Quote:Quote:

Study after study has shown both personality and intelligence have large genetic components. When you sire kids with Billy Badass instead of Dudley Do-Right, it should be no surprise that you get Billy Badass, Jr. as a kid. If you have entire communities doing this, you end up with outlaw communities. The best parenting in the world, the best teachers in the world, and the most well-funded school systems will not change this.

Great post, spot on. Over the course of several centuries, these genetic components become more pronounced with almost laughably predictable results visible across multiple cultural and geographical contexts. They're out-of-the-box features, not bugs. Dysfunctional culture (which magnifies these behavioral traits) is a byproduct of heritable genetic traits, not the other way around.

^ That's the truth of course - women have an inbuilt anti-civilization breeding mechanism. It works fine if all you need for genes is the baddest motherfucker in the woods or jungle, who can smash skulls and hunt deer. Their mating psyche hasn't moved from the stone age.

Ours did not either, but it was less destructive from the onset.

And yes - after a few generations of not wanting to breed with the likes of Thomas Sowell:


(though he is a bit of a bad example, but you get the gist)

and preferring to be the 5th baby mama of that guy:



Well - thanks to welfare, they can do it. Ah - white girls now are following down the same path both in the US and the EU, some communities just go first down the drain.

Obsidian also mentions a few points and mental aberrations he observes - being against reading, against learning, against working hard in a humble or boring job etc.

The Thomas Sowells get 2 kids while the Jamals get 5 each with 5 different baby mamas. Obsidian also notes clearly that the Beta blue collar brothers with little resources (but actually positive if not exciting personalities) are regularly ignored by black women. So they don't even get to reproduce. They may get sex, but they never become fathers. After a few decades you have got feral kids and no corporal punishment or uniforms in school will change that.

Quote: (10-30-2015 02:33 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

This is by design. It is exactly what the elites wanted. To target and destroy the middle class, destroying the education system was a must. Push the liberal feminist agenda in schools and watch is spread. They are probably happy to see the results from incidents like this.

I believe it was Karl Marx who coined the term "useful idiot". If not, he has been given credit for it. This is the result of "free" healthcare, "free" food, "free" housing, next up is "free" college. Women don't need a man, the govt. provides everything for "free". We hand out the right to vote like candy at Halloween and the useful idiots vote in candidates who offer "free" anything.

This shit ain't free. We are seeing the cost of this "free" shit. The destruction of the family unit and the destruction of the community. It is far cheaper to just work and pay for things yourself, than waiting for the govt. to give you something for "free" and this video is evidence of this.

Complusory education is a progressive invention anyway:

Quote:Quote:

Education

Early progressive thinkers such as John Dewey and Lester Ward placed a universal and comprehensive system of education at the top of the progressive agenda, reasoning that if a democracy were to be successful, its leaders, the general public, needed a good education.[31] Progressives worked hard to expand and improve public and private education at all levels. Modernization of society, they believed, necessitated the compulsory education of all children, even if the parents objected. Progressives turned to educational researchers to evaluate the reform agenda by measuring numerous aspects of education, later leading to standardized testing. Many educational reforms and innovations generated during this period continued to influence debates and initiatives in American education for the remainder of the 20th century. One of the most apparent legacies of the Progressive Era left to American education was the perennial drive to reform schools and curricula, often as the product of energetic grass-roots movements in the city.[32]

Since progressivism was and continues to be 'in the eyes of the beholder,' progressive education encompasses very diverse and sometimes conflicting directions in educational policy. Such enduring legacies of the Progressive Era continue to interest historians. Progressive Era reformers stressed 'object teaching,' meeting the needs of particular constituencies within the school district, equal educational opportunity for boys and girls, and avoiding corporal punishment.[33]

Gamson (2003) examines the implementation of progressive reforms in three city school districts—Seattle, Washington, Oakland, California, and Denver, Colorado—during 1900–28. Historians of educational reform during the Progressive Era tend to highlight the fact that many progressive policies and reforms were very different and, at times, even contradictory. At the school district level, contradictory reform policies were often especially apparent, though there is little evidence of confusion among progressive school leaders in Seattle, Oakland, and Denver. District leaders in these cities, including Frank B. Cooper in Seattle and Fred M. Hunter in Oakland, often employed a seemingly contradictory set of reforms: local progressive educators consciously sought to operate independently of national progressive movements; they preferred reforms that were easy to implement; and they were encouraged to mix and blend diverse reforms that had been shown to work in other cities.[34]

The reformers emphasized professionalization and bureaucratization. The old system whereby ward politicians selected school employees was dropped in the case of teachers and replaced by a merit system requiring a college-level education in a normal school (teacher's college).[35] The rapid growth in size and complexity the large urban school systems facilitated stable employment for women teachers and provided senior teachers greater opportunities to mentor younger teachers. By 1900 in Providence, Rhode Island, most women remained as teachers for at least 17.5 years, indicating teaching had become a significant and desirable career path for women.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressiv...ted_States

Fuck the elementary and public schools. They are like prison for kids and are more geared toward obedience rather than a true classical education.

