Anti-Communist General

Everybody has propaganda, even you you fucking sheep. At least capitalist propaganda is for good ideas, like actually good ideas that benefit individuals.

The Only thing can turn the Communist subversion, Active measures to undermine American's faith is the 2012>
Solutrean Hypothesis and stopping the Communist DOI, DOE,NPS,EWC,BIA agenda.
Indians were not the First Nations, and whites have an ancient traditional ownership to North-America.
Every FB "Red Pride" page that popped up after the NODAPL water warrior BS is run by Chinese or Vietnamese.
The Communist subversion is thinking siberians ( Russians) were First and own the continent.

>capitalist propaganda
It's multicult propaganda. So called "multiculturalism" will ultimately lead to the end of capitalism.

The only good commie is a dead commie

prove it

Yes goyim we should remove all safety regulations and have people work for free for their maste- err i mean selfmade hard working bosses!

Gommunism is bad for you goyims it only wants equality and brotherhood betwean people and we cant let that happen!

I did with the pic I provided, at least in the context of the United States.

Third worlders don't care about small government conservatism, fiscal responsibility, free markets, etc. Of course I'm speaking about groups on average, of course there are exceptions to this rule. But averages matter when dealing with large groups, such as society as a whole.

Fuck Commies

you do realize, that in a capitalist system, if you feel as if your boss is under paying you, you have the choice to go work somewhere else. Corporations have to compete for good employees just as much as good employees have to compete for work. If you suck at life and competition, as you clearly do, then I guess you just won't get paid.

that doesn't actually prove to me that multiculturalism ruins free markets, just because third worlders don't care about fiscal responsibility, etc. And in this thread we try to not judge people based on the groups that communist and identity politics try to section them into. If you actually come back with proof instead of molymeme, come share.

You do realise that under capitalism companies form monopolies and work whit each other to fuck the workers and get as much profit out of them as possible.

Communism literealy only wants equality and brootherhood, while capitalism in its basic nature only strives tovards greater profit at the expense of workers and the enviroment.

you're not forced to buy from a "monopoly"

Cutting liabilities is a great thing for corporations to do, sorry if you cant compete with your coworkers if you get canned for being a unprofitable liability.

Equality and brotherhood suck when a beta cuck is measured the same as someone who produces twice the amount of the poor fags.

bump with meme

>If you actually come back with proof instead of molymeme, come share.
You're pathetic. Attacking the messenger rather than the message.

Who cares about individualism? What are the racial demographic of the adherents of all the small government ideologies? They're overwhelmingly white, of course.

Hispanics don't care about individualism. The percentage of the population which are Hispanic has been steadily growing thanks to multiculturalism. As Nancy Pelosi (D) recently stated, Hispanics are the "face of the future for our country". They want larger government. They want welfare. They want chain migration to get their relatives into the country. They want all the illegals to gain citizenship. And as the Hispanic share of the population grows, the Republican party will either become irrelevant or they'll have to adopt policies which have been traditionally associated with the Democrats. The United States will either become a single party state, in which the Democrats run things in perpetuity, or the Democrats and Republicans will compete with each other as to who can provide the best social welfare benefits and who has the best immigration policies catering to the third world.

Why did "identity politics" become a thing to begin with? Could it be due to multiculturalism? Identity polices didn't exist in the United States pre-1965 because it didn't have to. The country was 89% white. The Democrats opened up the floodgates to the third world as they knew third worlders tend to support the political left.

I didn't shoot the messenger. I told the messenger that the message didn't have solid proof as to believe and build an actual argument off of.

As to your point about democrats winning because of the build up of welfare and illegals gaining citizenship, this topic is more complicated then you make it. Democratic politics actually aren't holding a great track record right now.

If you want to make an actual argument about any of the subject you will have to pull together a huge proof of an argument. Such: is any immigration bad, are Hispanic voters actually voting democratic in all state and at what rate + what rate they are growing at, and then you will also have to prove that their political morality would never change as in no assimilation exists anywhere.

I think that you are throwing a bunch of blind punches because there is no validity to think that democrats are just going to pop up and control literally the whole united states within a voting cycle or two.

This thread is dank! dumping for the meme!

>I didn't shoot the messenger. I told the messenger that the message didn't have solid proof as to believe and build an actual argument off of.
Yeah, dismissing the evidence he provided by labeling him "molymeme" isn't shooting the messenger.

/sarcasm

You do realize that Molyneux provides sources for every claim he makes in a video, right? Read the description.

youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM

See his entire series on immigration as well.

