[MMX2010]

Excelsior Wrote:

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.

This isn't true.

If you gave me your home address, I'd pull strings with the State Department, and flood your home with at least ten Syrian refugees. They'll vet them, so you won't be in danger of getting beheaded. But you will have to shelter them, get their laundry done, feed them (until they can feed themselves), and mediate their disputes until they move out.

[MMX2010]

Excelsior Wrote:

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.

Whenever a woman is fat-shamed, fat activists complain that those words are hurtful and ineffective - because they don't inspire fat women to lose weight. But this argument assumes that the primary purpose of his words ought to be her edification.

I would suggest that the primary purpose of his words ought to be his edification.

Similarly, calling out Heidi Klum for having racially mixed babies isn't primarily an attack on Heidi Klum, but rather a statement of his preferences and the hope that his friends and neighbors will share in them.

Also, I haven't spent more than a few seconds confirming this, but Stefan Molyneux casually mentioned that racially mixed children are more prone to mental illness. If this is true, (and I'm not saying it is), then the statement, "Interracial dating is a disease." becomes true in the religious sense. It doesn't become true in the Absolute sense, nor in the Literal sense, but it does become true in the Mythical sense, the Religious sense, and the Scientific sense.

Practically, this means if you start arresting or fining people for saying this, you're possessed by the same Spirit as those who want to ban Islam - except that you'd also be a science denier. American society has proven that the best way to deal with Religious Truths is to allow people to practice them, provided they don't lead to Actual Violence.

Heidi Klum and her children can conduct business and establish friendships with White Supremacists who hate miscegenation. In fact, they probably already have - without knowing it - because White Supremacists largely aren't violent.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(Disclaimer: This cat's fur color is purely a coincidence and bears no resemblance to any political statement or affiliation, be they real or fictional. The poster assumes no responsibility for any emotional or physical damages incurred by viewing the cat.)

[Excelsior]

(06-14-2017 04:40 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

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.

I'll counter the totally unauthoritative anecdotal hearsay accounts from Chateau White Supremaciste with my own totally unauthoritative anecdotal hearsay account: I've seen no difference whatsoever, and I've spent much of my time in said "truly racially-mixed" cities.

Thus, I disagree with your assertion and will submit that it is facially invalid.

Quote:

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.

LOL

Nothing to see here, guys! Don't mind Excelsior, he's just a delusional negro with a victim complex. There's no white supremacy to speak of, he's making it up! The ethno-nationalist/HBD/alt-right folks like MMX just want a "race neutral utopia". They don't think less of blacks, they just think they are dumber on average and that this is fundamentally genetic. They even think well of the individual "smarter Blacks", they just want to prevent those blacks from ever really participating in the political process.

So Excelsior is wrong, everyone, the nationalist's intentions for blacks aren't that bad at all. They just want to create a society in which blacks are recognized inferiors as a population with zero access to the democratic process and no ability to influence how they are governed. That's cool though, because they can always trust the white nationalists to look out for their best interests in the new race-blind utopia.

Quote:

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?

1. There are a substantial number of blacks in China.
2. Whites enslaved blacks in a trade that did as much damage as the Arab trade in less than half the time.
3. Blacks have plenty of jobs and neighborhoods, regardless of hispanic migration.
4. You did not include a scenario where blacks treat themselves the way they want to be treated and aren't beholded to another group. This scenario is entirely plausible and, if you insist that it is not, you're just making my point.
5. The fact that you are asking me a question whose hypothetical implicatons put blacks in service to everyone else (Arabs, Asians, Mexicans, and then Whites) tells me all I need to know about what you think about black people.

"Race-blind Utopia" my ass.

(06-14-2017 05:11 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Excelsior Wrote:

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.

Whenever a woman is fat-shamed, fat activists complain that those words are hurtful and ineffective - because they don't inspire fat women to lose weight. But this argument assumes that the primary purpose of his words ought to be her edification.

I would suggest that the primary purpose of his words ought to be his edification.

Similarly, calling out Heidi Klum for having racially mixed babies isn't primarily an attack on Heidi Klum, but rather a statement of his preferences and the hope that his friends and neighbors will share in them.

It's a direct insult designed to shame her and her family for procreating with a black male. It really isn't very complicated.

