Post: #626

Funny how all these Islam apologists came out of the woodwork nearly at the same time. Now it's Kavi who tells us: "No big deal - just another terror attack, why are you overreacting? Whites aren't supposed to fight for their culture. Know your place". He thinks his own race is superior - obviously that's OK when he says it.

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. As would anyone who's white.

Post: #627

What the West is having to coming to grips with is that certain elements its values, while aspirational, are ultimately not compatible with long term prosperity or survival in a non-bubbled economy and a world where more than one economy is fully industrialised.

And when I say "the West", we are talking about the great mass of people who are either left, centre-left, or centre-right. The psychology of societies comes down to the great mass of individual psychologies lumped together, along with the underground stream that is the collective unconscious.

The Western psyche is, at its fundamental, inclusive. This is by no means a permanent thing. It has only gotten that way after roughly 75 years of there not being a mass, generational conventional conflict and those 75 years being a slow trickle of the defeated into the victor nations. Because the West had a massive technological and industrial advantage over Germany, Russia, Japan, Africa, and South America, it could afford to be generous - and in time that generosity came to influence the psyche of the average citizen. We've thought (since nobody could draw a direct correlation otherwise) that the more bodies, the merrier in the West, no matter where they come from, they'll find some sort of aspirationalist thing to do.

Labor costs also factor heavily into this. Of course we could afford to have relatively lax immigration policies, our countries had half their male workforce cut to pieces in two world wars and the countries the immigrants were coming from were not conceivably going to be able to get their diaspora back for a good forty years or so. Leaving aside that feminism might well have been a manipulated, Illuminati-ish force, women leaped out into the workforce for the simple reason that if they didn't, the Western economy at large would have fucking collapsed as wages went through the roof while productivity crashed because there weren't enough men left to rebuild shit.

One of the West's problems is that it's more or less squeezed out all the juice that can be gotten out of the outsourcing lemon; you can't really cut prices that much further because there aren't any more consumers in the West (not enough breeding) and because at half a penny per day even Long Duc Dong can find better work farming in the third world shithole of Phaic Tan. Added to that is that countries like China (though its economy is still a Ponzi scheme) are starting to catch up on the meat of mass industrialisation and, worse still, develop a credible consumer base to sell shit to.

The problem is that largesse only works while you're making a profit - as Venezuelans should have fucking figured out by now. And the West is fast running out of capacity for largesse. It has too few taxpayers to pay for the weight of the generations of pensioners that have started descending on it. When you choose to import taxpayers en masse, do not be surprised when those imports start wanting to change shit to suit them. Longstanding empires always start to fall from within - always. The West would not be vulnerable to Muslim takeover if it had not been setting itself up for this shit for a good thirty years or more.

The point of this being, though, that you have very large tracts of the population who are facing very large narcissistic injuries in the next few decades. Their identity in part rests on their self-image as tolerant people, open-minded folk who believe everyone on the planet has something to contribute to the West. This is a self-centred view because it holds the West, and therefore themselves, as central. That's the reason why feminists don't campaign about female circumcision in Saudi Arabia or honor killings in Afghanistan: those places are not the West, they're just supporting cast, what matters is the set where the feminist lives. And it's also the reason why the West will likely tear itself apart before (and I use before in the chronological sense rather than the preference sense) it starts to throw up the gates.

Take a look at Germany. For fifty years those guys have been programming themselves that they must be inclusive and non-racist. Their entire identity has been to show they are not Nazis. Look at how effective that individual and societal psychology has been: the country is literally destroying itself in an orgy of narcissistic self-pity. That's how powerful the impulse to protect the ego runs.

But eventually all these egos are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the rules by which the West was run are not special, or transcendent, or the end of history. Particularly over the past 20 years, they have proven to be aberrations. And the response to a narcissistic injury is always denial ... or rage.

