Forums

What you must always remember about the common Modern douche-bag, or the common modern cow, is that (s)he comes at you from a position of weakness.
He feels afraid, empty, he seeks something to fill himself with, and he only settles for feeding his insatiable appetites.
He is always fighting a defensive war, a war against being recognized as what he feels he is.

This is why he uses humour, sarcasm, cynicism, which is why he never says anything definite or avoids speaking much on any subject he feels insecure about.
This is why he always attacks the other personally, using the very things he fears are true about him, and never the ideas.
This is why he brags, postures, declares...he is full of anxiety.

What if someone sees him for what he is?
What if the character he's cultivated to impress is discovered to be a sham?

He has nothing to fall back on...no family, no real friends, no love for women, no intimacy with anyone...
He feels lost....detached...because he both needs to disconnect from what he feels ashamed of, and is told to feel embarrassed about what he should look for identity in.
All he has is hope.
Usually a fantastic projection.

Hope and his overinflated, hyper-masculine, displays...some of which he pretends for so long that he begins to believe himself....relieving himself from the awareness of his real essence.
He becomes lost in pretence, and though he tells himself, and others, that he is happy, his every action, his every word exposes a deep misery.

Because of his nature the common modern douche-bag has a very superficial relationship with the world, and consequently with other people.

For instance, to portray the traits he thinks will impress he offers the subject the attention that suffices to bring about the effect, in relation to the focus audience.
The simpler the audience the more superficial his methodology.
He will learn only the words and the concepts necessary to carry-out his deception, and no more....because he does not have any real interest in the subject but only in the effect.

This requires a slightly above average intelligence, and a good memory, and nothing more than the desperate need to degrade one's self in this way to be noticed and appreciated by as many simpletons as possible.

For the common, Modern, douche-bag, the last century of human intervention upon nature erases hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection.

For the common, Modern, douche-bag the fact that genetic isolation, natural selection, did not go far enough to result in a complete split, allowing populations to then mix, is evidence that during those thousands of years of genetic isolation zero natural selection occurred.

Ergo, if you mix a dog with a wolf, because it is still possible, this means that a dog and a wolf have no difference in potential, other than a difference in appearance.
Now, if we take a split that went far enough, but not far enough to cause a total split, like in the case between ass and horse, then mating is still possible, but the product is unfit.
We can find multiple examples of Evolution in practice...one of which is, yes, human breeds, human types, human races.

If we push the envelop and study dogs, as a species entirely dependent on humans, and bread in accordance with human tastes, then even though all breeds can intermix, producing mutts, each one has distinct potentials in all traits characterizing the species dog.
No two breeds are equally fast, strong, have the same demeanor, and have the same potential to learn.
And if we breed a chihuahua with a wolf, no matter how much we hope this is not the case, the chihuahua is raised and the wolf is diminished in the puppies produced.

Now, let's use an example I've used before, to make a point.
Let's say we take a wolf and a chihuahua and you place them into a controlled, human, environment. In this controlled 'world" we enforce a strict code of behavior, forcing both chihuahua and wolf to behave in an almost uniform way, threatening both and rewarding both for good behavior.
Both will begin behaving in almost identical ways...to adapt to an environment they cannot escape, and in time become accustomed to.

Now, have we altered the nature, the inherited potentials of the chihuahua and the wolf?
Is the division between canines species, and breeds, erased, or will they revert back to their natural behaviors once the controlling mechanisms are gone?

Now read this latest on the scene but still a typical [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The meme perpetuates itself indefinitely...it never responds to an argument it simply declares the common beliefs, like one recites the prayer...and then expects the other to offer him a different response.
The common, Modern, douche-bag doesn't really respond to the argument but repeats the popular mantra, then expecting the other side to change its argument for no apparent reason.

For instance, the douche-bags, in ILP simply repeat the poem, the shared prayer: sexist", "racist"...'hater"..."hillbilly"..."redneck",...nature 1%, nurture 99%...ace and sex are social constructs etc.

