You're *right* except on unskilled refugees, as those are a money pit who will drain the economy, balkanize our culture and thereby politics, and contribute very little compared to the homegrown canadian at the end of it all. But that's something else

Now, which is more expensive:

A) funding a constantly growing batch of weeds forever, who shall always be low-yield

B) Rooting out the weeds and thereby preventing their spread, saving yourself the long-run maintainence & opportunity costs of keeping a garden full of weeds in place of flowers

*

First gen immigration typically falls into the unskilled part of the value chain. Even when you consider that their children shall eventually produce value, the "startup" costs for teaching a refugee english,   giving them the trudeau gold-plated-toilets subsidizedn housing, welfare and employment supports while they get a job and hold it is not great. Especially when you consider that the return on investment with future children here isn't phenomenal either when a canadian-born is infinitely cheaper

But that doesn't actually talk about the core problem, which is culture/race and has nothing  to do with how it supposedly "changes over time". Increasing a diversity of minorities by default adds additional division (unsurprisingly the same concept, different manifestations of it) in cultural-political preferences, which is then picked up on by parties who use this to split voting by ethnic pandering rather than justice for all.

I've used this example before, but think about how diverse India is and how much violence and hate exists in that society to this date. Or even our own history where a french-canadian minority has caused anglophone feuding for generations. This is not a good thing for canadian stabillity.  Selective immigration with skilled workers, in qualified amounts below canadian demographic trends I am ok with. Mass immigration under the guise of "refugee" as if we're the worlds orphanage and expect to turn a buck off it is ridiculous.  

Second, this marketplace of ideas concept is wishy feel-goods. The truth is that fundamentalist and aggressive ingrouping movements have been very successful in growing, because they create a shared support base that discriminates against those outside the circle. The Naivity of the liberal doctrine is in thinking that the "marketplace" (like all markets) isn't a zero-sum game where discrimination is an economic weapon.   In effect, liberalization/ open borders destroys domestic cohesion and displaces the whole point of the state (discrimination against the other for competitive advatage) onto ethnic-cultural groups who are able to take up the slack

*

Discussing how culture changes is a total red herring, because unlike beliefs you can't change your skin color. Which is the basis for these political fault lines and forever shall be, as the division is constantly aggravated using charges of race-baiting from everyone involved. There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking in value-adding people who do not threaten the cultural-racial balance of Canada, that's my whole point as to why mass immigration is a problem: because it doesn't factor in maintaining a stable balance

Regarding this marketplace, I guess it's kind of funny that nobody believes in the sacred cow of liberalism-uber-ideology anymore. The valid application isn't the market, but instead Herbert Spencer's correct idea of Social Evolution- which has been unfairly maligned by antievolutionary egalitarians who don't believe culture shapes competitiveness, while accepting ironically that culture shapes everything else. Which is why ingrouping is such a big thing, because neither the market nor the cultural realms are ever inclined to be free

*

Skin colour/the underlying component of Race is important because you can't get rid of it and it's a highly visible method of ingrouping. Everyone discriminates against everyone for some reason or other, it just happens that race is big one for this. It's so corrosive that we now have to advocate things like racial equality quotas rather than actual meritocracy, because people get offended by the merest notion of racial favoritism. What IF populations with two copies of the MAOA "warrior" gene are more presupposed to violence (they are), and are resultingly more likely to land in prison? If we were talking about a subgroup of say, only whites with two MAOA, this wouldn't even be a debate. But with racial fault-lines the inherent genetic differentiations of people is now a big issue because of the perception of racial mistreatment. This is just an example, this same concept happens everywhere- the only "solution" now because of racial fault-lines is to try and artificially boost all peoples into the same egalitarian camp. And in so doing, fight our own genetic natures and not grade by efficiency.  Even worse, despite the concept of being "colour-blind" as a supposed alternative, the supporters of anti-racism are so actively focused on race they bring it into higher resolution as an issue. This is such a toxic swamp that I see no good in making it an even bigger part of Canadian political life.

