Posts by Robin Ramos2

Confused astrologists are out there scanning the skies with telescopes, desperately trying to figure out what happened to Barack Obama's star. Where did it vanish to? I mean, even Andre Agassi has a voice, yet B. Hussain remains completely silent.

brightnomad15 said:Back then we didn't exactly have the internet😁, and I guess I wouldn't even bother talking about who was funding them at the time; it probably isn't worth the breath

Grandpa George Bush and the Walls. Everything comes to light eventually; you don't have to live your life paralyzed by fear.

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachau...TimeCover.html

Time Magazine's Person of the Year back in 1938

Alexander Barrett50 said:Fine, let's try this: where are the sources claiming that outside of war-torn regions in Africa—like Kenya or Tanzania—there are more broken families and single moms than, say, in India?

It’s a rhetorical question, really. Since you didn't provide a single source for any of your other claims, I know you won't provide one for this either. And that bit about the oppression of Black people is truly something else... from now on, I'm calling you Bor!

So, how's it going, Bor? You want to tell us more about testicles? Sorry, what was the word you used—penises? What an idiot. Honestly, the guy commenting under the article hit the nail on the head regarding how much taxpayer money is being wasted on this nonsense...

Do you really think I'm some kind of research service for you, supposed to dig up references just so you can ignore them or claim they don't fit your narrative? You were just shouting into the wind while I was having actual discussions; I outgrew petty provocateurs like you a long time ago.
The issues I’m discussing are common knowledge, and you can find as many references as you want. Distrust toward Black people is prevalent both in Africa and in the USA. The breakdown of the Black family in the US isn't a consequence of slavery, but rather their natural state. Instead of being grateful that you've learned something, you're just here messing around and provoking. And you have the nerve to insult me when you're writing nonsense, like claiming crack cocaine is a weapon and that slavery in the US ended in the 1980s. Do you seriously think the AIDS epidemic outside of Africa is prevalent because Black people are so devoted to their families? You are a typical liberal ignorant; try mimicking me until you at least educate yourself on the basic things you claim to have an 'opinion' on.

Where on earth is the actual evidence that there's a massive surge of single mothers and broken homes across Africa? 🙂

I guess I should probably say something about this... although, honestly, it’s hard to know where to even begin without getting sidetracked by how much everything seems to be spiraling lately. It’s just one thing after another, isn't it? Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but there’s a certain... a certain lack of cohesion in how things are being handled. It feels messy. Fragmented. Anyway, regarding what was mentioned earlier—I don't know. I suppose I have some thoughts, if you can call them that. It's all very deliberate, yet somehow completely disorganized at the same time. I might be wrong, obviously, but it feels like we're just circling the drain while everyone pretends everything is perfectly fine. It’s frustrating, I guess. Just... frustrating. kaže:
The genetic variations between races are actually pretty negligible. It’s been shown—well, I guess it's been established now—that the largest genetic gaps exist within Black populations. Specifically, if you look at the differences between two Khoikhoi individuals, those gaps can actually be wider than the differences found between a Swede and a Mongolian. It’s a bit much to wrap one's head around, I suppose, but that's how the data seems to shake out.

Look, just because there’s variation within specific subgroups doesn't somehow negate the existence of differences between racial groups. It's not an either-or situation. I mean, the differences exist on a completely different level entirely—genomic analysis is a whole other beast compared to just some simplistic percentage breakdown you see in a textbook. And honestly, just because people claim those differences are small... well, that doesn't actually prove anything. I guess you could say that the genetic difference between us and a chimpanzee is also incredibly small, if you really want to get technical about it. But we all know that's not how it works.