The entire prayer, much like a christian one heard in every Church presupposing the validity of the Bible, is that appearance, which they cannot deny, is only irrelevant when ti comes to humans, and that types, specialization, does not influence the tabula rasa of the human brain.
They cannot claim that appearances are social construct, because that would expose them as cowardly, nature thing, morons, but they can deny what appearances mean....and in so doing they must selectively do so, without, once again, exposing what cowardly, stupid morons they are.
Therefore, appearances matter in all areas, as indications of a past (nature), but in the case of homo sapiens, the proper upbringing, training, suffices to erase what appearances reveal and cannot be denied.
A matter of social engineering....from those declaring themselves against eugenics.

And so we understand why pretenses, the shared lies, the personae each of them plays, must be defended against exposition.
They rally behind anybody who is in danger of being discovered as a liar and a hypocrite....so as to save themselves form a similar fate.
Herd psychology...a shared thread unites them against a common foe.
In every other matter, internal dynamics, politics, they remain relatively liberal with their loyalties, interests, investments.
They remain MODERN.

But let's take [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] douche-bag's "reasoning" and follow it through, shall we?

What this Lev Muishkin variant of the same turds that re embers of ILP - with some notable exceptions - is saying is that if we take a chimp, which like her is not responsible for human civilization, and we train it, like she's been trained to imitate being a thinker, then in a few hundred years the chimp will be as smart as she is, and as well-behaved.
I am inclined to believe her....but still I must remain objective.

This example of genetic feces is implying that human civilization which has not reached the elvel it has but after the industrial revolution - the last 200 years or so - can erase hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection.
She mistakes training, grooming, nice perfumed hair, lipstick, learning to walk, to behave, to use a fork, to be polite, parroting knowledge, with being free from her past.

So, for this imbecile, the entire past of the species called human, is obliterated not by her, but by those that provide her with the environment within which she can pretend to be equal with everybody else.

This douche-bag then declares herself one who understands Evolution Theory....when, in fact, she proves that she has no clue.

But let us assume that this douche-bag is partially correct and that humans, in the last century, can create and live within artificial environment, and so they free themselves from natural processes.
some questions come to mind:

Who, or according to what principles is this artificial environment directed by...and what, as a result, types of minds does it produce by the millions?
Does this intervention create pollution, or collateral effects...also including genetic pollution which this douche-bag is a perfect example of?
Does this artificial cocoon actually succeed, or does it create an illusion of independence form nature?
How long has man been in control of his own fate, when God died and man was left with nature - 100, 200, 300 years?

Mooshkin - "Race is a social category not a natural one. All humans can mate."
Moo. Doesn't understand the difference between species and race. Probably because they educated Moo. with the slogan 'There is only one race, the human race.'


It's so easy, all we need to do is to erase the part in all the birth certificates, all the legal documents and any other document where it reads 'Ethnicity' and within one or two generations nobody can remember who is which race and then all the discrimination and RACISM will be gone.

Why did nobody think of that before? People are so stupid!


'Race is a social category/construct.' I think Moo. should put that in his signature, so everybody knows immediately what he/she is dealing with.

Moo wrote:

Humans more than any other animal on the planet adapt their environment they have no need to adapt TO IT.

Moo seems to be a pioneer, a 'moo' of the frontier who cultivates the land. Moo does not adapt, moo tells the environment what's next.

It's like a mix up of humans as individuals and humans as one collective organism. In the sense of humans being one collective organism it's a control of the environment but single human individuals have to adapt to the manmade environment, the collective organism. And both are mixed here, dissolved.
This 'We' talk where there is no sense of distinction and I and 'We' become inter-changable is very common by now. Total identification with the collective.

One can be ignorant and have a high I.Q.
One can be a coward and have a high I.Q.
One can be illiterate and have a high I.Q.
One can be uneducated and have a high I.Q.

Gnosis and processing speeds, knowledge and pattern recognition, are not the same.
Nurture cannot correct generations of natural and/or social selection.

Similarly.
One can be educated, literate, brave, full of knowledge, and have a low I.Q.

