London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Printable Version

+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+---- Forum: Politics (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-8.html)
+---- Thread: London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) (/thread-63079.html)

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - RIslander - 06-13-2017

Quote: (06-13-2017 03:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (06-13-2017 03:40 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

Quote: (06-13-2017 03:36 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:RIslander Wrote:

So if you take a white baby

Invoking a singular case, when discussing the scientific consensus on IQ, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and the scientific consensus.

It's like saying going to college to become more wealthy is invalid or questionable, because you know "a guy" who went to college and didn't become wealthy.

Or it's like saying that Game is invalid or skeptical, because you know "a guy" who studied Game, but didn't get any extra bangs.

For this reason, your question is being deliberately dismissed as irrelevant.

Fine. 10,000,000 white babies.

Yes, which is why many White slaves of Romans and Muslims became very accomplished despite their captivity.

Jefferson himself said that Blacks had lower intelligence, and it wouldn't make sense to blame slavery for this since Jefferson knew and read many accomplished White Roman slaves. So Jefferson ruled out slavery as a cause of low intelligence.

Many Romans use slaves as schoolteachers or other advanced forms of work.

Many slaves rose to great prominence as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caenis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Callix...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clemen...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd_of_Hermas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onesimus

This does not mean I believe slavery is a good way to increase IQ or improve the population.

While I find your argument reasonable, I disagree. Why is it that Christian Arabs, who migrate to the West, often find themselves in high earning jobs while the Muslim ones do not? Have you ever noticed the interactions between white families and their babies (ie baby talk) versus poor black families who essentially ignore their children? Go to Trailer Town USA and try to convince me that they're just as smart as a suburban white family, on average (inbred children aside). I believe early childhood development, culture and education have a higher effect than the +/- 5 IQ. Furthermore, IQ does not directly mean intelligence. Is the blue collar worker who finds himself the head of a trucking empire more or less intelligent than the computer programmer who spends his life in a cube? Education develops reasoning and problem solving skills, which are important for IQ tests. I personally scored 15 points higher between age 10 and 30. Granted, they were different tests and this isn't scientific evidence. Why else do children in the west study calculus, only to forget it all after they graduate?

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - MMX2010 - 06-13-2017

Quote:RIslander Wrote:

Go to Trailer Town USA and try to convince me that they're just as smart as a suburban white family, on average (inbred children aside). I believe early childhood development, culture and education have a higher effect than the +/- 5 IQ.

Inbred children aside.

Inbred children aside!

The deleterious effects of inbreeding on a culture are have been very reliably scientifically studied. And you don't just get to brush aside inbred children - as if inbred children are the only costs of inbreeding.

Inbreeding lowers the average IQ of the population, period, AND NOT by lowering the IQ of only the inbred children.

Quote:RIslander Wrote:

Furthermore, IQ does not directly mean intelligence.

Literally every scientist who has ever studied IQ has already known, every minute of every day, that IQ does not directly mean intelligence. This fact has never prevented them from concluding that IQ is the most reliable predictor of future success.

Generally, if you're going to challenge a well-established scientific conclusion, you're supposed to point to something that scientists missed, or failed to consider.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - RIslander - 06-13-2017

Quote: (06-13-2017 04:38 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:RIslander Wrote:

Go to Trailer Town USA and try to convince me that they're just as smart as a suburban white family, on average (inbred children aside). I believe early childhood development, culture and education have a higher effect than the +/- 5 IQ.

Inbred children aside.

Inbred children aside!

The deleterious effects of inbreeding on a culture are have been very reliably scientifically studied. And you don't just get to brush aside inbred children - as if inbred children are the only costs of inbreeding.

Inbreeding lowers the average IQ of the population, period, AND NOT by lowering the IQ of only the inbred children.

Quote:RIslander Wrote:

Furthermore, IQ does not directly mean intelligence.

Literally every scientist who has ever studied IQ has already known, every minute of every day, that IQ does not directly mean intelligence. This fact has never prevented them from concluding that IQ is the most reliable predictor of future success.

Generally, if you're going to challenge a well-established scientific conclusion, you're supposed to point to something that scientists missed, or failed to consider.

Then you've contradicted yourself. You just said imbreeding affects non imbred children of the same group. The non-inbred children, with superior genetics, are dragged down by their communities.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - MMX2010 - 06-13-2017

Quote:RIslander Wrote:

Then you've contradicted yourself. You just said imbreeding affects non imbred children of the same group. The non-inbred children, with superior genetics, are dragged down by their communities.

No, I haven't.

From a word-thinking viewpoint, there's a fundamental difference between Inbred and Not Inbred.

From a scientific viewpoint, there are only degrees of inbreeding within a society.

You're using the first viewpoint. I'm using the second.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - nomadbrah - 06-13-2017

Quote: (06-13-2017 04:27 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

While I find your argument reasonable, I disagree. Why is it that Christian Arabs, who migrate to the West, often find themselves in high earning jobs while the Muslim ones do not?

Aha, but here is the crux of it, you call them Christian Arabs, but in reality they are often Christian Levantine and those are in fact not the same as the muslim arabs:

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/ar...en.1003316

Quote:Quote:

In particular, conversion of the region's populations to Islam appears to have introduced major rearrangements in populations' relations through admixture with culturally similar but geographically remote populations, leading to genetic similarities between remarkably distant populations like Jordanians, Moroccans, and Yemenis. Conversely, other populations, like Christians and Druze, became genetically isolated in the new cultural environment. We reconstructed the genetic structure of the Levantines and found that a pre-Islamic expansion Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners.

Get it?

Following Islamic expansion, Christians could not marry with invading Arabs and thus retained their European DNA. This same genetic isolation of Christians hold true everywhere in the region. The arabs emigrated in huge numbers.

Since this difference was discovered in 2008, it was believed it was due to Crusader imprint, but now we have DNA testing of the Phoenicians, the people who inhabited the Levant and they were European:

https://phys.org/news/2016-05-ancient-dn...opean.html

Quote:Quote:

This is the first ancient DNA to be obtained from Phoenician remains and the team's analysis shows that the man belonged to a rare European haplogroup—a genetic group with a common ancestor—that likely links his maternal ancestry to locations somewhere on the North Mediterranean coast, most probably on the Iberian Peninsula.

"U5b2cl is considered to be one of the most ancient haplogroups in Europe and is associated with hunter-gatherer populations there. It is remarkably rare in modern populations today, found in Europe at levels of less than one per cent. Interestingly, our analysis showed that Ariche's mitochondrial genetic make-up most closely matches that of the sequence of a particular modern day individual from Portugal," Professor Matisoo-Smith says.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - nomadbrah - 06-13-2017

IQ besides obviously is not the reason some groups behave less exemplary than others. Lots of Buddhists are from countries claimed to be low IQ and they are far less violent.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - WalterBlack - 06-13-2017



My brother works in central London not too far from the terrorist attack. A few days ago an armed policeman walked into the place he works at and he cop pointed a gun at my brother and his employees, then instantly lowered the gun.

My brother asked him what was going on, the cop said he's just "being careful and scouting the area". My brother said, "I'm Indian, you've got nothing to worry about with me." The cop said "I know" and walked out. My brother's female subordinate was so stressed about by the cop she cried for half an hour.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - LEMONed IScream - 06-13-2017

Moreover, those Phoenicians that came to Portugal far predate the Muslim invasions. They are the oldest representation of African mtDNA in the region. Also on the issue:

"[...] In the case of Portugal, previous population genetics studies have already revealed the general portrait of HVS-I and HVS-II mitochondrial diversity, becoming now important to update and expand the mitochondrial region analysed. Accordingly, a total of 292 complete control region sequences from continental Portugal were obtained, under a stringent experimental design to ensure the quality of data through double sequencing of each target region.* Furthermore, H-specific coding region SNPs were examined to detail haplogroup classification and complete mitogenomes were obtained for all sequences belonging to haplogroups U4 and U5. In general, a typical Western European haplogroup composition was found in mainland Portugal, associated to high level of mitochondrial genetic diversity. Within the country, no signs of substructure were detected. The typing of extra coding region SNPs has provided the refinement or confirmation of the previous classification obtained with EMMA tool in 96% of the cases. Finally, it was also possible to enlarge haplogroup U phylogeny with 28 new U4 and U5 mitogenomes."

They carry "all the most important European haplogroups, including those that expanded through Europe in the Palaeolithic, and those whose expansion has occurred during the Neolithic." They also carry the mtDNA haplogroups U6 and L, both of African origin. U6 is "restricted to North Portugal whereas L was widespread all over the country."


