~ archived since 2018 ~

The Dark Enlightenment for Dummies

2014-06-04T14:41:28+00:00

Here's a great video explaining The Dark Enlightenment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYMkl2H55Mw It's by Ramzpaul, rated 3rd most dangerous man on...

[deleted]

June 4, 2014

2 upvotes

/r/TheRedPill

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	The Dark Enlightenment for Dummies
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	2
Comments	60
Date	June 4, 2014 2:41 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/27alm6/the_dark_enlightenment_for_dummies/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/the-dark-enlightenment-for-dummies.16268 https://theredarchive.com/post/16268

Comments

[–]monsieurhire2 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]rcglinsk 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]rcglinsk 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, there are biological differences between men and women.

To me, alpha fucks / beta fucks is heavily influenced by the culture. In different cultures, you have less materialism to the point where marriages are more easily maintained. The biological tendency is go for security, but at the same time, men, if they are smart, will try to find a career that is lucrative and secure; women will try to find a man who can provide for them and any children they have. Biologically, they are still drawn to the alpha male cave-man types, but these guys aren't necessarily able to provide security, so they fuck them for a bit, and then go settle down with a beta. If they are unscrupulous, they'll do the cuckoo's egg thing. But in a society that places value on intangible virtues, where people aren't so materialistic, there may be some alpha fucks, but ultimately beta bux aren't viewed with so much contempt that the marriage and family be destroyed to pursue baser desires.

[–]rcglinsk 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rcglinsk 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In my opinion, the radical left wing ideologies are nothing more than giant red herrings that the oligarchs use to distract young people with, and to flush out potential traitors. That's why they are tolerated at university, but not in the real world. Once they out people for having a left-wing views, they go on a shit list that will dog them in the employment sector the rest of of their lives, unless they want to work for some marginalized non-profit. I think the biggest problems the country faces are over wealth inequality where the culture wants people to work like slaves, yet refuses to pay them for their work, demoralizing, and disincentivizing people, lowering productivity, and then forcing a cannibalization on the rest who do work. The demoralization cause people to turn to various forms of self-destruction.

[–]rcglinsk 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jar_of_apples 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

Lol, no. What does that even mean, "equal," anyway? Obviously, someone born with horrible birth defects doesn't have the same abilities as someone born a genius athlete. It seems pretty self-evident to me that if you take healthy children with no defects and give them identical conditioning, they're all likely to turn out very similar. How else can you explain the similarties between the aristocracies of virtually all the countries? Sure, some get defeated and dominated by others, but that has more to do with the resources they are working with than the human intellect. If you're born onto a tiny island in the middle of an ocean, your civilization isn't as likely to advance as one birthed on a continent with lots of natural resources.

This guy is peddling the tired "race" theory of humanity, where people can be divided by skin-type into higher and lower based on the prejudices of whoever is doing the dividing. You see the same thing in EVERY country, BTW, the dominant, wealthy, aristocrats looks down on everyone who is not them, with special disdain reserved for those who have a different skin color. They can't all be right, lol. And it's all based on appearance!

And if it weren't for the teat of liberalism, none of us would even be talking on the internet; it wouldn't exist. We'd all be illiterate serfs somewhere.

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

And if it weren't for the teat of liberalism, none of us would even be talking on the internet; it wouldn't exist. We'd all be illiterate serfs somewhere.

Social progress is very much different from technological progress. The former is an illusion - any form of societal change or societal issue that is known today was also known to people like Plato, Aristotle, and Kant.

There is also a prevalent theory that societal progress is circular - this notion was first supported by Plato, and then improved by Aristotle. Then Spengler clarified it a bit, drawing from the historical downfall of Rome. It is prevalent in Strauss-Howe generational theory.

The gist of it is like this - in order for strong civilizations to appear, strict hierarchy must also exist, as to give a rise to culture and power structure. Institution of marriage that builds the family is one of them. When civilization weakens, the institutions are weak and people are more free to indulge in what they want without any regard for long term consequences. People are reluctant to marry, they lose perspective and long term planning, birth rates plummet - they are replaced by immigrants who don't have respect for local traditions enough to assimilate.

Furthermore, you equate liberalism with technological progress. This cannot be farther from the truth. The philosophers of liberalism had very little to do with scientific discoveries - this should be evident to anyone who has a modicum of brain. Newton (the man who created calculus) was a royalist, Lavosier (the father of modern chemistry) got beheaded as he was a tax collector for the Louis XVI, pretty much any scientist back in the day was of aristocratic upbringing. Austria-Hungary and Prussia placed a great deal of importance in education. Not to mention that the one who instituted most of reforms that even neoreactionarists would deem good was Napoleon, who was an emperor. Hardly democratic person. The people who contributed most to art, culture and science were aristocrats - not the common lot.

Liberalism (or Revolutionarism if you will) actually tries to actively impede scientific knowledge. Communists were notorious for minchurism, which rejected evolution on the basis of Mendel being the father of genetics. Fascists were notorious for Deutsche Physik. And Liberalism, oh boy - Hjernevask is a must watch if you have any doubts about it. Not to mention active restrictions on genetic research.

And then if you try to look at socialist education which strives for "No Child Left Behind" you'll see that it only waters down education. France had this prestigious exam called Baccalaureat, which was hard to pass and it was reserved for the elite. Then socialists watered it down. Something similar happened in my country, where at the end of high school you take an exam called "matura". If you went to a gymnasium, Mathematics/Languages/English would be a child's play, and it missed the point of entrance exams.

Seriously, I have no idea how you can equate liberalism with science. If you think that liberalism got Americans on the Moon, you're sorely mistaken.

self evident truths

Well, it seems self evident to me that if different populations develop differently over the course of thousands of years, it will be likely that they will develop different abilities. We're in a clash here and we will go to experts. Here. Can you provide any experts to back you up that are not already refuted?

race theory of humanity

People aren't divided by "skin color". Race is a rough set of genes that correlates to rough set of phenotypes. People are divided by this. Even when you try to take a x-ray picture to show "see, it's only skin color", any well trained anthropologist/doctor can tell you the difference in bone structure.

The thing that you promote - Human Neurological Uniformity cannot be any more false. HNU says that while evolution is real, that while genetics impact the entirety of body, that while body includes the brain and hormones as well, and while the brain and hormones impact the neurological capacity - all human beings have the same neurological capacity.

The existence of race as a genetic class is true - it is not only skin color, but a variety of different things. And it goes much further than race - you can tell hormonal difference between Scots and English based on their reaction to provocation. Race goes beyond that and it is hardly pseudo-scientific.

The concrete IQ tests are one example and before you say that IQ =/= intelligence, and that there is more than one form of intelligence (false), IQ tests are heavily standardized to show aptitude in critical (not gender studies critical) thinking, abstract thinking, and concluding. If IQ tests are culture biased, then why do Asians excel the most at them?

similarities between the aristocracies of virtually all the countries

This makes zero sense. Are you saying that aristocracies of all countries were similar? Sure, they were, more or less. But that is a poor argument to defend a racially egalitarian standpoint. Are you saying that Swedish aristocracies were similar to African tribals? Sure, but only in the broadest sense of the world.

Sure, some get defeated and dominated by others, but that has more to do with the resources they are working with than the human intellect.

Then explain how Africa, the richest continent, was so easily conquered. Explain how West Europeans were seen as gods by South American Natives? Explain how Sweden, Norway, Denmark, all in very resource scarce (and you can't use oil if you don't know how to work with it) environment all achieved a high degree of culture and technological discoveries?

The thing about "Guns,Germs, and Steel" - the fallacy that only environment play a role in formation of civilization is childish, and it's debunked here. And if you want to know how civilization affects human race watch this - password is "hjernevask" (brainwash). But if science is more of you thing, then read this to understand how civilization impacts human evolution, and how in turn evolution impacts civilization.

If you're born onto a tiny island in the middle of an ocean, your civilization isn't as likely to advance as one birthed on a continent with lots of natural resources.