They stunt the maturation process and turn young men and women infantile.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles...hing-teens

Let those institutions burn.

Quote: (10-30-2015 07:59 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Study after study has shown both personality and intelligence have large genetic components. When you sire kids with Billy Badass instead of Dudley Do-Right, it should be no surprise that you get Billy Badass, Jr. as a kid. If you have entire communities doing this, you end up with outlaw communities. The best parenting in the world, the best teachers in the world, and the most well-funded school systems will not change this.

Great post, spot on. Over the course of several centuries, these genetic components become more pronounced with almost laughably predictable results visible across multiple cultural and geographical contexts. They're out-of-the-box features, not bugs. Dysfunctional culture (which magnifies these behavioral traits) is a byproduct of heritable genetic traits, not the other way around.

Quoted for truth.

But its even worse than this. Its Nature and Nurture.

The worst people are having children at an alarming rate (actually starting to slow down with inner city blacks these days). On top of Ms. Hood Rat and four felonies, on death row daddy siring children, the children are raised in a house without rules and without supervision. So the worst tendencies of a person are drawn out.

End result is this kind of anarchy.

What on earth are the millions of violent, unemployable ghetto trash of all races going to do in the next 20-40 years. Jobs are going away and being at 75 IQ, a quick temper and an enjoyment for hurting people, what will these people be doing?

Quote: (10-30-2015 08:39 AM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

What on earth are the millions of violent, unemployable ghetto trash of all races going to do in the next 20-40 years. Jobs are going away and being at 75 IQ, a quick temper and an enjoyment for hurting people, what will these people be doing?

They are going to ...
- financially: live their life on welfare
- socially: have some ties with family members and people from their neighborhood
- for fun: get entertainment through television & the internet
- health-wise: will have access to one of the most advanced healthcare systems there has ever been - limited access for them, with long waiting times, but still better than what people used to have in the soviet union

I'm not saying they will be having it good - far from it. But it's not like their bad long-term decision making will hurt them in a way that would FORCE them to change (like it used to be when people were still exposed to wild animals, unforgiving forces of nature, foreign armies etc.)

Quote: (10-30-2015 04:08 AM)kinjutsu Wrote:  

This kinda shit pisses me off...
To the point i just stopped speaking with urban black people (im black btw)

There is no excuse to behave like that.
Growing up if i ever behaved like that i would get the beatdown of my life once i got home. From my dad, mom or both.
I can honestly say if that was my school i'd drop out and do online schooling of some kind and the take my GED to remove myself from that jungle.

The most fucked up thing about black kids acting like that is it makes the rest of us (law-abiding, educated, well adjusted) look terrible. We get lumped together with them like we are all ghetto thug wanna be rappers/ballers regardless of the clothes we wear.

I wanna say the those WN used to piss me off alot with their bullshit...but when you see a video like these posted all of over worldstar with pride i dont even blame the WN anymore.

I'm so sick of ignorant black people doing dumbshit.

This is exactly why the Black Lives Matter shit pisses me off so much. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the "movement" was created and funded by the elites.

Relevant Facebook post from Marc MacYoung, self defense instructor, on how black and white thinking keeps us from dealing with hairy situations effectively:

"I want to talk about the tyranny of NEVER and ALWAYS thinking. More importantly I'm going to show how if you proceed from these assumptions you have shut your brain off -- regardless of how much you tell yourself you are rational, informed, open minded and thinking clearly.

Four examples:
Violence never solved anything
You should never hit a child
You should never hit a woman
If police use force on a black person it is always racist."

He expands, in the context of the Spring Valley High School incident, on the concept of never hitting a child:

"You should never hit a child.

Well since we have already covered never, let's look at 'child.' Now when you talk about children, it's easy to imagine 4-8 year-olds.Whereupon ixnay on a full force blow from an adult is understandable. That is unless you're the CDC and count up to 25 y.o. to bolster you numbers of child suicides and firearms. In which case we have to ask "When does a child, turn into ...oh say, a teen" and the use of the word child become deliberately misleading? I ask because the the use of the word 'child' has become really common among those condemning this incident. They're kind of forgetting this occurred at a high school.