A wholescale repatriation of Muslimdom to the spice oil sands does seem pretty daunting logistically. As a first step, I prefer the tried and true method for controlling religions abhorrent to a local society. It's a method that works for Islamic nations around the world. And it has the advantage of treating Islam the way it treats Christianity at best in the Muslim world: regulate, restrict, or outright ban the religion. Make the West go on a diet, don't go running around treating the little pimples that burst from the skin from time to time. King Abdullah of Jordan, "enlightened" Islamic monarch and a Trumpian "ally" in the Middle East, has about the most lenient laws in relation to Christianity in a Muslim nation: Christians cannot proselytise to Muslims, period. And Muslims suffer massive social ostracism if they leave Islam, though this is the watered-down version of the penalty for apostasy in the religion.

I therefore propose simply that the West and Christianity at home deals with Islam the way Islam deals with Christianity at home. Anyone who wants to practice Islam is free to do so in a nation that tolerates the religion, if indeed it can be called that. By virtue of its extensive ordinances relating to the Muslim's conduct in relation to civil authorities, Islam frequently crosses the threshold from religion to political ideology, and while one is notionally free in the West to practice one's religion, political ideologies are not quite such sacred cows.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #628

(06-13-2017 02:23 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Take a look at Germany. For fifty years those guys have been programming themselves that they must be inclusive and non-racist. Their entire identity has been to show they are not Nazis. Look at how effective that individual and societal psychology has been: the country is literally destroying itself in an orgy of narcissistic self-pity. That's how powerful the impulse to protect the ego runs.

I already had an endless discussion that the Denazification and installed collective guilt by the winners of WWII basically led to what we can now witness in Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazifica...tive_guilt

Some members failed to see a logical connection, I beg to differ

Post: #629

(06-13-2017 02:23 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  A wholescale repatriation of Muslimdom to the spice oil sands does seem pretty daunting logistically. As a first step, I prefer the tried and true method for controlling religions abhorrent to a local society. It's a method that works for Islamic nations around the world. And it has the advantage of treating Islam the way it treats Christianity at best in the Muslim world: regulate, restrict, or outright ban the religion. Make the West go on a diet, don't go running around treating the little pimples that burst from the skin from time to time. King Abdullah of Jordan, "enlightened" Islamic monarch and a Trumpian "ally" in the Middle East, has about the most lenient laws in relation to Christianity in a Muslim nation: Christians cannot proselytise to Muslims, period. And Muslims suffer massive social ostracism if they leave Islam, though this is the watered-down version of the penalty for apostasy in the religion.

I therefore propose simply that the West and Christianity at home deals with Islam the way Islam deals with Christianity at home. Anyone who wants to practice Islam is free to do so in a nation that tolerates the religion, if indeed it can be called that. By virtue of its extensive ordinances relating to the Muslim's conduct in relation to civil authorities, Islam frequently crosses the threshold from religion to political ideology, and while one is notionally free in the West to practice one's religion, political ideologies are not quite such sacred cows.

Sooner or later this will happen across the world, but unfortunately only after WWIII with Islam.

Post: #630

(06-13-2017 02:46 AM)void Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 02:23 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Take a look at Germany. For fifty years those guys have been programming themselves that they must be inclusive and non-racist. Their entire identity has been to show they are not Nazis. Look at how effective that individual and societal psychology has been: the country is literally destroying itself in an orgy of narcissistic self-pity. That's how powerful the impulse to protect the ego runs.

I already had an endless discussion that the Denazification and installed collective guilt by the winners of WWII basically led to what we can now witness in Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazifica...tive_guilt

Some members failed to see a logical connection, I beg to differ

A Shakespearean scholar once noted that, sadly, prior to the 20th century, of all of Shakespeare's plays, the most popular one among Germans historically was Hamlet. Notwithstanding that he's a Dane rather than a German, they seem to have "adopted" him. Identified with him. Indecisive, contradictory, dithering, impulsive, possibly mad, Hamlet.

Hitler remedied this by putting on performance after performance of The Merchant of Venice, but I digress.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #631

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.

Post: #632

(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.

Post: #633

< Yeah - IQs are impacted more by full nutrient intake and lack of neurotoxins during pregnancy than by post-birth factors. (though breast feeding while mother still receiving the same high quality nutrient intake is also known to increase IQs). That is likely what increased IQs in the West by 2 points per decade since the 1930s to the 1990s (trend has stopped since then).