Quote:

Also, I haven't spent more than a few seconds confirming this, but Stefan Molyneux casually mentioned that racially mixed children are more prone to mental illness. If this is true, (and I'm not saying it is), then the statement, "Interracial dating is a disease." becomes true in the religious sense. It doesn't become true in the Absolute sense, nor in the Literal sense, but it does become true in the Mythical sense, the Religious sense, and the Scientific sense.

That's another BS excuse for the ethno-nationalist/supremacist crew to attacked mixed couples and mixed children, the majority of whose problems socially derive from the activities and attitudes of those very same folks (and others who are not ethno-nationalists, but sympathize with them on the issue of interracial unions).

Quote:

Practically, this means if you start arresting or fining people for saying this, you're possessed by the same Spirit as those who want to ban Islam - except that you'd also be a science denier. American society has proven that the best way to deal with Religious Truths is to allow people to practice them, provided they don't lead to Actual Violence.

Heidi Klum and her children can conduct business and establish friendships with White Supremacists who hate miscegenation. In fact, they probably already have - without knowing it - because White Supremacists largely aren't violent.

I don't propose fining or arresting anybody. I'm merely calling the BS where I see it.

(06-14-2017 03:56 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

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.

Actually I think the thread blew the fuck out right around the time when you called me out as a delusional cuckoo preaching nonsense for promoting my solutions to the problem (implying that enhanced law enforcement action and an end to foreign policy intervention would lead to too much conflict) while at the same time advocating for the launching of large scale wars of conquest against muslim nations for the purposes of annexation (a solution that surely wouldn't result in too much conflict).

You're just a hypocrite who got called out for it.

Quote:

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.

Your real problem is that you come out with a lot of ridiculously offensive assertions, but 1). cannot own up to them and 2) insist that anyone who calls you out on them is trying to neuter white manhood.

I'm not anti-white. I'm anti-you. There is a difference.

Calling for solutions that don't involve banning islam and stimatizing non-white immigration isn't anti-white, especially when you've presented not a single solution that is any more viable than what I have proposed.

You talk a lot of BS that needed calling out. That's what this is about. You can take your "I'm a white man being bullied by the big bad black" BS somewhere else. You're not a victim, you're just wrong and it has fuck all to do with "grievance mongering".

(06-14-2017 05:50 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  



(Disclaimer: This cat's fur color is purely a coincidence and bears no resemblance to any political statement or affiliation, be they real or fictional. The poster assumes no responsibility for any emotional or physical damages incurred by viewing the cat.)

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

The hilarious thing here is that Excelsior's posts will actually end up creating real racists. As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

[LEMONed IScream]

I wonder what the citizens of Zimbabwe think about the "blame whitey" phenomenon.






Or South Africa for that matter.



The bottom line of this is that this bunch of white racists managed to govern a country better than the patriotic and selfless black ones. That doesn't bode well. And as much as I know this post can spark controversy, I ask those who respond to spare me their drama and give me facts. How can you explain that literal racist segregationists had, by comparison, a much better stint at ruling black African countries than the revolutionary black Africans that succeeded them?



Rhodesia used to be the breadbasket of Africa, now they can't feed a 1/10 of their population in Zimbabwe.

I wonder if, when the inevitable race war comes to South Africa and many whites get exterminated (more than they are currently being killed at, especially farmers) what will we blame whitey for? It's a consequence of Apartheid so your 4 year old has to be killed. Sorry.





Now, please try to envision a "white" country (we barely have those anymore ) in which there is a similar treatment currently being given to blacks, then call it white supremacist while ignoring the behaviors of some black African countries towards whites, and often even against other African immigrants. These are two immigrants killed in South African anti-immigrant riots, plenty of news on the subject.





I would be horrified if I saw this in Europe. It somehow doesn't seem important to highlight this sort of thing. The evil white supremacists are doing a better job of raising the income of black people that live in their countries than the actual African leaders, but oh, let me guess, African leaders are corrupt and dysfunctional because they inherited that from the evil colonialists? Right? Right.



To finish, I'll leave you with Jacob Zuma's latest single, "Kill the Boer"

These white supremacists really have to pick up the slack!

[Leonard D Neubache]

(06-14-2017 05:59 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

...

Quote:

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.

Your real problem is that you come out with a lot of ridiculously offensive assertions, but 1). cannot own up to them and 2) insist that anyone who calls you out on them is trying to neuter white manhood.

I'm not anti-white. I'm anti-you. There is a difference.

Calling for solutions that don't involve banning islam and stimatizing non-white immigration isn't anti-white, especially when you've presented not a single solution that is any more viable than what I have proposed.

