T

Constraint based political realist. Elitist. Advocate of Order. Discipline and realism over moral idealism. Rules not rhetoric.

[T @OrderRealist]

@hosgrave @Kaizerrev You’re out of your damn mind. We look at Islam like it’s a joke. A religion of fools.

[T @OrderRealist]

It’s dishonest rhetoric of course, he doesn’t genuinely believe what he said. Charlatan behavior. Let’s apply his logic to America: the Sherman tank was a tool against Japanese in internment camps. B-52s were used to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they are genuinely weapons, tools of mass destruction. This isn’t a normative moral argument, I am simply stress testing his logic. He uses Marxist Trotskyite framing and appeals to slave morality, not uncommon, how almost all political rhetoric is based upon.

[T @OrderRealist]

@thepunishedemp @korvinista79234 @azemaire @OrwellNGoode You’re a egalitarian moral virtue signaling clown. Grow up.

[T @OrderRealist]

The 13 colonies weren't some exception proving British obedience was weak. They're the outlier that proves the model's strength in most cases.

Short lived? Yes, they rebelled after about 150 years, but that's because they were high cohesion settler colonies: mostly British descended, Protestant work ethic, English common law traditions, minimal native blending, strong local assemblies, and geography favoring self sufficiency. They built affluent, institutionally strong societies from the start with high literacy, property rights, and a merchant class. Rebellion happened over specific post 1763 triggers: taxation without representation after the French and Indian War debt, Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, Intolerable Acts, quartering troops, etc. Grievances were about rights as Englishmen, not general disloyalty. Once independent, they kept and improved those institutions, becoming the most successful ex colony.

Compare to Spanish Americas: massive empires with heavy admixture, sex biased with European men and native or African women via concubinage and coercive unions, rigid caste system breeding suspicions even among pure criollos, centralized Bourbon control stifling local initiative, economic extraction like mercantilism on steroids, endless wars draining Spain, overstretch. Result: fractured loyalties, resentment boiled over into independence wars in the 1810s to 1820s, but post independence brought chronic instability, caudillos, weaker institutions.

Your "shortest lived plus most affluent" point actually supports my core claim: British settler model with segregation, autonomy, and preserved European edge created high functioning societies that could rebel successfully and thrive after. Spanish blending diluted that edge long term, evident in persistent gaps today.

PISA testing’s latest cycle shows: Latin America averages around 400, for example Mexico in the 395 to 410 range across subjects, Chile highest around 440 to 450. Spain around 470 to 480, UK similar or slightly higher around 490 to 500 adjusted despite some sampling issues. That's 50 to 100 plus point gaps versus Spain and UK despite significant European admixture in Latin America, often 30 to 70 percent nationally, higher in elites and the Southern Cone. Studies link higher European ancestry percentage to better cognitive and institutional outcomes, though environment plays in too.

Dysgenics from blending was one major factor in Spain's decline, not the only one with wars, mismanagement, centralization, but a key strategic failure versus Britain's rigidity. The US succeeded because it inherited the superior model, not despite quick rebellion.

[T @OrderRealist]

You're arguing with a fucken wall.

You're hammering the same criollo definition: pure 100% Spanish whites born in the Americas, resentment from peninsulares, white vs white. You act like it's some killer rebuttal that blows up my whole point. I've said multiple times it actually supports it.

I never once claimed criollos were mixed or not genetically full Spanish. That's not the disagreement. My take has always been this: Spain's broader blending policy encouraged widespread concubinage and coercive mixing outside the elites, which diluted the elite cognitive and hierarchical core over generations. It created caste paranoia and suspicions even among pure criollos, fractured loyalties from within, and led to dysgenic long term costs. You see the evidence in post independence stagnation and the persistent 10-20 point gaps in PISA and IQ proxies compared to Spain, even with European admixture in the populations.

Britain's rigid separation preserved the founding group's edge longer under tougher conditions. And let's be clear: criollo resentment and second class treatment was only one major reason for Spain's colonial failures, a big one, but not the only end all reason. You're hyperfixated on this criollos shit like it's a gotcha moment that ends the discussion, while completely ignoring every other point I've made: the admixture patterns themselves, the persistent IQ gaps despite European ancestry, the strategic downsides of blending vs segregation. Strawman city. Read the thread instead of looping the same definition over and over.