"HLA-A, -B, -DRB1, -DQA1, and DQB1 alleles were studied in Iberian and Algerian populations by serology and DNA sequence methodologies. The genetic and cultural relatedness among Basques, Spaniards, and paleo-North Africans (Berbers or Tamazights) was established. Portuguese people have also maintained a certain degree of cultural and ethnic-specific characteristics since ancient times. The results of the present HLA study in Portuguese populations show that they have features in common with Basques and Spaniards from Madrid: a high frequency of the HLA-haplotypes A29-B44-DR7 (ancient western Europeans), A2-B7-DR15 (ancient Europeans and paleo-North Africans), and A1-B8-DR3 (Europeans) are found as common characteristics. Portuguese and Basques do not show the Mediterranean A33-B14-DR1 haplotype, suggesting a lower admixture with Mediterraneans; Spaniards and Algerians do have this haplotype in a relatively high frequency, indicating a more extensive Mediterranean genetic influence. The paleo-North African haplotype A30-B18-DR3 present in Basques, Algerians, and Spaniards is not found in Portuguese either. The Portuguese have a characteristic unique among world populations: a high frequency of HLA-A25-B18-DR15 and A26-B38-DR13, which may reflect a still detectable founder effect coming from ancient Portuguese, i.e., oestrimnios and conios; [...]

So yeah. Admixture is much less than people thought.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Leonard D Neubache - 06-13-2017

Quote: (06-13-2017 09:26 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Amnesty International decides to get in on the cognitive dissonance action by saying that hardline immigration policies will generate more terrorism.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national...bf1ce40488

Quote:Quote:

AUSTRALIA and other Western nations risk fuelling global radicalisation by turning their backs on desperate refugees, Amnesty International’s global chief has warned.

This needs to be relentlessly reframed as them saying "let us into your country or we're going to kill you".

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Leonard D Neubache - 06-13-2017

http://www.newsweek.com/100-men-trial-so...nea-575064

Quote:Quote:

Over 100 men are set to face trial in Papua New Guinea this month for killing seven people in a hunt for sorcerers.

A vigilante group of residents from several villages allegedly took over a neighboring village in 2014, burning down houses and searching for people they accused of practicing sorcery. Two young children were reportedly snatched from their mothers’ arms and hacked to death.

The attackers included 69 juveniles, the youngest a 10-year-old boy, Chief Inspector Sylvester Kalaut told the National. The killings were like certain cult practices, he said, as the victims were slashed from their legs up and their heads were cut off and removed.

In total, 122 men have been charged with the deaths, and last week, 99 appeared in Mandang national court.

Beliefs in sorcery and witchcraft are widespread in some regions of Papua New Guinea, and many do not accept natural causes as an explanation for accidents or illness. The practice of witchcraft is known as sanguma, with those in Mandang, on the northern coast of the island, believing sorcery—the practice of magic—is more of a problem.

The United Nations warned of a "growing pattern" in sorcery killings in 2013 following reports that 20 year-old Kepari Leniata was burnt alive in front of a crowd in February that year after being accused of sorcery.

Two months later, women's rights advocate and former schoolteacher Helen Rumbali was accused of witchcraft, tortured and killed after a swarm of flies led attackers to her home.

The high-profile cases prompted Papua New Guinea’s PNG government to repeal the 1971 Sorcery Act, which allowed for reduced sentences for those who claimed their victims were committing acts of sorcery.

I just think that dumping a million such people in any of our nations would be so dramatically enriching. We have to understand that the ones going around killing alleged sorcerors including young children (both being killed and doing the killing) are only a small minority of the population. The rest would undoubtedly be highly productive members of the community.

I'm certain that we can tread a respectful path between preserving their cultural traditions while upholding the values of law and order we hold dear.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Simeon_Strangelight - 06-13-2017

Quote: (06-13-2017 05:51 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

My brother works in central London not too far from the terrorist attack. A few days ago an armed policeman walked into the place he works at and he cop pointed a gun at my brother and his employees, then instantly lowered the gun.

My brother asked him what was going on, the cop said he's just "being careful and scouting the area". My brother said, "I'm Indian, you've got nothing to worry about with me." The cop said "I know" and walked out. My brother's female subordinate was so stressed about by the cop she cried for half an hour.

Did he first assume they were Muslims? British cops are currently not trigger-happy. During the recent attack some cops were fleeing from the attackers, because their batons were not sufficient weaponry. Also the units arrived 8 minutes after the first call. This happened 10 minutes after the begin of the terrorist act. So it took 18 minutes in the very center of London. If the Islamic shitheads had been armed better, then they might have managed to kill dozens or hundreds even. We are already long since in a war with Islam. This will only become clearer in the future.

This one Polish woman who is a public critic of Islam and human rights activist came to the same conclusions as me:

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/V_of_Europe/status/873993094789603328][/url]

Just found out that she also advocated already for the ban of Islam in Western countries due to the fact that it is a purely hostile ideology.

She also expects a war coming with Islam sooner or later.



She is 30 now or 31, highly bangable, but also quite intelligent.

When the war will be waged in 2-4 decades with Islam you will remember the words of the likes of me and plenty of others who have taken a very hard look at this war ideology of Islam.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Paracelsus - 06-13-2017

Quote: (06-13-2017 07:48 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  



She is 30 now or 31, highly bangable, but also quite intelligent.

Polish/Syrian, and Presbyterian. WBAIICCBMAWN (Would Baptise And Induct Into Catholic Church Before Marrying And Wrecking Nightly)

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Paracelsus - 06-13-2017

One for the Star Wars fans out there...

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - infowarrior1 - 06-13-2017

Quote: (06-13-2017 08:08 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (06-13-2017 07:48 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  



She is 30 now or 31, highly bangable, but also quite intelligent.

Polish/Syrian, and Presbyterian. WBAIICCBMAWN (Would Baptise And Induct Into Catholic Church Before Marrying And Wrecking Nightly)

I am surprised that she is not wived up already. Wonder why no man is willing to do that so far.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Leonard D Neubache - 06-13-2017

Quote: (06-13-2017 09:17 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

...

I am surprised that she is not wived up already. Wonder why no man is willing to do that so far.

You will notice that all of those shots conceal her elbows.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Handsome Creepy Eel - 06-14-2017

I still maintain that a total ban on Islam isn't necessary and might even be counterproductive at this point because of "signalling the enemy".

Use my public policy measures listed at the start of page 18, reap yuge immediate results and let the slower ones do their magic over a decade or two; then if things are not getting any better go ahead and ban it.
thread-63079-page-18.html

No disrespect to Zelcorpion, Leonard and others, but I feel that if we ever get to the point where a straightforward ban on Islam is the only option remaining, then we're fucked anyway. Let's focus on the small and more easily achievable steps first.

p.s. one thing that needs to be taken into account is the fact that outright banning a major religion can and will be used to justify banning Christianity as well.

I wouldn't want to give future populations, cuck governments or dictators any ideas because I know they'll come back to haunt me.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Leonard D Neubache - 06-14-2017

The reality is that none of these steps will happen until things get so bad that the victimised demographics begin to take an exclusionary stance out of sheer survival instinct. We're seeing the beginning of this in France where feminists are starting to speak out about how it's becoming dangerous to show an inch of skin around the local layabout muslims littering the streets.

A few thousand more rapes. A few hundred more dead.

When the women start getting the shivers and white knighting shifts from protecting the wimmenz feels to literally having to protect women physically then shit is going to get real fast.

In that circumstance I don't see a ban on Christianity being either palatable or feasible, regardless of whether the elites wish it to be so. Even if they ban Islam they will utterly be relying on the vestiges of Christianity to kick off a second reconquista and people will find their way to the history of the Crusaders regardless of whether the elite try and hit the big reset button on all religion.

No crystal ball here. There are a lot of variables. But banning Christianity would be a lot harder than banning islam. Islam is a way of life and if you're not practising it it becomes meaningless, while Christianity is something you can practice on the sly as people have occasionally had to do from the time it existed.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Simeon_Strangelight - 06-14-2017

< I wrote about it already - even as world emperor I would not outright ban Islam, but I would do the following:

Essentially we would have first to defeat the globalists, then tackle the problem of Islam. This would be done by supporting the secularists and Islamic reformers. Yes - I would prefer a total disappearance of Islam, but that might happen anyway over time.

