(06-12-2017 12:35 PM)Samseau Wrote: Calling someone lesser isn't racist. It's only racist if you believe, like the Southern Slave owners did, that Blacks would always be lesser.
That is the belief of many of your peers here, who you have yet to call out.
After all, they have made it very clear that IQ is (mostly or entirely) a heritable trait, and that changes in environment do not bring about the substantial increases in IQ that RIslander
dared to suggest may be possible.
(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.
(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".
They insist that those environmental factors simply aren't a big contributor (if they contribute at all) to the differences we see.
So, follow the path:
-Different races have significant differences in IQ
-IQ is the primary and most useful determinant of capability with regard to anything that matters in society (ex: building and maintaining complex civilization). IQ is the most important reason why some do better than others.
-Differences in IQ are mostly or entirely genetic; environmental factors can make, at best, a very small impact on those differences.
You've followed the path, so where are you now?
There's only one destination: some groups are inferior by nature and are always going to be.
There's nowhere else for that logic to go. And once you've gotten there, there's really no room for any other conclusion other than "this is supremacy". You're smart enough to see that too, but you're ignoring it. I'm not going to keep speculating as to why you choose to do that.
Quote:That's not my argument, and never has been. And no matter how many times I've explained my position you are unable to grasp the nuances of my arguments. It's kinda sad, but it's obvious your indoctrination was thicker than most because of going to the Ivy League.
My classmates think I'm too conservative. You think I've been indoctrinated by SJWs.
Like I said, there is no more middle ground.
Quote:The facts of the matter is that the world's lesser peoples are dependent upon the developed ones, and the higher peoples aren't reproducing. This has happened before and it didn't even involve Blacks and Whites, it was just Roman Whites vs. Germanic Whites with the Romans being the higher and Germans being lesser. And when the Romans were gone, there was literally a 500+ year regression in technology.
Not in the East.
Quote:When you see it first hand during your lifetime, and you will, you will realize the truth of my position.
I don't make such firm declarations based on a future I can only speculate on.
Quote:"Racists" of course, will disagree and state that no such improvement will ever come and when the Whites decline there is no coming back for a long ass time (until Whites get their shit back together). And to be totally fair this position could be true, which means it's not racist at all. If something is true then it is not racist.
"Only whites can maintain civilization. Non-whites are inferior and always will be. Civilization will die indefinitely until whites can rise again to their natural position"
Samseau: "Well, I think there's at least a chance you are right so what you're saying isn't racist".
Amazing. You refuse to outright condemn even the most blatant supremacy. After all, you think it
might be true, so it can't be racist.
You say things like this and when I call you and others out on it?
"Stop seeing the perceived slights"
"Racism is in your head"
"I'm not a white supremacist"
Can't just say "nah, that's off, fuck that shit, it's wrong.". Gotta find a way to excuse it instead, and attack those who refuse to do so.
Quote:Regardless, there is nothing racist about talking about those who are lesser or greater. In fact you do it all the time when discuss alpha males and beta males, you even describe marriage as a form of betaffirmative action. Is this "racist" against betas? So ridiculous.
How could that be racist when the categories are race-neutral (read: anyone of any race can be either alpha or beta and there's no great correlation between one's race and one's existence in either category)?
You ask me a question like that, and call me ridiculous?
Quote:According to you, if calling someone lesser is racist, that means Jesus was a racist.
Matthew 25:37:
Quote:37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Quick, tell us why the Bible is racist Athlone because they used the word lesser. 
Where was race even mentioned in that verse? You say this is racist by "my logic", but my logic very clearly required a suggested correlation between lesser/greater and race (read: the implication that being of a certain race was correlated directly with being in one or other category). This passage doesn't do that, so why are you quoting it?
Quote:Your arguments suffer from extreme dogmas and intellectual bankruptcy. You refuse to be skeptical of your own positions and you spout falsehoods left and right.
I say the same of you.