---------------

But this is not about race or IQ here. It is better to put this stuff at rest here.

This thread is about Islamic terror and Islam.

Excelsior tried to divert it in the beginning by claiming that the governments create radical Islam in the West - as in the case of Choudary. Now frankly I know that the Western governments certainly support and coddle Islam like nothing else out there. There are gays and feminists who put on Burkas to show solidarity with the Religion of Peace.

Just listened to the interview of Rubin with Brigitte Gabriel:





Anyone should listen to this.

Back in time the Christian secular government and people of Lebanon opened their borders to all Muslims in the Middle East, so that they could experience the bounties of the best Middle Eastern secular state at the time - Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East:



Soon after a sufficient amount of Muslims came into the country the terror started (our current state in the West).

The terror increased, large Muslim parties formed, then one day the military split up - Muslims just took whatever they could grab, tank, plane, artillery unit and pulled them over to the Muslim forces. The war began and it would have ended completely with the eradication of all Christians and non-Muslims if not for the help of Israel.

Back then Brigitte Gabriel's successful businessman father thought that the West would surely intervene when thousands of Christians are slaughtered like animals during their precious halal slaughter. But no - they ignored them of course.

Listen to that well gents - this is the future of countries like Sweden, of Germany, Austria, France, Belgium. The time for war with Islam will be ripe when Russia descends into an Islamic civil war or Muslims take control of the country:

https://zionistreport.com/2017/04/commen...tionalist/

With the arsenal of Russia, the new Islamic Caliphate will have sufficient power to start mass-slaughter. Eastern Europe with the remaining Western forces will find themselves surrounded by enemies and Russia's military is way too powerful to take the onslaught for long. China, US and India will have to end the war.

Gabriel tells the story just like many Iraqis recently of neighbors who went grilling with them - those same neighbors were found next month beheading the very same people they grilled with.

That is Islam.

Islam needs to be brutally eradicated.

The successful liberal Muslim leaders were all relatively brutal dictators - Shah of Persia, Assad's father, Saddam Hussein. Why? Because you need to be a shitlord to keep the true spirit of Islam down.

The Muslim Brotherhood has a 100 year old plan to subvert and conquer the WEstern world:







Currently Facebook is helping governments in the West to arrest and fine WEsterners. It also helps Pakistan to kill blasphemers:





Now I don't think that they will succeed, I expect more than a billion of them to die after they take hundreds of millions of non-Muslims with them first.

That is what coddling of Islam gets you. You have to be either utterly ruthless with Islam or limit it strongly in the West (and be ruthless). Everyone excusing Islam here or otherwise is utterly deluded. You can defend Muslims who sometimes are very secular, liberal or truly moderate, but their ideology is as evil as it gets.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood plan - it is running well especially in Europe.

Post: #634

(06-12-2017 04:09 PM)kavi Wrote:  I mean it is bullshit when comparing populations from different countries.

Btw, i got 130 when I first took one but that didnt land me in Goldman Sachs.

Regardless as to whether those IQ test results linked earlier are valid or not (I'm skeptical, to be honest), they don't predict any individual's IQ, period. Deriving an individual score from an average is impossible, there are way too many other variables and math doesn't work that way.

Second is that when people say that IQ predicts successful outcomes, all they're really saying is that there's a statistically significant correlation between IQ and the status achievement in tested societies. They're not saying that IQ confers status directly, or that IQ perfectly predicts socioeconomic outcome. There are many other factors.

But just because there are many other factors, doesn't mean you can just ignore the correlation altogether, especially when the group is sufficiently large. Suppose you are taking a science class and have two options. Both classes have 20 students signed up and you're the last student to register. In one class, the average IQ is 90. In the other, the average IQ is 115. Which class is likely to cover more material? Which class is likely to have more interesting questions and discussion? Obviously, you can't know for SURE which class will perform better. The high-IQ class might waste a lot of time on fruitless digressions while the low-IQ class might be full of very diligent and hardworking students whose discipline influences you positively. The low-IQ class might have one genius outlier. But it's your education on the line: which class are you going to choose?