+ As a measure we start treating Islam like they treat Christianity - no new mosques, no missionary movements, no public prayers - almost all Muslim countries have those rules in place and we do the same.
+ of course stop all aggressive wars against Muslim states
+ stop Muslim immigration to West full stop - Ex-Muslims and non-Muslim Middle Easterners can come. We will test their faith with an extended Roosh's airport test that he proposed in one article.
+ start teaching about Islam in detail in school, universities, TV programs - done by scholars, Ex-Muslims Ex-Salafis, dissecting the entire religion word for word, true brutal history, Quran told up and down from early peaceful verses to violent last 13 years and abrogation taugh, Hadiths told - all the gore and blood and guts
+ crack down super-hard on all Islamists - all the ones on the watchlist - I would have a special solution for them. Those that cannot be deported would be in a relatively luxurious detainment center with lots of green spaces, books, TV and internet. They get social security anyway - not having to spy on them and paying for their brats is good enough for me.
+ Deport everyone possible
+ Offer all known more devout Muslims the option of receiving 20.000$/50.000$/100.000$ in a lump sum for the giving up of citizenship and going back the ancestral homeland. Help them get citizenship back.
+ support secular Islamic leaders like Assad full throttle - he would be given 200.000 troops on the ground if necessary
+ of course defeat radical groups like ISIS instantly - move in 500.000 soldiers with tanks, artillery, airforce if necessary - crush them with overwhelming firepower, be ruthless against all terrorists - death by boiling in pig fat
+ support secular leaders and Islamic reformers with hundreds of billions of dollars, even military aid
+ over time topple all Islamic republics and help hoist ethical strongmen onto power (finding ethical ones is not that difficult, but the globalists don't test for ethics - I would and trust me, it is not that difficult - the globalists don't test for it, because most of them are psychopaths anyway and dealing with other psychos serves them better)

This would likely result in:
+ slight increase of terror in short-term, but tremendous decrease of terror in the long-term, also those that would stay in the West would behave
+ massive secularization of Muslims in West and in home countries
+ huge increase of Ex-Muslims - people leaving that shitty cult like no tomorrow (you would also have full teaching of Islam also on all Muslim channels - that is super-easy to control - many Muslims would find out how wonderful Mohammed truly was)
+ rise in IQs due to decrease of inbreeding in Muslim countries
+ rise in IQs due to pregnant women not fasting during Ramadan and getting high-quality prenatal care and supplements
+ rising prosperity all around since as world-emperor I would issue interest-free money with demurrage so most people would have way more cash and work opportunity
+ release all the suppressed technologies which would also improve life quality everywhere
+ work on improving living standards everywhere in nation states that are more similar in terms of language, ethnicity, culture - not try to fucking mix people when they are too different or pump millions into countries in order to wipe out cultures and tribes - before I accept one refugee I would give 10 poor people in the host country debit cards and cash in their own places - it is still cheaper than pulling them over to West

But this will never come about.

The globalists want war with Islam and have been running a strategy of supporting radicals while at the same time claiming that Islam will coexist in the West. It won't - their plans only make sense for one of 2 goals:

1) World War III with Islam and then One World Government
2) Orwellian super-surveillance state with everyone on Earth getting chipped and thus One World Government

I see no other reason why this strategy makes any sense. The Muslim apologists and propagandists also work for the Globalists (those that are aware of the plans and not the ones like Sherman). The secular Muslim reformers are on our side, but they will not succeed. If the globalists wanted that to succeed, then they would have helped the Persian Shah, left Saddam in place, hoisted one of Gaddafi's highly secular sons into power, left Assad in peace, essentially had done the opposite of what they did. Instead they help ISIS, but the ideology of ISIS is pure Islam, the converts there are not all CIA agents, most of them are true believers and ISIS is Islam = 100% sharia.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Leonard D Neubache - 06-14-2017

One of the problems is that too few of the people in the west even understand the concepts of an elite oligarchy ruling us from the shadows. This is why I was thoroughly disappointed that the existence of this cabal of conspirators wasn't what Trump led with in the public sphere from day one of his presidency.

It would have been ugly but utterly necessary.

To my mind the hardest way to hit the elites will be to wage a shadow war against them under the fog of the islamic war. Try to drag both beasts down in one hit while violence is the order of the day, and if the elites are only weakened then finish them off with a popular revolt on the eve of vanquishing islam.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Excelsior - 06-14-2017

Quote: (06-12-2017 12:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Calling someone lesser isn't racist. It's only racist if you believe, like the Southern Slave owners did, that Blacks would always be lesser.

That is the belief of many of your peers here, who you have yet to call out.

After all, they have made it very clear that IQ is (mostly or entirely) a heritable trait, and that changes in environment do not bring about the substantial increases in IQ that RIslander dared to suggest may be possible.

Quote: (06-13-2017 12:21 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Quote: (06-13-2017 05:38 AM)redpillage Wrote:  

Quote: (06-12-2017 10:27 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

Studies have shown IQ is directly proportional to words per minute, and the diversity of the words, heard during early childhood. Rich and educated people talk to their children more. Take a poor Pakistani baby and have a wealthy family adopt him and his IQ will be much higher. Race is mostly irrelevant.

Typical b.s. spouted by low IQ SJWs obsessed with ignoring any genetic predispositions. I haven't seen those studies but let's assume for a minute that they are true - I for one wouldn't rule it out as it sounds plausible. What you are talking about is nothing but standard deviation within a particular sample size. The very same white or Asian kid may be able to benefit by 5 to 10 IQ points courtesy of a positive and vocabulary rich childhood. Take 1000 Sub Saharan orphans and let them all be raised by couples with respective IQs over 120 and odds are that on average you get an increase from 75 to 80 plus minus.

To dumb it down for everyone: It's like claiming that you could bring a bunch of infant pygmies to Holland and they would somehow grow up to be 6'3 with an IQ of 120.

It's important to know facts.

Facts are that IQ among adopted children by educated parents is indeed higher than normal, but at age 18, that IQ gap is gone and the children score like their racial average +5 or so.

IQ is genetic, end off.

Quote: (06-13-2017 03:16 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:RIslander Wrote:

I really can't see any viable argument that doesn't include both genetics and childhood development into producing an IQ value.

The scientific consensus on success is that IQ (a highly heritable trait) is by far the number one predictor of success, followed by Conscientiousness (a highly heritable trait, which is only half as predictable as IQ), followed by everything else - including "Other Factors".

They insist that those environmental factors simply aren't a big contributor (if they contribute at all) to the differences we see.

So, follow the path:
-Different races have significant differences in IQ
-IQ is the primary and most useful determinant of capability with regard to anything that matters in society (ex: building and maintaining complex civilization). IQ is the most important reason why some do better than others.
-Differences in IQ are mostly or entirely genetic; environmental factors can make, at best, a very small impact on those differences.

You've followed the path, so where are you now? There's only one destination: some groups are inferior by nature and are always going to be.

There's nowhere else for that logic to go. And once you've gotten there, there's really no room for any other conclusion other than "this is supremacy". You're smart enough to see that too, but you're ignoring it. I'm not going to keep speculating as to why you choose to do that.

Quote:Quote:

That's not my argument, and never has been. And no matter how many times I've explained my position you are unable to grasp the nuances of my arguments. It's kinda sad, but it's obvious your indoctrination was thicker than most because of going to the Ivy League.

My classmates think I'm too conservative. You think I've been indoctrinated by SJWs.

Like I said, there is no more middle ground.

Quote:Quote:

The facts of the matter is that the world's lesser peoples are dependent upon the developed ones, and the higher peoples aren't reproducing. This has happened before and it didn't even involve Blacks and Whites, it was just Roman Whites vs. Germanic Whites with the Romans being the higher and Germans being lesser. And when the Romans were gone, there was literally a 500+ year regression in technology.

Not in the East.

Quote:Quote:

When you see it first hand during your lifetime, and you will, you will realize the truth of my position.

I don't make such firm declarations based on a future I can only speculate on.

Quote:Quote:

"Racists" of course, will disagree and state that no such improvement will ever come and when the Whites decline there is no coming back for a long ass time (until Whites get their shit back together). And to be totally fair this position could be true, which means it's not racist at all. If something is true then it is not racist.

"Only whites can maintain civilization. Non-whites are inferior and always will be. Civilization will die indefinitely until whites can rise again to their natural position"

Samseau: "Well, I think there's at least a chance you are right so what you're saying isn't racist".

Amazing. You refuse to outright condemn even the most blatant supremacy. After all, you think it might be true, so it can't be racist.

You say things like this and when I call you and others out on it?
"Stop seeing the perceived slights"
"Racism is in your head"
"I'm not a white supremacist"

Can't just say "nah, that's off, fuck that shit, it's wrong.". Gotta find a way to excuse it instead, and attack those who refuse to do so.

Quote:Quote:

Regardless, there is nothing racist about talking about those who are lesser or greater. In fact you do it all the time when discuss alpha males and beta males, you even describe marriage as a form of betaffirmative action. Is this "racist" against betas? So ridiculous.

How could that be racist when the categories are race-neutral (read: anyone of any race can be either alpha or beta and there's no great correlation between one's race and one's existence in either category)?
You ask me a question like that, and call me ridiculous?