Quote:Look at this beauty:
Quote:Its main failure is its attempt to correlate one's place of residence with their ideology. Residence in one place doesn't prohibit any view. You may reside in a place where you feel there is an issue with supremacists. You may have chosen to reside in this place for any number of reasons independent of said supremacists' presence. Your choice of residence does nothing to preclude you from attacking said supremacists when you find them. Your residence is not an endorsement of supremacy or anything else related to their ideology. If anything, it's an opportunity to directly attack it.
The point isn't what you are allowed to criticize or not, the point is that if this place is so bad you wouldn't be here. You're lying and a hypocrite.
No, that is the point. You're saying that because I live here, I can't possibly note or complain about anything related to supremacy because, by virtue of the fact that I live here, I forfeit the right to claim that said supremacy is anything worth complaining about. That is your argument.
I said supremacists exist. I didn't say they made the place inhospitable. I very clearly said they are not the only people here and they can be beaten.
How is it hypocritical to point out the existence of people who feel they are superior to certain other groups on the basis of race and maintain that you can still reside in that place?
You're drawing a false dichotomy. Your entire argument essentially boils down to this: "If you imply there's any supremacy here, it must be inhospitable. if you live here, there is no supremacy at all for you to bother talking about."
That's nonsense, and you know it is.
Quote:Yes, you live with White supremacy, after it gave you an Ivy League education mostly on (White) taxpayer's dime. 
W.E.B DuBois received an Ivy League education. Clearly, he did not live with white supremacy in the late 1880's - it must have been a figment of his imagination.
See what I did there? You presented a false dichotomy: having a good education means there is no such thing as white supremacy. If you are a non-white person and you excel, it is proof positive that there is not really any white supremacy in your society. All I needed to do was take an easily visible example from history to show how wrong that is. It is not right to claim, as you do, that white supremacy and successful minorities cannot coexist in the same place.
Granted, modern America is not in the 1880s. There have been massive improvements since then. That doesn't mean, however, that supremacy and those who believe in it (and act on it) do not exist.
What this means for you is simple: if you want to keep trying to paint me as a delusional fool with a victim complex who is seeing things that do not exist, you need to do much more than say "Oh but you went to a nice school". That's not enough. Even in societies with levels of white supremacy VASTLY greater than they are now, black people went to nice schools.
All I said was that there are millions of white supremacists in the United States. That's not a controversial statement in a place with over 300 million people, but you're so offended by it that you are inventing a false dichotomy manufactured entirely by your commitment to paint me as a delusional fool with a victim complex.
Yes, I do live with people who believe that white people are superior to black people. Yes, I can make money and do well in the same country that those people exist in.
These are not mutually exclusive things.
You know this. You are not dumb enough to be oblivious to this. You are intentionally ignoring it because you're too disingenuous to take a critical look at your own point of view, which seems to be that there is no such thing as a white supremacist in the United States of America.
Quote:I mean how can you be so delusional? Your education was just indoctrination, it's obvious it was a complete failure if you cannot even apply basic skepticism to your own views.
I can, I just don't agree with your conclusions. They're false and built on logical fallacies.
Quote:You see non-Whites attending institutions and countries built by Whites, but do you ever see it in reverse?
Do you see Chinese attending top African schools? Whites attending top Asian schools?
Christians becoming mayors of Muslim countries?
On and on and on, if the Whites are the racists how come they are the only ones who tolerate foreigners leading and participating in their civic and national life?
I see whites heading to African, Latin American, and Asian nations and being given top positions with lucrative salaries, excellent standards of living, and a host of other benefits (ex: access to some of the most attractive local women and entry into the local social elite). In many of these places, said white expatriates wield a disproportionate amount of the economic and political control because of the fact that they are so high up in the nation's corporate world.
Whites are also commonly given the power to influence children across asia as teachers. White professors find plenty of work at national universities in non-white nations, and with government or advisory organizations seeking their expertise (and influencing policy with it). This is to say nothing of investors, who are often welcome in these nations and whose power (by virtue of the size of the investments they are making, which can be vital to some of the economies they are in) is most certainly substantial. White owned and controlled multi-nationals wield enough power to effectively own several developing nations filled with non-white people who allowed them to set up shop.