Although, if you have an IQ of 130 and have never had to sit through a semester in a classroom where the professor has to constantly re-hash concepts you find absolutely trivial at the behest of struggling students, it might be worth it just for the experience. You might appreciate your talents more. Of course, the humbling experience of being the dumbest person in the room can also be valuable, so long as your ego can take it. But most of the time when your goal is to learn the subject then you want to be with students who are roughly as smart as you are.

Post: #635

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

Secretary General Salil Shetty says hardline border protection policies like Australia’s are dangerous, amid the world’s largest refugee crisis since World War II.

He warns that without a more humanitarian stance on refugees, Western nations including Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom risk escalating radicalisation and more acts of terrorism.

“There is no doubt about that,” Mr Shetty told AAP in London, as part of a special news investigation into the global migrant smuggling trade.

“When people are fleeing from Syria, from Islamic State and radical extremists, taking such huge risks, if you push them back to those countries, what exactly is the impact of that? You are radicalising them.”

So let's get this reasoning straight: you don't want to be part of Islamic State, so you try and flee them by running overseas, and when you're sent back, the odds are on that you're going to then join the very organisation that you were fleeing because you're pissed that a border official said "No vacancies?"

Stick that one in your Pentium and see how it comes out. I doubt even a fucking microprocessor that holds 2+2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2 can follow the the logic in that one.

And when you've figured that out, consider this: a guy who can turn from weeping refugee to committed jihadi just because a government official said "No" is probably not the sort of chap you would want in your country even if you had sweetness-and-light immigration policies.

Me, I think it's a straightforward ransom demand from Amnesty International: open your fucking borders or these fuckers will bomb you. Guess we can add him to the #collaborator list. I remember the days when Amnesty was actually about having the balls to go in and challenge totalitarian regimes on their own turf about political prisoners. But then like Greenpeace it's gone full retard.

Quote:Mr Shetty says smugglers put desperate refugees in deadly and deplorable situations, but accuses Australia and other Western countries of using the trade to distract from the real problem: a collective failure to provide viable alternatives for people fleeing war, persecution and poverty.

“The real issue is that these countries are not offering a safe and legal route. That is the fundamental issue we’re dealing with. So effectively, they’re fuelling the people smugglers’ business model,” he says.

They do offer a safe and legal route. It's specified by the UN itself. It's called seeking refugee status in the nearest safe country to your shithole of origin, which, particularly in Australia's case, is generally going to be a Muslim nation roughly a thousand miles closer to said shithole than Australia. Just because you are a refugee does not mean you get to pick and choose which safe haven you go to; your status as a refugee is meant to be temporary, not permanent, which therefore means you go next door, not across town for a place to stay.

Quote:Demetrios Papademetriou, from the Migration Policy Institute in Washington agrees hardline border protection regimes — like Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders, which turns back boats at sea — only drive demand for smuggling services. “Strengthened border controls mean that more and more people are relying on facilitators,” he says of a growing global industry estimated to be worth $US10 billion ($A13.2 billion) a year.

Not by boat, sunshine, not in Australia -- although I grant you there are plenty more dodgy immigrants who arrive by 747 than ever arrived by boat.

Quote:But Immigration Minister Peter Dutton sees the military-led operation to stop smugglers’ boats as a permanent fixture on Australia’s security landscape.

“Since Operation Sovereign Borders commenced, we have not had a drowning at sea in three years,” he says, while pointing to 1200 deaths in the six years Labor was in power up until 2013. “It must be an enduring part of the response to people moving.”

He says that as Australia has aggressively ramped up its border protection efforts, it has also opened its door wider to refugees seeking resettlement through official channels.

He also insists that his government’s polices of boat turnbacks, offshore detention, and a ban on resettling people who come by boat have “destroyed the people smugglers’ product”.

“Their product was ‘pay the money, hop on the boat, you’ll settle in Australia’. We’ve taken the sugar off the table. We’ve upturned the table and we’ve said to people that you aren’t coming here.”