The modern's understanding of understanding exposes his level.
He is convinced that because all can learn words like "ontology", "existentialism", and Evolution Theory, that this makes all equally intelligent.

The word detached from the deed.

One can claim to be a Mensa member and have nothing to offer as evidence of this honour; one can declare himself as having been measured as having a 160 I.Q. and never actually say anything that would make anyone say "Hey, that guy is smart".

For the modern a word is enough.
A code...a number.

This is why they emphasize nurturing, edumucation, as the solution to all inherited disparity in potential.

They mistake being strong, for example, with being trained in Jiu Jitsu.
The training may enhance strength and it may demand a certain level of it, but it is not the same as strength...no more than knowing is the same as understanding....no more than being trained is the same as inheriting intelligence.

The confusion of hardware for software.

You can imitate intelligence, and if you do not do it well you expose how dumb you really are...but you cannot purchase it, buy it, fake it into reality.

Isn't someone who has so many females busy on St. Valentine's Day?
  

Words....deeds.

What do you think about this?



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''Essentially, the infant’s first physical aversions pertain to its own waste, both of which kinds proceed from genital and anal orifaces, respectively. Whatever natural defense mechanism the species developed to protect itself from urine and feces, the result is a natural aversion–without knowledge of bacteriology or disease. Epidermal reaction (irritation and discomfort), and averse olfaction (i.e., to offensive odor) serve as unaccountable behavior in the individual species. The infant learns also inevitably learns to cope with the fact that the emission of waste is nevertheless pleasurable, as well as necessary.

The normal toddler is eventually ‘pottie-trained,’ and the child lives a number of years in a non-conflicting acceptance of the waste management he has been taught. (Yes, this management varies in different cultures, but we speak here of the Western civilizations, where sublimation is superior.) But just about the time the whole waste management system of the individual is fully mastered and psychologically written off as totally normal, puberty sets in. Suddenly, the most pleasurable emissions of all are found to occur in precisely the same genital area. The sexual organs are indeed the same as the liquid waste disposers. Thus, a short lifetime of careful aversion, natural and learned, is profoundly confused. You have sex with the same thing you go to the bathroom with.

Therefore, says Freud, we are all naturally confused about sex. The initial feeling is horrible. Sex is dirty, bad, averse, at least as averse as your reaction to your own waste. Our attitude that sex is nasty is manifest in our language. “Foul” language generally involves reference to the sex act, the sex organs, or sexuality. “F” this, “F” that, all testify to our conscious aversion to sex.

Now, when the libido energy has come to be appreciated and desired, the initial aversion itself becomes sublimated, in a sense, or disguised. It is a kind of natural schizophrenia, sex. We do it with the things we first and normally associate with waste elimination.

So, if sex is dirty, or bad, the male ego must clean it up, some how. The female must justify it. This is the secret of understanding exotic inter-racial sexual pursuits. In the case of the black (dark) male, the white woman’s body is the supreme cleanser. To the white female, the black penis justifies her abandonment in sexual excitement. Through abandoning herself to the black penis, she saves the world. It is what we have called the white woman savior complex. These are the foundational psychological conditionings, theoretically, conscious or unconscious.


But, again, the moral character of the white women involved is no concern. Their abandonment to the subconscious is clear enough. Whether they are fantasizing, or reporting the truth of sexual advances from a Negro, the case is closed. There are a goodly number, and an increasing number, of white women who are willing to abandon themselves to the Negro man. According to Freud, this is based on horrible feelings about sex, or at least natural aversions.

Also, modern psychology has demonstrated that much of interracial sex and miscegenation is related to sexual abuse. Often these white women suffered sexual abuse–from white males, and seek escape in exotic, overwhelming sexual excitation of one kind or another. Also, some may have had sexual encounters with the black male as young girls. They may have inherited aberrant moral standards early on.''



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

“LOOK, DR. YEAGLEY, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing.”

''The girl was white. She was tall and pretty, with amber hair and brown eyes. For convenience’ sake, let’s call her “Rachel.”

I had been leading a class on social psychology, in which we discussed patriotism – what it means to be a people or a nation.
The discussion had been quite lively. But when Rachel spoke, everyone fell silent.