I suppose I should probably address this... though I'm not entirely sure where to begin. It’s all a bit much, isn't it? Everything feels sort of... scattered. I was thinking about it earlier—well, maybe I wasn't thinking, just drifting—but there's this sense that things aren't quite landing the way they ought to. It reminds me of how people react to news cycles in places like Chicago or even further out in Seattle... just this constant, frantic noise. And honestly? I find it exhausting. I mean, I might be wrong, I guess. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious or something. But you look at the way discussions unfold online, and it's just... it's messy. It lacks a certain... deliberation. Anyway, I digress. I tend to do that. I'll get sidetracked by a single thought and then suddenly I'm three miles down a rabbit hole. It's a habit. A bad one, perhaps. But regarding the actual point... I still feel we haven't quite touched the core of the issue. We're circling it, like a plane stuck in a holding pattern over some massive Midwestern airport, waiting for clearance that never seems to come. It's frustrating. Truly. kaže:
Where exactly is the proof that Black people are physically more capable than White people? I mean, seriously, where is the actual data? I guess I’m just asking because I feel like we throw these claims around without much substance sometimes. Maybe there are studies out there, or maybe not, but I haven't seen anything concrete that settles the debate once and for all. It feels like a lot of talk without much follow-through, if you know what I mean. Just seems... I don't know, unfinished.

Are you kidding me right now? Are you actually pulling my leg?

I don't know... I guess I just find the whole thing a bit much. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but there's something about how everything is being handled that feels off. It’s like we’re just drifting without a clear sense of direction, you know? I mean, I could be wrong, obviously—I’m certainly no expert on these matters—but it seems to me like we're missing the forest for the trees. It's frustrating. Honestly, it's more than frustrating; it's exhausting to watch. I suppose I should probably stay quiet, but I can't help but feel like someone needs to say something. Just my two cents, I guess. [User Name] says:
Where exactly is the data to support this idea—that one group is less intelligent than white people, while white people are somehow less intelligent than Asians? I mean, where is the actual proof? It seems like a lot of baseless speculation to me, I guess. Maybe there's some flawed study floating around somewhere, but honestly, it feels more like just endless, circular arguing without any real substance behind it. It’s all just noise, really.

Any IQ test is going to prove it. I mean, sure, you can always try to dismiss IQ testing as being culturally biased—which, let’s be honest, is really just the go-to defense for liberals pushing that whole PC agenda about racial equivalence. It's a convenient way to dodge the data, I guess.

I don't know... I guess I'm just sitting here thinking about how things used to be, or maybe how they should have been. It’s hard to pin down. Everything feels a bit scattered lately. I mean, you look at the way people talk now, and it’s just... it's a mess. A complete mess. I was reading this thing earlier—well, more like staring at it while my coffee went cold—and it just hit me how much we've lost in terms of actual substance. Or maybe I'm just being cynical. That's probably it. I'm definitely being cynical. But honestly, when you look at the sheer scale of the nonsense we deal with on a daily basis, it’s almost impressive how much chaos one can endure before just snapping. I suppose that's just the modern condition, isn't it? Just constant, low-level irritation wrapped in a layer of confusion. Anyway, I'm rambling. Sorry. My mind just wanders to these strange, frustrating places sometimes. Maybe it's the weather. Or maybe it's just me. Probably both. [User Name] says:
There’s this ongoing debate about communication deficits, right? They say over 80% of how we connect happens through facial expressions. But then you hear these claims that among Black Americans, those facial expressions aren't nearly as developed... though, I mean, where is the actual evidence for that? It feels like a massive leap. I guess it's just one of those things people throw around without any real data to back it up. Maybe it's just perception, or maybe it's just nonsense. I don't know.

There’s a mountain of studies out there that claim to have "identified certain differences," or whatever kind of convoluted way they choose to package it these days. This is just one of them. I mean, obviously, if you ask anyone directly, they’re going to deny the superiority of one race over another—because let’s be real, any other answer is a guaranteed career suicide in this climate. But the data is right there. Besides, if you step away from the so-called scientific establishment for a second and actually trust your own eyes, I guess it becomes pretty obvious... maybe even glaringly clear... how much more rudimentary the facial expressions of Black people seem compared to those of white people.

I was digging through some academic archives earlier—you know how it goes, getting lost in the weeds of old theses and deep-dive research papers—and I stumbled upon this massive PDF. It’s one of those heavy, dense documents that takes forever to get through, but honestly, there’s some interesting stuff buried in the data if you have the patience to sift through it. I guess what I’m trying to say is that sometimes these digitized university repositories hold more than just dry statistics. There's a certain weight to reading original research from years ago, even if the formatting feels a bit dated. Maybe it's just me, but I find myself circling back to these kinds of deep dives when everything else online feels like it's written by an AI or someone just chasing clicks. It's slow work, definitely. A bit tedious, I suppose. But there's a method to the madness, right? Just a thought.