Ever heard of Great Britain? The ones who conquered the 70 percent of known world?

How can you be here, be TRP Endorsed and still have such delusions (especially when Hjernevask is a side bar material) is beyond me.

[–]monsieurhire2 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

I hope you got paid to write all that.

Let's examine some of your facts:

Great Britain isn't a tiny island in the middle of an ocean. It's a medium-sized set of islands off the coast of continent that housed the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. That's bit different than say, the Pitcairn islands. But way to completely mischaracterize my argument.

When I speak of aristocracies today, I speak of wealthy families from all over the world raising their children in schools inspired by the West, and then sending those children to Ivy League schools, or their functional equivalent. If you meet the Ivy League educated from around the world, who come from wealthy families all over the world, as I have, you see no difference in their intellect, their values, or their discourse. Differences are pretty much stylistic, subtle, nuanced, and idiosyncratic. But they are similar enough to be fit into slots at any number of multinational corporations where they have no trouble at all excelling. If you look at the roster of any multinational, you'll see people from all over the world.

I never said there weren't differences across so-called racial lines, but they are mostly subtle and not worth making a big fuss over; what unites people is more important, not whether they have certain food allergies because their ancestors never drank milk.

I never said there was Human Neurological Uniformity; quite the opposite in fact. Some people are born with good brains, others with bad brains, but it has NOTHING to do with race. In all likelihood, social class, which is correlated to environment, is more important. A fetus gestating in a womb where the mother isn't living next to a petrochemical plant or landfill will probably do better than one that is.

As for the ideologies of various scientist, you're totally cherry-picking. There are plenty of other scientist who had different worldviews.

Also, you interpreted liberalism to mean some brand of philosophical or political liberalism you don't like, whereas I meant it in the broadest sense possible. Some people are so conservative that they don't believe civilization SHOULD advance, and that we should stay sun-worshippers ruled by kings, because that's in the best interest of . . . well, I'm not sure exactly. In order for civilization to have made technological progress to the extent it has, a certain amount of liberalization was required to train a white collar work force large enough for semi-autonomous thought.

[–]rcglinsk 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

We're talking about a test created by European Americans and imposed on a group of people that they brought over as slaves, stripped of their cultures, brutalized for four hundred years, and kept down for the next few hundred years, who still live, to a great degree in ghettos under siege, flooded with drugs, as well as in prisons. This is a population that was denied the tools of advancement by a well-organized, nation-wide conspiracy, a population that had it's leaders murdered repeatedly. Do you really trust the European population that did all those horrible things to NOT try and keep doing them in different forms? Why would they stop? They just got more sophisticated in their approach. In the old days, it was, "We enslave you because your black," now it's, "First we turn you into a criminal, then we enslave you." Prisons are a source of cheap labour; they also help keep wages down. The criminalization process is disproportinately applied to people of color, and the secret police plays a role by flooding their neighborhoods with drugs while the official police look the other way. And let's not forget about how the jobs are shit, the environments polluted, the food is junk, etc. It's all just a cascading pile of adverse factors designed to keep them down. The IQ test is just a propaganda tool designed to create a "science" justification for subjugation.

It's like two guys before a fight; one has been rested and trained and primed, and the other has just had both his legs broken by the other figher's cronies, yet people are saying, "Well, that's just the way he is! He's inferior, so he's going to lose!"

[–]rcglinsk 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

We're talking about a test created by European Americans and imposed on a group of people that they brought over as slaves, stripped of their cultures, brutalized for four hundred years, and kept down for the next few hundred years, who still live, to a great degree in ghettos under siege, flooded with drugs, as well as in prisons. This is a population that was denied the tools of advancement by a well-organized, nation-wide conspiracy, a population that had it's leaders murdered repeatedly.

That population scores way better on IQ tests than their co-descendants who never were subjected to any of those evils (African Americans vs Africans). It's almost a standard deviation, not quite, but close.

Do you really trust the European population that did all those horrible things to NOT try and keep doing them in different forms? Why would they stop? They just got more sophisticated in their approach. In the old days, it was, "We enslave you because your black," now it's, "First we turn you into a criminal, then we enslave you." Prisons are a source of cheap labour; they also help keep wages down. The criminalization process is disproportinately applied to people of color, and the secret police plays a role by flooding their neighborhoods with drugs while the official police look the other way. And let's not forget about how the jobs are shit, the environments polluted, the food is junk, etc. It's all just a cascading pile of adverse factors designed to keep them down. The IQ test is just a propaganda tool designed to create a "science" justification for subjugation.

It's like two guys before a fight; one has been rested and trained and primed, and the other has just had both his legs broken by the other figher's cronies, yet people are saying, "Well, that's just the way he is! He's inferior, so he's going to lose!"

The modern IQ test is an wonderfully accurate measure of general cognitive ability. It is not tainted by bias. Just-so stories of bias are spun by ideologues for political, not scientific reasons.

[–]monsieurhire2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The modern IQ test IS a "just-so" story of bias spun by ideologues for political reasons. But I guess if you do well on them, like I did, you are the beneficiary, so it's in your interest to uphold the mythology of your own perfection, the better to subjugate other people.

Also, have you considered the possibility of . . . academic fraud?

Frankly, if I were an impartial observer from outer space, which I may very well be, I would look at askance at such claims.

You simply cannot trust the enslaving, subjugating population to come up with a fair, unbiased test. Nor can you trust them to score the results properly. Nor can you trust them to draw the proper conclusions from their results.

Why would you trust them after they've already been proven to commit atrocities? Did I forget to mention all the barbaric non-consensual human experimentation that went on post-slavery and still goes on?

It's like trusting a rigged carny game to determine whether or not you're a good shot; the whole thing is rigged to "prove" that you can't shoot straight.

[–]rcglinsk 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My mom has professionally administered IQ tests for more than 30 years. I can tell you 1) they're no frauds, at all and 2) their results reflect and predict the academic potential of the test taker. They are completely valid science.

My mom is inordinately, insanely and massively compassionate. If IQ tests were in any way biased or unfair she would refuse to administer them.

But they're not biased, they're completely scientifically accurate.

There are two lines of reasoning at play here.

Number 1:

I have no idea if there are differences in average intelligence or variance between groups
Administer IQ tests.
Conclude there are differences in average intelligence between racial groups and difference in variance between genders

Number 2:

Assume as a given truth there are no differences in average inteligence or variance between groups
Administer IQ tests
Conclude IQ tests are biased such that they create the false impression of difference in average IQ between racial groups and variance between genders.

[–]monsieurhire21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The two groups may perform differently on the tests, but most of it has to with environmental and cultural conditioning that goes back hundreds of years. That's why it's so diabolical. Also, then you have the whole "test-taking" issue as an indicator of later success in life. I can tell you that many people who weren't as good of test-takers as I have surpassed me in many areas of life. I was always good at taking tests. I never got nervous. I never really cared about the outcome. Lots of really intelligent kids were bad test-takers. I had a particular mindset that was adapted to taking and passing tests. It's like my friend, he can't sight-read music because he thinks he has ADHD, but he can play almost anything by ear instantly upon hearing it, no matter how complicated. Meanwhile, I can sight-read, but I can't do what he can do. His ability appears like magic to me. He developed it on his own, idiosyncratically, in a non-linear manner, whereas I was drilled by professional instructors. In my opinion, his abilities are far more marketable and useful than mine, and yet, he wouldn't have done well in a structured music program.

So, when these kids are placed in front of these test, some are thinking, "Cool, I get to prove how smart I am!" while others are thinking, "This is stupid, I already know I'm smart, I'm not even going to bother," or "It doesn't matter what I do anyway," or "I want to go outside and play."

It was drilled into me at an early age that I needed to do well at tests and at school. On other hand, I've actually seen parents tell their children, "You ain't never gonna get ahead, because you a n_____." I've actually seen that. I've also seen firsthand what goes on in the hood, and it's a fucking warzone, and the authorities are as much to blame as anyone else. It's amazing to me that anyone ever claws their way out of those shitholes. Also, you have the same toxicities of culture outside the ghetto too, which is why there is so much anti-intellectualism and mediocrity of achievement in the United States.

