite bourgeois nihilism, the guaranteed end result of seriously engaging reactionaries
>>2911280(1) Marxism isn’t a dogma. (2) By choosing the American settler's temporality over the indigenous victims, you out yourself as a thinly veneered chauvinist. The American Indians weren’t proletarized, they were largely wiped out from existence. Again, the question is “progressive” for whom? If the “progress” of one group was built off the annihilation of another, then it’s not universally progressive. Just because it can be construed as “progress” for the former, doesn’t mean it applies to the latter.
Moreover, this (flawed) framework is almost always inconsistently applied. Virtually no leftist who uses this framework to justify the genocide of American Natives, applies it to Nazi Germany and Israel. Especially considering Nazi Lebensraum was directly responsible by American Westward Expansion.
>>2911715What makes something progressive, then?
>>2911712If you read Hegel's Philosophy of Right, his conception of "progress" is entirely Eurocentric, beginning with the Greeks, then Romans, and finally Germans (including Anglo-Saxons).
>>2911717At that phase in his life he’s
not talking about whether or not something is good, he’s talking about if it moves towards a different mode of production or the maturation of the current one.
He never says this is an inherently good or desirable thing, “progressive” was just the word his translators chose
>>2911724Can progress be a bad thing?
And if so, ought we oppose it?
>>2910175>All politics is idpolAmen
>>2911726He is writing down what happened. That doesn’t mean glorifying what happened or saying it was good, it just means “this happened”
Having a moral critique of these things and adopting Marx’s description is not inherently contradictory. Marx’s arguments against capitalism come from appeal to self-interest. You can have a moral critique but it’s a separate issue
Not everything is about ethnic background or culture overriding your brain
>>2911734I'm asking yes/no questions and you're panicking.
I'll repeat myself: if "progress" is not inherently good, can it be bad?
If it is bad, ought we oppose it?
>>2911735Progressive doesn't necessarily mean progress. It's a term used by propagandists to present their own ideas as desirable and "making progress."
>>2911736Don't you find it curious that you are incapable of answering basic questions? What are you trying to hide, exactly? I'll repeat myself:
- (i) if "progress" isn't necessarily good, can it be bad?
- (ii) if progess is bad, ought we oppose it?
A yes/no answer will suffice.
>>2911735Sure it can. My issue is that it’s not the issue at hand and it comes off as a goalpost move
>>2911715>>2911724>>2911734My argument does not require moralism. If one group’s “progress” requires the elimination and/or exploitation of another, it cannot be considered progressive.
>>2911744His question is legitimate.
>>2911745Jesus Christ are you illiterate?
You’re smooshing together two different uses of the word to make an insanely banal point
>>2911741Okay, so if progress is bad, shouldn't it be opposed?
If a thing is bad, we should be against it, by definition.
>>2911742I am adding the clause "if", which entails a hypothetical premise.
IF "progress" = bad, THEN progress = opposed to self-interest, etc.
This is syllogistic logic.
By your separation of "progress" from "progressive":
>>2911736You are implying that "progress" is good, by definition. Is this true?
If it is true, is a person who believes in "progress" not a "progressive"?
>>2911744I am giving meaning to the conversation.
>>2911748No, are YOU illiterate? Both your guys’ posts miss the broader point.
Historical progression is correct. “Good” is subjective.
>>2911738(i) Progress is good in the right direction but the label progress can be applied to anything whether or not it is actually good.
(ii) Progress is only bad if you're progressing in the wrong direction.
>>2911750Progress just means moving forward in a certain direction.
Whether or not it is good depends on the direction.
>>2911754>(ii) Progress is only bad if you're progressing in the wrong direction.The United States “progressed” in the wrong direction.
>>2911752Thus begs the question, why strive to be correct?
Because it is good, obviously.
Why do you wish to be correct? Tell me.
>>2911754Right, so IF progress is good, it should be supported, and if it is bad, it shouldn't be. But are both really "progress", or is the bad "regress"? Further, how do we know what the right or wrong direction is?
>>2911756I agree. Most of the stuff labeled "progressive" is in the wrong direction.
>>2911757>Thus begs the question, why strive to be correctBecause being incorrect leads to imprecision and often worse outcomes.
>>2911755>forward>directionBut isn't progress contrary to regress by the very terms of its motion?
For example, if progress is forward movement, it's direction is that which is forward, while the opposite of progress (e.g. regress) is that which simply moves backwards. So, there is no "backwards progress", but only "regress". Would you accept that "progress" thus has one direction, which is opposed to regress? Forward ≠ backward, etc.
>>2911759>worse outcomesAnd is it good to avoid worse outcomes?
>>2911757What's regress for one person is progress for another.
>>2911760It is correct to avoid worse outcomes. Good is subjective.
>>2911760Because you're implying that the backwards direction is invalid, when that's not necessarily true. It could be a valid direction that you just don't agree with.
>>2911762What makes something correct or incorrect?
>>2911763I never claimed anything was invalid.