Alexander Barrett50 said:Genetic differences between races are practically negligible. Recent data even suggests that the genetic variance within Black populations—specifically among Hottentots—is actually greater than the variation you'd find between a Swede and a Mongol...

Where’s the actual evidence to support the claim that Black people are physically more capable than white people?

Where is the actual data to support the claim that whites are less intelligent than Asians, while being more intelligent than others...

There’s this supposed deficit in communication skills floating around. They say over 80% of how we connect happens through facial expressions, yet there's this claim that among Black Americans, those facial expressions are somehow less developed... but where is the actual evidence for that?

Looking further into the concept of fidelity, which is fundamentally tied to parental responsibility, there's some interesting data from the animal kingdom suggesting that species with a lower ratio of genital size relative to body mass tend to exhibit higher levels of faithfulness. When you look at certain demographics within the US, specifically Black Americans, there is a statistically higher ratio in this regard, which seems to correlate directly with their approach to monogamy—if you follow that logic... I’ll keep this civil and avoid using terms that might be more "accurate" to my actual thoughts on the matter, though the evidence points in that direction...

The Ottoman advance was halted outside Vienna back in 1683, and they were eventually pushed back past the Sava River by 1699. Slavery wasn't officially abolished until 1865. (though you had certain US states trying to sneak it back in later, only to have it struck down again), and the oppression of Black Americans persisted all the way through the 80s... not to mention the introduction of things like crack cocaine. And that's not even touching on the ongoing chaos happening in Africa.

It seems pretty obvious that Black families actually had a much more stable, high-quality family life during the conservative 50s and 60s compared to the hyper-liberal decades we've seen recently—but where's the proof?

And you'd better stick to being polite, because you really don't have the ground to stand on if you try some arrogant cursing. Maybe do a little research; we're talking about basic things here that are common knowledge to anyone who is even moderately informed. Just look at primates, for example.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1274775/posts

Alexander Barrett50 said:Genetic differences between races are practically negligible. Recent data even suggests that the genetic variance within Black populations—specifically among Hottentots—is actually greater than the variation you'd find between a Swede and a Mongol...

Where’s the actual evidence to support the claim that Black people are physically more capable than white people?

Where is the actual data to support the claim that whites are less intelligent than Asians, while being more intelligent than others...

There’s this supposed deficit in communication skills floating around. They say over 80% of how we connect happens through facial expressions, yet there's this claim that among Black Americans, those facial expressions are somehow less developed... but where is the actual evidence for that?

Looking further into the concept of fidelity, which is fundamentally tied to parental responsibility, there's some interesting data from the animal kingdom suggesting that species with a lower ratio of genital size relative to body mass tend to exhibit higher levels of faithfulness. When you look at certain demographics within the US, specifically Black Americans, there is a statistically higher ratio in this regard, which seems to correlate directly with their approach to monogamy—if you follow that logic... I’ll keep this civil and avoid using terms that might be more "accurate" to my actual thoughts on the matter, though the evidence points in that direction...

The Ottoman advance was halted outside Vienna back in 1683, and they were eventually pushed back past the Sava River by 1699. Slavery wasn't officially abolished until 1865. (though you had certain US states trying to sneak it back in later, only to have it struck down again), and the oppression of Black Americans persisted all the way through the 80s... not to mention the introduction of things like crack cocaine. And that's not even touching on the ongoing chaos happening in Africa.

It seems pretty obvious that Black families actually had a much more stable, high-quality family life during the conservative 50s and 60s compared to the hyper-liberal decades we've seen recently—but where's the proof?

In reality, there isn't much of a significant difference between a historical gap of 150 years or 250 years. Crack cocaine is just a weapon. Thanks for that observation; now I see exactly who I'm dealing with. When Americans were most oppressed, they also contributed the most. Academic achievement and the family unit of men and women among Americans in the US have been degrading since the late sixties.