Now growing in the streets, I assure you that teens can be quite capable of violence and at causing chaos. So the question is ... are we to disallow ANY use of force on someone just because they are under 18? This regardless of what the teen is doing?"


Full post and responses here:

https://www.facebook.com/marc.macyoung/p...3012699769

I’m not sure how this turned into a race thread, my examples in post #2 of this thread were white.

Quote: (10-30-2015 02:06 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The same goes for the lack of control with Muslim-heritage students. It's not that they are inherently aggressive and have no respect towards teachers. No - Islam poisons their mind and destructive mental attitudes are passed down from father to son.

The way that a lot of Muslim schoolkids act isn’t because of Islam per se, it’s because they come from trashy families who prioritise Islam over education.

Many of the Muslim kids in Europe are from the trashiest parts of their countries. This is definitely true for Pakistanis in UK. A lot of Muslim families are OK with their kids skipping school, but woe betide any kid who doesn’t want to pray.

You don’t see kids of middle class Muslim families in western countries act shitty in school.

I sat in the same classrooms as both black (from a Carribean background), Muslim (Pakistani) and Indian kids. In UK education is compulsory until 16, then kids can leave school, or stay on if they want to further their education. Guess how many black kids and Pakistani kids stayed on for further education? I’ll give you guys a clue, it was less than 1.

In the UK a lot of black African families don’t want their kids to mix with Afro Caribbean kids. Look this chart of UK educational achievement:



Kids who grow up in families in the upper part of the graph tend to grow up in more stable families which prioritise education.

I blame shitty parenting, not race or religion.

Quote: (10-30-2015 03:20 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

Kids who grow up in families in the upper part of the graph tend to grow up in more stable families which prioritise education.

I blame shitty parenting, not race or religion.

Religion impacts your mental patterns. Protestants were more successful than Catholics back in the day, because many churches told them that if you were successful in life, then it was a sign of God's bounty. Catholics were still more concerned with the afterlife for a long time.
As far as the Muslim world and education I am not even going to comment that, because this is utterly preposterous to equate Islam in any shape or form with high education. Secular Muslims do fine, but they are the exception.

Race in my opinion does not impact education of course. Even if you inherit a lesser IQ or higher aggressive potential, then you can make the most out of it and aggressive potential means nothing when it is controlled. The Scots as well as the Scandinavians always were famous for their irate temper and inherent aggression. Doesn't mean jack shit, if you have stable mental patterns of a country.

Middle class or upper class Indians have highly advantageous education and success-focused perceptions. The same however cannot be said about the hundreds of millions who are set in their caste-thinking ways in rural India. Denying that religion played a role in the forming of those thought patterns does not lead to any mature discussion.

In any case - back to the topic - if you read in detail, then you can see that I don't think similarly to Jayman or Heartiste that American blacks are somehow inferior. When they had stable households in the 1950s with a mere divorce rate of 10% and almost 90% of fathers living at home, then obviously it's not something racial, but rather structural and economic that quickly destroyed their communities.

Quote: (10-30-2015 02:33 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

This is by design. It is exactly what the elites wanted. To target and destroy the middle class, destroying the education system was a must. Push the liberal feminist agenda in schools and watch is spread. They are probably happy to see the results from incidents like this.

I believe it was Karl Marx who coined the term "useful idiot". If not, he has been given credit for it. This is the result of "free" healthcare, "free" food, "free" housing, next up is "free" college. Women don't need a man, the govt. provides everything for "free". We hand out the right to vote like candy at Halloween and the useful idiots vote in candidates who offer "free" anything.

This shit ain't free. We are seeing the cost of this "free" shit. The destruction of the family unit and the destruction of the community. It is far cheaper to just work and pay for things yourself, than waiting for the govt. to give you something for "free" and this video is evidence of this.

I don't know, man. Where I live, public school kids are doing just fine. Then again, it's also an upper middle-class white area. I have no idea why we need to bring Karl Marx into this discussion when it's plainly obvious that the absence of black fathers is the reason behind this sort of behavior (as well as what Quintus said regarding removal of corporal punishment and so on).

Stop seeing everything as socialism vs. capitalism.

Quote: (10-30-2015 01:21 AM)Bacchus Wrote:  

Not all heroes wear capes.

Quote: (10-30-2015 01:59 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

This is exactly why the Black Lives Matter shit pisses me off so much. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the "movement" was created and funded by the elites.