You talk a lot of BS that needed calling out. That's what this is about. You can take your "I'm a white man being bullied by the big bad black" BS somewhere else. You're not a victim, you're just wrong and it has fuck all to do with "grievance mongering".
...

[LEMONed IScream]

Correction: When I talked about black income I meant that essentially blacks living the USA, Canada, Europe, etc have a higher income than the average citizen in virtually all African countries.*

[nomadbrah]

If you're a white supremacist because IQ differences, then you're more of an IQ supremacist right?

Thankfully, European philosophy has never considered high intelligence to be the only or even the most important virtue. In fact, if you were to be a European (aka white) supremacist, you would be a poor one if you based your value of others upon IQ, because the great thinkers of the European race definitely didn't:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue

Quote:

Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness.

Platonic virtue

Quote:

The four classic cardinal virtues are:[4]

temperance: σωφροσύνη (sōphrosynē)
prudence: φρόνησις (phronēsis)
courage: ἀνδρεία (andreia)
justice: δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē)

Roman virtue:

Quote:

Auctoritas – "spiritual authority" – the sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria. This was considered to be essential for a magistrate's ability to enforce law and order.
Comitas – "humour" – ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.
Constantia – "perseverance" – military stamina, as well as general mental and physical endurance in the face of hardship.
Clementia – "mercy" – mildness and gentleness, and the ability to set aside previous transgressions.
Dignitas – "dignity" – a sense of self-worth, personal self-respect and self-esteem.
Disciplina – "discipline" – considered essential to military excellence; also connotes adherence to the legal system, and upholding the duties of citizenship.
Firmitas – "tenacity" – strength of mind, and the ability to stick to one's purpose at hand without wavering.
Frugalitas – "frugality" – economy and simplicity in lifestyle, without being miserly.
Gravitas – "gravity" – a sense of the importance of the matter at hand; responsibility, and being earnest.
Honestas – "respectability" – the image that one presents as a respectable member of society.
Humanitas – "humanity" – refinement, civilization, learning, and generally being cultured.
Industria – "industriousness" – hard work.
Iustitia – "justice" – sense of moral worth to an action; personified by the goddess Iustitia, the Roman counterpart to the Greek Themis.
Pietas – "dutifulness" – more than religious piety; a respect for the natural order: socially, politically, and religiously. Includes ideas of patriotism, fulfillment of pious obligation to the gods, and honoring other human beings, especially in terms of the patron and client relationship, considered essential to an orderly society.
Prudentia – "prudence" – foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.
Salubritas – "wholesomeness" – general health and cleanliness, personified in the deity Salus.
Severitas – "sternness" – self-control, considered to be tied directly to the virtue of gravitas.
Veritas – "truthfulness" – honesty in dealing with others, personified by the goddess Veritas. Veritas, being the mother of Virtus, was considered the root of all virtue; a person living an honest life was bound to be virtuous.
Virtus – "manliness" – valor, excellence, courage, character, and worth. 'Vir' is Latin for "man".

Nietszchean virtue:

Quote:

In the last section of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche outlines his thoughts on the noble virtues and places solitude as one of the highest virtues:

And to keep control over your four virtues: courage, insight, sympathy, solitude. Because solitude is a virtue for us, since it is a sublime inclination and impulse to cleanliness which shows that contact between people (“society”) inevitably makes things unclean. Somewhere, sometime, every community makes people – “base.” (BGE §284)

Nietzsche also sees truthfulness as a virtue:

Genuine honesty, assuming that this is our virtue and we cannot get rid of it, we free spirits – well then, we will want to work on it with all the love and malice at our disposal and not get tired of ‘perfecting’ ourselves in our virtue, the only one we have left: may its glory come to rest like a gilded, blue evening glow of mockery over this aging culture and its dull and dismal seriousness! (Beyond Good and Evil, §227)

Not even the Ubermensch philosophy based his judgement of the character of a man on IQ.

The Nazis didn't either.

Quote:

They rejected materialism, cosmopolitanism, and “bourgeois intellectualism,” instead promoting the “German” virtues of loyalty, struggle, self-sacrifice, and discipline. Nazi cultural values also placed great importance on Germans' harmony with their native soil (Heimat) and with nature, and emphasized the elevation of the Volk and nation above its individual members.

I just don't see the connection that believing some races to have higher average IQs than others to say anything other than that. In reality very few people base their opinion of others on base intelligence. If you did, you certainly would not be in tune with European classical thought. Intelligence or even wisdom is just not considered important for the value of a person in European tradition.