If you're saying it's destabilizing for the majority race to grow in number, that does not follow the logic of what I am saying. The question is who holds the balance of power, and that as the white majority declines this is a flashpoint for various other ethnic ingroupings to compete amongst each other- as if the state itself with it's centralization of violence were to collapse: both results end in feuding

Anyways, I'd say it's still basically applicable to whites as well. Suppose we took in thousands upon thousands of unskilled russians: do we want the inevitable eastern mafia that will also come along? Further, do we even need an unskilled slave class in Canada that will be eventually as discontent as today's service-sector types? Recall that immigration sparked the labour crises of the early past century

Here's something trivial which happened to me today, which nevertheless had ethical dimensions whose answer was unsure of. So it seems like a interesting thing to discuss since it could apply to many things

I "walk" my cat on a leash outside for 15 minutes every day. Today, when I let him off-leash, he for the first time ever found an elephant shrew in a flowerbed and carried it off in his mouth. I did not want to see the shrew die for no reason, and so forced the cat to drop him. Even with the cat removed, the shrew lay pitifully with a wound to it's neck shivering. Seeing as I did not believe it would survive, I considered three choices:

1. Let the cat torture the shrew to death as it was going to die, anyways

2. Kill the shrew myself so it would die as painlessly as possible

3. Let the shrew die of it's own wounds

My initial inclination was to kill the shrew myself, as torture and letting it live would only prolong it's suffering. But, when I considered this choice I realized I had made the predetermined judgement that the shrew must inevitably die. And so I waited and walked the cat away for a bit to delay answering the question. When I returned, the shrew was gone and my problem had solved itself.

However, I was not really sure whether I had made the right decision for the right reasons. The first option, letting the cat kill the shrew, seemed obviously wrong as the cat did not need to survive by eating the shrew and was acting on impulse. My dillema was between the second and third options, as by letting the shrew live I was prehaps delaying it's inevitable injury-assisted death which would probably be on more painful terms. For instance, for all I know birds pecked the shrew to death while I walked away and then carried off it's corpse. But when I think about this, the only logical ethical perspective short of trying to prevent all harm (which seems silly, as life eats life and sentience is nothing special), was to accept that suffering does not matter whatsoever in making the calculation if there is a chance of prolonged life.

Is this the correct perspective?

Secondly, I also realize that by walking the cat, he has a likely chance of killing at least one animal over his lifetime, and as a result I am complicit in the death of at least one bird or shrew for trivial reasons. Should I therefore never walk the cat at all? That seems silly, as his quality of life is directly raised by the fact he has the opportunity to kill. Is it thereby just to let an animal follow it's impulses to kill despit not needing to, if it raises the animal's own quality of life? Inversely sucking happiness from one creature to another, essentially.

-----

One more thing. I have no problem with the concept of an ethically justified death, law makes these nuances simplified by directly mandating who should live or die in a merit-based fashion. The problem raised here, is that the result of death and suffering is both random and arbitrary, with no obviously responsible parties as it is all part of nature. How do you judge a system that has ethically distasteful consequences to you, but to which these are alien concepts?

Discuss

Puritarianism in practice has has often been far too extreme, or actively retarded human development. The most reasonable position is simply to fight for the conservation of the existing status quo, while harkening to an ideal situation of pleasure being used solely for efficient/productive aims without expecting to ever achieve it. The criteria for whether a behavior is hedonism to me is whether it is an intensification of stimuli without any corresponding increase in productivity. Most primitive recreational activities have, in addition to enjoyment, a productive function. Reading has been shown to improve intelligence, emotive capacity et cetera. Sports develops leadership and physical capacity. Sex allows for the foundation of family, children, pair bonding. Even alcohol has a communal bonding function which explains it's persistence in part. Socializing is a method of receiving information, et cetera.  So of course it is moronic to be against the idea of enjoyment or pleasure, as this is vital in the proper functioning of a society. The point is that hedonism is the distortion of basically useful behaviors in ways that marginally decrease their productivity.  The gold standard for productive behavior, in my opinion, is (idealized) the behavior of victorian england. Education as a pursuit, creativity as a source of entertainment (basically self-stimulation), and vigorous physical activity within a common moral framework. Any step toward that is good enough.