[–]rcglinsk1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

On cultural bias: some kinds of questions have been noted to have cultural bias. So for example "here's a list of 4 things, which doesn't belong." Kids from different countries would give different answers which reflected how their society thought about groupings. So modern tests don't ask that kind of question any more. Most of the heavily g-loaded questions can't have cultural bias. For example, here's a sequence of numbers, repeat them back to me backwards.

On test taking and success: standardized and IQ tests results are very strongly correlated with academic and career success. Strong correlation is not absolute correlation. Not everyone with a very high IQ makes a lot of money. Not everyone with a low IQ makes little money. But on average the correlation is very strong.

On sight-reading: IQ tests will split between verbal and analytical reasoning. The ability to sight read is verbal intelligence. The ability to play music from memory is on the analytical side. Most people will favor one over the other.

On structured music programs: most pedagogical environments are not designed and administered by people with PhD's in child psychology. They're designed and administered by people with undergraduate degrees in education. This leaves things... lacking.

On the test-taker's disposition: Some things will make a difference. So if a kid is running a fever of 102 during the test they won't do well. If their parents just got divorced and they're stressed out over that they won't do well.

Other things won't make a difference. For example there was a longstanding theory that social cues could "prime" certain children to perform poorly. Like girls thinking boys are better at math, resulting in girls doing worse on math tests. Actual experimentation has shown this is not a real effect. Separate out a control group and experimental group of girls and boys. Tell one group of girls and boys that boys are better at math. Even write it in big letters on the chalkboard during the test. The control and experimental groups will perform the same regardless.

On ghettos: this is a real conundrum. Comparisons of performance on standardized and IQ tests which try to control for social and economic environment tend to show there isn't much of an effect (eg black kids from rich neighborhoods have similar test scores to black kids from poor neighborhoods). But the sample sizes tend to be small and let's face it, controlling for gunshots ringing out at night, being told you'll always fail, waking up at 3AM with cockroaches crawling through your hair, not easy. So I'm a little skeptical and wouldn't be at all surprised if further research shows that stuff makes a big difference.

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

Great Britain isn't a tiny island

Your example was pretty much different from what you preached. Had there been geographical isolation, different people would evolve differently - and they would have different cognitive abilities. Civilization is just another form of natural selection.

Aristocracies today

There are no aristocracies today. Only upper bourgeoisie. And that still doesn't make up for the discrepancies between black American and white American college results or IQ tests.

And besides, most of the high colleges have some form of affirmative action quota making.

If you look at the roster of any multinational, you'll see people from all over the world.

This is where someone should teach you how statistics and standard deviations work. Sure, there's going to be a few smart blacks here and there. But there's going to be more smart whites or Asians. And besides, if you take a closer look at the upper levels of any group, you'll see that they're predominately white.

And if you want to use "white privilege" argument, the arguably most important family is the Rotschild family - they control all wealth everywhere. And they're Jewish. I'd hardly call Jews privileged. Ashkenazi Jews rank the top on IQ test and they rank the top at informational technologies (virtually all media has Jews in their upper brass), technological achievements (Bohr, Einstein, and many more), and politics. And they faced more oppression, so there goes out your argument.

I never said there weren't differences across so-called racial lines, but they are mostly subtle and not worth making a big fuss over

This is where you are plainly wrong. Take a look at the overall technological achievements of different races, take a look at IQ tests of all different races, take a look at the criminality and violence at all different races, take a look on the collective racial societies as a whole and you will have pretty objective classification of which is which.

And that is to say that genetics doesn't impact intelligence or neurological capabilitites - it does. And it's just a matter of time when the Chinese (because Westerners put a stop to it, just to avoid some uncomfortable truths) map the genes for intelligence.

Some people are born with good brains, others with bad brains, but it has NOTHING to do with race.

This much cognitive dissonance is astounding. Some people are smart, some people aren't, and it's mostly genetical (as in born with, as opposed to raised to). But race is a social construct. Hint : it isn't. I already gave you a link to human biodiversity project, but it takes a close look at collective achievements of all different races contrasted with the amount of resources they have to prove that race is something genetical. Race is a biological term for fuck's sake, a subspecies of. Are you so sure that all races, despite being phenotypically different and thus neurological different, have the same overall capacities? Because I can't see how you can think so?

A fetus gestating in a womb where the mother isn't living next to a petrochemical plant or landfill will probably do better than one that is.

This has nothing to do with race. A stupid argument to defend an unscientific position.

cherry picking

It wasn't cherry picking. It was to demonstrate how in aristocratic societies, not democratic ones, science can achieve. You won't be dumb illiterate peasants. You have to be an idiot to believe so. The political ideologies don't matter, just that scientists were present in aristocratic societies.

Also, you interpreted liberalism to mean some brand of philosophical or political liberalism you don't like

Again, this is an idiotic statement. Liberalism, as in neoliberal capitalism, as in first position. I even used the term Revolutionarism as to denote all ideologies birthed from "liberte, egalite, fraternite" - liberalism, communism and fascism. Liberalism, used in today's sense, is very much different from the old liberalism. You have to be an idiot not to see that.

I was even trying to avoid the pitfall of semiotic discrepancies. But what was once liberalism, today is libertarianism (as in from liberty).

Some people are so conservative that they don't believe civilization SHOULD advance

Again, there is no such thing as civilizational advance. Utter rubbish. Civilization is strongest when man's natural urges are the most controlled and directed. When man's natural urges are not controlled, civilization decays. It happened with the Rome, it's going to happen today.

sun-worshippers ruled by kings

Yeah. Better to be a sun worshiper, or a Christ worshiper rather than a "all sexes/races are equal" worshiper. The former don't have to observe their God not existing on a daily basis.

And kingship isn't inherently good or bad, as democracy isn't inherently good or bad.

A certain amount of liberalization

If we define liberalization as a byproduct of French Revolution (which I cannot help but to think it is), you'll see that this notion is false. How do you explain technological progress made in the Middle Ages (and seriously, if you believe in the myth of scientific stagnation of West during Middle Ages, you have to be a special kind of idiot to seriously believe such nonsense. ), or the technological progress of Ancient Greeks, Middle Ages Muslims, Persians, Indians (with a serious caste system), even Egyptians who had despotism (despotism =/=kingship) had a great deal of cultural and technological progress.

Honestly, you avoid giving arguments and research to battle my position of racial neurological inequality and go against my criticism of your poor arguments. And sometimes, you even misunderstand the point I was making. The points were following :

Social progress doesn't exist. Technological progress can happen even under despotism.

Genes impact race, genes impact intelligence. We can correlate race with neurological capabilities through IQ tests of same social class, same economical class, different ethnic groups.

Some races aren't as smart as others, and this is reflected in their civilizations.

Refute them.

[–]monsieurhire2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

It seems like a waste of time to me to argue with someone who KNOWS they are right. No matter what I propose, you'll just ignore it and rant on.

"There are no aristocracies today . . . ."

Wow. I don't know what planet you live on. Clearly you never notice all the tabloid coverage of the British ROYAL family? House of LORDS? But, you'll probably just bleat "Their power is purely SYMBOLIC . . . ." Never mind that they're also worth billions of dollars and that money buys political influence. Aristocracies don't just go away because some heads get chopped off or because of some legislation.

I said a "tiny island" in the "middle" of an ocean. You brought up Great Britain, which is right off the coast of Europe.

And the Rothschild's control ALL the wealth? Really? ALL of it? Even in China? That's pushing it. Maybe all the Chinese oligarchs are secretly Jewish?

You haven't proven anything, so there is nothing to refute.