>and then you will also have to prove that their political morality would never change as in no assimilation exists anywhere.

I already showed that second generation hispanics are more likely to support the Dems than first generation hispanics.

This isn't surprising. A similar trend exists in Europe in which second and third generation Muslims are more likely to support extremist Islamic positions than first generation Muslims.

So called "assimilation" for low IQ populations isn't possible. Bringing in Hispanics en masse will just make your country more resemble a Hispanic country once their population becomes sufficiently large.

Molymeme isn't making the argument right now, you are. I'm not going to watch an hour of Molyneux, so that he can show me info graphics of 3 studies, in which two are the same study, that accumulate to almost nothing. Molyneux also high agrees with measuring people as individuals, and has spent a lot of time arguing in the case to measure people on an individual base. Now if you would like to make an actual argument i would be happy to read it.

>Molymeme isn't making the argument right now, you are.
My argument was largely based on graphs presented by Molyneux in a video.

>Molyneux also high agrees with measuring people as individuals, and has spent a lot of time arguing in the case to measure people on an individual base.

He has embraced nationalist in the past few years as he understand that demography shapes societies.

And you can take into consideration group characteristics while judging individuals on their own merit, you dumb fuck.

One of my all time favorites.
Hehe arent those commie shitlords such likeable people -i mean when they arent looting and burning cities down.

...

...

...

...

Kek

Captain America is a traitor Confederate collaborating scumbag.

What have they done with Marvel...

Comic books have always been pozzed. See:

I completely disagree with all your whole argument, if there is one....
You are using Molyneux to rationalize your own internal nationalist stance. Molyneux argues for the free market and for capitalism. If you think he arguing for a national socialist movement, hes not a nazi, and shouldn't be used to rationalize a movement of such. Even though Molyneux is a bit tinfoil hat at times, you shouldn't be disrespectful to his stance just to rationalize your own insecure position.

Capitalism is best

Do you just adhere to what every meme tells you without questing its structure. Logically it doesn't even work.

>I completely disagree with all your whole argument, if there is one....
I can't imagine how dumb a person must be to not understand the argument I've presented ITT.

>If you think he arguing for a national socialist movement, hes not a nazi

What the fuck are you talking about you stupid faggot? I didn't suggest that at all.

Molyneux has been in support of nationalism for at least the past two years. He has also rejected the notion of "multiculturalism" and has become a race realist. Watch any of his videos in that time frame and you'll hear him reject his past position of open borders.

>rationalize your own insecure position.
Not an argument.

You're literally just b8 memeing. just go post on Cred Forums. nice meme flag btw

What's wrong with the information presented in that "meme"?

>if I label something as a "meme" it's automatically invalidated
Is that what you're attempting here?

The logic in that statement does work. It has nothing to do with the word meme. Memes are incredible valid when they are actually valid.

So tell me what's wrong with that image?

It depends. You don't consider liberals "pretty much commies" right? Liberals meaning moderate leftists rather than the Bernie bro brand that's out right now.

>its superman
>its diversity
>must be the jews

And nobody in this thread was arguing about open or closed boarders. This thread isn't about pro diversity vs no diversity. It's about pro capitalism. the market itself will figure out diversity and boarders for you.

I have nothing wrong with the argument that you are trying to present but the sources that you are using lead me to no conclusion, and I'm surprised such a smart guy like Molyneux would be influenced by such little evidence.
I understand that he has had a nationalist slant especially within the last year, but you need to measure people based on individuals even with in your own society. I would get a Mexican that produces more value a job over a race realist any day, if they produce a better value for the society, because the jobs that need to be done have to be done with the least amount of labor liabilities as possible.

You mean, "Classical Liberal?" No, moderate and center leaning people are fine, I just fucking hate communists.

Not OP but I agree with many moderate leftists, as they also believe in capitalism and, for the most part, a free market (with some regulation), despite their social political stance. Bernie bros are extremists as we all understand. Most moderate liberals, or classical liberals are seen as conservatives in Europe, which is strange to think about, but we have much more in common than we do with communists and should work together.

>if I sum up the information presented in an image in the most retarded way possible that image becomes invalidated

Anyone viewing this thread can see that you're a retarded troll who is not interested in having an actual discussion. Fuck off.

>but you need to measure people based on individuals even with in your own society. I would get a Mexican that produces more value a job over a race realist any day, if they produce a better value for the society, because the jobs that need to be done have to be done with the least amount of labor liabilities as possible.
You can judge individuals on their own merit while understanding that group characteristics matter when dealing with large numbers of people and thus shape public policy around this fact.