Now a point about moderation as this is normally brought up. This is a fictitious defense, as the idea of moderation is not an absolute standard but a relative one. What is considered moderate is informed by the culture, which in itself is on the hedonistic treadmill of increasing pleasure as normative. Therefore in the long run the "moderate" consumption rate shall constantly rise, and certainly not fall. For every large population self-control cannot apply to everyone, and it is these exceptions who push forward the continuum. People treat the degenerate culture of drugs as some kind of disgusting abberation which may be seperated, but in reality it is this degeneracy which spread the very idea of drug use as normative (they are shameless to overcome the social barrier of shame), and shall continue to push hedonism forward. So it is always ideal to strive towards disciplining of the self and your habits, even if this is fruitless, than to accept the alternative of the quo and simply be towed like debris in rising water.

how the leftist "memes":

>MEME-WAR BY COMMITTEE

1. After reviewing piles of datamining, shareblue comes up with a horrific discovery: liberals are losing the digital culture war!

2. The issue is referred to a working committee

3. After many late nights, the ultimate meme balancing the interests of diversity, race-baiting, lGBTWERTY rights, aborginal awareness, local stakeholders, radical socialism, feminism, deep ecology, liberal product sponsors, and  the drug lobby is born!

4. The meme undergoes weeks of extensive product testing on fans of the colbert report, and is referred back to committee several times. This could be big

5. It's finally time for the big reveal! Shareblue contracts out famous Comedian John Oliver to announce the coming of their meme on live TV

6. The meme is a big hit! Everyone in the leftist media is scrambling to say it live to their audience! TV networks can't get enough of the big meme that everyone keeps paying them to talk about

7. Shareblue smells blood in the water: It's time to bring the meme to the people! They organize teams to aggressively spam the meme and improvise new entertaining variants

8. Thanks to their relentless posting and bought upvotes, the meme's subreddit is exploding with content from shareblue sources! Everyone is excited as the same old regulars they'd seen from the other media campaigns come back to post the new meme!

9. Mrs Her turn is overjoyed with the performance of the meme on the upvote ticker and awards shareblue a $1.5b budget increase. Shareblue promptly uses this surplus to buy more upvotes

10. And in the end, it arrives 3 weeks late, is only ever seen by card-carrying turbolibs, gets ravaged by parodies created in 10 minutes featuring cartoon frogs, and is never heard from again  

11. Drumpf has tiny yellow racist hands he probably hits mexicans with™ copyright Time-Warner 2018

A man wearing dark reflective glasses is wandering through the versailles art gallery with his tour guide.

He sees the mona lisa: "Too dark!"

He sees rembrandt: "Those shadows are too pronounced!"

Finally the guide has had enough and takes off the man's glasses. He shows the man the mona lisa again. Surely this will make the art more enjoyable!

The man looks again:  "I hate it"

the guide asks him why he hates it? Surely, what the whole world pays to see must be good enough!

The man replies:  "I'm the curator of a postmodern art gallery in Paris"

***

The Guide can't believe the Man has a better art gallery than at Versailles, and so agrees to accompany him to Paris. When they arrive, he discovers it is about the size of a coffee shop and has five people clustered around an scarcely comprehensible thing in one corner

What's that? The guide asks

Why, my most famous creation, says the man. I inserted paint up my rectum and disgorged it to paint the letters: V E R S A I L L E S H A S B A D A R T

But what's so good about it? Says the Guide, who is vaguely disgusted as well as puzzled

Can't you see? Says the Man, this proves the grandmasters couldn't paint!

While thinking about this and how progressives operate, I realized that there is a very simple method for dealing with them. Which, when applied, causes them to drop their veil and *troll themselves*. And then you win the debate.

But first I need to talk about how the Progressive "wins" debates:

1. First, they take a general principle most people agree sounds nice. Like everybody should be equal before the law, everybody likes that idea right?

2. Then,  they set themselves up as supporters of this idea and try to apply it as literally as possible without context. In so doing, they eventually distort this same idea into something almost unrecognizable but containing the same concept; Now, it's we must accept refugees because if we don't they're not treated equal.

3. This has now become a motte & bailey defense. If you don't accept that *refugees* must be treated equally, you don't except *human* equality in government! Few people attack this because it looks like they're attacking equality before the law.

4. This is now held up as a sacred cow which gullible people are indoctrinated with. The progressive emotionally identifies with this policy, and tries to get others to do so as well. For amusement I'm calling this COW

5. Now whenever opposition to COW is raised, the progressive instantly dismisses it on emotional grounds. To support COW from lampooning,  they then lobby government to criminalize or hinder opposition. Thereby ensuring it cannot be discussed every again. That is how the progressive "wins" debates.