“Look at your culture,” she said to me. “Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great.
You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.”

“You’re not proud to be American?” I asked.

“Oh, I’m happy to be American, but I’m not proud of how America came about.”

Her choice of words was telling. She was “happy” to be an American. But not “proud” of it.

On one level, I wasn’t surprised. I knew the head of our American History department at Oklahoma State University-OKC,
and I recognized his hackneyed liberal jargon in Rachel’s words. She had taken one of his courses, with predictable results.

Yet, I was still stunned. Her words disturbed and offended me in a way that I could not quite enunciate.

I could hardly concentrate the rest of the day. I lay awake that night thinking about what she had said.

On the surface, she was paying me a compliment. She was praising my Indian culture, at the expense of her own.
Why, then, did it feel so much like a slap in the face?

As I lay awake that night, I thought of an old story by Kay Boyle, written in 1941, called “Defeat.”
It’s about the French women in the German-occupied village of Pontcharra. All the French men were away at war.
It was the 14th of July, Bastille Day, when Frenchmen were usually proud to be French.
The village women, however, chose that day to give in to the German men.

They did it innocently enough. The women just wanted to wear their fancy holiday dresses.
They wanted to drink and dance. And the Germans were the only men around with whom they could do it.
So they gave in.

The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.

That’s what I thought about as I lay there, with Rachel’s words running over and over in my mind.
“My race is just nothing…. ” she had said. “My culture is nothing.”

After class, one older white student, a husband and father, had exchanged glances with me on the way out.
He said to me in a low voice, “I don’t want her on my team!”

I understood what he meant. Frankly, I wouldn’t want her on my team either.
A woman who won’t be true to her own people certainly won’t be true to someone else’s.

When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy.
She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence,
their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority.

My goodness, if an Indian woman had said such a thing in front of Indian men, her ears would have burned for a week!

By giving in to the German conquerors, those French women in the Kay Boyle story had betrayed their men.
But it was an understandable betrayal. Their men were gone. The Germans were in command.

Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them?
Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?

They say that a warrior is measured by the strength of his enemies.
As an Indian, I am proud of the fact that it took the mightiest nation on earth to defeat me.

But I don’t feel so proud when I listen to Rachel. It gives me no solace to see the white man self-destruct.
If Rachel’s people are “nothing,” what does that say about mine?''



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''Perhaps white women in Western Christian culture express their loathsome subconscious desire through the noblest motive of all―
self-sacrifice for the “salvation” of another. The Christian woman must save the dark man.''



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''But today’s great white woman savior comes to the reservation without Christ, without courage, and without vision.  
She brings salvation in her own flesh.''



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''Pride is the secret of failure in Indian country. It is becoming the obvious cause of failure in the white man’s world.
The proud white warrior seems too lofty, too indifferent, and too complaisant to fight.
He lets his women be used and abused by any and all; he thinks she can do all the work now; he presumes that change is inevitable.
He seems to feel somehow insulated, or simply at the end of his era.''



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''Perhaps the white race needs some humility at this point. The white woman should honor her own white race. Does she feel above race?
Does she really feel so suprior to other races as to save them? I say her white “racial” capital has used up.
She needs to love her own race.
If she doesn’t, she is a curse to the country. Beware.''



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''These certain “black” people apparently want to dominate society through their sexuality, and with the right contacts, like the media, and the law, they may succeed. White society is literally being forced to accept the “black” body as equally sexually desirable. Any natural, psychologically negative associations with darkness, any Freudian sexual aversion, and any sense of uncleanness, must be over come by studied, determined, political effort. America is being told what is sexually attractive. America’s sexual emotions are being dictated, through the media and the legal system, no less.''



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''The liberal image for the white woman is therefore a woman who delights in non-white males, particularly black males. This is the really the fundamental if not final assault on the American culture, indeed on Western culture as a whole. It is the most powerful attempt to divide humanity–to divide women from men. It isn’t really about sex, but the use of sex to destroy race. Removing the basic elements of nationhood, such as uniformity of race, religion, and sex (marriage between a man and woman), is the universal, Communist, and now Democrat approach to society.