Alexander Barrett50 said:Genetic differences between races are practically negligible. Recent data even suggests that the genetic variance within Black populations—specifically among Hottentots—is actually greater than the variation you'd find between a Swede and a Mongol...

Where’s the actual evidence to support the claim that Black people are physically more capable than white people?

Where is the actual data to support the claim that whites are less intelligent than Asians, while being more intelligent than others...

There’s this supposed deficit in communication skills floating around. They say over 80% of how we connect happens through facial expressions, yet there's this claim that among Black Americans, those facial expressions are somehow less developed... but where is the actual evidence for that?

Looking further into the concept of fidelity, which is fundamentally tied to parental responsibility, there's some interesting data from the animal kingdom suggesting that species with a lower ratio of genital size relative to body mass tend to exhibit higher levels of faithfulness. When you look at certain demographics within the US, specifically Black Americans, there is a statistically higher ratio in this regard, which seems to correlate directly with their approach to monogamy—if you follow that logic... I’ll keep this civil and avoid using terms that might be more "accurate" to my actual thoughts on the matter, though the evidence points in that direction...

The Ottoman advance was halted outside Vienna back in 1683, and they were eventually pushed back past the Sava River by 1699. Slavery wasn't officially abolished until 1865. (though you had certain US states trying to sneak it back in later, only to have it struck down again), and the oppression of Black Americans persisted all the way through the 80s... not to mention the introduction of things like crack cocaine. And that's not even touching on the ongoing chaos happening in Africa.

It seems pretty obvious that Black families actually had a much more stable, high-quality family life during the conservative 50s and 60s compared to the hyper-liberal decades we've seen recently—but where's the proof?

The single-parenthood rate, which is on the rise... I think I've mentioned that at least once already.

Fritzl isn't some example of decadence. I mean, if you look at how the Encyclopædia Britannica defines the term, it's more about 'luxurious indulgence.' What happened there—raping his own kids while they were locked in a basement—is just pure criminality, even by the standards of the Kaligulin Rim.

Alexander Barrett50 said:I've had these exact same arguments before, and they can never produce a single shred of evidence, yet this nonsense gets spread around so efficiently. One guy even tried to claim we’re genetically more moral than Africans! I honestly couldn't believe what I was reading. So I told him, what's considered "moral" to you might be the opposite for someone else. There is absolutely no way we are more moral, let alone genetically. But it doesn't matter... it's useless.

Just pure idiots, honestly...

We absolutely can be more moral if we subscribe to the superiority of our own value system. However, within the context of moral relativism—if everything is truly relative and there is no superior or inferior standard—then, I suppose, one could argue that something like female genital mutilation is just "cultural enrichment," or at least something we should show understanding toward because it belongs to a different, morally equivalent culture.

As far as genetics go, it's obvious there are genetic differences between races. That's just normal; different racial groups evolved under vastly different conditions. It’s clear that environment and surroundings are factors in the development of species and subspecies, and nobody would question the genetic differences between a North American Mustang or certain Arabian horse breeds. Yet, the moment you talk about humans, suddenly it becomes this massive taboo. It's plain to see that Black people are physically more capable than white people. Similarly, it’s clear they are less intelligent than white people, who in turn are less intelligent than Asian people. Regarding Black people, they also have a deficit in communication skills; over 80% of communication happens through facial expressions, yet in Black people, those facial expressions are far less developed. Etc, etc. Furthermore, regarding fidelity—which is tightly linked to the concept of responsibility toward offspring—it is known in the animal kingdom that individuals with a smaller ratio of penis size to body size tend to be more faithful. Black men, on average, have a larger ratio of penis size to body, and that reflects in their approach to monogamy. Studies of Black cultures indicate, with very few exceptions, an emphasis on reproductive success and an alpha-male culture of dominance, where the goal is to see who can fertilize more women and spread their seed.