...

Now, the point here is that progressives have their own special "dog-whistle", it's the COW. Whenever you so much as discuss the COW, they start flipping out and getting hyper-defensive. That's because they emotionally identify with COW- so by criticizing it you are actually attacking them personally! The progressive shall then throw the debate by trying to insult you on a personal level also, since you're indirectly doing the same thing to them.

Only now, they've lost all credibility by throwing the first punch. You never have to insult the progressive to draw blood, because they've already opened up a vulnerability by acting emotionally towards you. All you have to do to "win" now is bring up the fact they're throwing punches for no reason and keep attacking the COW on a purely objective level. Progressives hate objective truths, because they can't be accused of bias or defamation.

The progressive will now take the next logical step, which is to call for institutional support. They are now *crying wolf* because someone insulted the COW.  Nobody with power is going to enjoy dealing with this shit, and shall eventually just ignore that perspective. Now, you've not only revealed the progressive as mean-tempered and never interested in actual discussion, but the policymakers are on your side too!

So basically, you have a lever that can drive opponents crazy without doing anything remotely defamatory or illegal. If you know what you're doing, you'll never get banned and win debates

Alright. I'm not interested in arguing with hedonists over many hours today so I'm going to try and wrap a neat little bow for you.

What you're talking about is short term thinking, piece by piece relativism where you are simply unable to see the bigger picture and realize that no- even while substance abuse via alcoholism has always existed in some form at concerts, it nowhere near resembles quantitatively what is being practiced today. And furthermore, neither does the scope of *degeneracy* or *hedonism* within society.

It is quite clear from a historical perspective that drug use has continually grown with associated social problems, and that this growth has been facillitated by 1) social networks which cause acceptance spearheaded by drug addicts, and 2) the compounding of social acceptance to weaken policy designed to curtail drug use thereby enabling it's further spread. Fast forward with this general tendency over many years and you eventually reach today, where people unironically argue that we need to give drug addicts special drug tents otherwise we are complictly responsible for murdering them because of their own actions. A total preversion of the concept of prohibition, in other words. A situation where, thanks to a comatose electorate that's been bombarded with drugs r safe writ by Drug the Addict & co, the supposed policy window is status quo or legalization- in other words, where what would be considered objective failure (as there is no reduction in use) by the original standards set is now considered a success. This is because the average person has been completely brainwashed to think that any inpingement on liberty, even those unrelated to their actual status, is somehow an attack on everyone- that the very concept of justice and community shame, reponsibillity, or DISINCENTIVE is morally wrong. In other words, the perspective of someone with no real world responsibillities or experience: as they act as if dealing with any personal threat must be outsourced to the government

Is this *just some kids taking drugs at a few festivals*? It won't be for long if we keep *incentivizing* drug use by tolerating this crap, effectively subsidizing the externalities by allowing literal criminals not be responsible for their actions. Which of course calls into question why drugs should be banned at all; something which would be terribly obvious if the body politic itself was not already riddled with diseases and unhealthy behavior codified as "normal".  That a reinforcing behavior whose use rate shall linearly increase given tolerant circumstances at cost of productivity NOT be considered an ill shows how degenerate the situation is. You will of course respond with the statistics-peddling of our legalizationist experiments; failing to mention that in fact their use rates are still rising also. Drug activists are almost identical to people who are for fat acceptance; in both cases they take a de facto unhealthy state and advocate it's normalization because there happen to be a population subject to it.

But what is the actual long run? Decadence. It's an obvious phase of history anyone but revisionists acknowledge to be true. Luxury breeds lethargy as the two are at odds with each other, and when a state has sufficient power to buffer against the immediate short-run disincentives of decadence, it shall invariably lay idle until that barrier is reached. A fragile situation as the power enabling this decadence is dependent on international status and that can be changed the moment it is called by a stronger power.