Quote:Quote:

According to you, if calling someone lesser is racist, that means Jesus was a racist.

Matthew 25:37:

Quote:Quote:

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Quick, tell us why the Bible is racist Athlone because they used the word lesser.

Where was race even mentioned in that verse? You say this is racist by "my logic", but my logic very clearly required a suggested correlation between lesser/greater and race (read: the implication that being of a certain race was correlated directly with being in one or other category). This passage doesn't do that, so why are you quoting it?

Quote:Quote:

Your arguments suffer from extreme dogmas and intellectual bankruptcy. You refuse to be skeptical of your own positions and you spout falsehoods left and right.

I say the same of you.

Quote:Quote:

Look at this beauty:

Quote:Quote:

Its main failure is its attempt to correlate one's place of residence with their ideology. Residence in one place doesn't prohibit any view. You may reside in a place where you feel there is an issue with supremacists. You may have chosen to reside in this place for any number of reasons independent of said supremacists' presence. Your choice of residence does nothing to preclude you from attacking said supremacists when you find them. Your residence is not an endorsement of supremacy or anything else related to their ideology. If anything, it's an opportunity to directly attack it.

The point isn't what you are allowed to criticize or not, the point is that if this place is so bad you wouldn't be here. You're lying and a hypocrite.

No, that is the point. You're saying that because I live here, I can't possibly note or complain about anything related to supremacy because, by virtue of the fact that I live here, I forfeit the right to claim that said supremacy is anything worth complaining about. That is your argument.

I said supremacists exist. I didn't say they made the place inhospitable. I very clearly said they are not the only people here and they can be beaten.
How is it hypocritical to point out the existence of people who feel they are superior to certain other groups on the basis of race and maintain that you can still reside in that place?

You're drawing a false dichotomy. Your entire argument essentially boils down to this: "If you imply there's any supremacy here, it must be inhospitable. if you live here, there is no supremacy at all for you to bother talking about."

That's nonsense, and you know it is.

Quote:Quote:

Yes, you live with White supremacy, after it gave you an Ivy League education mostly on (White) taxpayer's dime.

W.E.B DuBois received an Ivy League education. Clearly, he did not live with white supremacy in the late 1880's - it must have been a figment of his imagination.

See what I did there? You presented a false dichotomy: having a good education means there is no such thing as white supremacy. If you are a non-white person and you excel, it is proof positive that there is not really any white supremacy in your society. All I needed to do was take an easily visible example from history to show how wrong that is. It is not right to claim, as you do, that white supremacy and successful minorities cannot coexist in the same place.

Granted, modern America is not in the 1880s. There have been massive improvements since then. That doesn't mean, however, that supremacy and those who believe in it (and act on it) do not exist.
What this means for you is simple: if you want to keep trying to paint me as a delusional fool with a victim complex who is seeing things that do not exist, you need to do much more than say "Oh but you went to a nice school". That's not enough. Even in societies with levels of white supremacy VASTLY greater than they are now, black people went to nice schools.

All I said was that there are millions of white supremacists in the United States. That's not a controversial statement in a place with over 300 million people, but you're so offended by it that you are inventing a false dichotomy manufactured entirely by your commitment to paint me as a delusional fool with a victim complex.

Yes, I do live with people who believe that white people are superior to black people. Yes, I can make money and do well in the same country that those people exist in.
These are not mutually exclusive things.

You know this. You are not dumb enough to be oblivious to this. You are intentionally ignoring it because you're too disingenuous to take a critical look at your own point of view, which seems to be that there is no such thing as a white supremacist in the United States of America.

Quote:Quote:

I mean how can you be so delusional? Your education was just indoctrination, it's obvious it was a complete failure if you cannot even apply basic skepticism to your own views.

I can, I just don't agree with your conclusions. They're false and built on logical fallacies.

Quote:Quote:

You see non-Whites attending institutions and countries built by Whites, but do you ever see it in reverse?

Do you see Chinese attending top African schools? Whites attending top Asian schools?

Christians becoming mayors of Muslim countries?

On and on and on, if the Whites are the racists how come they are the only ones who tolerate foreigners leading and participating in their civic and national life?

I see whites heading to African, Latin American, and Asian nations and being given top positions with lucrative salaries, excellent standards of living, and a host of other benefits (ex: access to some of the most attractive local women and entry into the local social elite). In many of these places, said white expatriates wield a disproportionate amount of the economic and political control because of the fact that they are so high up in the nation's corporate world.

Whites are also commonly given the power to influence children across asia as teachers. White professors find plenty of work at national universities in non-white nations, and with government or advisory organizations seeking their expertise (and influencing policy with it). This is to say nothing of investors, who are often welcome in these nations and whose power (by virtue of the size of the investments they are making, which can be vital to some of the economies they are in) is most certainly substantial. White owned and controlled multi-nationals wield enough power to effectively own several developing nations filled with non-white people who allowed them to set up shop.

I don't know how you can say that whites are the only ones who tolerate foreigners leading and participating in their civic and national life. That's just stunningly ignorant. There are very few developing nations on Earth that don't allow white individuals or white-owned/run organizations to come in and wield substantial influence over their economies and, by extension, their national life. As noted, in some places that influence is great enough to warrant the claim that said whites individuals/organizations are the main determinants of that national life.

Quote: (06-13-2017 02:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This is another problem when discussing averages - people take them way too personally. When talking about averages, we are not talking about individuals. This is a logical fallacy of assuming the parts are the same as the whole. But it's not true.

It's quite true, for one simple reason: you cannot separate the individual from the whole of their history, culture, and blood, especially if that individual takes any pride at all in that history, culture, or blood.

What the logic promoted here by several members amounts to is this:

"Your people are inferior. Your culture and history are inferior, as are the societies produced by them. Your blood tends to produce inferior people who generate inferior outcomes and that can't be helped (since IQ is genetic).
But your IQ is a little higher than their average and you're not exactly like all those people. So yeah, we do insist that everything you come from is shit, but you're tolerable so don't take it personally".

Now, if I'm a person who doesn't take much pride in where I come from (my people, their history, their culture, etc), I might be inclined to agree with you. I might say "Yeah, you're right, it is a pretty shit culture and population I come from, I wish it was better. But I am different, I promise I'm not like all the shitty people that look like me and come from my roots, and I'll do whatever I can to distance myself from those people and from said roots. Thanks for the kind words, I don't take them personally!"

I take pride in where and what I come from. I take it personally.

If you are going to take the opportunity to shit on everything that defines my identity (my people, culture, nation, etc) that I take immense pride in, I'll take it personally.
You have to be delusional to expect another outcome.

Furthermore, think carefully about what you're really suggesting with this line of reasoning.

"Hey, by rule, people who look like you and come from your heritage/culture/race/nation are pretty shit, as is everything around them, and this is immutable because of their inferior genes. But you are an exception."

Where does that leave us?
I'm the exception that proves the rule. You, on the other hand, are the rule.

I exist as a living representation of an exception to shit, someone who by blood and history will always be tied to what you have deemed "shit". You exist as a living representation of standard excellence ("the rule"), and it is only through your benevolence that I get the chance to join you in disabusing and washing away the "shit" from which I have been excepted.

You think you're being egalitarian and benevolent with these lines of reasoning, but that's not the case at all. It's thinly veiled supremacism for those who want to seem more benevolent than they are.

In any case, this line of reasoning is moot because of how rare it actually is in HBD/racist/nationalist spheres:

Quote:Quote:

Just because dogs bark, does not mean all dogs bark. Just because a car is fast, does not mean a wheel is fast. The parts are NOTHING like the whole, the sum is always greater than its parts.

Therefore, for an outspoken critic of Blacks, like Roissy, does not mean he would find you Excelsior, or most of the Black men of the manosphere to be problem people. Only total morons, or people with intense hatred, can apply criticism of the whole to the parts.

This is another myth: the notion of the "exceptional card".

There is no exception among most supremacists. When they throw out examples of their hate, they do not take the time to suggest that there be discrimination in the application of that hate on the basis of the quality of the individual toward which the hate is being directed toward.

Take, for example, this post:

Quote: (06-10-2017 06:01 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

Similar to Obama's white mother. She'll be forgotten & cast aside.

Quote:[/url]

This is an attack on interracial dating. She is implied to have wasted her genes and otherwise made a misjudgment by choosing to procreate with a black guy.
Now, before this attack is laid out, did you see any attempt to perhaps tone it down on the basis of the character of the black man in question?
No. There is no mention of his views, character, or other traits beyond his race. The fact that he is black is all that matters.
He could be an excellent guy with excellent genes, reasonable points of view, and generally high intellect (I don't know Seal all that well, but there's little to indicate that he's a dumb degenerate or otherwise low-character guy). She could have made an excellent choice in him relative to other men around her, who may have been inferior in character, intellect, or any othr number of factors.