Those 4 classical Greek virtues haven't changed much:

Temperance - everything in moderation, not indulge in excess
Prudence - make informed decisions based on rationality
Courage
Justice - to threat people fairly

I think we can conclude that no European tradition exists which judges people and their value on intelligence alone. That's just not true, so the idea that believing whites to have higher IQs than others, to be white supremacy would be false, since for that to be true, your idea of value/virtue would have to be only IQ. European culture simply does not and never have based their opinion of others on intelligence, but rather on those admirable traits of courage, restraint and generosity.

Now would there be some other people than European who values intelligence as its highest trait?

As it turns out, why yes, yes there is:

Jewish virtue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue#Judaism

Quote:

Wisdom is personified in the first eight chapters of the Book of Proverbs and is not only the source of virtue but is depicted as the first and best creation of God (Proverbs 8:12-31). Wisdom is also celebrated in the Book of Wisdom.[10]

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...al-virtues

Quote:

Thus a writer in the second century before the present era, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, recognizes sophia, or wisdom, as the root of all virtues, and identifies it in his mind with the Spirit of God

Quote:

Talmud: "R. Johanan said, 'The Holy One, blessed be He! lets his Presence dwell only with the strong, the rich, the wise, and the humble.'"

http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/216950/...intellect/

Quote:

But the valuing of intellect is much more of a cultural matter. And no culture values brain power more than Ashkenazi Jewish culture.

What’s wrong with all this preoccupation with brains?

First, it often overshadows the far more important trait of goodness. I am certain that for many Jewish (and, increasingly, non-Jewish) parents, their child’s brilliance is more important than his or her goodness.

And how many parents speak to others about their children’s intellectual achievements as compared with their goodness? Jewish parents who speak about how fine a person their child is usually are assumed to have a loser for a child.

I think much of this fear of IQ averages stems from a personal belief that personal worth is based on intelligence.

I do think I can see some of that in you Excelsior, because I presumptiously assume that you have spent quite some time in schools of a culture which in fact praises intelligence above most else. I know how that is, because my parents also pushed this but fortunately I had a lot of family members, best people I know, who are not intellectuals.

We're going off track here, and I understand why you or any other black person, would not like these sort of things debated. It really can only be perceived with negative emotion, one war or another, either anger or self-doubt. For me personally, I am only interested in these things as long as Europeans are made to atone for perpetuity for the crimes of our forefathers. If Africans actually don't do well because of lower IQ, then I don't want to be told that Africa struggles because of white racism and that we must continue to pay up. Likewise, I figure many white Americans are tired of being discriminated against in affirmative action and being told that the underperformance of some groups is due to racism, if it really is about IQ. That's all. It's a topic I think would be good to not bring up all the time and I think it would all but dissapear if whites weren't asked to foot the bill for everyone else (I'm off course speaking generally here).

[Simeon_Strangelight]

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

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.

That opinion is highly contested. There are sufficiently high data out there that increased k-selection, full-nutrient intake and lack of toxins during pregnancy, great pre-natal care, and yes solid language stimulation during childhood - all of that raises IQs within one generation. It is even accelerated when done over multiple generations. You can let nature and evolutionary pressure take it from there and it may take tens of thousands of years or you do it in a concentrated effort and it may take generations.

Also IQ is only one metric - work ethic and attitude is more important as becomes clear with the success of Nigerian immigrants to the US and Canada - a group that outperforms the native whites in terms of household income:

(WB by the way.)

Samseau also clearly pointed out that his term saw the Germans of 2000 years ago inferior to the Romans and you cannot dispute that. Now the very same Germans may have been viewed as superior. In the 1970s funnily enough there were some Italian families who lived in caves due to poverty and structural difficulties (along some coastal towns). Tribes shift and ebb in terms of cultural and scientific achievement.

Quote:

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

Well - duh - anything right of Antifa is too conservative there.

Quote:

"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"

I doubt that Samseau sees it that way - he probably assumes that the Chinese are going to be far more ruthless. I personally again disagree with it, but his comment is more directed towards the liberal assumption that if you made Western nations into predominantly Muslim or black, then those nations would still be performing at equal measure. That is simply a liberal fantasy and nothing more. It may not be Zimbabwe, but it will something far more nasty anyway.

Quote:

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.