Anyways, enough theory. Take a look at the rat electroshock experiments, the actual rat drug experiments without the disproven rat-park narrative. They hooked them up to an endless, effectively harmless source of pleasure that could be gotten any time they wanted. So the rats pressed the electroshock lever until they died. In other words, their own biological incentives had been repurposed to preverse uses that killed them. That's exactly what drugs are, repurposing of biological imperatives without the useful behavior actually entailed. And there is no effective way of self-policing control away from this degeneration, especially given continued running on the hedonistic treadmill erodes personal capacity (as it is at odds with pleasure) thereby making hedonism still more desirable as there is no alternative. Community disapproval doesn't last forever either, as has already been shown. If people were able to rationally calculate what is in their own interest regarding pleasure, humans would not be near-universally addicted to sugar and alcohol: those are empirical historical examples

And the tendency is for the quantity of pleasure to increase, as it is a biological fact that the body attenuates to pleasure by requiring still higher thresholds to be reached. This can effectively continue forever until thre is nothing remotely human.

The answer is zero tolerance. Early societies understood that the only way to control deviance over the very long run is to prevent it's buildup, which is to mandate death. Nevermind that this extremism rarely needed to be practiced as the very implementation of death disincentivized deviance (see what actually happened with the Talmud). The simplest behavioral rules are the cheapest, the cheapest are the most effective. The hedonist thereby should be killed without recourse to reason, as cognition itself is ultimately a directionless slave to pleasure unless adequately premised. Otherwise it'll be endless hedonism growing larger to the devolution of society all the way down.

Curtains. Thank you for the standing ovation everyone, thank you very much

obligatory solo picture upload so you can zoom

Execution of Watchword Freedom S1

(Yes, I’ve decided to use the awful colour yellow to mark my attacks. No other colour seemed to work well with the snowy landscape. Anyways....)

The attack commences with my artillery bombarding the northeast vp hill and dropping smoke. My recon armour advances fearlessly and immediately hits contact One is knocked out by an HMG(!) from a rifle pit- weak top armour- and the advance slows. I have my tigers and artillery pound the suspect area while maneuvering my panzergrenadiers forward. Here they shine, as the advance is fast and without casuality. A foot infantry force would probably have been halted by such a fortification. Tragedy strikes when a tiger is lost to mines, and further probing reveals the area absolutely sewn with mines. But the advance continues after a dismount and is orderly. Two log rifle pits are located and destroyed, one by a flanking close infantry assault. There is a russian infantry platoon at the top of the hill but it is beaten back. Trouble comes when, upon reaching the top, my elements spot a t34 section making a counterattack from the north. And here the true flavour of the battle starts. I huddle up tightly at the top of the hill as katyushas & enemy fighters pound down, picking off an endless number of tanks and infantry which seem to pour forth. By my estimate, the hill will defend against a company of infantry, a t34 section, a t34 section with dismounts, and a SPG section. My thin ground of men there will be pinned down and fighting fiercely almost the whole game

To the east with my mechanized panther/infantry flanking sections, the situation is put on the defensive even quicker. Having my recon infantry probe the area, I prudently bunker down the panthers in a dispersed defensive formation. A turn later, multiple sections of t34 tanks are counterattacking from the town I’d planned to wheel through. The enemy is utterly destroyed and lacks a supporting infantry to bog down my movements, so the wheel resumes after some careful steps.

Along the center, my paratroop company advances evenly. When contact is experienced to the east, two platoons bunker down in the woods to destroy incoming assault guns. There’s a nasty surprise when a rifle pit mg is discovered in the woods and kills an entire section. But once the needed caution is put back into my movements, going is not truly fearsome for the infantry. They are able to spot multiple enemy armoured units dispersing to attack the nearby vp hill I’d taken, and knock out a few with assault guns. Enemy morale is now conclusively broken, but there is not a wholesale rout.

The advance from flanking right and center is now stymied by a few hidden antitank guns. I have to slow down my panther advance and lead with the paratroopers now, who slowly move across a precariously open field. At length the guns are located and silenced, and my panzergrenadier/panther troop makes a sally at the final vp hill which is successful. About this time an enemy mech infantry unit comes up from the rear, and a t34 dismount section from the eastern village which gives pause. A short tank battle later with some maneuvering, and the attacks are beaten off. My beleaguered defense group on the eastern hill gets on the action, and begins to advance also.

Around this point, the game ends. It is only a minor victory(!) for me, despite taking all victory hexes and killing many more enemies. I’m amazed, WBW the scenario designer is notoriously demanding, but even then I believe I’d accomplished everything worth consideration. My planning was also solid

causalities

Germany: 114 infantry, 5 apc’s, 5 tanks

Russia: 399 infantry, 7 soft vehicles, 4 apc’s, 31 tanks(!)