In any case, you can claim that among white people there are bad fathers and that poor fatherhood is a consequence of poverty (is it really?? Or perhaps poverty is the logical consequence of a broken value system—this isn't meant to be a moral condemnation, just a techno-economic observation)—but it's clear that Africa has an extremely high number of single-parent households. It's also clear that Black Americans make up more than half of all single-parent households in the USA. Slavery is a common excuse, even though today's Black Americans are two or three generations removed from slavery (roughly how far we are from the end of the Turk invasions), and even though it's clear that Black people had much better family lives in the conservative 50s and 60s than they have in recent liberal decades. It's quite clear that children from single-parent families are more likely to end up as criminals or face milder or more severe socialization issues.

I mean, I don't know. Maybe I’m just overthinking it, but there’s something about the way things are being handled lately that feels... off. It’s like we’re constantly hitting these walls, only to find out the wall was actually a door that someone just decided to paint shut. I guess that’s just how it goes sometimes. You expect one thing, you prepare for it, and then—bam—everything shifts. It’s frustrating, honestly. I find myself sitting here, wondering if anyone else is even noticing the pattern, or if I'm just shouting into a void. It feels like we're all just circling the same drain, waiting for someone with actual authority to step up, but instead, we just get more bureaucracy. More red tape. More of the same. It’s exhausting, really. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. Expecting things to go smoothly in this day and age is probably my own fault. My mistake, really. Robin Ramos2 says:
Where exactly are you getting your sources for a claim like that? I mean, honestly...

What kind of claim are we even talking about here? Are we talking about the idea that African men just don't care about their offspring, or is it the argument that this general lack of parental responsibility is what leads to a dysfunctional society? I guess it depends on which way you look at it, maybe. It’s all a bit muddled, isn't it?

I suppose I should probably start by saying that things aren't exactly going according to plan lately... or maybe they were always meant to be this messy? I can't quite decide. It feels like everything is just... drifting. I was thinking about it earlier—well, more like obsessing over it, if I'm being honest—while I was stuck in traffic on the I-95 near Philadelphia. Just sitting there, staring at the brake lights, wondering why we even bother with schedules at all. It’s funny, in a dark sort of way. We spend so much energy trying to build these rigid structures, these little fortresses of order, only to watch them crumble because of some tiny, unforeseen variable. Maybe that's just human nature, I guess. Or maybe we're just bad at math. I don't know. I'm probably overthinking it. But then again, when you look at how things are moving in the country right now, it feels less like a controlled descent and more like a freefall. Not that I'm making any grand political statements here—I really am not—but it's hard to ignore the sheer chaos of it all. It’s exhausting. Truly. [Robin Ramos2] says:
If something like that actually existed in America... I don't know. I guess the real issue here is the legacy of slavery. It wasn't just about the cruelty itself, though that was horrific; it was how it systematically tore families apart. It practically made it impossible for people to even establish a foundation for a family in the first place. It just destroyed the very idea of building a home.
Things only really started shifting back in the 80s, I suppose. And you can't exactly expect everything to just flip overnight or transform completely within some arbitrary twenty-year window. It doesn't work like that. Maybe people want it to be faster, but history... well, history moves differently. You can't just rush decades of momentum.

You’re talking nonsense. If we're actually looking at the facts regarding single-parent households, things have been shifting for the last twenty or thirty years, but it’s all been a downward spiral. Back in the 70s, the percentage of single-parent families was hovering around 10%, but by the end of the last century, that number had spiked to nearly 25%. And when you look at the data, two-thirds of those single-parent homes in the US are African-American. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this whole era of liberalization has basically just encouraged a return to a state of natural promiscuity and a general sense of paternal irresponsibility among Black Americans. It's all falling apart.

I suppose I should probably say something here... though I’m not entirely sure if anyone actually cares about my take on this. It’s all just a bit much, isn't it? Everything feels so rushed lately. I was sitting there, thinking—well, more like staring blankly at my coffee—and it hit me how much things have shifted. It’s like we’re constantly being pushed to react before we even have time to process what happened five minutes ago. I guess that's just how things work now. Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive. Probably. But still... it's frustrating. Truly. Robin Ramos2 says:
Now, regarding this whole thing about Africa... where exactly are you getting your sources from? I mean, seriously.

Where am I supposed to find sources for that? It’s just common knowledge at this point—Africa has the highest percentage of single-parent households. And honestly, anyone with half a brain knows that having a teenage mother is basically a fast track to poverty. I don't see why I need to provide references for this... these are just established facts. Everyone knows this.