What White Supremacy is beating down the black man when even Thomas Sowell said that it was virtually gone a long time ago? Racists will exist in all races - you cannot beat that, because that is tribal and biological. It will appeal always at least to some - across all races.

Quote:

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.

I will agree with that - most Muslims are Islamic supremacists who believe that Muslims are superior to everyone and should rule. There are also likely millions of blacks who blame Whites for all the ills that happen in their tribe. I don't take offense at it. You pointed it out, but so what? The system is not White Supremacists and that is what the SJWs say - that is why we correlate your statements with them.

Quote:

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.

That is more connected to the globalist power structure, simple economic success ratio and also somewhat an inferiority complex that admittedly some tribes have with regards to Whites. On the other hand they know that the chances are high that this White expat will perform well - the same can be said about Asians in academia. There are even White professors who hire preferentially Asians assuming that they will outperform Whites - and mostly they are right. I took part in Chemistry Olympics - plenty of Asians there.

Quote:

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.

You are taking it too personally.
Germans lived in huts and caves during Roman times when Rome had grand cities and astronomy. Should Germans view themselves as eternally inferior or the Japanese as well just because the Whites came up with scientific innovation way before them and could have easily conquered or wiped them out completely?

Be proud about achievements, but understand the shortcomings. I share heritage from German, Slavic, Tatar, Jewish tribes all across Middle to Eastern Europe. I laugh at the fact that Poles burned the last witch in 1810 and that some simple peasants tore up the wooden flooring in their new communist apartments in the 1950s and heated their place by having a nice fire up and running on the 3rd floor of the building. Yes - they were exceptions, but still those guys existed. The Russians in the 1930s and 40s were mostly illiterate barbarians and yet a few decades later they reached space.
Sure - the gap is slightly bigger in Africa, but seriously when you look at Nigerians outperforming the locals in the US, then you might wonder, how much is truly possible.

Take pride in your heritage by all means, but don't try to see it as it was not - wewazkangs. What is so bad being free and have carefree lives with little evolutionary pressure? Sure - current economic system necessitates greater mass IQ for good working of a society, but we also have science to speed up that process if we want to.

I get it that you are attached to your culture. The only thing that one must throw away is frankly Islam - that shitstain of a militarized quasi-religious ideology is only holding back society. And many Ex-Muslims in the Middle East understand that. But why can't you?

Quote:

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.

You have to take relaxed view. Many Americans also took a shit on Japanese industry and car manufacturers in the 1960s and 70s. The Japanese simply did not care, but kept on working hard and finally outperformed the US on many metrics.
It does not matter what others think - though to be fair - I don't see African nations work as hard as Japan - there are at best pockets of tribes who are doing well.

But somehow it seems to me that this is is more connected to your Islam and you probably won't be able to jump over that hurdle.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

More on Excelsiors points:

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

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

[url=https://twitter.com/blackpilledpans/status/873317243320504320][/url]

Quote:

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.

I don't focus on that stuff personally. Fact is that the globalists are pushing this - and not out of benevolence. In this individual case it is certainly some kind of highlighting of the issue. But frankly it is more connected to the fact that her kids look nothing like her. I get it - for Seal it is a sweet deal - he fucks a blonde German woman and all the kids look like him. Would his family treat the kids the same if they all looked like Heidi Klum's kid with Flavio Briattore?



Seal's father would probably feel a bit uneasy if he walked around with the blonde girl and constantly repeat to everyone that indeed this is Seal's daughter - assuming that the human genes would behave that way. Now you are absolutely right - Seal may indeed be an excellent choice of a partner for Heidi Klum and a smart doting father and all. Still - the cards for Whites in those relationship are not in our favor.

Should we shame them? Nah - the loving approach is not to fucking promote it, but love and accept the mixed kids just the same. It gets only tricky when it is done by the millions with a clear genocidal plan - and the verdict is still outstanding whether this will happen or not in the next centuries:

Is this pointing out of such unions at times petty or mean? Sure - especially when many true Neonazis marry Asian women and produce unhappy male mixed sons. But again - that does not make the poster a Nazi, he voices a legitimate issue - children don't look like mommy. And it's only bad if it is done deliberately on an entire tribe with the intent of wiping it out - not on some cases.

Quote:

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.

Possibly - when 75% come from single motherhood households and so many black men have trouble performing in society, then it colors on many people - at least to those who cannot easily see the difference. I think that the men here can see the difference quickly.

Quote:

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).