SPWAW “Watchword Freedom” campaign s1

After the last campaign of SPWAW, I had so much fun planning attacks and writing AAR I’ve decided to try another. “Watchword Freedom”, one I can vividly remember for losing utterly as a kid. I’d invested in a formation dominated by tiger tanks, and remember starting off with a horribly bogged down attack only to be put on the defensive before reaching the objective by scores of red army tanks. The replay of this scenario went better, but the basic premise was the same

First, my formation. I bought a company of mechanized infantry (organically equipped with two assault guns, two 80mm mortar sections,  and two mech AA armour units), a section of tiger tanks (4), a section of panthers (5), two 120mm heavy mortars, a pair of recon sdkfz armoured cars, and some foot recon

The first scenario had me assaulting a pair of hills surrounded by russian forest landscape with a few cities. terrain was a mixture of open tank counter sectioned off by dense forest and mountain. Deployment was from the southeast One chief cluster of objectives was a nearby hill to the northwest. A road network with spare vp’s at crossroads tied to a further hill to the northeast. Towns to the east and southeast

I was given plenty of points and realized my force was weak in infantry. I was also tired of using morale-shy regulars, so decided to buy an exotic paratrooper company. Evening out the mix, I gave them a pair of panthers and some snipers for recon

below is an approximate picture of my planning and troop deployments, with what I would later piece together of soviet troop deployment (soviet reinforcements of a darker hue)

the basic Idea was that I’d send two platoons panzergrenader with my tiger & sdkfz sections to take the nearest vp hill. My reasoning being the hill was a large, open space suitable for fast overrun. They would then wheel northeast and attack the final hill in conjunction with others. My paratroopers would cautiously advance northeast across a screening forest to assault the second hill- supported by my assault guns and panther pair. On the right, a panzergrenadier platoon and panther section would wheel sharply and attack the hill from the northeast. A foot recon platoon would be used to probe the village, which I perceived as an area liable to be held strongly. My paratrooper disposition was such that, if either of my two flanking wings should come under heavy attack they could provide support. So much for the planning...

to be continued

Great song, I love listening to burnout temps riddled by addictions sing it as they work unskilled labour even foreign temporary workers wouldn't do. This breathrough work of art Represents how far our culture has progressed in accepting corruption and passive criminality. I've added a few more lines:

I was gonna get a jooob, but then I got high

I was gonnnna be a responsible adult, but then I got higgghhh

I wasn't gonna be a lifelong teenager, but then I got highhhh

I wasn't gonna vote for a highschool drama teacher, but then I got highhh

It's funny, because in daily life I have no strong attachment at all. If anything I identify as Ukranian, and only think about this when being threatened by the inverse- that "white" (IE Anglo-european) institutions and ideas are being attacked as racist for sectarian ethnic gains. Or that Canada should concede wholely to competing societies that failed simply because "white culture" won. History is not fair or egalitarian- Neither is success. I like what Jonathen Bowden said about this (paraphrased) - every ethnicity forms it's own vanguard to lobby for a piece of the political pie, and whites are the ones being left out. The dominant ethnicity (whites) in Canada is being thrown under the rug in the name of infighting between political wings. I don't like that, and realize only by taking pride our heritage can a competing identiy be made. Whites have produced innovative civilization in recent history, there is probably a genetic component and there is definitely a cultural component- moral discipline that originated in christianity, a capitalist ethic of hard work, scientific genius through free flow of information. Europe's colonization of the world is a historical testament to the fact "whites" are an influential force, and we should fight to at least maintain our dignity as a people.

Rambling and does not entirely address what you're saying, but I'm mostly trying to self-define my own positon. I'm not saying other peoples are genetically inferior, or that whites should become xenophobic and start a race war for some stupid reason, or that a white-only society would be ideal, or that being white should be your sole identity. But there is a shared association between most people in Canada here (and a part of the world) and we would do well to look out for our own interests as well as others.