Isnt George Soros a big funder of the movement?

Quote: (10-29-2015 07:58 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This what happens when you take discipline out of the schools. Anarchy. And when you try to impose discipline, parents and media stab you in the back.
Now, it's just chaos.

If it were up to me, I would bring back uniforms and corporal punishment. But of course that would never fly.

Violence against children isn't the answer. How would you like to get smacked around by a boss for doing a poor job at work? If it's disgusting behavior that you won't accept as an adult, then it's even worse for kids who have nowhere near the freedom that you posses. Moving jobs, free association, self reliance etc.

The majority of us were forced into shitty government schools. The education system is there to teach us how to be good little subordinates, the important subjects can be learned in a quarter of the time. Fat feminist teachers hitting kids is the last thing we need for young girls and boys.

Quote: (10-29-2015 08:04 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

I think another issue is that the parents nowadays never take the side of the teachers. If a kid was hit by a teacher in some countries, the parent would beat the kid too for getting in trouble at school.

Nowadays the parent is more likely to attack the teacher. My sports teacher was once attacked by parent when I was a kid.

I was hit as a kid. It gave me nothing of value, what it did give me was anxiety and fear. You would want to add more violence from teachers, who are mostly feminists now and that would be topped off by bullying for some kids. If that's not the recipe for 10x more school shootings, I don't know what is.

If a teacher caned my kid, I'd get that same cane and break it on their fat stupid head.

Traumatizing kids with violence has been used extensively in the past and the past is brutal, we should be mature enough to use words instead of violence, especially with the most vulnerable people in our society.

Words without any ability to enforce anything is a losing game with kids. It becomes a negotiation. Then they just learn to use their big words and white SJW articles when they grow up. Kids need boundaries and structure. Words do not provide that. Personally, spanking to a degree is acceptable. Fine you don't to hit kids. What punishments can be handed out that are relatively immediate and do not require a group of people to figure out.

I'm fine with spanking. I'm not ok with headshots, etc. But spanking is fine.

Edit: also the reason some of these kids are so out of control is that they know nothing will really happen to them short of murdering someone. And even then some pathetic lawyer will get them off or probation because the shithead had a tough home life. The punishment needs to be real and likely in order to be used as a deterrent.

Something similar happened at my high school.

Quote: (10-29-2015 07:58 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This what happens when you take discipline out of the schools. Anarchy. And when you try to impose discipline, parents and media stab you in the back.
Now, it's just chaos.

If it were up to me, I would bring back uniforms and corporal punishment. But of course that would never fly.

My mother works in a school run by a Guardian reading mangina, where the kids are told to refer to teachers and staff by their first names. She says it's resulted in a big drop in how much authority the kids think the staff have.

Quote: (10-31-2015 10:26 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Words without any ability to enforce anything is a losing game with kids. It becomes a negotiation.

That's exactly what it should be, negotiation. Talking about the problem and why the kid isn't listening would be a good start. Asking them questions and explaining things to them as clear as possible would be a great way to teach kids civility and naturally they'd feel shame.

Quote:Quote:

Then they just learn to use their big words and white SJW articles when they grow up.
Kids need boundaries and structure. Words do not provide that.

That sounds ridiculous. Words are enough to provide structure especially to young kids who are bound by their biology, it's not like they can get up and leave and have nothing to do with adults. They do understand wrong from right, most adults aren't hitting each other to resolve disputes.

More to the point hitting a kid is not self defense, it's assault. The morals don't magically change because you get older.

Quote:Quote:

Personally, spanking to a degree is acceptable. Fine you don't to hit kids. What punishments can be handed out that are relatively immediate and do not require a group of people to figure out.

There's a hundred different consequences you can come up with they don't exist in a vacuum. Taking away privileges is a big one and can be used in any scenario.

Quote:Quote:

I'm fine with spanking. I'm not ok with headshots, etc. But spanking is fine.

Saying you're okay with it doesn't make it right.

Quote:Quote:

Edit: also the reason some of these kids are so out of control is that they know nothing will really happen to them short of murdering someone. And even then some pathetic lawyer will get them off or probation because the shithead had a tough home life. The punishment needs to be real and likely in order to be used as a deterrent.

Oh really, so the black kid in the video was never hit? I wonder where he learned that instead of negotiating like an adult you just lose control and start hitting someone to get them to change their behavior.

Quote: (10-31-2015 09:23 AM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  

Quote: (10-29-2015 07:58 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This what happens when you take discipline out of the schools. Anarchy. And when you try to impose discipline, parents and media stab you in the back.
Now, it's just chaos.