[T @OrderRealist]

@GzzUp_ You forget that they also practiced institutionalized child, human sacrifice up until the 18-19th centuries.

[T @OrderRealist]

Read through the rest of my replies, and then argue against it. There is nothing stupid about it. I don’t disregard any aspect of their decline but point out the dysgenic aspect. If you’re disagreeing with my point that the British system was superior, then disprove my points one by one, nothing incorrect about them.

[T @OrderRealist]

Actually, Criollo resentment fits my point perfectly: Spain's blending policy created fractured identities with diluted loyalty, as admixture eroded the pure Spanish core and hierarchy. Treating them as second class, due to potential mixed ancestry suspicions via the caste system, backfired dysgenically, weakening institutions, unlike British models rewarding settler whites while preserving boundaries.

You’re denying a whole aspect of reality, how ignorant are you? To support the cognitive factor you dismiss: Modern estimates show Spain's average IQ around 97-102, while former colonial populations lag significantly despite substantial Spanish/European admixture in their DNA, often 30-65% and even up to 80-90% in the case of Argentina. European ancestry via genetic studies. For example, Mexico averages 85-88, Peru 81-83, Colombia 82-89, Chile 88, Brazil 83-87, Venezuela 81-87, Ecuador 82, Bolivia 80-81, while Argentina, with the highest admixture has an average from 94-98. Clear persistent gaps of 10-20 points centuries after admixture, suggesting the blending with lower IQ native, and sometimes African groups diluted cognitive capacity overall, contributing to institutional stagnation as I argued.

[T @OrderRealist]

You're arguing just to argue at this point, inserting fallacies like strawmanning my position on breeding mechanics and criollo loyalty as if I denied them, when they actually reinforce my critique of dysgenic admixture leading to fractured hierarchies and decline. You're also falsely dichotomizing, claiming incomplete erasure means no erasure happened, or that selective glorification of certain lineages means they didn't value racial purity overall, despite evidence to the contrary. You're explaining the breeding mechanics to me as if that's in disagreement with my take, but it isn't. Selective mixing with high, status natives, coercive unions with others, concubinage over marriage, leaving bastards behind, that all fits right into my critique of their assimilation policy as deliberate, flawed, and dysgenic. It diluted the elite core over generations, eroded loyalty, criollos included, and contributed to stagnation and collapse. I never said it was uniform or romantic; I said it was a bad strategic choice favoring blending over rigid hierarchies.

To support my IQ claim: Modern estimates show Spain's average IQ around 97-102, while former colonial populations lag significantly despite substantial Spanish/European admixture in their DNA, often 30-65% and even up to 80-90% in the case of Argentina. European ancestry via genetic studies. For example, Mexico averages 85-88, Peru 81-83, Colombia 82-89, Chile 88, Brazil 83-87, Venezuela 81-87, Ecuador 82, Bolivia 80-81, while Argentina, with the highest admixture has an average from 94-98. Clear persistent gaps of 10-20 points centuries after admixture, suggesting the blending with lower IQ native, and sometimes African groups diluted cognitive capacity overall, contributing to institutional stagnation as I argued.

Your point about criollos' disloyalty doesn't contradict me either, it supports my argument: admixture fractured identities and allegiances, weakening the system from within. That's the dysgenic consequence I highlight.

You keep insisting the Spanish didn't glorify lineage and race despite the casta system and limpieza de sangre explicitly ranking ancestry and treating mixed, natives as inferior for power access. That's glorification of purity through hierarchy, not denial of it. And they did erase languages and customs on a massive scale, former colonies speak Spanish and are Catholic today, human sacrifice ended. Pockets of survival don't change the broad imposition of Hispanic norms via missions and force.