...when I say genetic component I mean it. IQ, behavioral temperment to not engage in violence (we do not have the MAOA problem in significant number) at the very least are legitimate. Probably more as our understanding increases- I was influenced keenly by Wade's "A troublesome inheritance" on this recently. There are almost certainly genetic variations which occured in the human race as they segregated into different parts of the globe over thousands of years. It is absolutely crazy not to think so, and his suggestion that culture is cemented in genetics is at least reasonable. Consider the genetic influence on IQ is aproximately 80%. But we should also realize that genetics produces complementary personalities in the same way economies can use comparative advantage to specialize. So inferiority is a pretty stupid term in the context, and furthermore the landscape does change with time."White", or what you are basically asking as "race", can be defined in my opinion as a loose statistical cloud of intercorrelated traits. Skin colour is not the only basis for what your "race" is, it is simply an easy overt signifier of the fact that you *probably* contain many genetic characteristics of those who are also white. Like any population sampled, there will be densities where certain traits are more highly correlated and intertwined.  Even with free breeding between populations these traits would generally stay stable for at least a significant time.  I'm not an expert on population genetics, so I'm not going to make some kind of value judgement for the metis as a people- probably you could on a per person basis and figure out a reasonable split between groups. Consider the fact that science has been beguiled by the problem of chaotic phase transitions between states (zeno's paradox) but the fact is that there is eventually a transition between states which takes place.  In my mind this sort of purity-hunt does not really matter so long as the political agenda is a fair societal deal for whites equivilent to their majoritarian place in the population. Which means at the very least some end to grievance politicse: you shall probably raise lewontin, who supposedly disproved race. He correctly identifies most human genetics are similar, just like humans are extremely similar genetically to chimpanzees (but we don't act or look much like them...). The problem with this viewpoint is that the differences that do exist are correlated to your ethnic heritage and do have a difference which should be recognized

The ecstasy I get from shitposting about drug addicts defies logic. I don't get normal humor any more; it's too tame, too limited. Only when you type like a passionately angry zippy the pinhead on the internet for extended periods do I really get it. The total kick of knowing you can be a psychoticly vengeful asshole on a social crusade that is *absolutely right*, and get away with it scot clean; That every milquetoast status-quo limiting force of social disdain under heaven shall *never* turn you away from resolutely scalding the inferior- the insolent , degenerative diseases of society that someone has got to tell to go to hell and it might as well be me.

Messianism is very in

pic of the action for s7 as tumblr is acting up

s7 - a final town defense

Once again, my forces are tasked with defending a town they'd just took. The scenario seemed to suggest the attack would be soviet, turned out to be a bulgarian mixed armour and infantry attack.

The lay of the land was as previous. To my left flank, a dense forest screens a road leading to a farm complex with vp's. The middle is a vast plain flanked by small hills on the fringes to the left and right. A road runs throuh this, connecting to the village I am now tasked with defending. The right flank is a mixture of subdued mountain and forest

The auxillaries which helped me take the farmhouse last game are back and already fixed to defend it- two panzer iii's and an infantry platoon. There is also a recon halftrack platoon auxillary stationed on the outskirts of the town. As the auxillaries have the farmhouse defended to my liking, my manpower focus is the town. Given that I have my panzer iv intact and good visual fields of fire, I decide to arrange a standoff defense. My machinegun platoon is arranged front and center in the village for this purpose. Realizing the enemy is liable to over-run my positions with armour, I also decide to play it safe and garrison my infantry close to the vp's so as to use their antitank weapons. The SS platoon takes the main farmhouse vp's, I garrison my infantry platoon in an adjourning lesser objective, and have my remaining men defend the exposed right flank vp from a mountain enfilade along with the tank. Mortars are arrayed to the back, I place my three snipers forward of the line- one to the right hillock, one to the left, and the final one I have as an early warning for my men at the farmhouse along road.

Action starts, initated by a large artillery bombardment of the village. I manuever my sniper units forward cautiously, and decide to take my mech recon forces forward on a lark to cover my left hillock flank. Seeing as my farmhouse-roadline sniper is unsupported for taking out armour, I send a panzer iii forward to support it also.

All of these moves pay off. My mech recon platoon finds action first, running into enemy scout sections and a flanking infantry platoon. given my armour advantage, the enemy is destroyed piecemeal without a single casuality taken.