If it were up to me, I would bring back uniforms and corporal punishment. But of course that would never fly.

Violence against children isn't the answer. How would you like to get smacked around by a boss for doing a poor job at work? If it's disgusting behavior that you won't accept as an adult, then it's even worse for kids who have nowhere near the freedom that you posses. Moving jobs, free association, self reliance etc.

The majority of us were forced into shitty government schools. The education system is there to teach us how to be good little subordinates, the important subjects can be learned in a quarter of the time. Fat feminist teachers hitting kids is the last thing we need for young girls and boys.

Quote: (10-29-2015 08:04 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

I think another issue is that the parents nowadays never take the side of the teachers. If a kid was hit by a teacher in some countries, the parent would beat the kid too for getting in trouble at school.

Nowadays the parent is more likely to attack the teacher. My sports teacher was once attacked by parent when I was a kid.

I was hit as a kid. It gave me nothing of value, what it did give me was anxiety and fear. You would want to add more violence from teachers, who are mostly feminists now and that would be topped off by bullying for some kids. If that's not the recipe for 10x more school shootings, I don't know what is.

If a teacher caned my kid, I'd get that same cane and break it on their fat stupid head.

Traumatizing kids with violence has been used extensively in the past and the past is brutal, we should be mature enough to use words instead of violence, especially with the most vulnerable people in our society.

Studies have shown that beating kids lowers their IQ. So I definitely agree that the wanton hitting of kids will lead to no good.

But I will say that some kids need spankings when they're totally out of control. The problem I'll guess you have -- and that I definitely have -- is that we were smacked around for trivial bullshit by a parent who simply took a dislike to us for one reason or another.

And this, I think, is the problem. I can see corporal punishment if a kid comes home drugged-up, or screams at a parent, or will never, ever listen. But where parents go wrong is beating an othewise good kid up because he made a joke, voiced an opposing opinion, or spilled something. This is what my house was like.

So let's not confuse the at-wits-end parent that resorts to hitting Problem Child with the shithead parent that whacks his kid across the face because he talked about music too much when company was over (an actual incident in my life, sad to say).

If you need to spank or otherwise beat a child over the age of 10 in order to maintain your authority, you've screwed up as a parent.

Perhaps the most light of violence with a younger child that is too young to understand consequences other than pain (and with a child that young, it doesn't take much physical punishment to send the message home), but 90% of the time, it simply isn't necessary.

I work frequently with younger children who I am not permitted to beat and while it obviously takes some work, you can command authority with most children by speaking rationally (at a level they understand), assuming that you've established a positive relationship with.

I've found that simply making a child sit in a chair and if necessary restraining that child (with your arms and hands, not tying them up or anything drastic) will get the point across reasonably quickly, especially if they realize they are missing out on some fun or enjoying dinner as a result.

The real truth is that by the time a child reaches as age where they could represent legitimate harm to an adult, they're also capable of mentally dealing with any physical pain that would be handed out in a school setting.

At that age, children listen to authority out of habit, not of real fear of suffering. If corporal punishment is used on a child/teenager regularly enough, they'll just learn to accept it with no real change to their behaviour, short of perhaps, trying harder to not get caught.

This shouldn't be confused with actual respect for authority. Authorizing corporal punishment in schools just makes kids better liars.

Actual respect for authority is a product of being in a healthy environment during the early years of a child's development.

This is why it is so important to have a wife that respects her husband and demonstrates that respect publicly and within the home.

Children learn far more from actions than from words.

Modern women who claim that they "would do anything for their child," but seek a "relationship of equality" with their husbands are children hating liars.

"I would do anything for my child...except sacrifice my ego."
...............-The modern woman, 2006

Quote: (11-01-2015 05:43 AM)Suits Wrote:  

If you need to spank or otherwise beat a child over the age of 10 in order to maintain your authority, you've screwed up as a parent.

The ones that require beatings are those who most deserve it.

Now before you think I mean some little girl a quarter of your size deserves a smack around the face for dropping her food, no. Absolutely not. I have seen that done and I wanted to punch both the father and mother for it.

Children above the age of 11 and into their teens know full well what they're doing. We're forgetting teen boys can grow to the size of men and can act as such if they wanted.

Those who step out of line need to be hit back into it. You always see these dickheads in bars and clubs, you know, the ones who think they're tough and act like their shit doesn't stink.

Those are the men the bouncers deal with most often when trouble comes up and the bouncers put them back into line.

If these same guys feel your girlfriend up and try a confrontation it is your job to put them back into line with physical force.