Social progress doesn't exist? Really? So . . . how were we able to build increasingly advanced civilizations with increasingly complex and intricate systems of rules created by larger and larger organizations consisting of larger and larger bodies of people, all working harmoniously? Back in the good old days, tribes would constantly work to exterminate each other. Obviously, we've experienced some social progress to go along with our technological progress.

The only race is the human race and the many hues and shades it comes in. There are geniuses produced in every hue and shade, by a combination of genetic chance and environmental factors. IQ tests are larger bunk, pseudo-science, as people can be trained to do well on them and ape intelligence they don't have. While genes have an impact, environment also has an impact on genes through the epigenetic process, something you conveniently overlook. Environment shapes genetics in a feedback process.

As for scientific and cultural achievements being linked to specific races, that's bullshit. Individuals within groups make the contributions, and their contributions are linked to the wealth of the civilization they exist in. Statistically, these exceptional individuals are bound to appear within any civilization, provided they're not murdered off.

But anyway, there's no point in going further with you, because you're already completely convinced that you're right about everything, lol.

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

It seems like a waste of time to me to argue with someone who KNOWS they are right. No matter what I propose, you'll just ignore it and rant on.

But anyway, there's no point in going further with you, because you're already completely convinced that you're right about everything, lol.

Oh the irony. Not only that you're an imbecile who selectively reads things and takes out what he cannot refute, but you're also hypocritical. TRP is going to shit pretty fast.

Clearly you never notice all the tabloid coverage of the British ROYAL family?

Oh, is Brad Pitt a king now because he got a tabloid coverage? Do you even know what aristocracy is?

Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos "excellent," and κράτος kratos "power") is a form of government in which power is in the hands of a small, privileged, ruling class. As opposed to democracy. Show me one aristocratic society that is not instead based in one of French revolution spawned ideologies - liberalism, communism or fascism. The closest thing is Hong Kong, and they're doing just fine.

Now aristocracies aren't royal families you dense headed cretin. Aristocracies are a form of government. And they go away because of legislation and because some heads get choped up. Royal families persist, but aristocracies do not.

Alteratively, a form of goverment where money (and not heritage) buys political power is not aristocracy. It is capitalistic democracy championed by USA.

I said a "tiny island" in the "middle" of an ocean. You brought up Great Britain, which is right off the coast of Europe.

Again, you grasp at stupidities. If there is geographical isolation, people will evolve differently with different cognitive abilities. These cognitive abilities aren't just going to go away for many generations more.

And the Rothschild's control ALL the wealth?

A hyperbolic statement. But they control a very vast majority of wealth. Considering that China was hitherto a communist state, it's a stupid thing to grasp.

Rotschilds I mentioned to show you how groups who have been historically oppressed harder than some races (i.e. blacks) and longer now own the world - whether it's show business or finances. And not to mention science.

That was the point you idiot, and not a vast Jewish conspiracy. How you can infer that from my statement, I don't know.

how were we able to build increasingly advanced civilizations with increasingly complex and intricate systems of rules created by larger and larger organizations

Complexities of administrative systems have no relation to its effectiveness. Absolute monarchy was minimal form of government, and so was feudal monarchy. And social progress in vein pathological (notice the emphasis on the word pathological) overtolerance of some criminal elements can hardly be called such. To call democracy an upgrade from aristocratic system is idiotic. Plato knew it, Aristotle knew it, Kant knew it, only some idiots today still cling to it. There you go. Democracy.

You haven't proven anything, so there is nothing to refute.

I didn't prove anything other than the fact that you're a moron. Science proved things. And science says that there exists a lot of human races, some more adapted, some less adapted, some more cognitivelly competent, some less. This can be reflected in the mastery of environment of different races.

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

There's your proof of biological diversity of humans. And biological diversity, is linked to neurological diversity, and hence if race truly is a biological class of its own (hint : it is), some races are naturally more gifted in neurological prospects. It's not rocket science to conclude this. Go there and refute them. There's your proof.

The only race is the human race and the many hues and shades it comes in.

Well that's fucking wrong. The only sentient species (as far as we know) are humans. Humans come in variety of different subspecies or races. This is basic biology and where did you get the idea that systematic classification cannot be applied to a species called Homo sapiens?

There are geniuses produced in every hue and shade, by a combination of genetic chance and environmental factors.

Yes. Those are outliers and a statistical necessity. And those geniuses don't make up the bulk of the society. Arguably, some races have more geniuses than others.

IQ tests are larger bunk, pseudo-science, as people can be trained to do well on them and ape intelligence they don't have.

Provide evidence. If people can be trained to do well on them, and if race is truly subservient to social class, then why is there a discrepancy between black Americans and white Americans of same social/economical status? And if they depend on the culture of the taker, why do Asians excel at them and sub-saharan Africans do poorly? And coincidentally, why do groups that score higher on IQ tests have the better life standards?

While genes have an impact, environment also has an impact on genes through the epigenetic process, something you conveniently overlook. Environment shapes genetics in a feedback process.

No I don't. I specifically said that civilization is another form of natural selection. And if environment shapes genetics, it does so over a long period of time, and it cannot be ameliorated in a generation or two without race mixing. And then you, from you stupid cognitive dissonance only an idiot could get caught it, admit that genes play the role in creating the environment. Hence, some races are more fit that others.

As for scientific and cultural achievements being linked to specific races, that's bullshit. Individuals within groups make the contributions, and their contributions are linked to the wealth of the civilization they exist in. Statistically, these exceptional individuals are bound to appear within any civilization, provided they're not murdered off.

Holy shit this much double think is astounding. If individuals make contributions, then you must take in the fact that all individuals make contribution and that the wealth and technological progress of civilization is directly linked to the genetic makeup of a group that makes the bulk of civilization. So you essentially hand wave the existence of geniuses.

And the higher your average (you still don't understand statistics) genetic wellbeing of population (genes that directly correlate with intelligence), the more wealth it can create. The more geniuses can appear.

And even so, if you do take the silly notion that certain geniuses appear within any civilization and that their number and intensity is proportional to the average intelligence of a member of their species, then you will certainly see that some races have more geniuses and more smarter geniuses.

Face it, race is a set of genes that influences the outer look and neurological capabilities. To handwave IQ as pseudo-bulk (especially without providing evidence) is idiotical at best. Even if you do, it doesn't take a genius to take a look at the history, technological achievements, cultural achievements compared to the abundance of resources and conclude that some groups of people are better than some in utilizing them.

Scandinavians lived in cold, harsh climate where resources were scarce and they gave inmeasurable contribution to variety of different branches of science. Sub-saharan Africans lived on a richest continent there is, and their contribution to the humanity as a whole is minor, at best.

[–]monsieurhire2 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Look, it's obvious to anyone reading this that you are an ignorant, white supremacist crank nutjob. I was trying to be polite, but there's no point, since you've degenerated into name-calling.

Your whole rant consists of putting straw men arguments in my mouth and then refuting them with equally foolish and ill-conceived sweeping statements.

It would take days to pick apart everything that's wrong with what you wrote, and you still would be living in a delusional fairy-tale land.

You want to engage in a REAL intellectual exercise? Why don't you write an essay that provided arguments that contradict every assertion in your little screeds? And why don't you do it like you're trying to win, too? Once you've engaged in that kind of intellectual exercise, as I have by the way, you'll quickly realize that ALL these arguments were hatched by various interest groups with agendas. Looking at your arguments, all I see is a brainwashed sock puppet spewing other people's talking points.

If you won't acknowledge that England is governed by an aristocracy, you're completely divorced from reality and nothing you say is credible.

[–]Jar_of_apples 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire20 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Look, it's obvious to anyone reading this that you are an ignorant, white supremacist crank nutjob.

I'm not even white you dense idiot.

Your whole rant consists of putting straw men arguments in my mouth and then refuting them with equally foolish and ill-conceived sweeping statements.

You pulled out strawmans from me, you pulled out every little thing you could grasp to, you had a series of logical inconsistencies. And you started first. You're an idiot.

It would take days to pick apart everything that's wrong with what you wrote, and you still would be living in a delusional fairy-tale land.