Frankly only the very low IQ levels of society are filled with those people and the true upper echelons of power - they are funnily enough way more racist than it seems. Upper class are highly specific especially with whom their progeny has children - they are less concerned who they date. But in a way this is also understandable given how the genetic progeny falls with Whites. And I will not discount your experiences, because you will have certainly met with some discrimination.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

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

(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.

Nah - you can. Because most of those men view know fully well that if all the men of your tribe were similar to you, then there would not be much of a problem to talk about.

So what if part of your tribe goes through a tough period and many women think it is a good idea to have 4 kids with 3 different ex-cons? We cannot reign in many of our women either:



Welcome to the club. We are united in that and on many other topics. And if anyone starts voicing eternal genetic supremacy while in your presence, then I am going to challenge him to a duel myself - heh.

Quote:

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.

Again you see the current state of tribes and relate to an eternal metric that is to be set there for all time.

Quote:

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.

That's a shame. You can come back for the girls and the lols - and the meetups.

[Blaster]

Sorry in advance for long post.

Excelsior Wrote:

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.

Ok, following you so far, but here's where you go completely off the rails:

Quote:

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.

This is absolutely wrong. There is most definitely somewhere for that logic to go: Use the individual not the racial identity group as the preferred basis of comparison. That is the essence of Western Civilization. Individualism has been the basis of Western philosophy for a very long time. Certainly, that's the philosophy embedded into the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This philosophy led to the first anti-slavery society in Britian. I recall my first experiences learning about how the Japanese viewed Americans, and though there were many the most fundamental and memorable thing they seemed to note was Americans' individualism. Moral Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has confirmed this phenomenon and found that in that most cultures in the world have a group-based outlook on morality that broadly covers all aspects of life while Westerners tend to have a more limited and individualistic view of morality.

Practically speaking, what does this mean? It means stop using racial disparity statistics as a priori evidence of discrimination. It means stop bitching about over-representation or under-representation in X. It means stop appealing to black identity for political purposes. It means being open to the possibility that if no evidence of discriminatory behavior has been shown, discriminatory behavior may not be there. It means stop using the term "dog whistle" to make everything about racism. Stop getting indignant over minor social faux pas and trivial, easily corrected ignorance. Stop trying to turn these "microaggressions" and "everyday racism" from simple misunderstandings between individuals into a narrative of group-based conflict and oppression.

It means judge someone by the content of their character not the color of their skin. People forget this that goes both ways. Don't identify with Michael Brown just because he's black. Don't ignore his anti-social behavior or call people racist for pointing it out. Don't side with Islamists on the basis that anything Whites want must be bad for Blacks.

Sometimes, grouping is unavoidable. Political boundaries, for example, tend to be clearly if arbitrarily defined. Group identities, negotiated to an equilibrium, are real and can't simply be ignored either. But the point of individualism is that you avoid them when you can and only discuss them when there's no better way to do it.

A State's border and its citizenship are two political boundaries that divide people into groups that can't be ignored. One of the purposes of a state is to protect the individuals inside its borders, and that includes some degree of protection against the unknown. Thus the conservative position often defaults to "no immigrants, except for good reason" while the liberal position defaults to "conservatives are racist xenophobes." Liberals love the unknown. To a liberal, the unknown is full of possibility. To a conservative, the unknown is death, disease, and destruction. And the fact is that right now, if you were to divide potential immigrants into two different categories, one being "already shares values and will fit in quite nicely" and the other being "unknown values and who knows WTF could go wrong" then you'll find that one group is going to be heavily white and the other group is going to be heavily non-white. That doesn't automatically mean racism.

There's no right answer. You have to recognize that conservatives concerned about unknown threats might not be able to perfectly articulate those concerns, especially when to a liberal, who takes her civilization for granted, it just looks like prejudice against brown people or hijabs or alarmism about an imminent European Caliphate which would never happen. Conservatives meanwhile, have to recognize that their fears may not be founded. They should be careful not to fall for scaremongering propaganda. Do you really care about FGM? Is it really worth your time to be worried that a tiny minority is having a conflict over a barbaric practice in one small jurisdiction? What is the truth about the threat posed by Islam? What is the actual connection between terrorists and regular Muslims? Apart from probably truthful observations that tighter immigration controls in the past would have resulted in less terrorism, many attempts to link terrorists to normal Muslims seem like propaganda to me. It seems to me that there are plenty of Muslims who are willing to cooperate with the government and alert them to suspected terrorists.