You're accusing me of romanticized history while pushing a moralized, anti-conquest narrative "retards," "raped," incomplete erasure as "lack of guts". My view is the opposite: cold social Darwinism, cognitive factors in admixture, taboo evolutionary outcomes. Choosing assimilation/blending for short term control instead of preserving ethnic boundaries like the British, is part of my critique. It produced unforeseen dysgenic effects and failed where the British model succeeded under worse odds.

[T @OrderRealist]

@jimmyadam120 @eyeslikecapuli @MemoryMedieval I don’t see why it’s so hard to see that multiple components come into play, I am not disagreeing with this. Did you even read my original comment? I am simply looking at it from the view of social Darwinism and the genetic factor.

[T @OrderRealist]

Under Spanish rule they extensively destroyed the native identity through various avenues including the mission systems which aggressively converted, resettled, and assimilated natives into Hispanic Catholic society. This effectively erased languages, religions, and customs, allowing for imposition of Spanish norms and centralized control.

My critique of their method of breeding with natives is a reason why their empire declined and failed. They pursued widespread mixing as a deliberate policy of assimilating the native population. This was a strategic choice favoring genetic and cultural blending over the rigid hierarchies that sustained elite dominance, unlike the British model, and it failed, hence why I critique it.

While the Spanish recognized racial mixture, specifically its social implications, which is evident by their caste system. They didn’t foresee the effects of racial admixture in the long term genetic/cognitive sense. This is because there wasn’t any concept of intelligence heritability at the time, admixture lowering cognitive abilities wasn’t even thought about.

Also if being outnumbered by your colonial subjects means failure, why did the British empire have more long term successful continuity? They were even more outnumbered than the Spanish. Example: in India, a minuscule British presence 0.1% of the population, ruled hundreds of millions for centuries through divide and rule, strict ethnic hierarchies, and minimal intermixing rather than assimilation or widespread genetic blending. That’s why they had the most success, and why Spain didn’t.

Spain tried to form their own new ethnic society, Britain didn’t, they left their colonial subject’s identities intact and manipulated the systems to their benefit, which effectively allowed them to rule, and form their own overlying systems resulting in their success and control. Spain didn’t fail because they were stupid, they failed because their attempted methodology and tactics didn’t produce the desired outcomes. The British system simply worked better. While the Spanish system failed partially because unknown dysgenic consequences occurred, among other variables.

[T @OrderRealist]

Jewish organizations and individuals have disproportionately advocated for and advanced mass migration into Western countries;

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish founded organization, helps resettle large numbers of refugees and pressures governments to accept more migrants from the global south.

The American Jewish Committee, a Jewish led organization, supports looser immigration laws and broader access to asylum.

The Anti-Defamation League, also Jewish founded, supports limiting immigration enforcement and frames mass migration as a civil rights issue.

Israel Zangwill, an ethnically Jewish writer who coined the term “melting pot,” promoted the idea that Western nations should be built by mixing many peoples through mass immigration.

Emma Lazarus, ethnically Jewish, helped normalize mass immigration by portraying America as a permanent refuge for the world’s migrants.

Horace Kallen, an ethnically Jewish thinker, argued for continued large scale immigration without strict limits on cultural separation.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was written and promoted by Emanuel Celler, an ethnically Jewish congressman, and it removed limits that favored European immigration, shifting migration primarily toward the developing global south and other non European regions, resulting in long term high volume immigration.

Marxist and communist ideology also argues that borders should not exist, an idea developed by Karl Marx, born into a Jewish family, advanced by Leon Trotsky, who was ethnically Jewish, and expanded by Vladimir Lenin, who had Jewish ancestry.

Jewish individuals and organizations have had a significant influence on pro mass migration policy and activism relative to their population size.

This is not a “antisemitic” conspiracy, these are cold hard empirical truths. These are only a few examples. You mention or question it and they ostracize and label you a bigot. Interesting..

[T @OrderRealist]

You are exhibiting your lack of historical knowledge and have resorted to lying. Now you're attempting to claim Europeans were "less advanced" than India and China until 250 years ago? That's false. Europe had pulled ahead in naval tech, firearms, printing, and scientific inquiry by the 1500s to 1600s, enabling global exploration and dominance long before the full Industrial Revolution. China and India had earlier leads in some fields, but Europe surpassed them through competition, institutions, and innovation not "brutal colonization" as the cause, but the result of prior edges. Your geography excuse ignores how Europe's internal rivalries and systems turned advantages into supremacy.