But none of that would matter because, even if it was all true and Seal were the most saintly negro to have ever graced Gods green earth, the analysis being used to attack him, her, and his children has nothing at all to do with that. It's about his race, and what his children look like. That is all that matters.

This is applicable to the alt-right/nationalist spheres generally. I've already detailed how the "exception to the rule" treatment is problematic above, but part of the reason I dismiss is also because it just isn't commonly applied by those with these ideologies. Most simply do not take the time to analyze individual character or traits before passing judgments. Thousands upon thousands of examples of this fact can be seen in articles and comments at Amren, VDare, breitbart, ROK, Vox Day, Reality Talks, Red Ice, or any other place in the universe of these ideologies.

This is not about individuals, it is about race. That is a lesson I learned not only on line through the years spent trying to grasp these individuals and their ideology, but also in real life where I learned the hard way that my degrees, views, and other traits don't impact the way I am viewed by people on a daily basis. To the average person I meet or pass, I'm not different from Daquan the dropout on the block. A negro is a negro is a negro.

You'll deny that experience, and that's fine, but know this when you do: I've lived it. You have not.

Quote:Quote:

But for day to day life, applying averages to random people is almost always going to be false. Therefore a lot of offense you feel, or other non-Whites feel is totally unjustified. Anyone who can read and keep up with this forum isn't part of the crowd of people we're talking about when we speak of the hordes of low IQ hordes who simply will never fit in Western society.

It is quite justified, for reasons I mentioned above. There's also a third reason, and it has to do with a theory very commonly held by those who subscribe to the notion of racial hierarchies separated by IQ measurements. This theory is called "regression to the mean", and it's natural conclusion is that intelligent members of inferior races are just freakish flukes of nature whose prodigy will naturally return to whatever very low level of intellect is deemed worthy of their race because "genetics". They support these claims even though they insist that IQ is a highly heritable trait (which would mean it could be controlled/bred for).

I cannot count the number of times I have heard this topic discussed on any number of online venues in which these ideologies hold. It's a staple.
And even for those like John Derbyshire who do not buy the notion of regression to the mean (instead positing that there is only regression toward the mean - a very different concept that effectively acknowledges the heritability aspect I mentioned just now), there is no love for the so called "[url=http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#axzz4jxX0dq65]Intelligent, Well Socialized Blacks", who are viewed at best as tools for social shielding unworthy of assistance in a Good Samaratian manner who must be more carefully scrutinized than any similarly capable white person. He clearly resents them, as do most nationalists.

There is no exception. Highly educated, capable blacks are no more welcome or liked among ethno-nationalists/racists and their ilk than others. They may be tolerated slightly more out of necessity, but they are hated just the same. That's another lesson learned the hard way, for the record (believe me or don't - I lived it, you didn't).

Quote:Quote:

They always hit back with, "BUT I'm not like that!!" even though we aren't speaking of them in particular. I see a lot of non-Whites fail victim to the same errors of logic.

Therefore there is no need to believe that most Nationalists resent anyone in particular even if they are critical of populations as whole. When you understand that Excelsior then you will find these discussions less triggering.

There is reason to believe that, for reasons outlined above. Also, as I said earlier: you can't completely shit on a culture/history/heritage/blood that people hold dear and expect them not to take it personally.

It is odd that I have to explain that on a forum filled with folks who seem so dedicated to bigging up their cultural/ethnic/historical pride.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Excelsior - 06-14-2017

Quote: (06-13-2017 05:34 AM)Arado Wrote:  

There are a few people on this thread - respected members - that are decrying the turn that RVF has taken.

Don't they realize that once the veil of PC has been lifted from male-female gender dynamics that the "red pill" community would move on to look at other ways that PC has distorted modern thinking? Especially now that Europe is going to shit.

Obviously I can understand if some posters feel uncomfortable but I think this turn was inevitable. The post-WW2 liberal consensus is just a footnote in comparison with the long history of people hating those that are different from them.

You're not wrong.

Quote: (06-12-2017 06:36 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I am afraid that a happy safe quasi-PC Red Pill space was in a way never real.

You are right.

Quote: (06-12-2017 10:41 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

All this back and forth between us is all fine and well. But we should not forget that we are actually more united than divided on the precepts of Red Pill, Game & self-improvement. In the future this cooperation may even be expanded and we can begin to profit financially or otherwise even more.

You can't unite with people who believe in the genetic inferiority of you and your people.

Quote: (06-12-2017 07:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Excelsior, I'm sorry to say that, but if you're currently experiencing similar clashes at all those other places you visit, whether online or offline, you should ask yourself if the harsh rhetoric directed at you might have anything to do with your holier-than-thou attitude and a crusade to enlighten the unwashed masses about white supremacy, terrorism and open borders.

It's not them, it's you.

This is the only place in that sphere in which I have voiced any opinion on the matter. I don't comment at ROK, Amren, breitbart, etc, etc.
Those "clashes" have nothing to do with me. The rhetoric flowing in these fears with regard to non-whites is generated within those spheres by those people. Said rhetoric applies and is directed at all of the non-white members of the groups they target (ex: all the Africans, west asians, etc), not just me.

So no, it's not an "its not them, it's you" situation. That's a delusion you invented just now to avoid the reality of the fact that these spaces have become hostile to everyone who looks like me of their own accord as part of a much larger ideological shift (your friend Leonard calls it "whites waking up").

Quote: (06-12-2017 06:19 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Excelsior, there's a big difference between being well-versed in a topic and viewing yourself as the ultimate authority in the world on a topic.

I did not claim to be an ultimate authority. I was attempting to show that I was well versed on the subject in a response to someone who I perceived to have assumed that I was not well versed.

The fact that a mere attempt to communicate competency in a subject lands me in the "you must think you know it all camp" says all I need to know about the worth of continued conversation between us. We can't communicate effectively, and we're never going to.

Quote: (06-12-2017 10:30 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Also, it's interesting how Vox Day is continually held up as some kind of white supremacist despite the fact that he has coined the terms "Alt-White" and "Alt-Retard" to distinguish the White nationalists with whom he does not share views.

As far as I can determine, his theory of the relationship between genetics and civilization is almost the same as Excelsior's. As far as I can tell, Vox's most infamous essay is this one, which is specifically a retaliation against NK Jemisin who had lied about him.

Quote:Quote:

Unlike the white males she excoriates, there is no evidence to be found anywhere on the planet that a society of NK Jemisins is capable of building an advanced civilization, or even successfully maintaining one without significant external support from those white males. If one considers that it took my English and German ancestors more than one thousand years to become fully civilized after their first contact with advanced Greco-Roman civilization, it should be patently obvious that it is illogical to imagine, let alone insist, that Africans have somehow managed to do the same in less than half the time at a greater geographic distance. These things take time.

He also expresses extreme pessimism about identity politics. His position appears to be that so long as one team is playing identity politics, identity politics is the only viable game to play, and racial diversity always breeds identity politics. His philosophy seems to be "it is better win than be a noble loser." Before the rise of identity politics ant the alt right he was a libertarian nationalist.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2016/0...aking.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/mailv...black.html


Read the blog and read the comments. His position on where blacks stand relative to whites on the ladder of worthwhile humanity is very clear.

Vox Day is what he is. There's no point in pretending otherwise.

Quote: (06-12-2017 12:25 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Edit: Also, I still believe that Excelsior is a pillar of this community and has brought a lot of value here. It is just frustrating how he is zeroing in on all of these perceived slights and letting it consume him. Sometimes you just have to let things go. Also, I still believe that if Excelsior wants to persuade people politically, he should talk to Atlanta Man or Fortis. I have a high level of respect for both of them and I think both have been pretty good at selling their point of view to members on this forum. They have very strong persuasive powers.

The truth is that I have no long-term future in this community and am no longer a pillar in it. That was inevitable.
Also true is the fact that said "slights" are not perceived.

Quote: (06-12-2017 12:25 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

This is the lesson Excelsior, you need to realize that we are just people. We are afraid, anxious, selfish, and all the other things that make up people. All of those anxieties come out in different forms, and as long as there aren't people here advocating for things that lead to the direct oppression or hurt of someone because of what they look like, maybe it is in your best self interest to just let it go. Just let it go man.

I think I will let this go. My time here is just about up anyway.

That doesn't mean I wasn't going to speak up first.

Quote: (06-12-2017 12:50 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:Excelsior Wrote:

I didn't say any of that, but this isn't surprising. I oppose white supremacy and I must clearly be anti-white.

You also didn't say, "It's really sad whenever a Muslim terrorist blows apart an eight year old British girl with a nail bomb."