The Liberal Party might cuck a lot, but on this one it had it right, mainly because it stuck to the guns that Howard produced while he was still in office and the Tampa was overrun by sandcrabs. The results were chillingly obvious: under Labor who let barnacles apply for refugee status, men, women and children drowned coming from Indonesia to Australia. When the Liberals stopped it, and made Manus Island a living hell, they fucked off to other places and stopped using people smugglers.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #636

The reason why we are opposed to Islam is because we don't want this to be part and parcel of European daily life:

http://www.emirates247.com/crime/world/m...0-1.613537

Quote:Man rapes grand-daughter, mom kills her
Mother drowns her in water bucket to avert scandal

And I wish that this would be a single case. This happens all the time.

Egypt was once a Christian nation before Islam. They had more than a 1000 years of Islam and that is the epitome of their achievement.

A certain number of Muslims will always behave this way - there is no alternative to it unless a Muslim dictator manages to literally wipe out all ancient texts and create a new form of Islam that ignores the commands of Mohammed. There are scores and scores of stories where the texts are quoted. Also Islam a religion of shame and honor. The shame of having to tell that her father raped her daughter was greater than the fact that her daughter would die. The same goes on for all the honor killings happening in the West and the Muslim world. The shame of a Muslim girl going out with a black man, a Christian, without a Hijab or becoming Westernized - that is too great to bear. It is better in Islam to kill her than to accept her shaming the entire family. A son who kills dozens of toddlers during a car or bomb attack - that is another matter. He brought great honor to the family. The sickness of this religion knows no bounds.

Post: #637

Paracelsus Wrote:So let's get this reasoning straight: you don't want to be part of Islamic State, so you try and flee them by running overseas, and when you're sent back, the odds are on that you're going to then join the very organisation that you were fleeing because you're pissed that a border official said "No vacancies?

I'd love to ask the leader of Amnesty International whether he'd make that same prediction of increased terrorism if the refugees were Christian, or Jewish, or Atheists.

Post: #638

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.

Post: #639

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

(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.

Post: #640

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

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

(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.

Then why do deaf children on average have much lower IQ's then their siblings? They aren't exposed to verbal language so their brains become much less developed. Babies are born stupid and their brains develop according to their surroundings. I really can't see any viable argument that doesn't include both genetics and childhood development into producing an IQ value.

Obviously, a child born and raised by idiot immigrants in the UK or wherever is going to grow up stupid too. Thats not my point. Why do hoodrats have lower IQs then wealthy black families in the West?

Post: #641

Quote:And then those places, all of a sudden, became vastly more hostile to everything I am. They turned. New people with different ideas began to predominate. The lines between the Red Pill and White Nationalism blurred. Valuable contributors of color began to disappear. The Roissy that I read as a young black man and who had served as a gateway to the manosphere for me turned into the virulently anti-black Heartiste. And this forum shifted too.

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.

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.

So for some guy to say Muslims have low IQ does not mean that same guy believes a random Muslim he meets in day to day life is part of that low IQ crowd.

Averages are only useful when discussing millions of individuals, because the human brain isn't capable of processing each and every individual case. Averages are useful for government policy, marketing, and other mass approaches.

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.

This may be painful to hear, but men like Excelsior and TraverlaiKai, or Kaotic, are not even close to representative of their race. They far exceed their averages. It's no surprise high IQ non-Whites end up spending large amounts of time with Whites on a forum of alphas.

Whites are just the product of a LOOOOONG period of suffering that produced higher quality individuals on their end as well. And higher IQ people group together simply by default because we understand each other better.

So even those race and religion matter a fuckload when describing the importation of 1 million "refugees," or affirmative action, or whatever, it does not matter in the slightest for the members of this forum, or for day to day living.

It's the exact same logic we use with women and Game; do all game tactics work the same on every women? No. Are there still loyal and faithful women if the average woman is a major slut today? Yes. And we can understand this because we apply the logic of averages. And yet women still get pissed off at men who try and describe to them how most women are. 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.

Post: #642

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".

The colloquial consensus on success is that those Other Factors are, at bare minimum, "just as important" contributors to success as is IQ. And there's a large number of people who assert that those Other Factors, like Hard Work, are more predictive of success.