Of course, whenever they need to back up an argument, liberals always have a handful of 'studies' tucked away in their back pockets, just like what we're seeing today with global warming.

restlessfox5 said:I’m not even gonna bring up America here—honestly, there isn't a single political party or group in this country that actually uses "family values" as a real platform unless they're just trying to suck up to the Church.
Look, I’m not a conservative myself, so "Christian values" don't really move the needle for me personally, but it's pretty obvious those values—whether you call them family-oriented, moral, whatever—are in a tailspin. And from what I can see, it's happening without any real fallout for society.

Sure, some people will point to rising crime rates or the economy tanking, but if you look at the stats in the US or across Europe, crime isn't actually spiking—it's often dropping—it just feels different because of how the media spins it. As for the economic mess? That's got its own set of issues, and the fallout hits "decadent" places just as hard as conservative ones.

The real question is: how much does this breakdown of moral values actually impact a country? Because if there aren't any negative consequences, then what's the whole point of social conservatism anyway?

It’s not exactly 'business as usual,' though. Just because crime isn't surging across the board doesn't mean certain liberal policies aren't creating massive headaches. The lack of a crime spike (? maybe) could probably be explained by the sheer amount of government spending on things like increased policing and CCTV, etc. But you really have to look at the specific subgroups that result from these liberal policies. The consequences definitely exist, but nobody talks about them because once leftist activists think they've 'fixed' one 'problem,' they immediately pivot the noise toward some other 'problem.' Case in Point is the way the government subsidizes single motherhood in the UK. If you look at any available data, single motherhood is almost a statistical guarantee for a path toward delinquency and poverty. It should be treated as a genuine issue, not as some acceptable substitute for the traditional family unit, which is exactly how the PC establishment treats it today. A mother's love and a welfare check aren't enough, and that's something the American psychologist Charles Murray warned about back in the '80s. He got crucified by the PC brigade then, much like how climate change skeptics get crucified today. This policy of sponsoring the single-parent model and acting like it's a perfectly valid alternative has resulted in the emergence of an entire unproductive, essentially useless—and more importantly, socially and economically damaging—underclass in Britain known as NEETs (not in employment, education, or training). Even the Labour government in the UK eventually had to admit this, despite being the ones responsible for this whole social engineering project. The same thing happened in the US before it hit the UK, where the breakdown of the traditional family structure among the Black population triggered a wave of crime that only subsided after abortion was legalized following the Roe vs Wade decision, which allowed pregnant Black teenagers to effectively abort away an entire generation of future criminals. Not to mention, the traditional family model isn't even that "traditional" for Black people in Africa, so there was no need to lure them into the single-mother trap—Black men are statistically far less inclined toward nurturing and responsibility, which is one of the primary reasons why the African continent struggles to establish a stable, functioning society. I'll attach an excerpt from an article discussing this exact issue in the UK.

Last week Blair made a rare speech about faith and morality in which he asserted that single mothers were “piling up problems for the future”. The comment was striking from the leader of a party that has traditionally defended single mothers and vehemently condemned those who have sought to stigmatise them.

Blair’s comments barely scratched the surface of what the administration is actually sweating over. It’s been sixteen years since Charles Murray sounded the alarm about a massive new underclass on the horizon, and if you look past the official talking points—the stuff the politicians conveniently ignore—it turns out his prediction came true. We're looking at the rise of the NEETs.

We’re talking about a group of 1.1 million people between the ages of 16 and 24, and honestly, the weight they pull on our economy and social fabric is just... well, it's massive compared to how many of them there actually are.

I mean, according to some pretty conservative estimates from the Department of Education, every single kid who drops out of school at 16 becomes a permanent line item on the taxpayer's bill. We're looking at an average lifetime cost of $125,000 per person, and in the absolute worst-case scenarios? That number climbs north of $380,000.