Testosterone and emotions do not listen to logic or reason, if that were true we wouldn't see such violence from men these days but the facts are, men understand one thing and it is physical ramifications.

A teacher shouldn't have to use physical force because the child/teen should understand their parents will deal with it. Most often than not shithead kids are products of shithead parents.

It is when nobody deals with these problem children and teens is when serious issue start to come around. Gangs and out of control men are a symptom of this.

Quote: (10-30-2015 07:46 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Quote: (10-30-2015 06:26 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

Quote: (10-29-2015 07:58 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This what happens when you take discipline out of the schools. Anarchy. And when you try to impose discipline, parents and media stab you in the back.

Public education is dying, if not already dead. I went to small-town public schools and high school, but I think that era of history is now ending.

Pretty soon, if not already, the only kids getting a decent education will be those from families who can afford private school. I was not one of those, but things were safer back in the 80s.

Now, it's just chaos.

If it were up to me, I would bring back uniforms and corporal punishment. But of course that would never fly.

I am actually going to disagree here. I don't think the increased violence has to do with less strict schools, it has more to do with single mums trying to raise children with no male authority in the child's life. And then they try to say that the children don't need a father in their lives. Bullshit. I'm guessing the father could not be reached for comment in any of these cases of psychopathy in students.

I agree, but let me add something (this is becoming my standard phrase on here now).

Not only does this have to do with single mothers raising kids without dads, it has to do with the type of genetics these kids are getting because of the dads those moms choose.

Study after study has shown both personality and intelligence have large genetic components. When you sire kids with Billy Badass instead of Dudley Do-Right, it should be no surprise that you get Billy Badass, Jr. as a kid. If you have entire communities doing this, you end up with outlaw communities. The best parenting in the world, the best teachers in the world, and the most well-funded school systems will not change this.

When society stopped putting pressure on women to get married before having kids, it unwittingly gave them the freedom to spawn with bad boys, thinking that would be the same as breeding with marriage-ready guys because it's all about giving the kids "love" and "support." It isn't. You can't create gold out of garbage.

This goes for white women in equal measure.

The "educated class" (gag) -- especially school system-type shitheads -- will dispute this by claiming kids are a "blank slate" and nurture trumps nature. Oh really? Then why is it that when educated women or couples need a sperm bank, the male genes they seek come from well-bred Ivy League men, not prisoners? If it's all about nurture, why not choose a big, strapping ex-con to sire your kids for free instead of paying for expensive Ivy sperm?

Links:
From 2012: It's nature, not nurture: personality lies in genes

From 1986 and in the New York Times, no less (!!!!): Major Personality Study Finds That Traits Are Mostly Inherited

By that token, Australia should have been a thug nation, as it was founded with a core of convicts...

It's more about fatherless kids and single moms failing to raise them. At least those kids in the past couple of decades could count on their grandparents, who grew up in nuclear families, to pitch in. Going forward it's going to be less of an option.

Quote: (11-01-2015 07:17 AM)MTLer Wrote:  

Quote: (10-30-2015 07:46 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Quote: (10-30-2015 06:26 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

Quote: (10-29-2015 07:58 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This what happens when you take discipline out of the schools. Anarchy. And when you try to impose discipline, parents and media stab you in the back.

Public education is dying, if not already dead. I went to small-town public schools and high school, but I think that era of history is now ending.

Pretty soon, if not already, the only kids getting a decent education will be those from families who can afford private school. I was not one of those, but things were safer back in the 80s.

Now, it's just chaos.

If it were up to me, I would bring back uniforms and corporal punishment. But of course that would never fly.

I am actually going to disagree here. I don't think the increased violence has to do with less strict schools, it has more to do with single mums trying to raise children with no male authority in the child's life. And then they try to say that the children don't need a father in their lives. Bullshit. I'm guessing the father could not be reached for comment in any of these cases of psychopathy in students.

I agree, but let me add something (this is becoming my standard phrase on here now).

Not only does this have to do with single mothers raising kids without dads, it has to do with the type of genetics these kids are getting because of the dads those moms choose.

Study after study has shown both personality and intelligence have large genetic components. When you sire kids with Billy Badass instead of Dudley Do-Right, it should be no surprise that you get Billy Badass, Jr. as a kid. If you have entire communities doing this, you end up with outlaw communities. The best parenting in the world, the best teachers in the world, and the most well-funded school systems will not change this.