I don't know how you can say that whites are the only ones who tolerate foreigners leading and participating in their civic and national life. That's just stunningly ignorant. There are very few developing nations on Earth that don't allow white individuals or white-owned/run organizations to come in and wield substantial influence over their economies and, by extension, their national life. As noted, in some places that influence is great enough to warrant the claim that said whites individuals/organizations are the main determinants of that national life.
(06-13-2017 02:46 PM)Samseau Wrote: This is another problem when discussing averages - people take them way too personally. When talking about averages, we are not talking about individuals. This is a logical fallacy of assuming the parts are the same as the whole. But it's not true.
It's quite true, for one simple reason: you cannot separate the individual from the whole of their history, culture, and blood, especially if that individual takes any pride at all in that history, culture, or blood.
What the logic promoted here by several members amounts to is this:
"Your people are inferior. Your culture and history are inferior, as are the societies produced by them. Your blood tends to produce inferior people who generate inferior outcomes and that can't be helped (since IQ is genetic).
But your IQ is a little higher than their average and you're not exactly like all those people. So yeah, we do insist that everything you come from is shit, but you're tolerable so don't take it personally".
Now, if I'm a person who doesn't take much pride in where I come from (my people, their history, their culture, etc), I might be inclined to agree with you. I might say "Yeah, you're right, it is a pretty shit culture and population I come from, I wish it was better. But I am different, I promise I'm not like all the shitty people that look like me and come from my roots, and I'll do whatever I can to distance myself from those people and from said roots. Thanks for the kind words, I don't take them personally!"
I take pride in where and what I come from. I take it personally.
If you are going to take the opportunity to shit on everything that defines my identity (my people, culture, nation, etc) that I take immense pride in, I'll take it personally.
You have to be delusional to expect another outcome.
Furthermore, think carefully about what you're really suggesting with this line of reasoning.
"Hey, by rule, people who look like you and come from your heritage/culture/race/nation are pretty shit, as is everything around them, and this is immutable because of their inferior genes. But you are an exception."
Where does that leave us?
I'm the exception that proves the rule. You, on the other hand, are the rule.
I exist as a living representation of an exception to shit, someone who by blood and history will always be tied to what you have deemed "shit". You exist as a living representation of standard excellence ("the rule"), and it is only through your benevolence that I get the chance to join you in disabusing and washing away the "shit" from which I have been excepted.
You think you're being egalitarian and benevolent with these lines of reasoning, but that's not the case at all. It's thinly veiled supremacism for those who want to seem more benevolent than they are.
In any case, this line of reasoning is moot because of how rare it actually is in HBD/racist/nationalist spheres:
Quote:Just because dogs bark, does not mean all dogs bark. Just because a car is fast, does not mean a wheel is fast. The parts are NOTHING like the whole, the sum is always greater than its parts.
Therefore, for an outspoken critic of Blacks, like Roissy, does not mean he would find you Excelsior, or most of the Black men of the manosphere to be problem people. Only total morons, or people with intense hatred, can apply criticism of the whole to the parts.
This is another myth: the notion of the "exceptional card".
There is no exception among most supremacists. When they throw out examples of their hate, they do not take the time to suggest that there be discrimination in the application of that hate on the basis of the quality of the individual toward which the hate is being directed toward.
Take, for example, this post:
(06-10-2017 06:01 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote: Similar to Obama's white mother. She'll be forgotten & cast aside.
This is an attack on interracial dating. She is implied to have wasted her genes and otherwise made a misjudgment by choosing to procreate with a black guy.
Now, before this attack is laid out, did you see any attempt to perhaps tone it down on the basis of the character of the black man in question?
No. There is no mention of his views, character, or other traits beyond his race. The fact that he is black is all that matters.
He could be an excellent guy with excellent genes, reasonable points of view, and generally high intellect (I don't know Seal all that well, but there's little to indicate that he's a dumb degenerate or otherwise low-character guy). She could have made an excellent choice in him relative to other men around her, who may have been inferior in character, intellect, or any othr number of factors.