Now demanding sources for "mass child sacrifice" in Africa while ignoring the evidence? Dahomey Kingdom had institutionalized human sacrifices during annual customs and royal funerals. Often captives, including children for ritual protection; documented in 18th to 19th century European accounts and recent studies showing human blood in palace structures. Similar practices in Benin, Ashanti, and others not universal, but real, more far more recent than anything that had occured in Europe almost 2000 years prior, on a much larger scale as well, and ended by colonial laws. Sources: https://t.co/Gk0OnUnQ74 overview with historical citations on Dahomey sacrifices; https://t.co/DERGXbvguT academic on Dahomey rituals; https://t.co/Iw8BKQvjpH Ashanti rituals including human sacrifices; https://t.co/7dYxuK6PC3 on Ashanti origins and sacrifices; https://t.co/kIldsb9PoO 2024 study on Benin royal tomb blood traces confirming sacrifice; https://t.co/quNIErVhXC references to Benin human sacrifice evidence.

Cannibalism was prevalent in some regions too; warfare ritual contexts in parts of West Central Africa per historical records from 16th to 19th centuries. Sources: https://t.co/RIJm0yUIk5 summarizes 16th-19th century accounts in Central West Africa; https://t.co/vRY8qiDfkN academic on Zimba cannibals in 16th-century Southeast Africa from Portuguese accounts; https://t.co/RIJm0yUIk5 also covers Mfecane era survival cannibalism in early 19th century Southern Africa among Nguni/Zulu displaced groups, unrelated to famine but tied to warfare chaos.

Your "black and white coping" insult and Latin word origin tangent are just more ad hominem deflection irrelevant to facts. You distinguish "technology" from "civilization" as if it helps, but it doesn't: pre colonial Sub Saharan lagged in both scale and quality compared to Europe, with barbaric practices persisting until Europeans outlawed them and introduced written systems, medicine, institutions, etc.

Still zero direct hits on my original claim. Endless pivots: Africa exceptions to Greek influences to Alexander to Eurasia tech to now Asia comparisons and source demands. You've never disproven anything, only lied and changed subjects. You can choose to push false politicized narratives, but they just degrade your weak position even more.

[T @OrderRealist]

Mistake or not is irrelevant, your critique is that following orders by default makes them wrong, like Jaime said, they did not create the orders, and equating ICE to Nazism, Communism, Hutu Extremism, and Kampuchea in an attempt to rationalize your argument is exaggeration, political propaganda, and moral gesturing, also extremely false.

[T @OrderRealist]

Following orders and performing your duties automatically qualifies you as a Nazi, Communist, Kampuchean, and Hutu extremist all at the same time, extremely idiotic logic. I guess when you’re obeying your parents orders as a kid, doing what they say, or following the commands of your boss at work and doing your duties, also makes you a Nazi, Communist, Kampuchean, and Hutu extremist. Nice one, I wouldn’t expect anything less idiotic from a politicized narrative follower who can’t think for themselves.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

https://t.co/2tzgty30VG

[T @OrderRealist]

You've finally admitted one of the key points: Europe was more technologically advanced than Sub Saharan Africa. That's the core asymmetry I've been highlighting from the start. Pre colonial Sub Saharan societies lagged massively in tech, scale, institutions, and quality of life.

Instead of owning the concession, you hedge with "varied and complex". Your dodge implies that's why outcomes were inferior in Africa which is irrelevant because Europe was varied and complex too, in fact more so, specifically in ways directly connected to the argument and my stance you are disagreeing with, as other variables are not relevant to the discussion. Europe had dense networks of competing political entities; kingdoms, city states, fragmented empires, early parliaments, religious schisms driving intellectual debate, and urban guilds pioneering early capitalism. Those things weren't present in Sub Saharan Africa on the same scale, complexity, or level of advancement, and some of these factors weren’t present at all. When you compare the variables and complexity between the two pertaining to the discussion, Europe is arguably more “varied and complex” in those regards and pulled far ahead in innovation, state formation, tech diffusion, quality of life, etc.