So while liberals need to cut conservatives a break when it comes to dismissing their concerns outright, conservatives need to make a real effort to articulate their concerns as realistically as possible so that the liberals can understand, and not merely engage in relentless attacks against the religion.

The concern that Islam is not compatible with western values is legitimate. In that Cernovich interview I linked earlier, the Muslim subject admitted that there are many reasons why Muslims should try to live in Muslim countries. I forget which poster it was in another thread complained about how the call to prayer disrupted his sleep: but that is not a trivial concern. Having calls to prayer blaring over loudspeakers would be a major change to the existing social order.

That Islamist terrorists are, in fact, Muslim is also something liberals need to accept. Moderate Muslims may point out the extremist interpretation is against modern Islamic scholarship, but it's very hard to deny that they're still motivated and unified by religion in a way that does not happen with any other religion in the world. We can't let our desire to protect moderate Muslims from having their feelings hurt get in the way of legitimate criticism of the religion's connection to terrorism.

[Blaster]

Quote:

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

You sure as hell can. You unite them by giving them something more important to care about than petty racial differences.

[griffinmill]

(06-14-2017 07:20 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

This is why I am vehemently against open borders and the leftist "refugees welcome" dogma. My parents left South Africa in 1994 when the shit started to hit the fan. People (not least white teenage girls holding up a Refugees Welcome banner) have no idea what it's like in a country where the races bump up against one another in close proximity. There is a savage violence inherent in Black African culture, even Winnie Mandela (who has been successfully whitewashed by the Orwellian press) advocated putting a tyre around her enemies and setting it on fire in a tactic known as "necklacing".

Believing that raping an infant child will cure your HIV is another example of an intellectual and cultural gulf between them and us.

We are importing this.

[Blaster]

(06-14-2017 05:59 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 04:40 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

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.

I'll counter the totally unauthoritative anecdotal hearsay accounts from Chateau White Supremaciste with my own totally unauthoritative anecdotal hearsay account: I've seen no difference whatsoever, and I've spent much of my time in said "truly racially-mixed" cities. If diversity causes problems, it's because of practical things like not being able to understand what the other person is saying because they don't speak the same language.

Thus, I disagree with your assertion and will submit that it is facially invalid.

I must agree with Excelsior here. I have also not observed much difference in the way non-Black non-Whites treat Blacks. I found Heartiste's observation to be an appeal to prejudice.

What I have observed is that most people in diversity-USA tend to be self-conscious about race and prefer to avoid the topic altogether in mixed company. On their own, the non-white side has the persecution complex types who on some level buy into Privilege Theory and all that intersectional feminist garbage. They're hypersensitive to racism and see it everywhere (Aziz Ansari's character on Master of None is an archetypical example of the mindset). Meanwhile, Whites are hyper-sensitive about giving offense and so walk on eggshells about racial issues and occasionally try making ironic and usually stupid jokes about racial and ethnic stereotypes in order to test the boundaries and figure out what they're allowed and not allowed to say.

When a mixed-race group is focused on achieving some goal, they set all that stuff aside. If performance is needed performance is demanded regardless of race. If tolerance of mistakes is the most sensible behavior, mistakes are tolerated regardless of race.

[debeguiled]

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



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

She is also a living embodiment of the internet rule that no matter how intelligent or articulate a young woman is today, there is a bikini pic of her out there somewhere.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(06-14-2017 10:29 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

She is also a living embodiment of the internet rule that no matter how intelligent or articulate a young woman is today, there is a bikini pic of her out there somewhere.

The funny part is that I listened to an interview with her and what she said.

She did the show in her end 20s after already being busy leading an NGO, saving Christian refugees from Syria, saving Polish women from having married Muslim men (30.000 Polish women did so - the majority deeply regretted it, because they have been lied to constantly about Islam.)

In fact she went to the miss competition more as a PR measure and it worked. Everyone ignored her as a political candidate of the libertarian Polish party leader. After the sexy pics and being a political candidate they suddenly gave her a platform to speak and found out that she was quite knowledgeable about Islam.

Also she mentioned the competitive dating market in Poland for women and why so many marry Muslim men. Yes - Polish women like darker-skinned men, but this is not the main reason. She mentions that there is a competition of women for the men here. What we know of course in Hamsterese - there is a competition for the top 30% of men in Poland and she is right about that. Many Alpha, successful and good-looking men don't settle down and for the good-looking, educated, successful woman like that only a similar man will satisfy her hypergamy. She is right about that, but her publicity may bring her attention of some successful shitlords now.