The Democrat Party wants a different kind of society, one without natural aversion, without natural differentiation, without the most basic discriminatory discernment, without natural psychological defense mechanisms, and ultimately, without natural affection. The Communist Democrats want more than control of production in society. They want control over reproduction.''



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''White women are leaping in bed with black men, or other darkies of the world, and popping out strange-looking children.
Generally speaking, the male in these incidents could not care less about the children. It’s all about sexual aggression against the white race. They’re happy to conquer for the moment, and to create ghastly, permanent consequences.
Marriage and family have nothing to do with these misanthropes, nor the lusus naturae they create.

This denigration of race is a cruel mockery of manhood.
It is a pathetic testimony of the personal irresponsibility and malignant selfishness of failed men.
Indeed, a careless woman is generally such for the lack of a caring father.''



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''The weird obsession that Black men have for White women is WELL KNOWN. The average White man wont look twice at a Black woman, but there is hardly a Black man who is not pathetically infatuated by White women.

Although, it is certainly easy to understand why they are so infatuated with White women.
White women are -- after-all -- the MOST physically and morally beautiful women on Earth.
Non-White men have these ridiculous and futile fantasies of White women giving them some sort of absurd and impossible admission into the White spiritual and ancestral community, as well giving them White children -- even though the offspring of such unions would just be slightly LESS brown mongrelized children, who are NO more apart of the White spiritual and ancestral community than their non-White parent. After-all, you are only as White as your parents are. And as a consequence these non-Whites naively make themselves ignorant to the fact that these beautiful White children can ONLY come from TWO White parents.''

The average, modern, modern, hypocrite, douche-bag, after being exposed as a hypocrite, will change the question.

From, "Are there different types of humans, evolved due to some previous period of genetic isolation, producing physical, AAAAAAND, mental, psychological differences?" into "Should we treat others differently because they aRE different?".

Immediately we see how the douche-bag, who began with the provocative and ill-conceived "Are you a racist?" is now admitting that there are racists, but demands that all pretend that there are not.
One would expect this form a lying cuint who need shtis pretence to remain interesting to the simpletons he can impress with big words and references to famous figures, amongst his imbecile peers.

Despite having an 150 I.Q., and despite a cow telling him that humans are 90% determined by social conditioning (social eugenics), otherwise known as "nurturing", this turd will be unable to differentiate between the underlying motives these two DIFFERENT questions involve.

Such a turd, who despite being liberal, is sometimes more conservative than others, and despite being a "philosopher" thinks philosophy is not about value judgments, and the cow, despite declaring herself a knower of Evolution Theory, now seeks guidance from a brain-dead imbecile (Stew-y), cannot decide what motive is implied by these two different questions.

I'm having too much fun watching these lying cunts trying to pretend, so I'm only going to offer a hint in the form of a few questions:

Is a cheetah's ability to run faster something one can use to treat slow runners, slow running species, differently?
If I say a cheetah is the fastest land animal am I saying all slow running land animals should be exterminated?
What goal would make me treat cheetah's, or any fast runner, differently?

What trait would be the core trait, the trait that differentiates homo sapiens from other species? Is it speed, beauty, height, strength, longevity, reproductive virility, constitution...something else?

Is "treating people" as if they are all the same, an honest approach to reality?
What has this to do with philosophy?
When one explores the real is he exploring the "thou shalt not..." of Judeo-Christian bullshit?
If I treat people as if they are all the same, does this change the fact that they are not?
How do I love wisdom, reality, if I pretend that the opposite of what is fact is the fact?  

What is my motive when exploring reality?
Is it to get laid....to be happy...to get along....to appear nice?
I treat my pet dog as if it were human, so as to have peaceful, harmonious coexistence with it and to enjoy its presence...is it so?  