Even with all of these factors into play, it doesn't erase the realities. Inferiority in outcomes, the institutionalized child sacrifice (in more recent times, far after any type of child sacrifice, or any sacrifice; widespread, institutionalized, was present in Europe) On top of that, prevalent cannibalism, endemic slavery (after European abolition, and into more recent times), or lack of widespread written systems and advanced governance before Europeans outlawed the barbarism and introduced real progress.

You still haven't touched my original claim head on once. Labeling me a "Western chauvinist" who disregards evidence is just ad hominem deflection. You have conceded the tech gap while pivoting to vague qualifiers. Zero direct hits on my argument. Endless goalpost shifting. And you've got some nerve saying I disregard evidence when everything I've said is true and you've never disproven a single thing, only deflected and changed subjects every time.

[Full Verity @FullVerity]

Ludwig Klages argues that the American entry into World War I marked the beginning of the downfall of the White race. Hypnotized by Jewish propaganda, Americans went to war against their own civilizational kin because they believed they were saving the West; but the truth is that they were dismantling its last bastion.

By aligning with the machine (technics, finance, press), America became the vanguard of a global mechanization process that would erase individuality, spirit, and identity rooted in blood and soil. The white race, he warned, was on a path to extinction through internal disintegration, racial deracination, and psychic automation. Even the so-called racial theorists, he says, recognize this collapse, but remain powerless to stop it.

1917 was the opening act of civilizational suicide, the first shot in what Dominique Venner would later call the European Civil War from 1917-1945. When Europe was defeated, the victors codified guilt in the form of Eternal Nuremberg, a permanent moral occupation designed to pathologize blood, crush memory, and outlaw the return of both.

From then on, any assertion of white identity would be smeared as a crime against humanity. And now, Al doesn't need newspapers. It simply curates your feed, maps your mind, and scores your compliance. The machine no longer has to lie because it can just show you what you'll obey.

Klages was diagnosing the death drive of a race here, but he doesn’t express sorrow over the physical destruction. What he mourns is the soul-death, that the mechanized, mass-programmed, spiritually vacant human being is no longer man, but a hollow shell marching to the funeral dirge of authentic life. So, was he wrong, or did the White race go to war with itself and lose?

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

There are two kinds of globalists.

The first are the ideological types. These are the professors, the activists, the think-tank “intellectuals” who honestly believe the world should move beyond nations, borders, religions, and traditions.

They think humanity can be turned into one big borderless commune.

These people are the heirs of Marx, the apostles of “universal brotherhood.” And to them, Islam is not a threat but a partner, because it positions itself as the voice of the “oppressed,” a force against colonialism, nationalism, and the West itself. They welcome it in.

Then there are the pragmatic globalists. These people don’t care about brotherhood, justice, or ideology. They care about power.

To them, globalism is simply about centralization, bigger structures, bigger markets, easier populations to manage. And they’re fine with Islam too, because Islam produces populations that are more compliant, less individualistic, and easier to collectivize.

Both sides, knowingly or not, are paving the road for Islam’s expansion.

Globalists weaken nations, and a weakened nation is fertile ground for Islamization. They erase borders, and Islam carries its demographic revolution across them.

Globalists delegitimize Christianity and Judaism, and Islam steps in to fill the vacuum with uncompromising certainty.

Globalists centralize power in supranational bodies, and suddenly the OIC bloc of 57 Islamic states becomes the largest voting group at the UN, shaping “human rights” law to protect Islam from criticism.

Globalism and Islam converge because they run on the same logic, a world without independent nations, without local sovereignty, governed from above by an absolute authority.

The only difference is the branding:

One does it in the name of humanity.
The other does it in the name of Allah.

The effect is the same, the destruction of the West’s freedom to govern itself.

This is why resisting Islamization without resisting the radical left is pointless. They feed each other. The ideologues weaken the walls, the pragmatists build the central tower, and Islam walks right in to claim both.