Therefore, the colloquial consensus on success is anti-scientific in the most literal sense. It's anti-scientific because it states the exact opposite of what scientific studies say. It's anti-scientific because it refuses to acknowledge that scientific conclusions should be viewed as better than anti-scientific ones. And it's anti-scientific, because non-scientists are demanding just as much influence as scientists.

Post: #643

(06-13-2017 03:16 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

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".

The colloquial consensus on success is that those Other Factors are, at bare minimum, "just as important" contributors to success as is IQ. And there's a large number of people who assert that those Other Factors, like Hard Work, are more predictive of success.

Therefore, the colloquial consensus on success is anti-scientific in the most literal sense. It's anti-scientific because it states the exact opposite of what scientific studies say. It's anti-scientific because it refuses to acknowledge that scientific conclusions should be viewed as better than anti-scientific ones. And it's anti-scientific, because non-scientists are demanding just as much influence as scientists.

So if you take a white baby from a well to do family and raise him in an Islamic shitbox with idiot parents while surrounded by morons... he'll still develop to the same IQ as if he were raised by the white family and with a Western education?

Post: #644

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.

Post: #645

(06-13-2017 03:36 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

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.

Post: #646

(06-13-2017 03:29 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 03:16 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

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".

The colloquial consensus on success is that those Other Factors are, at bare minimum, "just as important" contributors to success as is IQ. And there's a large number of people who assert that those Other Factors, like Hard Work, are more predictive of success.

Therefore, the colloquial consensus on success is anti-scientific in the most literal sense. It's anti-scientific because it states the exact opposite of what scientific studies say. It's anti-scientific because it refuses to acknowledge that scientific conclusions should be viewed as better than anti-scientific ones. And it's anti-scientific, because non-scientists are demanding just as much influence as scientists.

So if you take a white baby from a well to do family and raise him in an Islamic shitbox with idiot parents while surrounded by morons... he'll still develop to the same IQ as if he were raised by the white family and with a Western education?

Poor nutrition is believed to lower general intelligence. There may be other environmental factors that could harm general intelligence. But education isn't the same as intelligence. You can be uneducated and still intelligent, and you can be educated but not that intelligence, although intelligence can put a limit on how much education you can benefit from.

Post: #647

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

(06-13-2017 03:36 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

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.

Post: #648

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

(06-13-2017 03:36 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

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.

That would be a fascinating experiment. I don't think anyone really knows what would happen.

Post: #649

Quote:Fine. 10,000,000 white babies.

The 10,000,000 White babies will have an average IQ of roughly 95. This 95 IQ is equal to the American average White IQ of 100, minus 5 - as described by nomadbrah.

If you perform the opposite by taking 10,000,000 Syrians and raise them in a White American society, they will have an average IQ of 80, which is the Syrian average IQ of 75 - plus 5, as described by nomadbrah.

The IQ difference of 15 points represents 1.5 standard deviations, a massive difference. And it's the most reliable predictor of differences in success between the two groups.

Post: #650

(06-13-2017 03:59 PM)Blaster Wrote:  But education isn't the same as intelligence. You can be uneducated and still intelligent, and you can be educated but not that intelligence, although intelligence can put a limit on how much education you can benefit from.

We already tried this. (Or something like it)

This is one of the most famous psychological experiments in history.





The most important conclusion that educational reformers drew from this experiment is that there's a fundamental difference between Intelligence and Impulse Control. These reformers stated that even though you can't raise IQ through training, you can certainly raise Impulse Control by training - and since Impulse Control is so reliably predictive of success, we owe it to our children to train them in Impulse Control.

But this doesn't work, because there's a fundamental difference between the Colloquial/Definition-Based way of declaring two things different AND the Scientific/Mathematical way of doing so. In Science, two things are fundamentally different if they don't strongly correlate with each other, and it turns out the Impulse Control is highly correlated with IQ.

So populations with low IQ cannot, generally learn Impulse Control - even though, fundamentally, it requires very little intelligence to know what Impulse Control is, why it's important, and why you should exercise it.

------

Funny story. One girl fundamentally illustrated what High Intelligence, Low Impulse Control looks like by hollowing out the marshmallow and demanding a second one! This caused the researcher to conclude that this girl should never be put in charge of anyone else's finances.