We are talking about movement.
Forwardness is contrary to backwardness.
So, progress is contrary to regress.
If "progress" is good, then regress must be bad. That's the dichotomy.
>>2911761According to the direction one is facing, yes.
But all progress then has relative regress.
>>2911767But when we're talking about politics it is not as simple as backwards or forwards movement. It is moving between two valid points, what is progress to one person is regress to another.
>>2911775But does direction apply to political opinions?
"Progress" is most often applied in the context of supposed historical movement, where there is a proposed destination reached by the forward movement of things, with backwardness seen as repeating what has already occured in the past.
>>2911779Depends on what?
We can apply it to the case of avoiding worse outcomes.
Why is avoiding, rather than embracing, worse outcomes "correct"?
>>2911781On the situation
On the variables provided
Etc etc etc
>Why is avoiding, rather than embracing, worse outcomes "correct”?Worse=incorrect btw. I should have specified.
>>2911786You are not explaining your reasoning.
(x) = incorrect
(y) = correct
If (y) is equal to correctness, and (y) is avoiding what is "worse", then we must understand what is "worse". If what is worse is a "subjective" phenomenon like pain, then correctness would be goodness, no? But if what is "worse" is "objective" in its measurement, what is this thing? What makes something either "worse" or "better" in concrete terms?
>>2911781Yes.
They make it seem like the past was bad and we have to make progress by moving towards their personal idea of good.
>>2911795How do opinions have directions?
We have have preferences for directions, but opinions themselves are formless. The real question is, does History have a real direction?
>>2911788> You are not explaining your reasoning>"worse"Which I have clarified as incorrect. The worse outcome in this context is the incorrect outcome. You are being purposely obtuse.
>>2911858Perhaps you don't understand, but you are being tautological.
You are saying "what is [incorrect] is incorrect"
You aren't defining what makes a thing actually incorrect.
So tell me, what is the difference between correctness and incorrectness?
>>2911859>You are saying "what is [incorrect] is incorrect"That is completely and utterly incorrect.
>So tell me, what is the difference between correctness and incorrectness?Factualness and unfactualness.
>>2911861>completely and utterly incorrectBut you literally said it. Read:
>>2911858<[worse] … Which I have clarified as incorrectYou are saying that what is "worse" is "incorrect"
So, what makes something "worse"? It being "incorrect". Ergo
[incorrect] = incorrect
Simple.
>Factualness and unfactualness.Give an example of an unfactual outcome.
>>2911863>You are saying that what is "worse" is "incorrect"Correct. And I had said that response to this.
>Why is avoiding, rather than embracing, worse outcomes "correct"?I had to clarify, so you may correct your question into this:
> Why is avoiding, rather than embracing, incorrect outcomes "correct"?>Give an example of an unfactual outcome.2+2=5
>>2911865To return to your original reply:
>>2911759We see that the motive cause of correctness is to avoid incorrectness
So, we are in a circle (e.g.):
>why should we be correct?<to not be incorrectNothing has been elucidated, fundamentally.
>>2911886>To return to your original replyWhich simply means even more incorrect. Not just incorrect, even more incorrect, which may worsen the consequences of being incorrect.
>Nothing has been elucidated, fundamentally.What are the potential consequences of being incorrect? Potential death, failure of a project, pain, loss of material wealth, etc
>>2911801They don't which is why some people saying that their opinions are "progressive" is just a propaganda tactic.
>>2899817Nazi policies are good for jews now, so the ADL has shifted positions.
>>2899817capital has no left wing
>>2912684Left wing is super satanic and capitalistic.
>>2912158Now? They’ve always been Judeophiles
>>2912864MAJOR TRUTH NUKE
>>2913311wtf is the "oriental mode of production"
I'm pretty sure the chinese didn't invent factories.
>>2913320For marx, the asiatic mode of production is about the state monopoly on land ownership, and the apparent lack of division between town and country that was in asiatic society, where the ones doing agriculture and early industry where living in the same places, unlike feudal serfs (also control over irrigation)
It is a concept that has been mostly rejected by any contemporary marxists, including those in the soviet union, with some rebranding it the "tributary" mode of production, where the governing body exerce total control over vital sectors and lord over peasants without tying them to the land
Hmm…
>Is an Afrikaner that resents the ANC for abolishing apartheid
>Bankrolls every racist and far-right party in Europe, including the AfD which harbors actual Neo-Nazis
>Pays millions for his mockingbird influencer network that includes both philosemitic white neocons and zionist Nazis like Captive_Dreamer
>Boosts and pushes racist slop
>Is currently trying to incite a race war in the UK by artificially tweaking his algorithm to almost exclusively show ChudSlop to his British userbase, especially of the pedophobic variety
>Has spent days pushing Uwe Boll’s movie version of the Turner Diaries
>Constantly spouts far-right talking points
>Literally siege heil’ed at Munich
Yep, Elon Musk is a Nazi, a’ight.
Unique IPs: 50