Next, my sniper to the farmhouse roadside detects an enemy cavalry platoon inbound. The tank tears it all up. An assault gun tries to flank around through the forest. My sniper-panzer team is so effective at spotting that the armour is destroyed the moment it is in position to fire. Later on an infantry platoon or two shall also try to pass by through the forcest, and invariably get chewed up by the tank. My panzer has a gun malfunction and is reduced to a pair of MG's, and yet still shreds through the enemy advance. This flank will have little trouble throughout the battle, and I detach my second defending tank to shore up the village defenses

To the center and right, an infantry company is detected on the advance. Two platoons advance in tandem with a detachment of assault guns along the center. A platoon infantry, a section recon armour, and a section assault gun w/riders tries to flank from the right. The central infantry assault is stopped cold. My mg's remain concealed and pin the enemy while mortars pound them. My mech recon pivots and increases fire volume along with my forward infantry platoon. There are stil no casualities taken amongst my force. The enemy stug assault guns advance now blindly without the infantry escort, and are taken out by the flanking panzer iii and my well-chosen panzer iv position.

On the right, my sniper bogs down the advancing enemy platoon. It moves falteringly without locating the firer throughout the game before finally breaking into a rout. The accompanying recon sdkfz support makes a blind charge at the exposed right flank vp and it cut to ribbons by the panzer iv. The assault gun and riders fare no better, the riders having been shed via machinegun fire. There have still been no friendly casualities.

Force morale breaks. The enemy flees in disarry and I have my infantry platoons advance in pursuit. The move is ill-timed as enemy artillery fire finally strikes the village. I lose a single man, what will prove to be my only casuality. The game ends with a bulgarian rout is complete. They have lost 134 men and all their armour.

The campaign is now over. I have 3 decisive victories, and the result is decisive victory as well. My eary moves were shaky at first, but I feel now that my grasp of tactics is much better. When I first started playing this game (probably 5 years ago), I had no sense of strategic planning or how to think about terrain. I would often lump out men any which way and advance blindly until contact. Now I feel much more mature about the whole thing and my successes reflect that

S6- Attack on another small town

No replacements. This one’s a big map of a village with associated country lowlands. The center is a large plain, flanked by cover in hill and forest on the left. At the end is a large rural town with most vp’s. To the right is a dense forest- there’s a shack with a vp at the near right and a farmlike clearing with vp at the end. 

I deploy an infantry platoon on the right, and my two other infantry platoons left along with the SS and panzer. Concept of operations is to advance along the cover of the left map edge,and then take the town after occupying a hill beside it. My infantry platoon on the right will take the near vp, but I doubt much else.

My advance along the left is uneventful at first. On the right the vp turns out to be occupied by a soviet scout platoon with btr support. But they’re advancing on the objective also apparently so the threat is minor. I have my men lie in ambush and the advance is pushed back, the vp too taken.On the left now I come under fire while advancing along plains between the hill and forest. Naturally fire is coming from the hill, but at least I’d designated it a priority target so artillery is forthcoming. The attack bogs down, and disaster strikes when the soviets call in air support which immobilizes my tank in a useless position. Later attacks will even destroy it’s main gun. But still my forces push on, and after slow artillery footwork and angles of fire I isolate and take the hill. By now I’ve located a nearby infantry platoon attacking from a field, which is next in the line of advance. They’re swept aside with the usual probing. Now tragedy threatens, when recon tanks strike through the rear and assault guns appear in the village.  The recon tanks inexplicably strike towards the right vp I’d captured however, and the assault guns decide to take on my infantry advance head-on without support. This is a real threat at first, and my panzerfausts again prove practically useless. But at last one is destroyed and the other immobilized, allowing me to coninue.On the right flank, significant developments have occurred. For once, I get reinforcement units. An infantry platoon and two panzer’s(!) arrive at the far right by the farmhouse. They come under fire, but with a certain amount of finesse I’m able to dislodge the defenders and take the Vp’s handily. One tank is sent to shore up my near right vp (under attack by recon tanks, I’d sent my attacking platoon forward to the farmhouse and now have to scramble back), and the other makes an unsupported run against the enemy village. Time is short, so I’m making a gamble of things. This turns to be a success. The enemy has no antitank weapons, and the field is all but taken as the tank scares off various mg and infantry entrenchments. The enemy has lost both their assault guns vainly attempting to retake a lost vp, and my infantry is able to follow up and capture the village wholesale. In a nice twist I’m even able to get my own panzer going again and support the advance.  In the end it’s a significant victory