No, I did say that. This is why I suggested earlier in the thread that one of the key solutions to the problems at hand was to devote greater resources and effort to hunting down known active extremists (who, as I noted in that post, are known to authorities but often willfully ignored, as the perpetrator of this london bridge attack was). I wouldn't have suggested such an idea if I thought the acts that those people engage in were in fact OK.

But the forum has different opinions. They believe my solution to be unrealistic and nonsensical. It doesn't go far enough for them. That's OK. But don't try to claim that I've endorsed terrorism simply because you don't co-sign my proposed solutions to it. There's a big gap between supporting something and having a difference of opinion as to the solution to that something.

Quote:Quote:

You also didn't say, "I'm opposed to black immigrants coming into America to rape, rob, murder, or assault American citizens."

I'm opposed to any immigrants coming into any nations to commit such crimes. I've made that very clear - the proposal described above is part and parcel of that.

What I'm not opposed to is the immigration of black immigrants generally absent any sort of strict cap or numerical restriction. This is where you and I differ.

Quote: (06-13-2017 12:59 AM)atlant Wrote:  

It's like Leonard so eloquently put on the last page: The minority coddling gravy train is coming to an end and you can feel the panic in the words of these posters. A world in which they have to argue their merits and ideas on equal footing with the rest of us is obviously not one they want to live in, and that's understandable - it's not the one they grew up in after all. It would serve these posters well though to realize that literally nobody here gives a shit about the color of their skin.

What we care about are ideas for bettering society, and if yours consist of making excuses for the world's most regressive and violent ideology without even offering up any substantial arguments (other than meaningless buzzwords like "Muslim bashing", "ethnocentrism" etc), you're going to get trashed.

There was no coddling here. There were frank discussions about uncomfortable topics.
What we lacked were folks coming in and suggesting the solutions be based on th inherent inferiority of certain groups, that suggesting certains groups were inherently inferior was not racist, and that wars of conquest should be launched against others for the slights of a few (regardless of the number of casualties said wars would cost).
It was a different time. It's gone, so I suppose it is now best to let it rest.

I'm all for ideas designed to better society. I do disagree with you as to what those ideas are.

Quote: (06-13-2017 12:20 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

About Egypt and Lebanon, it is not just a question of Islam, only secondarily. Both ancient Egyptians and modern Christian Lebanese are European genetically. Muslims are semittic. Lebanese Christians are not. There is DNA at play here. We just had DNA studies on mummies showing they were of ancient European origin and that modern Egyptians have NOTHING in common with them.

The most recent study on Egyptian DNA indicated that the Ancients had their closest ties to Near-Easterners, not Europeans. Those mummies also had substantial (6% to 15%) sub-saharan African ancestry. It is a stretch to call them Europeans, and a bigger stretch to claim that modern Egpytians had "NOTHING" in common with them. The data very clearly cuts to the contrary.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Excelsior - 06-14-2017

Quote: (06-12-2017 06:47 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

So all of those 'great contributors' must have simply been bitten by the nasty 'white supremacy bug' eh?

You pick out the who and the when but you don't have the slightest interest in the why.

Because you were happy as a clam ten years ago when the only ones without a racial identity were whites, and when whites were thoroughly disenfranchised as societal whipping boys, when there was zero recognition of the vastly lop-sided interracial violence against whites and when the full extent of the insanity of large scale muslim immigration was yet to be felt.

And then a metric shitload of whites all over the west woke up and the entire internet shifted in its dynamic from an utterly racist anti-white situation that you were thoroughly comfortable with to a far more honest and genuine medium in which your smug and sanctimonious victimhood was suddenly upended.

So immense was this awakening that it washed over places that might have seemed well above the high tide mark, like a forum dedicated to picking up random bitches and fucking them.

Well let me be the first to offer my condolences that the progressive gravy train of lop-sided race relations has reached its last station and that all ideas get to defend themselves on their own merit, including the prospect of being flooded with backwater death-cultists (go on and tell us how that's working out for Europe, please).

There was nothing utterly racist and anti-white about the community I was once a part of. There was no attempt to minimize or ignore white identity, promote anti-white activism, or otherwise encourage the kind of activity you claim was common place. That wasn't what this place used to be. You weren't here, which is why you don't know that. Instead of accepting the gap in your knowledge as to the character of the forum a full six years before you got to it, you've decided to fill in those gaps with your own completely unfounded assumptions about that time, assumptions that are designed only to attempt to turn the critique I have put to you (racism) around on me.

It doesn't work, Leonard. I'm not bemoaning the demise of an anti-white space. I am bemoaning the demise of a space that was, frankly, about as close to the "race-neutral utopia" you allude to online. Everyone was welcome here. There was no gravy-train. We didn't shy away from critiques that weren't totally PC, nor did we hesitate to criticize supposedly protected groups. We told the truth - we just weren't hateful about it.

Take, for example, this post:

Quote: (06-12-2017 06:56 AM)ziggystardust Wrote:  

I wouldn't hate black people if so many of them weren't part of the political eb of 'what ever screws whitey' is best. There are so many blacks in the UK that think that allying themselves, which means making apologetics, with Islam will somehow improve their lives. People like EX don't understand that the current trent of animosity amongst people is, undeservedly, towards whites. This is particularly true in America where they're being attacked from all sides for existing. Heartiste is right on this point.

3 years ago, some zero-rep member showing up and openly proclaiming their hatred for any particular race of people would have been banned pretty rapidly. Today, they are not only able to continue here, but are welcome and handed rep points for their points of view.

That's the change.

I point that out and claim I have a problem with it? I must be another SJW with a victim complex, angry that the "gravy train" (whatever that is supposed to imply) has stopped running. Bitter, delusional, mentally ill - anything but sense.

Once upon a time, all men were welcome here to discuss topics important to men.

Now, only some men are. That's unfortunate for me, but I'm sure you don't mind. You belong in this new place.

Quote:Quote:

Or just keep calling me racist in the feeble hope that you can bring back the old days. My latina wife gets a real laugh out of it.

"I am with a non-white person, so I'm not a racist".

You could at least try to be more creative. There are open neo-nazis walking around with Asian women on their arms and Hapa kids.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - thedarkknight - 06-14-2017

Beautifully written. I have to agree with you. The realisation that no matter what we do, the education we acquire or the money we hold, we will be seen as niggers to a ?sizeable? number of the non-black population is a tough pill to swallow. That being said, the guys in this thread did acknowledge a few non-white posters as intelligent, which is something.

However, there is no point going through life trying to gain the approval of our "non-black stepfather" who never saw us as his own. My advice to you, let it go.

No point given attention, debating and getting emotional trying to gain the favour or change the opinions of those who see you as inferior. Some whites have argued in favour and continue to argue for equality and the situation is what it is in 2017.

Some battles can never be won.

* I don't think the dudes commenting or wishing to halt third world immigration are racist. If they let more Nigerian muslims with the capacity to perform terrorist acts we will be guilty by association. We have enough negative stereotypes against us without adding jihadi.

Quote: (06-14-2017 03:04 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

Quote: (06-12-2017 12:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Calling someone lesser isn't racist. It's only racist if you believe, like the Southern Slave owners did, that Blacks would always be lesser.

That is the belief of many of your peers here, who you have yet to call out.

After all, they have made it very clear that IQ is (mostly or entirely) a heritable trait, and that changes in environment do not bring about the substantial increases in IQ that RIslander dared to suggest may be possible.

Quote: (06-13-2017 12:21 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Quote: (06-13-2017 05:38 AM)redpillage Wrote:  

Quote: (06-12-2017 10:27 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

Studies have shown IQ is directly proportional to words per minute, and the diversity of the words, heard during early childhood. Rich and educated people talk to their children more. Take a poor Pakistani baby and have a wealthy family adopt him and his IQ will be much higher. Race is mostly irrelevant.

Typical b.s. spouted by low IQ SJWs obsessed with ignoring any genetic predispositions. I haven't seen those studies but let's assume for a minute that they are true - I for one wouldn't rule it out as it sounds plausible. What you are talking about is nothing but standard deviation within a particular sample size. The very same white or Asian kid may be able to benefit by 5 to 10 IQ points courtesy of a positive and vocabulary rich childhood. Take 1000 Sub Saharan orphans and let them all be raised by couples with respective IQs over 120 and odds are that on average you get an increase from 75 to 80 plus minus.

To dumb it down for everyone: It's like claiming that you could bring a bunch of infant pygmies to Holland and they would somehow grow up to be 6'3 with an IQ of 120.

It's important to know facts.

Facts are that IQ among adopted children by educated parents is indeed higher than normal, but at age 18, that IQ gap is gone and the children score like their racial average +5 or so.