Then why don't you do so? Because you can't. You're an idiot who put an assertion (herp derp, liberalism gave us internet, we would be peasants were it not for liberalism) and then I provided you a counterstatement that you still haven't managed to rebute. Not to mention that you don't understand biological terms, or even forms of governments.

you'll quickly realize that ALL these arguments were hatched by various interest groups with agendas.

And once again, you're completely unaware of the irony of your statement. Who do you think profits the most from making a family consisting of a mother, a father, and three children a democracy? The people who sell candy, that's who.

Looking at your arguments, all I see is a brainwashed sock puppet spewing other people's talking points.

Again, that's only you. You've managed to not rebuke my arguments, but only degenerate into A BLU BLU RACISM and A BLU BLU BRAINWASH.

Why don't you go to Sidebar under "Gender Studies is Bullshit", take a video called Race, and then watch it. You'll see what brainwash is. The one that you are spewing. No different form herp, gender is a social construct.

If you won't acknowledge that England is governed by an aristocracy

You just went full retard. Holy fuck are you retarded or what? England has democracy you dense idiot. It's a parlamentary system, and it can be barely called an aristocracy as the MONARCHS DO NOT HOLD ANY REAL POWER. How stupid can you be?

Kratos = strength.

Strength is needed to govern. Queen Elizabeth is subservient to parliament and not the other way around.

you're completely divorced from reality and nothing you say is credible.

You take an ad hominem to a whole new level. I suppose that if Hitler said sky way blue you'd shout that it's green and anyone who disagrees is a white supremacist nutjub. I rebuked your arguments, and then I name called you. Because you're an idiot. I never pass up a chance to call an idiot an idiot.

But holy fuck son, how can you be so brainwashed?

[–]monsieurhire21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh Christ. You are calling England not a democracy. That is completely bonkers. Dude, what the fuck?

A true democracy would NEVER tolerate supporting a "royal" family

England isn't a true democracy. No one said that England is democracy like USA or Switzerland, holy fuck strawman at its best.

All evidence indicates that the aristocrats that govern England allow some forms of democracy and republicanism as a form of camoflage, the better to rule their subjects.

Or all evidence indicates that democracy allows some form of aristocracy. How do I know? Compare the power House of Super Special England's True Rulers Lords with the House of Commons. Compare the power of their monarch. Now, why would you say such a thing, how can democracy profit from "royal" family?

Simple. Tourism. Royal family brings England more money than it spends. Capitalism at its finest.

If the people vote for something, then it's a fucking democracy. How can you be so stupid?

But let's go with your stupidity. Let's call an aristocracy and entertain your delusion a bit. England was the modern world's first super power, it gave us huge amount of culture and science - arguably the most. It had unrivaled navy, unrivaled war score and was the one nation that resisted foreign invaders the most. Not to mention industry, education, etc. Yet, under your theory, most people there would still be illiterate peasants. How do you solve this.

And some more race and intelligence for you :

This one's from Princeton and it says :

US racial IQ gap was not the result of bias in the content or administration of tests, nor simply reflect differences in socio-economic status, but that no adequate explanation of it had so far been given.

It's even sourced. No adequate explanation of it is given. For something that people can be easily trained to do, it still persist. And notice that there was no difference in socio-economic status.

And some more, but with lot more statistics to back it up.

So much for pseudo-science.

[–]monsieurhire21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dude, you're just repeating the Crown's propaganda. They don't need actually living Royals for tourism money; they have monuments, buildings, and other "quaint" sights for that shit. The Royal Family and all the Lords and Ladies with titles and lands are fucking aristocrats. They rule the country with their wealth, which they use to by lobbyists and PR teams. Also, the United States isn't a democracy either! Forms don't mean jack shit in any case, it's what goes on in fact.

Oh, by the way, that link you cited with your "proof?" All it proves it that you are a giant dumbass who doesn't know how to read!

Here, from your own link to Princeton's website:

"At the same time, there is considerable overlap between these group scores, and members of each racial group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum. Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, most notably in Africa, though these are generally considered far less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores.

There are NO universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia, and the discussion of their connection involves the results of multiple disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Many factors that could potentially influence the development of intelligence have been advanced as possible causes of the racial IQ gaps. It is generally agreed that both genetics and environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores. There is currently no consensus whether genetics play a role in racial IQ gaps, or whether their cause is entirely environmental."

So, enough disclaimers to drive a fleet of trucks through the "evidence" that supports your thesis.

There isn't even a consensus definition on intelligence or race, and yet you blithely proclaim it exists! And there's overlap all over your precious culturally biased IQ tests so as to render your outperformance by race theory meaningless. Want to bet that if you took a Chinese or African IQ test you wouldn't perform as well? You'd have to be literate in their language and system of thought first.

But go back to being a stupid, half-literate moron who wants the data to support his pre-drawn conclusions.

And I'm not even getting into all the outright academic FRAUD that has gone on to support race supremacist viewpoints.

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

hey rule the country with their wealth, which they use to by lobbyists and PR teams.

Who do you think does this too? The rich. And who exactly do you think buys that shit? The demos, that's who.

link at princeton

Holy fuck can you not read or what?

outliers

Of course there's going to be individuals all over the spectrum. They're a statistical necessity. Fuck. But the average IQ racial gap exists.

Similar findings around the world, specifically in Africa

And it says nothing about the goddamn American tests. Again, my first quote.

There are NO universally accepted definitions of either race

Do you know what universally accepted means? And since you can actually classify people as different races, in both genetical and phenotypical system, it can be argued that race exists. Fuck.

ESPECIALLY, when you have sociologist lobby (see Hjernevask) which pushes hard that race is a social construct. Repeat a lie long enough and it will become "truth", especially for people like you.

Here's some more about race as a biological construct and I've already linked human bio diversity project.

It is agreed that both genetics and environment play a part

Of course they fucking do you dense idiot. But once again, my first quote, that average racial IQ gap in USA is not due to different socio-economic classes as the people of similar classes were tested.

So, enough disclaimers to drive a fleet of trucks through the "evidence" that supports your thesis.

You have an astounding ability to read some but be blind to other things and then make conclusions with a poor logical ability.

There isn't even a consensus definition on intelligence or race, and yet you blithely proclaim it exists!

Christ, GO WATCH HJERNEVASK EPISODE ON RACE. SEE HOW SOCIOLOGIST TREAT IT. WITH A RELIGOUS ZEAL ON HERP DERP ITS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. Actual scientists say that it's real. And there you have your precious disagreement - from people who think that gender is a social construct. What the fuck are you doing here?

And there's overlap all over your precious culturally biased IQ tests

If IQ tests are so culturally biased then why do Asians excel at them? I mean everywhere, both in USA and in Japan.

Want to bet that if you took a Chinese or African IQ test you wouldn't perform as well?

Have you ever took an IQ test? Did you notice how it has minimal system of language. And don't even get me started on this "system of thought" bullshit. If you sincerely believe that "system of thought" can be something other than critical thinking, pattern recognizing and abstract problem solving then you're, fuck, man, you're so....

You'd have to be literate in their language and system of thought first.

HENCE THE POINT OF STANDARDIZED IQ TESTS.

And the link I gave, mentioned average IQ gap within the same culture which speaks the same language, the same economical status, the same social status.

Are the people from different cultures perform differently? Yes. Are the people from same cultures but different races perform differently? OH GOD YES.

But go back to being a stupid, half-literate moron who wants the data to support his pre-drawn conclusions.

The only stupid, half literate moron here is you. But you don't even have the concrete data to back you up.

And I'm not even getting into all the outright academic FRAUD that has gone on to support race supremacist viewpoints.

Because you're incapable of that.

EDIT : Let's stop this here. Arguing isn't going to get us anywhere. I'm sorry if I insulted you, but I'm even more sorry that you're an idiot. If you want to know why, check out sidebar material. Gender Studies is Bullshit. It's there.