But none of that would matter because, even if it was all true and Seal were the most saintly negro to have ever graced Gods green earth, the analysis being used to attack him, her, and his children has nothing at all to do with that. It's about his race, and what his children look like. That is all that matters.
This is applicable to the alt-right/nationalist spheres generally. I've already detailed how the "exception to the rule" treatment is problematic above, but part of the reason I dismiss is also because it just isn't commonly applied by those with these ideologies. Most simply do not take the time to analyze individual character or traits before passing judgments. Thousands upon thousands of examples of this fact can be seen in articles and comments at Amren, VDare, breitbart, ROK, Vox Day, Reality Talks, Red Ice, or any other place in the universe of these ideologies.
This is not about individuals, it is about race. That is a lesson I learned not only on line through the years spent trying to grasp these individuals and their ideology, but also in real life where I learned the hard way that my degrees, views, and other traits don't impact the way I am viewed by people on a daily basis. To the average person I meet or pass, I'm not different from Daquan the dropout on the block. A negro is a negro is a negro.
You'll deny that experience, and that's fine, but know this when you do: I've lived it. You have not.
Quote:But for day to day life, applying averages to random people is almost always going to be false. Therefore a lot of offense you feel, or other non-Whites feel is totally unjustified. Anyone who can read and keep up with this forum isn't part of the crowd of people we're talking about when we speak of the hordes of low IQ hordes who simply will never fit in Western society.
It is quite justified, for reasons I mentioned above. There's also a third reason, and it has to do with a theory very commonly held by those who subscribe to the notion of racial hierarchies separated by IQ measurements. This theory is called "regression to the mean", and it's natural conclusion is that intelligent members of inferior races are just freakish flukes of nature whose prodigy will naturally return to whatever very low level of intellect is deemed worthy of their race because "genetics". They support these claims even though they insist that IQ is a highly heritable trait (which would mean it could be controlled/bred for).
I cannot count the number of times I have heard this topic discussed on any number of online venues in which these ideologies hold. It's a staple.
And even for those like John Derbyshire who do not buy the notion of regression to the mean (instead positing that there is only regression toward the mean - a very different concept that effectively acknowledges the heritability aspect I mentioned just now), there is no love for the so called "
Intelligent, Well Socialized Blacks", who are viewed at best as tools for social shielding unworthy of assistance in a Good Samaratian manner who must be more carefully scrutinized than any similarly capable white person. He clearly resents them, as do most nationalists.
There is no exception. Highly educated, capable blacks are no more welcome or liked among ethno-nationalists/racists and their ilk than others. They may be tolerated slightly more out of necessity, but they are hated just the same. That's another lesson learned the hard way, for the record (believe me or don't - I lived it, you didn't).
Quote:They always hit back with, "BUT I'm not like that!!" even though we aren't speaking of them in particular. I see a lot of non-Whites fail victim to the same errors of logic.
Therefore there is no need to believe that most Nationalists resent anyone in particular even if they are critical of populations as whole. When you understand that Excelsior then you will find these discussions less triggering.
There is reason to believe that, for reasons outlined above. Also, as I said earlier: you can't completely shit on a culture/history/heritage/blood that people hold dear and expect them not to take it personally.
It is odd that I have to explain that on a forum filled with folks who seem so dedicated to bigging up their cultural/ethnic/historical pride.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
/
London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017)
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 1 user Likes RIslander's post:
![[Image: scaled.php?1260338978]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/030/013/scaled.php?1260338978)
![[Image: 04b324a5-3eb8-4b22-afe3-40e284fad4ad.png]](http://r-http-32.dcs.redcdn.pl/http/o2/tvn/web-content/m/p1/i/b60c5ab647a27045b462934977ccad9a/04b324a5-3eb8-4b22-afe3-40e284fad4ad.png)
![[Image: 1480190311_t3trbw_600.jpg]](http://img5.dmty.pl//uploads/201611/1480190311_t3trbw_600.jpg)
![[Image: rc0.png]](http://i.magaimg.net/img/rc0.png)