IQ is genetic, end off.

Quote: (06-13-2017 03:16 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:RIslander Wrote:

I really can't see any viable argument that doesn't include both genetics and childhood development into producing an IQ value.

The scientific consensus on success is that IQ (a highly heritable trait) is by far the number one predictor of success, followed by Conscientiousness (a highly heritable trait, which is only half as predictable as IQ), followed by everything else - including "Other Factors".

They insist that those environmental factors simply aren't a big contributor (if they contribute at all) to the differences we see.

So, follow the path:
-Different races have significant differences in IQ
-IQ is the primary and most useful determinant of capability with regard to anything that matters in society (ex: building and maintaining complex civilization). IQ is the most important reason why some do better than others.
-Differences in IQ are mostly or entirely genetic; environmental factors can make, at best, a very small impact on those differences.

You've followed the path, so where are you now? There's only one destination: some groups are inferior by nature and are always going to be.

There's nowhere else for that logic to go. And once you've gotten there, there's really no room for any other conclusion other than "this is supremacy". You're smart enough to see that too, but you're ignoring it. I'm not going to keep speculating as to why you choose to do that.

Quote:Quote:

That's not my argument, and never has been. And no matter how many times I've explained my position you are unable to grasp the nuances of my arguments. It's kinda sad, but it's obvious your indoctrination was thicker than most because of going to the Ivy League.

My classmates think I'm too conservative. You think I've been indoctrinated by SJWs.

Like I said, there is no more middle ground.

Quote:Quote:

The facts of the matter is that the world's lesser peoples are dependent upon the developed ones, and the higher peoples aren't reproducing. This has happened before and it didn't even involve Blacks and Whites, it was just Roman Whites vs. Germanic Whites with the Romans being the higher and Germans being lesser. And when the Romans were gone, there was literally a 500+ year regression in technology.

Not in the East.

Quote:Quote:

When you see it first hand during your lifetime, and you will, you will realize the truth of my position.

I don't make such firm declarations based on a future I can only speculate on.

Quote:Quote:

"Racists" of course, will disagree and state that no such improvement will ever come and when the Whites decline there is no coming back for a long ass time (until Whites get their shit back together). And to be totally fair this position could be true, which means it's not racist at all. If something is true then it is not racist.

"Only whites can maintain civilization. Non-whites are inferior and always will be. Civilization will die indefinitely until whites can rise again to their natural position"

Samseau: "Well, I think there's at least a chance you are right so what you're saying isn't racist".

Amazing. You refuse to outright condemn even the most blatant supremacy. After all, you think it might be true, so it can't be racist.

You say things like this and when I call you and others out on it?
"Stop seeing the perceived slights"
"Racism is in your head"
"I'm not a white supremacist"

You guys are terible about making

Quote:Quote:

Regardless, there is nothing racist about talking about those who are lesser or greater. In fact you do it all the time when discuss alpha males and beta males, you even describe marriage as a form of betaffirmative action. Is this "racist" against betas? So ridiculous.

How could that be racist when the categories are race-neutral (read: anyone of any race can be either alpha or beta and there's no great correlation between one's race and one's existence in either category)?
You ask me a question like that, and call me ridiculous?

Quote:Quote:

According to you, if calling someone lesser is racist, that means Jesus was a racist.

Matthew 25:37:

Quote:Quote:

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Quick, tell us why the Bible is racist Athlone because they used the word lesser.

Where was race even mentioned in that verse? You say this is racist by "my logic", but my logic very clearly required a suggested correlation between lesser/greater and race (read: the implication that being of a certain race was correlated directly with being in one or other category). This passage doesn't do that, so why are you quoting it?

Quote:Quote:

Your arguments suffer from extreme dogmas and intellectual bankruptcy. You refuse to be skeptical of your own positions and you spout falsehoods left and right.

I say the same of you.

Quote:Quote:

Look at this beauty:

Quote:Quote:

Its main failure is its attempt to correlate one's place of residence with their ideology. Residence in one place doesn't prohibit any view. You may reside in a place where you feel there is an issue with supremacists. You may have chosen to reside in this place for any number of reasons independent of said supremacists' presence. Your choice of residence does nothing to preclude you from attacking said supremacists when you find them. Your residence is not an endorsement of supremacy or anything else related to their ideology. If anything, it's an opportunity to directly attack it.

The point isn't what you are allowed to criticize or not, the point is that if this place is so bad you wouldn't be here. You're lying and a hypocrite.

No, that is the point. You're saying that because I live here, I can't possibly note or complain about anything related to supremacy because, by virtue of the fact that I live here, I forfeit the right to claim that said supremacy is anything worth complaining about. That is your argument.

I said supremacists exist. I didn't say they made the place inhospitable. I very clearly said they are not the only people here and they can be beaten.
How is it hypocritical to point out the existence of people who feel they are superior to certain other groups on the basis of race and maintain that you can still reside in that place?

You're drawing a false dichotomy. Your entire argument essentially boils down to this: "If you imply there's any supremacy here, it must be inhospitable. if you live here, there is no supremacy at all for you to bother talking about."

That's nonsense, and you know it is.

Quote:Quote:

Yes, you live with White supremacy, after it gave you an Ivy League education mostly on (White) taxpayer's dime.

W.E.B DuBois received an Ivy League education. Clearly, he did not live with white supremacy in the late 1880's - it must have been a figment of his imagination.

See what I did there? You presented a false dichotomy - having a good education means there is no such thing as white supremacy. If you are a non-white person and you excel, it is proof positive that there is not really any white supremacy in your society. All I needed to do was take an easily visible example from history to show how wrong that is. It is not right to claim, as you do, that white supremacy and successful minorities cannot coexist in the same place.

Granted, modern America is not in the 1880s. There have been massive improvements since then. That doesn't mean, however, that supremacy and those who believe in it (and act on it) do not exist.
What this means for you is simple: if you want to keep trying to paint me as a delusional fool with a victim complex who is seeing things that do not exist, you need to do much more than say "Oh but you went to a nice school". That's not enough. Even in societies with levels of white supremacy VASTLY greater than they are now, black people went to nice schools.

All I said was that there are millions of white supremacists in the United States. That's not a controversial statement in a place with over 300 million people, but you're so offended by it that you are inventing a false dichotomy manufactured entirely by your commitment to paint me as a delusional fool with a victim complex.

Yes, I do live with people who believe that white people are superior to black people. Yes, I can make money and do well in the same country that those people exist in.
These are not mutually exclusive things.

You know this. You are not dumb enough to be oblivious to this. You are intentionally ignoring it because you're too disingenuous to take a critical look at your own point of view, which seems to be that there is no such thing as a white supremacist in the United States of America.

Quote:Quote:

I mean how can you be so delusional? Your education was just indoctrination, it's obvious it was a complete failure if you cannot even apply basic skepticism to your own views.

I can, I just don't agree with your conclusions. They're false and built on logical fallacies.

Quote:Quote:

You see non-Whites attending institutions and countries built by Whites, but do you ever see it in reverse?

Do you see Chinese attending top African schools? Whites attending top Asian schools?

Christians becoming mayors of Muslim countries?

On and on and on, if the Whites are the racists how come they are the only ones who tolerate foreigners leading and participating in their civic and national life?

I see whites heading to African, Latin American, and Asian nations and being given top positions with lucrative salaries, excellent standards of living, and a host of other benefits (ex: access to some of the most attractive local women and entry into the local social elite). In many of these places, said white expatriates wield a disproportionate amount of the economic and political control because of the fact that they are so high up in the nation's corporate world.

Whites are also commonly given the power to influence children across asia as teachers. White professors find plenty of work at national universities in non-white nations, and with government or advisory organizations seeking their expertise (and influencing policy with it). This is to say nothing of investors, who are often welcome in these nations and whose power (by virtue of the size of the investments they are making, which can be vital to some of the economies they are in) is most certainly substantial. White owned and controlled multi-nationals wield enough power to effectively own several developing nations filled with non-white people who allowed them to set up shop.

I don't know how you can say that whites are the only ones who tolerate foreigners leading and participating in their civic and national life. That's just stunningly ignorant. There are very few developing nations on Earth that don't allow white individuals or white-owned/run organizations to come in and wield substantial influence over their economies and, by extension, their national life. As noted, in some places that influence is great enough to warrant the claim that said whites individuals/organizations are the main determinants of that national life.

Quote: (06-13-2017 02:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This is another problem when discussing averages - people take them way too personally. When talking about averages, we are not talking about individuals. This is a logical fallacy of assuming the parts are the same as the whole. But it's not true.

It's quite true, for one simple reason: you cannot separate the individual from the whole of their history, culture, and blood, especially if that individual takes any pride at all in that history, culture, or blood.