[–]monsieurhire21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"There are NO universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia . . . ."

Then how they be measured or defined in the first place. If nobody can agree on what they are, not even the experts, then how can said experts purport to measure them.

Let me ask you a question, is a lion that jumps through hoops all day "smart?" Or is it merely obedient. Some might argue that a smart lion would escape, or maul the trainer. Others might say the lion already knows escape is futile. A few would say the lion should kill itself rather than endure the indignity of being made to jump through hoops.

So then, are the people that submit to being tested, quizzed, and made to jump through hoops to "prove" their intelligence really that intelligent to begin with, or are they merely obedient, like Clever Hans the horse?

Dude, you are all over the place. Now you are talking about "gender" as a social construct? You and Lierre Keith man, who clearly doesn't know that gender is synonym for sex, and "gender roles" are social constructs, and not gender.

Academic fraud is a pandemic because "science" is the new religion of the masses, and in order for them to make a faith-based acceptance of some dubious conclusion, the men in the white coats have to perform the proper rituals. Telling someone that "there was a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific journal to back up my point" is enough to shut them most of the time, because nobody has the time to pick apart the complicated artifact used to bludgeon people with. Usually, people haven't even read the study; just a cherry-picked phrase that supports their prejudice.

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

http://vimeo.com/19922972

Password is hjernevask. It says this about intelligence from the fucking experts. God damn it and it even shits all over sociologist who push their own "race/gender is a social construct" or "there are more intelligences".

your shitty example of an obedient lion

A lion that has the mental capacity to understand orders is more smarter than the one who doesn't.

Now you are talking about "gender" as a social construct?

No, I'm not. Reread.

me being a white supremacist

This is stupid and clearly a progressive form of heresy. I cannot be white supremacist for saying that race is a biological construct, and that some races are smarter than others. Especially when I point out that Asians and Jews are smarter than Whites. If I was white supremacist, I would argue otherwise.

who clearly doesn't know that gender is synonym for sex

Well that's just fucking wrong. Gender is a semiotic construct, sex a biological reality. For example, Latin has masculinum,neutrum and femininum as the categories of nouns.

science is the new religion of the masses

God how stupid can you be? Now you go from, herpa derp race is pseudo science to derpa herp science is a pseudo religion?

You want to know what godless religion is? SJW, feminism, and those race don't real idiots - sociologists like the one in the Hjernevask video.

Seriously, just watch that.

[–]monsieurhire21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Regardless of whether you are or are not a white supremacists, you should be aware that white supremacist make similar arguments about Asians and Jews being smarter races as a gateway ideology. Also, an ideology of racial supremacy need not be based around people with white skin, as within any group, you'll find partisans who believe their own kind to be superior to others.

The vast majority of the population has no choice but accept scientific claims on faith, as they lack the time, energy, and resources to investigate them and confirm the independently. For all practical purposes, to them, it may as well be a religion.

Additionally, there are vast amounts of academic fraud that take place in the scientific community to advance various agendas, especially in the pharmaceuticals fields. Good luck separating the fact-based research from the carefully fabricated-results based research! It only takes really educated people years or even decades.

Anyway, it seems like you have a very emotional commitment to your position being true. I never argued that there was completely genetic similarity between all phenotypes. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of them. But if you take equally healthy individuals from each group with equal physical attributes and give them the same cultural programming, they will perform more or less the same, because they are all the same organism.

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

white supremacist make similar arguments about Asians and Jews being smarter races as a gateway ideology.

...

So let me get this straight, white supremacists make the argument about Asians and Jews being smarter in both IQ and education despite having the worse historical treatment to lure in people into thinking that whites are smartest race? How much sense does that make.

Also, an ideology of racial supremacy need not be based around people with white skin, as within any group, you'll find partisans who believe their own kind to be superior to others.

Hence, I cannot be called white supremacist. I can be called a racial supremacist. Actually I can't even be called that, since I've already gave you evidence to suggest that yes, race is real, and it affects intelligence greatly. Therefore it's silly to brand such an ugly word to someone who can understand basic biology.

The vast majority of the population has no choice but accept scientific claims on faith, as they lack the time, energy, and resources to investigate them and confirm the independently. For all practical purposes, to them, it may as well be a religion.

The vast majority of the population has no choice but accept sociological claims on faith, as they lack the time, energy, and resources to investigate them and confirm the independently. For all practical purposes, to them, it may as well be a religion.

Besides, it doesn't matter what they believe, facts matter. Facts backed up with research. I've fucking gave you a lot to work with.

Additionally, there are vast amounts of academic fraud that take place in the scientific community to advance various agendas

Yes, especially the one that says "race is a social construct". The one you are spewing.

Anyway, it seems like you have a very emotional commitment to your position being true.

Because it is true. You've got a shitty way to argue, and you continue to say the same things which I refute easily. Then it's , herpa derpa racism.

But if you take equally healthy individuals from each group with equal physical attributes and give them the same cultural programming, they will perform more or less the same, because they are all the same organism.

Again :

US racial IQ gap was not the result of bias in the content or administration of tests, nor simply reflect differences in socio-economic status, but that no adequate explanation of it had so far been given. US is the same culture. Same cultural programming. Same socio-economic status. Yet the gap persists. Intelligence is genetic. Some races are more intelligent than others.

So your position is false.

[–]monsieurhire21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know it may seem perverse to you, but I've heard plenty of white supremacists make the Jews / Asians are smarter than whites argument.

Why would they make this argument when it ignores all the intellectual and cultural achievements of their own supposed group?

I suggest that their motivations are as follows:

to reinforce the idea of distinct races and superiority and inferiority of the different races;
to challenge and provoke so-called "white" people;
to smear Jews and Asians; here is another perverse part, these groups aren't viewed as being superior for their intellects by white supremacists, it's more like they have specialist compensatory roles for being inferior in other more important ways; their smarts are viewed as "sneaky," "tricky," "clever," and therefore dishonorable; the smarts are used to compensate for weaknesses, and are actually disdained. The Jews have been historically looked down upon for their brand of intellectualism. There are many psychological reasons for this. So when white supremacists start talking about how Asians and Jews are smarter, it's a call to their constituents to play hardball.

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Once again, this is a ridiculous argument to go by. White supremacists or any form of racial supremacists aren't bad because they believe some races are smarter than the others, they're bad because they act under those ideas to actively hurt groups other than them.

to reinforce the idea of distinct races

You don't need to reinforce facts. Distinct races are necessity. Aboriginese natives are genetically far away from let's say Asians that they can be considered a form of subspecies. They can mate and produce offspring, but races are still distinct things.

And that some races are smarter than the others, well, that's a hard fact. I'm sorry, but you're not going to have an average sub-Saharan African perform the same as an average Ashkenazi. Not even if you raise them in the same culture or same cultural group. You can't drive out nature with nurture. Especially only one generation nurture.

[–]monsieurhire21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm telling you man, it's all cultural programming. The hardware is 99.9% the same, and the 0.1% is superficial appearance stuff like skin color, hair type. With every one of these groups, you have exceptional individuals who can outperform everyone else. These are the people that make the bulk of intellectual and cultural contributions. They program everyone else and order society. When a civilization falls to outside invaders, the invaders destroy or sequester all the programming, the libraries, the schools, etc., and then they reprogram everyone they don't kill. Usually they reprogram people to be slaves. Think of how most people were kept illiterate by the various aristocracies for centuries. Court proceedings would be conducted in a latin, even though the regional language wasn't latin. Since much knowledge was in Greek and Latin, who could learn such languages was heavily controlled. Everyone else had to make do with oral traditions. But in some cases, people who wouldn't ordinarily get access to that knowledge would be "leveled up" and taught latin or greek, and then they would be party to all the knowledge that was encoded in those texts. As long as the person had the ability, and this has never been determined by phenotype, as every phenotype has individuals with exceptional ability. If what were you are saying is true, there would NEVER be any exceptions. You'd never see high-achieving doctors, lawyers, scientists, philosphers, writers other than in the phenotypes described as "superior," and yet you see them in every phenotype, if you're willing to look.