When society stopped putting pressure on women to get married before having kids, it unwittingly gave them the freedom to spawn with bad boys, thinking that would be the same as breeding with marriage-ready guys because it's all about giving the kids "love" and "support." It isn't. You can't create gold out of garbage.

This goes for white women in equal measure.

The "educated class" (gag) -- especially school system-type shitheads -- will dispute this by claiming kids are a "blank slate" and nurture trumps nature. Oh really? Then why is it that when educated women or couples need a sperm bank, the male genes they seek come from well-bred Ivy League men, not prisoners? If it's all about nurture, why not choose a big, strapping ex-con to sire your kids for free instead of paying for expensive Ivy sperm?

Links:
From 2012: It's nature, not nurture: personality lies in genes

From 1986 and in the New York Times, no less (!!!!): Major Personality Study Finds That Traits Are Mostly Inherited

By that token, Australia should have been a thug nation, as it was founded with a core of convicts...

It's more about fatherless kids and single moms failing to raise them. At least those kids in the past couple of decades could count on their grandparents, who grew up in nuclear families, to pitch in. Going forward it's going to be less of an option.

Only about 1/5 of Australians are quoted as being "descendant" from penal exiles--so the percentage admixture of penal exiles into modern-day Australians is almost certainly far lower (perhaps even indistinguishable from statistical noise, i.e. trivial).

Given the sex-ratio imbalance of penal exiles, and the large successive waves of non-exile migrants, it becomes immediately apparent that this should be the case.

Australia as the descendants of "convicts" is just a joke.

Even a 1 STD difference in mean (which is quite large) between exiles and non-exiles on a given trait would get wiped to .2 STDs in modern-day Australians even if we accept the ceiling number of 1/5 and assume 100% heritability.

I make this point a lot on this forum, and in real life: The cognitive traits associated with single mom'edness (e.g. low IQ, low impulse control, low conscientiousness) are all heritable, likewise with dead-beat dad'edness--and the spawns of such unholy unions will statistically tend to inherit said traits.

For some reason, even otherwise smart, "red pill," people often miss this idea, but get it immediately once it's pointed out.

Another reason to never have kids with a single mom.

Quote: (10-31-2015 10:34 PM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  

That's exactly what it should be, negotiation. Talking about the problem and why the kid isn't listening would be a good start. Asking them questions and explaining things to them as clear as possible would be a great way to teach kids civility and naturally they'd feel shame.

Have you been paying attention?













I guarantee you none of those actors were ever reprimanded for their behaviour as children.

There's a widespread naive assumption - built out of Lesbian Subversion of Education in the 70's - that assumes all children are Good and Rational actors. This simply isn't true. Michael Jackson would spout this kind of thing: "There's nothing more pure and innocent than the mind of a child". Of course he thought that, he was pedastalising them whilst trying to fuck them. Dude was thirsty.

I've known many children that I would simply consider Evil in both thought and action, and it's not always as simple as 'they were beaten / abused so are just re-enacting what they've learnt'. That's 80's Leftist Subversion of Criminal Justice speaking. Some kids, unfortunately, are just wired differently. A larger majority have the potential to be bad, but are easily controlled into comforming to authority.

Quote:Quote:

That sounds ridiculous. Words are enough to provide structure especially to young kids who are bound by their biology.

I've found that with no negative consequences, many kids simply learn how to use their words of apology to lie and to emotionally-manipulate. Girls are wonderful at this: big eyes, trembling lips, fake tears. Accuser backs down, punishment avoided, authority figure goes away, performance instantly stops: "Stupid cunt thinks she can tell me what to do."

You have to understand, under the age of nine, conceptions of 'Right' or 'Wrong' are determined by what you get punished for. This then develops to a realisation that rewards mean you are doing what others want. This is where children learn to fake concern for others because it is in their self-interest to do so. It comes from a place of selfishness.

In adolescence, the conception of good becomes what pleases others, and the majority opinion defines what is good. Now place a child amongst a group of peers who positively-reward disobedience, violence and theft. They won't realise they're being 'bad'.

I believe SJW's are trapped in this adolescent stage of morality, hence 'the ends justify the means'. They're mentally-incapable of recognising their dogpiling, lying, fascist behaviour is evil.

Quote:Quote:

They do understand wrong from right

Except there are children who don't except your binary moral system. They understand that there's theoretical right or wrong, but they don't care about transgressing to chase their desires, they simply care about avoiding punishment, and quickly learn how to do so. This is why the Feminist notion that you can teach Rapists not to Rape is ridiculous. They know it's theoretically bad, but don't care.