What the logic promoted here by several members amounts to is this:

"Your people are inferior. Your culture and history are inferior, as are the society's produced by them. Your blood tends to produce inferior people who generate inferior outcomes and that can't be helped (since IQ is genetic).
But your IQ is a little higher and you're not exactly like all those people. So yeah, we do insist that everything you come from is shit, but you're good so don't take it personally".

Now, if I'm a person who doesn't take much pride in where I come from (my people, their history, their culture, etc), I might be inclined to agree with you. I might say "Yeah, you're right, but I am different. Thanks for the kind words, I don't take them personally!"

I take pride in where and what I come from. I take it personally.

If you are going to take the opportunity to shit on everything that defines my identity (my people, culture, nation, etc) that I take immense pride in, I'll take it personally.
You have to be delusional to expect another outcome.

Furthermore, think carefully about what you're really suggesting with this line of reasoning.

"Hey, by rule, people who look like you and come from your heritage/culture/race/nation are pretty shit, as is everything around them, and this is immutable because of their inferior genes. But you are an exception."

Where does that leave us?
I'm the exception that proves the rule. You, on the other hand, are the rule.

I exist as a living representation of an exception to shit, someone who by blood and history will always be tied to what you have deemed "shit". You exist as a living representation of standard excellence ("the rule"), and it is only through your benevolence that I get the chance to join you in disabusing and washing away the "shit" from which I have been excepted.

You think you're being egalitarian and benevolent with these lines of reasoning, but that's not the case at all. It's thinly veiled supremacism for those who want to seem more benevolent than they are.

In any case, this line of reasoning is moot because of how rare it actually is in HBD/racist/nationalist spheres:

Quote:Quote:

Just because dogs bark, does not mean all dogs bark. Just because a car is fast, does not mean a wheel is fast. The parts are NOTHING like the whole, the sum is always greater than its parts.

Therefore, for an outspoken critic of Blacks, like Roissy, does not mean he would find you Excelsior, or most of the Black men of the manosphere to be problem people. Only total morons, or people with intense hatred, can apply criticism of the whole to the parts.

This is another myth: the notion of the "exceptional card".

There is no exception among most supremacists. When they throw out examples of their hate, they do not take the time to suggest that there be discrimination in the application of that hate on the basis of the quality of the individual toward which the hate is being directed toward.

Take, for example, this post:

Quote: (06-10-2017 06:01 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

Similar to Obama's white mother. She'll be forgotten & cast aside.

Quote:[/url]

This is an attack on interracial dating. She is implied to have wasted her genes and otherwise made a misjudgment by choosing to procreate with a black guy.
Now, before this attack is laid out, did you see any attempt to perhaps tone it down on the basis of the character of the black man in question?
No. There is no mention of his views, character, or other traits beyond his race. The fact that he is black is all that matters.
He could be an excellent guy with excellent genes, reasonable points of view, and generally high intellect (I don't know Seal all that well, but there's little to indicate that he's a dumb degenerate or otherwise low-character guy). She could have made an excellent choice in him relative to other men around her, who may have been inferior in character, intellect, or any othr number of factors.

But none of that would matter because, even if it was all true and Seal were the most saintly negro to have ever graced Gods green earth, the analysis being used to attack him, her, and his children has nothing at all to do with that. It's about his race, and what his children look like. That is all that matters.

This is applicable to the alt-right/nationalist spheres generally. I've already detailed how the "exception to the rule" treatment is problematic above, but part of the reason I dismiss is also because it just isn't commonly applied by those with these ideologies. Most simply do not take the time to analyze individual character or traits before passing judgments. Thousands upon thousands of examples of this fact can be seen in articles and comments at Amren, VDare, breitbart, ROK, Vox Day, Reality Talks, Red Ice, or any other place in the universe of these ideologies.

This is not about individuals, it is about race. That is a lesson I learned not only on line through the years spent trying to grasp these individuals and their ideology, but also in real life where I learned the hard way that my degrees, views, and other traits don't impact the way I am viewed by people on a daily basis. To the average person I meet or pass, I'm not different from Daquan the dropout on the block. A negro is a negro is a negro.

You'll deny that experience, and that's fine, but know this when you do: I've lived it. You have not.

Quote:Quote:

But for day to day life, applying averages to random people is almost always going to be false. Therefore a lot of offense you feel, or other non-Whites feel is totally unjustified. Anyone who can read and keep up with this forum isn't part of the crowd of people we're talking about when we speak of the hordes of low IQ hordes who simply will never fit in Western society.

It is quite justified, for reasons I mentioned above. There's also a third reason, and it has to do with a theory very commonly held by those who subscribe to the notion of racial hierarchies separated by IQ measurements. This theory is called "regression to the mean", and it's natural conclusion is that intelligent members of inferior races are just freakish flukes of nature whose prodigy will naturally return to whatever very low level of intellect is deemed worthy of their race because "genetics". They support these claims even though they insist that IQ is a highly heritable trait (which would mean it could be controlled/bred for).

I cannot count the number of times I have heard this topic discussed on any number of online venues in which these ideologies hold. It's a staple.
And even for those like John Derbyshire who do not buy the notion of regression to the mean (instead positing that there is only regression toward the mean - a very different concept that effectively acknowledges the heritability aspect I mentioned just now), there is no love for the so called "[url=http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#axzz4jxX0dq65]Intelligent, Well Socialized Blacks", who are viewed at best as tools for social shielding unworthy of assistance in a Good Samaratian manner who must be more carefully scrutinized than any similarly capable white person. He clearly resents them, as do most nationalists.

There is no exception. Highly educated, capable blacks are no more welcome or liked among ethno-nationalists/racists and their ilk than others. They may be tolerated slightly more out of necessity, but they are hated just the same. That's another lesson learned the hard way, for the record (believe me or don't - I lived it, you didn't).

Quote:Quote:

They always hit back with, "BUT I'm not like that!!" even though we aren't speaking of them in particular. I see a lot of non-Whites fail victim to the same errors of logic.

Therefore there is no need to believe that most Nationalists resent anyone in particular even if they are critical of populations as whole. When you understand that Excelsior then you will find these discussions less triggering.

There is reason to believe that, for reasons outlined above. Also, as I said earlier: you can't completely shit on a culture/history/heritage/blood that people hold dear and expect them not to take it personally.

It is odd that I have to explain that on a forum filled with folks who seem so dedicated to bigging up their cultural/ethnic/historical pride.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - Leonard D Neubache - 06-14-2017

I'm going to say this for the last time.

I am critical of islam and want the west to have nothing to do with it. I don't give a fuck what colour the adherents of it are. I also don't give a fuck whether you believe that's possible or not.

I am critical of the current social justice movement that seeks to identify and amplify every racial aspect of life in a negative light in order to smash any form of progress towards genuine equality. I don't give a fuck what colour the people doing this are. I also don't give a fuck whether you believe that's possible or not.

This whole thread only blew the fuck out because you got completely triggered by refusing to accept that decrying islamic immigration could be anything other than racism.

Now you've dedicated pages to self immolation defending a poisonous ideology on the basis that its adherents are brown and therefore widescale criticism of the core tenets laid down by an anti-semitic paedophile warlord is waaaaacist.

I don't give a shit if you call me racist or a supremacist or whatever. Not only is it untrue but it no longer has any capacity to harm me. These days the only thing pushing young men towards racism is the apoplectic rage that grievance mongers like you spit at them. Guys like you give the firm impression that you wont be happy until white men neuter themselves and stare in deference at the ground when you pass by.

Tough cookies. The days of kowtowing to that nonsense are over.

---

London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017) - MMX2010 - 06-14-2017

Quote:Excelsior Wrote:

You've followed the path, so where are you now? There's only one destination: some groups are inferior by nature and are always going to be.

There's nowhere else for that logic to go. And once you've gotten there, there's really no room for any other conclusion other than "this is supremacy". You're smart enough to see that too, but you're ignoring it. I'm not going to keep speculating as to why you choose to do that.

Vox Day, just two days ago, re-quoted Heartiste, who upended your logic. Basically, he stated that if you live in a truly racially-mixed city long enough, you'll realize that Whites actually treat Blacks the best. You'll see Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, and Japanese openly berating the mistakes of Black service workers with an intensity and frequency that isn't present from Whites.

Only Whites can run that mixture of accepting Blacks are less intelligent on average, coupled with the acceptance that smarter individual Blacks should have ample economic opportunities, coupled with the tacit acceptance that they shouldn't really have political opportunities.

For real, Excelsior, do you think Asians (who don't have Blacks in China or Japan), Muslims (who also enslaved you, and call you Abeed behind your back), and Mexicans (who have taken your jobs and neighborhoods) are going to treat you better than us?

---