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm telling you man, it's all cultural programming.

Just watch this. This is easy to digest and it's not that rich with scientific terminology. If you want, I can give you hardcore articles about it too : http://vimeo.com/19889788

These are the people that make the bulk of intellectual and cultural contributions.

Yes. But these are not the bulk of people who maintain a civilization. Ten geniuses is worthless if the average intelligence of a population is low. Outliers move the group forward, but people maintain it. Outliers emerge from the people and their ability to be exceptional is proportional to the exceptionality of a group they emerged from.

kept illiterate by aristocracies

During the Middle Ages, friars and priest saved literacy because most of books and philosophical treatises were in Latin. But who's to say that ll of things were written in Latin? Many countries had great national epics written in their native language.

And literacy isn't something that's a natural process - it's something that must be taught, and with the ever increasing wars in Europe during the Middle Ages, there wasn't much to profit form learning how to read. Charlemagne was illiterate. Education was never a mass project, it was always reserved for the elites, and it is now. Education, especially higher STEM, is not something everyone can do.

And btw, compulsory education in Europe? Implemented by Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa. Democracy and liberalism isn't necessary for education.

If what were you are saying is true, there would NEVER be any exceptions. You'd never see high-achieving doctors, lawyers, scientists, philosphers, writers other than in the phenotypes described as "superior," and yet you see them in every phenotype, if you're willing to look.

WRONG. What I'm saying that there are outliers everywhere. You can compare the average man and the average outliers of one group to an average man and the average outlier of another group to see more. You'll see more high achieving doctors, lawyers, scientists, philosophers in Asian and white races. Not so much in black.

[–]monsieurhire21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've actually seen that video before.

The problem with the whole "nature" vs "nurture" debate is that it polarizes the issue when one could just say that the two are intertwined in a complex feedback mechanism.

My ex-GF's daughter was born a girl biologically and was enculturated to be a girl, but eventually she decided that she had always been a boy trapped in a girls body. Why is this? Who the hell knows. I've also read about a gay man who eventually decided it was "wrong" to be gay, on his own, and then he decided to be straight. Is there some biology at work there? Is it obession with ideas? Both? I've also read about people feeling compelled to kill . . . and it was a brain tumor that was causing the feelings, or so it was claimed. There are defense attorney lobbies that work to advance quack medical theories to get clients off, i.e. affluenza.

What good is race theory if you have genius outliers mucking it up? The average person, given the average conditioning, and living an average life is not much to write home about this. This is true across the spectrum, in every country in the world.

And a lot of what insulates people is wealth. If you took someone of average intelligence who has led a comfortable, sedentary, insulated life that dulls the brain, they might not have good survival odds if you placed them in a pool of people of average intelligence living in more adverse conditions that sharpen the intellect.

I've seen perfectly smart people rot over a period of years. They don't challenge themselves. Is it something to do with their biology? Or were they just not indoctrinated with enough Protestant work ethic. Hard to say.

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem with the whole "nature" vs "nurture" debate is that it polarizes the issue when one could just say that the two are intertwined in a complex feedback mechanism.

Nature and nurture are intertwined, but not in a way that you think. Civilization actually accelerated the human evolution, and not made it obsolete. When you introduce someone from tribal sub-saharan civilization and someone who has been from a civilization such as Roman or German that lasted centuries, you're going to have a large discrepancy that's not going to be remedied with a generation or two or even ten even while civilization in question still has the whole "be tolerant of other cultures" shtick going on. Especially when other cultures like to still practice slavery or stoning.

My ex-GF's daughter was born a girl biologically and was enculturated to be a girl, but eventually she decided that she had always been a boy trapped in a girls body. Why is this? Who the hell knows.

Probably a hormonal disbalance during her early developments. Or mental delusion facilitated by SJW-like religion. Variety of reasons. But the most common one is genetics.

I've also read about a gay man who eventually decided it was "wrong" to be gay, on his own, and then he decided to be straight.

Being gay is kinda strange. You have a desire to procreate, but the sex you desire can't birth you children. And besides, Hjernevask on Hetero/Gay clears this up.

What good is race theory if you have genius outliers mucking it up? The average person, given the average conditioning, and living an average life is not much to write home about this. This is true across the spectrum, in every country in the world.

Because outliers do not maintain the civilization. People do. When you have low IQ, prone to violence average man, you will have a shitty civilization. And since the intensity of outliers is proportional to the intensity of intelligence of an average man, outliers from different group are generally different in intensity and number. Compare the scientific achievements of Swedes to those of Bantu people, and compare the number of black doctors to white doctors in USA. Then factor in all the Affirmative Action.

If you took someone of average intelligence who has led a comfortable, sedentary, insulated life that dulls the brain

Greeks would argue otherwise. And I'm inclined to agree with them. The aristocracy who had no clever things to do under peace time was often the main bulwark of literature, literature criticism, and science. And priests who had zero things to worry about were those who kept literacy and helped develop science.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but skin color and facial features are superficial attributes. Well, actually, if you have darker skin, you have lower incidence of contracting skin cancer, but from what I've studied, there isn't really one ideal genotype that confers resistance to all ailments. Usually, it's, your resistance to X disease but vulnerable to Y disease.

We were talking about intelligence, cognitive abilities, etc. That's the important stuff because it determines cultural contributions. Cultural contributions determine who gets wealth and political power. But there is a long grooming process involved. People are groomed for those positions, and it's supposed to be done on merit, but everyone wants THEIR children to be the ones that get ahead, so there are all these wars over who should get groomed and who should get thrown to the wolves. That's where all the testing comes in to play. And grooming costs time and money, so the class bias is more important. Racism was a way of trying to hardwire a particular class structure in an expedient manner. But since it was based on lies of biological inferiority, it couldn't hold, because every day, people would see evidence that it wasn't true. I mean, if it WERE true, there would be NO exceptions. It's like saying, "dogs are inferior and can never outperform cats, but just ignore that dog writing down those calculus equations on a chalkboard, and ignore the cat that keeps running into the wall; those don't count."

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]capitalisms 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Depends who gets to be considered white. The OG white folks started letting more people in when they feared getting outnumbered, but initially, all new "white" skinned immigrants were hated and looked down on. The Irish, the Germans, the Russian Jews (looked down by the German Jews), the Italians, the Polish, etc. The Germans viewed the Russians as sub-human "Slavs" during WWII. The British called them "Huns" during WWI.

During the actual war, all "races" were represented, because the government had no qualms about spending the lives of persons of color. They sent he Nisei on all kinds of crazy suicide missions.

As far as I know, the German ethnicity held the greatest numbers in the United States, which is why some said that it was Germans defeating Germans during WWII. Not to mention the German roots of the English.

But white is a total social construct. Look at the Irish, for instance, they have white skin, but they were shat on just like black people were. Same with the Jews, the Polish, etc.

It's all bullshit. The only true whites are albinos.

[–]capitalisms 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]monsieurhire2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're both wearing business suits and appear to be successful. Sure, they have different skin color; the one first guy is more likely to get skin cancer! He's inferior! JK. But it's like, why not obsess over differences in eye or hair color? That's what people would do if everyone had the same skin color. It would be the blue-eyeds against the brown-eyeds. Or obsess over height differences. Sure, minor variations exist, but they're not so meaningful in comparison to intellectual capability.

When you say the Irish / Poles were never considered white, who are you referring to as doing the considering? You can only be referring to the Anglo-American White Protestant elite. I'm not saying they were viewed as having non-white skin, I'm saying the White white people didn't consider them White. They were not welcome at the dinner table. Intermarriage was not desired. They were viewed as lesser peoples. Look at the history between England and Ireland. Of course, if you're going to exploit and subjugate someone, you can't very well look at them as an equal. Your conscience would get in the way of your ill-gotten revenue stream. That's what I mean by "White." It's not about skin color, it's more about, who do you hire at your firm, who do you let join your club, who do you break bred with, share jokes with, take into your confidence, consider American, etc. Usually the exceptions to this rule came from wealthy and / or higher-born families, so they used their wealthy to assimilate to a certain extent. But there were always divisions. Well into the 20th century, Jews were either banned or quota'd out of certain colleges and universities, even though they were able to compete academically. And why would the White people discriminate against the Irish or Polish for being Irish or Polish?