The ripple effects on crime rates, public health, and general chaos in our neighborhoods are just staggering. One study suggested that just one single group of 157,000 teenagers—those aged 16 to 18—could end up draining $19 billion from the US treasury by the time this cohort reaches the end of its life cycle around 2060.

http://www.nytimes.com/news/article/438356.ece

coastalridge64 said:🙏🙏

http://www.mapsofindia.com/worldmap/world-map.gif ☕

There are actual people living in the eastern parts of the Russian Federation, you know. ☕

Yeah, maybe like 15 of them in total, I guess.

The Russian Federation hasn't really cared much about North Korea since the days of Gorbatchev. North Korea is basically just a playground for China, and honestly, China and Russia haven't shared any real common ground for the last century or so.

So, North Korea is just sitting there in Russia's backyard now?? And we're supposed to believe Russia is actually standing up against the USA to defend North Korea?? I mean, seriously, where on earth do people find these absolute gems of logic?

Sarah Wilson9 said:🙈🙂 What on earth was that supposed to be? That sounds like playground logic to me. Haven't you learned by now that simply throwing out big words is just a way to mask a total lack of actual argument? It’s a clear sign of a weak writing style and a superficial grasp of culture, really—just a symptom of someone lacking a proper education.

I figured you wouldn't get it. I honestly saw this coming.

Sarah Wilson9 said:🙂 Well, I figured you wouldn't get it. If I'm not mistaken, I pretty much called this exact response already.

When you look at the whole paradox regarding the metaphysical reality of socio-economic principles—especially considering how flawed general perception can be, particularly when you weigh the foundations of the Enlightenment against the pragmatic shifts within these various ideologies—it becomes pretty obvious. I mean, it’s clear as day that neither you nor that Slavoj Žižek guy have any clue what's actually going on here.

Sarah Wilson9 said:I honestly doubt you'll wrap your head around this, but if I were to paraphrase Zizek (who once noted the distinction between Stalinism and fascism): socialism remains rooted in the legacy of the Enlightenment.

WOW. I honestly have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, but man, I am genuinely impressed by the depth of thought here. The universe is just... unfathomably vast, isn't it?

If I might add my two cents: it's pretty obvious that socialism remains rooted in Enlightenment ideals—mostly because the left has always been absolute masters of propaganda. That's how they managed to scrub away all the bloodthirsty regimes that followed it. Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini—there really isn't a difference there. They were all following the exact same stars.

People tend to mature as they age, I suppose. They get more conservative. You know the old saying—if you weren't a leftist when you were young, you didn't have a heart; but if you stay a leftist once you're old, you probably don't have a brain.

As far as Ortega is concerned, he’s playing it safe because he knows how much of a beating he could take from the USA, so he's being cautious. But honestly, this whole idea that he's some moderate? I find that highly questionable. South Ossetia is part of Georgia, which is currently looking to join NATO. Recognizing South Ossetia is probably the most radical foreign policy move someone could make—aside from, I guess, launching a direct attack on the USA.

I guess you have to look at how diplomats (?) and the Church backed fascism through the lens of the perceived communist threat. I mean, priests and diplomats—who were basically just big-time industrialists by then, since we weren't living under feudalism at the start of the last century!—are human beings. It’s hard to believe, but they’ll do whatever it takes to survive, which was an option the communists rarely offered. That’s why their "preference" leaned toward the fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany, simply because those groups stood against the communists. Though, honestly, that doesn't really mean there's much difference in the political-economic substance between communism, socialism, Nazism, and fascism. The Nazis were socialists. Fascists were essentially socialists too. Just look at Mussolini's platform—state corporations, unions sitting on industrial boards, worker resorts, free schools, state support for pregnant women. In my view, Mussolini was actually one of the milder left-wing dictators of the 20th century.

Anyway, getting back to the original post—they recently elected a guy in Nicaragua who was part of the Sandinista revolutionary government back in '79, when they were running with the help of Cuba and the Soviet Union. Mr. Ortega is basically a mini-Chavez, except he doesn't have the oil or gas reserves, so he has to blow harder on the Russian pipe just to scrape together some US dollars from his Russian buddies.

0 points for MC, maybe give it another shot.

Michael Collins said:Even if Russia is closer to fascism than socialism these days...

But seriously, what is the actual, concrete difference between fascism and socialism??