Either way - she is very articulate and intelligent. Though she is also somewhat resigned thinking that she is fighting a losing battle. The war will come anyway.

[debeguiled]

So they twisted her arm and she had to show off that fine body.

Lo, the sacrifices serious women have to make.

[nomadbrah]

(06-14-2017 10:29 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

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



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

She is also a living embodiment of the internet rule that no matter how intelligent or articulate a young woman is today, there is a bikini pic of her out there somewhere.

Islam covering up all these fine women is a great crime against humanity and I mean that seriously.

[Blaster]

Quote:

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.

All true, and you didn't even bring up American Interventionism/Imperialism.

A big difference though, is the sheer number of people and nature of the immigration. Countries exchanging professionals who form small expat communities is much different from large scale migration and settlement, which at least to me appears to be the primary concern of American conservatives right now. Certainly, that is what motivated my support for Trump. If Islam wasn't a 1,400 year old religion with a history of expansion and conquest, with 2 billion adherents in the rest of the world and a number of organizations actively pursuing the establishment of a caliphate in the West, I would not be the least bit concerned by hijabs, Mosques, and other markers of Islamization.

[iop890]

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

She is 30 now or 31

I wan't to impregnate Miriam Shaded before her ovaries completely dry up.

She'll thank me later.

[MMX2010]

Excelsior Wrote:

That's another BS excuse for the ethno-nationalist/supremacist crew to attacked mixed couples and mixed children, the majority of whose problems socially derive from the activities and attitudes of those very same folks (and others who are not ethno-nationalists, but sympathize with them on the issue of interracial unions).

The Flat Earth Society disputes the roundness of the earth, while erroneously claiming that they have refuted the roundness of the earth. To refute the roundness of the earth would require them to prove that the earth is flat.

Similarly, Excelsior disputes the increased prevalence of mental illness among racially mixed children, but he hasn't refuted it. To refute it requires him to scientifically prove that racially mixed children have equal or lesser rates of mental illness than racially homogenous children.

Everyone can Google as many scientific papers on the subject as they wish, but I lean towards the "mixed race kids have greater mental illness rates" side.

------

Lastly, you stated that the Anonymous message board post against Heidi Klum's children was an attack on interracial dating. Given that Heidi Klum, nor her children, have suffered any bruises nor attempts at literal physical injury, I don't think that post was an ATTACK on interracial dating.

Unless you can find the people who were directly physically assaulted as a result of that post, you're equating Speech I Dislike to Violence, which is morally wrong (and a staple of postmodernism).

[All or Nothing]

(06-14-2017 03:34 AM)thedarkknight Wrote:  

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.

I think the important thing to realize here is that while people can be racially biased that is not a permanent state. Last year, everyone was all about libertarianism and small government. Now people are all about this toxic mix of populism mixed with racial identity politics. Next year, hopefully everyone will have moved onto something else that is a little less toxic.

Even though in group, out group dynamics are always at play because tribalism is wired into our heads that does not mean that your voice is not welcome here. You have moved to the west or your forefathers did that means that you are becoming a part of our collective society and contributing to it. Even though being black means that you may have to face extra obstacles in life due to people's own internal biases that does not mean that you should not contribute your perspective and point of view.

Your view as a black man adds to the conversation and helps moderate people's views. People's ability to speak their minds and criticize others without punishment is what I believe is the secret sauce of western society and is what helps us get over our disputes without it metastasizing into a larger problem.

The problem I am having with Excelsior's method of debate is that he is personally attacking people's character in order to present his perspective. A lot of the pushback he is experiencing is more from people defending their character as men rather than politically disagreeing with him. If Excelsior focused on explaining in a calm way how people's ideas were misguided, I believe he would be getting a much better response from people.

Edit: I just want to say that calling someone to their face (or over the forum in this instance) a white supremacist or white nationalist is a pretty deeply personal attack on that person's character as a human being. If the focus of the debate was more on how someone's ideas or beliefs were misguided and then explaining rationally how those beliefs were misguided, I believe that they debate would be more productive and bear more fruit in changing people's minds.

[All or Nothing]

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

(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.

(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.

You are always going to be a pillar of this community. Just don't let these political disputes eat you alive.

Just make your case rationally without personally attacking people and if your case is backed by strong reasoning people will eventually come around and start believing in the points that you make. It may not happen immediately, but people do come around over time as long as you are using strong reasoning.