To me, whiteness basically is like a Masonic circle, where everyone thinks they are white at the outer edgeds, but as you get closer to the inside, the older groups first considered white look down on everyone further out, until you get to the Royal Families, who all hate each other too, and view everyone else as subhuman.

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The nation of racial supremacists, which btw, so were the USA and the rest of civilized nations, but if you're talking about Nazi Germany, took entirety of Europe save for UK and Soviet Russia all while being behind in both numbers and technology. What the had was brilliant generals who introduced a revolutionary way of warfare that brought the goddamn French to their knees. And their best ally was Italy.

It took the collective force of both second position and first position - the USA and Soviet Russia to crush them. And not to mention that they only lost to Soviet Russia because the winter was harsh, they were outnumbered and had to deal with the rest of the West.

And USA was 90% white during WWII. A nation of immigrants but white immigrants. A delusional idiot doesn't have the right to consider a fucking biological concept as a form of mysterious masonic lodge. Irish were shat on by the British, and British were shat on by Scots. Scots were shat on by Irish. Croats were shat on by Hungarians and Serbs, Serbs were shat on by Croatians. Germans were shat on by the Polish, Polish were shat on by the Russians. Russians were shat on by everyone. All discriminations based on nationality and not race.

White isn't a social construct, and you're delusional to think so.

[–]monsieurhire2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hair color is a biological concept. Eye color is a biological concept. Are we going to start talking about all the brown-haired or green-eyed individuals as distinct sub-races?

Nationality is another social construct, yet if you talk to people, they'll identify themselves with the nation of their birth and start babbling on about they have distinct traits because of their nationality. It's all bullshit thought, similar to astrology, where people talk about their birth year or birth month and how they have various attributes.

As for the United States and Germany, it's no secret that even though the U.S. was a "nation of immigrants," it was in fact, governed and dominated by white supremacists. But the cannon fodder sent to fight and die was a representation of all races.

Nazi Germany was actually inspired by the genocidal programs of the USA directed at the Native Americans. Also, the Nazis were funded and supported by key business and political elements within the USA as a bulwark against the USSR, which was viewed as the real threat. The USSR did the bulk of the fighting and dying, and the USA came in at the perfect moment to pick up the pieces. It was brains that won WWII for the USA, not blood.

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hair color is a biological concept. Eye color is a biological concept. Are we going to start talking about all the brown-haired or green-eyed individuals as distinct sub-races?

I don't think you understand genetics. Brown haired whites are genetically more similar to red haired whites than to brown haired blacks. For fucks sake, a skin color, different skeletal and muscular structure, specific neurological capabilities and specific hormonal balance all make up rough set of genes that corresponds to rough set of phenotype that can be classified as a form of subspecies.

Race isn't just one gene, or even a lot of genes. It's a group of genes that roughly corresponds to a distinct phenotype.

they'll identify themselves with the nation of their birth and start babbling on about they have distinct traits because of their nationality.

And they do. Different nationalities have different but similar genetic makeup. France and England have R1b haplogroup than Poles or Serbs. Not to mention different national traditions that make up their upbringing.

When you take a look at the bigger picture, and realize that different nationalities exists all over the world, and that some are more similar, you start grouping people.

t's all bullshit thought, similar to astrology

Provide one source for you claims. You only had "it's bullshit pseudo science" when I provided you with several links on human biodiveristy. Then you deflected it with "science is like religion lol, because masses don't like to see those arguments" - what a perfect argument against democracy!

it's no secret that even though the U.S. was a "nation of immigrants," it was in fact, governed and dominated by white supremacists

NO. USA was never a nation of immigrants. It was a nation of European immigrants. Whites created USA.

But the cannon fodder sent to fight and die was a representation of all races.

...

It was a representative sample of USA population. 90% were whites. Nisei soldiers were not a standard. And besides, I can easily pull you Jews, Blacks, and even Muslims serving in the Wehrmacht.

Nazi Germany was actually inspired by the genocidal programs of the USA directed at the Native Americans.

Source.

Also, the Nazis were funded and supported by key business and political elements within the USA as a bulwark against the USSR, which was viewed as the real threat.

YES. DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY? BECAUSE USSR IS WORSE THAN NAZI GERMANY IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.

During the WWII, Finnish Jews fought with Nazis against Soviets because they were that bad.

It was brains that won WWII for the USA, not blood.

Oh god, it was their blood and navy and the fucking nuclear bomb that finished it. Brains don't win anything by themselves. And there was no war on their continent while Europe was devastated.

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, the whole idea of using red pill as a subreddit is retarded. Honestly, you learned now that being a man is attractive to women? Well fuck son, you some kind of wizard or shit. Buddha's got nothing on you. Considering what red pill meant on /pol/ (let's be frank here, anyone worth his salt is from there), and how it translates to edgy PUA community here, it's kinda sad, but not understandable.

To understand why this is happening, you must understand the progressive forms of "antihierarchies" where one's power is directly related to how much one is oppressed. White straight males are at the bottom, women are above them, LGBTBBG is above women and minorities are above everyone else. This is strictly due to in-group or out-group mentality - when women are confronted by women of other races, they are more antagonistic to them than if they were confronted by women of their races. Especially when you understand the extent of what women do and how they are pretty manipulative in nature. For example slut shaming, done exclusively by women to discredit other women. This kinda leads to people of same groups, like ethnicities or nationalities sticking together in the long run - especially when it's the minorities. Race mixing Muslim women are stoned.

This naturally leads in feminism being the first step progressivism is going to shit all over and abandon. This is why there exists r/theredpill in its current, anti-feminism (or just adaptation to feminism) and not r/theredpill as anti-racial egalitarianism.

But then you have to consider the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. You're an expert in the field of X, and you start reading the newspaper about the topic of X. You notice that the article about X is full of misinformation, filled with half-truths and sometimes even completely false things. You're kinda angry about it because it can misinform the people. Then you continue reading the rest of newspapers as if this article didn't exist.

This is a form of it - TRP has social consensus on double checking everything feminists spew, and sometimes even hard on refute it (which isn't hard to do), and they are especially suspicious of gender studies/women studies. But when confronted by the same coagulation that spews feminism and gender studies bullshit, they silently agree. Odd.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But then you have to consider the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. You're an expert in the field of X, and you start reading the newspaper about the topic of X. You notice that the article about X is full of misinformation, filled with half-truths and sometimes even completely false things. You're kinda angry about it because it can misinform the people. Then you continue reading the rest of newspapers as if this article didn't exist.

There's a name for this phenomenon? Interesting.

See, years ago, before I knew about red pill or dark enlightenment or anything like that, a friend of mine got in the media for doing some minor crime. Anyway the media went kinda insane and turned a pretty boring story into something really grandiose and exciting.

They did this by... enhancing the truth. AKA making stuff up completely. Like, there was about 20% truth in it and the rest was just completely fabricated.

Ever since that happened I realized there was something seriously wrong in the world. Questions started appearing in my mind. How long have they been doing this? How many stories have I read and believed that have been total bullshit? How can I ever read an article on anything and take it seriously?

Since most people's knowledge about events happening around the world comes from mainstream media... and the media has a tendency to blatantly lie about things... doesn't that mean most people don't actually know what's really happening in the world? That's really fucked up.

You know, conspiracy theorists get a lot of flak for being paranoid and believing crazy shit, but how can you blame them? They've realized they're being fed absolute lies so their minds are working overtime coming up with all these theories on what's really happening in the world.

[–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FortunateBum -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FortunateBum 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link