This ties back to my four rules of predicting female behaviour, which I believe are suggestive of an adolescent moral system, and probably explains why most women never mentally leave high school.:

Quote:Quote:

Rule #1: Everything I want, I believe I deserve.

Rule #2: What's the least amount of effort I can expend to get what I believe I deserve as quickly as possible?

Rule #3: If the quickest and laziest route to achieving what I believe I deserve would require serious moral or social transgressions, then those rules don't apply to me, because of how righteously-deserving I am.

Rule #4: If I am stigmatised for any moral or social transgressions in the righteous pursuit of what I believe I deserve, then what is the least amount of effort I can expend to defuse criticism, deflect blame or escape punishment?

You can see that some actors willingly choose to transgress to achieve their desires.

Quote:Quote:

most adults aren't hitting each other to resolve disputes.

Yet most societies have police and armies who use physical force to enact the will of the government, supposedly in the interests of the people. All coerced behaviour is due to a form of threat.

Jack Donovan has a great piece on this:

Violence Is Golden

Quote:Quote:

More to the point hitting a kid is not self defense, it's assault. The morals don't magically change because you get older.

There's a vast difference between genuine child abuse, where one of my father's punches would throw me halfway across the room into a wall, and what the majority used to experience: bad transgression, light spanking. Lesbians in Education in the 70's put forward the idea that all forms of physical spanking were extremely-abusive, and therefore Evil, (which doesn't explain why Lesbian couples experience such high rates of physical abuse from partners). It simply didn't reflect the reality.

I actually think hitting works really well in controlling behaviour because children are so unresilient to pain. As such, little force is needed: what they're experiencing as Catastrophic Abuse is simply a light smack. I dreaded needles as a kid, now, it's just a needle. Same concept. One of my defining moments in my childhood was taking a hard punch to the jaw that floored me, then realising it's just pain - why had I been so scared of feeling it that I let bullies push me around? Most progressive and rich kids never experience this realisation because they're never hit, and, as such, it all becomes about intellectual evasion of punishment, thus, right or wrong behaviour becomes what you can justify to those around you. Always an excuse.

Quote:Quote:

Oh really, so the black kid in the video was never hit? I wonder where he learned that instead of negotiating like an adult you just lose control and start hitting someone to get them to change their behavior.

Most likely, he realised, like the majority of the human and animal world, you can get compliance through threat of violence. One doesn't have to experience personal violence to know this. One simply has to observe the reality of the world.

Be a Pacifist if you want, but eventually, you will come up against an Irrational Actor who doesn't believe in binary morality. They will use violence to enact their will on you and those around you, and if you're not willing to meet them with the same level of violence, you're the victim.

The simplest way to avoid being a target is to look like you're a threat, simply because their behaviour is motivated by avoiding punishment. It's simple psychology.

^

Yeah, I remember a talk given by Dmitry Orlov about Communities That Abide, namely, outlying small communities that seem to survive societal upheaval. He was getting flack about the patriarchal nature of the groups he had chosen, and a particularly rude feminist was giving him guff for including the Amish, because they beat their kids.

The point he made was that the corporal punishment wasn't about beating kids up. It was about receiving disrespect for having been disrespectful, and guess what, Amish kids are incredibly well behaved.

Also, I was in a relationship with a woman who had kids, and her approach was to explain everything patiently to them, an all they learned from it was that they had all the power in the relationship. The frame was: You can always demand explanations from adults whenever you are unhappy. They were the ones demanding compliance from adults immediately after they had done something wrong.

Doesn't create entitlement at all. Heh. It also taught them to make up bullshit rationalizations for anything, which their mom readily accepted.

Been there. It would be nice if kids came out of the chute knowing right from wrong. It would also be a lot easier. Sorry parents, you actually have to teach kids to know right from wrong. With consequences.

^ The other problem with trying to be rational to control behaviour is that kids can be just as rational back.

My sister, a few weeks back, explaining to my nine-year-old nephew that lying is a bad thing and he shouldn't do it.

His response: "You told [his teacher] that we were late because of Roadworks this morning, and there weren't any. Isn't that lying?"

The back and forth went on for a few minutes until she threw up her hands and said "Yes, ok, you're right. Mummy needs to stop lying."

He just learnt he has authority over his Mother.

Or, him trying to get my attention when I was visiting a while back. My sister lectures him on the fact that he can't monopolise all my time during a visit and he has to learn to share me.

Three weeks later, him trying to tell me about a video game, she says "No. Mummy's talking to Uncle Bosch now." Guess what he tells her?

His Daddy, of course, gets to be the Bad Guy when she needs him to behave.