>2008
RON PAUL
>2018
"Physical removal doesn't necessarily entail killing, so to speak"

Is this a natural evolution of views?

Of course

Maybe you could sit down with this user and explain to him the benefits of Austrian Economics and limited government?

I honestly do not think i need to prove this to you, because people will be looking at you as the retard and not me, my apologies for calling you retarded.
The image does not work as an argument because it immediately takes the first position
>diversity is wrong.
This is a premise that is actually unable to be proved.
I actually cant even find a second premise, maybe it's
>the jews like diversity.

the conclusion is clearly the Jews are against you because of these reasons.

but its an incredibly invalid and unsound argument. I shouldn't be enabling you by arguing against you with this subject. its just stupid.

...

using statistics to prove social sciences is an extremely fine line due to how data is implemented
>There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

This may lead to people to believe some study that they see that doesn't prove anything.
Study up-to-date, unlike year 2000 studies:
journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

And I'm calling you stupid by calling the argument stupid. I do however believe that your a bit misguided and confused.

>The image does not work as an argument because it immediately takes the first position
>diversity is wrong.
No it doesn't. It simply shows that Jews utilized the comic book industry to push the idea that the Untied State's character is about "diversity" and "tolerance" on impressionable children.

Of course diversity is wrong, as anyone who lurked here for a sufficient time would understand.
>This is a premise that is actually unable to be proved.
What nonsense. see pic and see:
youtube.com/watch?v=VTROCGb5qj8

did you write that yourself? You are going through a lot of (bait)trouble to get your point across.

...

...

The notion that hispanics tend to favor larger government over free markets isn't the product of one or a small number of studies. It's painfully obvious for anyone who pays attention to policies. You're not seriously contending that issue, are you?

...

...

You're right. The reconquista movement doesn't exist. I personally invented the entire concept. It's all a ruse.

It supposes that diversity is wrong from the state. Do you even understand what I'm saying to you?

start*

I offered a response to that point already.

You can start a deductive argument with a conclusion. You must first prove that diversity is wrong.

cant*

You're just reiterating a point I already address. Please fuck off.

Your picture made me laugh for a solid 45 seconds, thanks.
FUCK MCSTAIN

Kek. You're right, how could all of us be against brotherhood and equality? It's almost as if you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

I'm contending you to prove to me that all hispanics favor larger government and that their political morality will always stay the same. These are things that I really don't think you could ever prove.

Your article on a havard study, which doesn't present that actual study, does not prove that diversity is wrong. all it proves it that the author of said study doesn't like it, just like you don't. You are very dense. And even the study has been invalidated by the leading statistician at Harvard (THE SAME UNIVERSITY!!!!) who is currently studying how these studies are invalid.

>article is just a nice read about how closed societies can lead to social distribution of wealth. This is something that I'm not on board with, even if its all whites.

I never stated that all Hispanics support big government. The majority do however. And second generation Hispanics favor big government more than their parents.

ok, step one, not all hispanics support big government; good job. Now for step two, prove to me that their political morality will never change.

Your article on a havard study, which doesn't present that actual study,
One of the images I posted contains a url of the study. Or you could just google it.
>does not prove that diversity is wrong. all it proves it that the author of said study doesn't like it, just like you don't.
Wrong. The author of the study is a leftist who is dedicated to the notion of "diveristy". In fact he waited a number of years to release the findings of the study as he was so troubled by the results.
>You are very dense. And even the study has been invalidated by the leading statistician at Harvard (THE SAME UNIVERSITY!!!!) who is currently studying how these studies are invalid.
Unsubistaned claim. I provided a list showing studied which found similar results:

...

All of your source are old and invalidated already. They have been proven incorrect as they are all bias. You cannot even see these things because you are biased.

Uh huh.

It doesn't matter, I'm done, you can think you won the argument. I'm not enabling your troll behavior. I'll let the audience decide. And yes I'm aware that many on this board will disagree with me, they're biased too. I'm not here to convince you or any other with the extremist view you hold. I'm here to argue agaisnt communism.

Why would it change? Hispanics are overwhelmingly in support of legalizing the illegals, bringing their relatives into the United States from Latin America, and welfare of programs. What would change to make all of the above untrue?

Robert Putnam, the author of the study I provided, is a life long leftist and as I said previously he was dismayed at the findings of the study. You claimed, laughably so, that his alleged bias against diversity shaped the outcome of the study. Then you claimed, without proof, and all the studies I provided which showed similar results were biased and already debunked.

You're not interested in debating this topic, obviously. And yet you dare to call me a "troll".

...

...

...