Finally....
Is having a numerical value of 150 I.Q. the same as displaying high intelligence?
If I declare myself as being faster than Bolton, in the 100 m. race, is this acceptable, or should I display the validity of my claim with actions?
What is the value of declaring yourself a member of MENSA, even if it is so, when you cannot offer a single example, a single display, a single thing, which would express this credential?

150 I.Q. on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
For you few who see...weep.
Weep for the human race.

This turd, the the cow, and many others on ILP, is what the memetic virus has reduced us to.

Read the "arguments" of a brain-dead turd [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The topic turns to avatars...because someone complimented him on his.
See?
He has the popular "upper-hand" in the "who has the best avatar?" debate.

The turd, has 150 IQ. but has nothing to show that proves it.
The turd is not a drug dealer, and yet he supports himself in a declining American economy without having to work.
The turd gets laid easily, yet comes on-line daily, even on St. Valentine's Day, to try to impress and/or take advantage of dumb females.
The turd is conservative yet speaks like a typical Liberal.
The turd knows epistemology and ontology, yet cannot speak o any subject without sounding like a typical imbecile.

I think the turd purchased a book called "How to reason properly, for morons" or "How to think correctly, for imbeciles" and so he repeats the "you don't know how to think properly" as if he were reading a passage from the book.
He saw the book on some bookshelf and immediately recognized himself in the title.

How..." the turd thought "...can I make money and impress dumb whores, without having to work for it?"
"How..." the imbecile thought "....can I learn how to think, without actually having the genes for it, being that I was born of idiot parents?"

See why Evolution Theory is so distasteful for the turd?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] case of focusing on the messenger because he cannot focus on the message.

The turd is correct, nature does NOT selected for intelligence, but intelligence, within natural, not man made environments, has been selected in the human species and it has dominated other species, which have selected alternative survival methods: speed, constitution, procreative virility, strength, niche specializations etc.
The turd is evidence of man intervening upon natural process selecting for dumbness, or for a more focused application of intelligence: specialization.

A genetic trait is not a blanket covering all members belonging to it.
It is a potential inherited.
In controlled environments where it is man imposing sexual rules Dysgenics is the outcome. It is the genetic equivalent to environmental pollution.  

Spike Lee is intelligent?!
I guess so is Oprah Winfrey.
Like a classic modern nit-wit he confuses social success, wealth, for intelligence.

This is a follow through of the "edumucation" being the great equalizer.
If you are rich and famous then you must be smart.
If you sell, you are a genius.
If the masses of morons buy, you are great.
The turd becomes so frantic he does not even understand how pointing out oriental intelligence agrees with the reality of the premises that races exist.
He is still on the emotional frontier of self-aggrandizement...only he suffers from self-hatred, if he is Caucasian.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has been hurt.
Guess by whom and what.
Turning away, burying your head in the sand...typical.

He was used to "impressing" retards like the ones he considers his buddies, and stupid whores, like the cunts he's gotten used to seducing with some marijuana, and flashing the cash...like a gangsta....like his Hero Tupac.

The increase in Whiggers is indicative of modern decay.
The idealization of what is animalistic, base, goes hand-in-hand with the idealization of being dumb.
See, for them, nature not selecting for intelligence is a "wonderful" thing.
They want to make intelligence less relevant.
They, being part of the herd, want to equate it with fame and fortune...with selling and buying....with being marketable.

This is their understanding of the quality of intelligence: quantities.
If you sell in numbers, you are "smaaaaart".
If you impress, in numbers, you are valuable, you have "substance".

It only takes one retard, professing an agreement with Race Realism, to fuel the modern imbecile assumptions about all individual's defending the reality of racial divergence.

A case on point: our resident [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], calling himself insighfoul, and his stupidity.
The "out of africa" model is the only plausible model.
Anyone claiming multiple origins is doing a disservice to the argument for racial diversity, by becoming a retard like the reatards we are exposing as hypocrites.

That humans emerge, first in Africa, only accentuates the divergence by placing intelligence on the Evolutionary plain.
No otherworldly origins, no magical luck, where one race evolves here, and another evolves elsewhere, but both can miraculously interbreed.

The "out of Africa" model accentuates the fact that the tribes that remained behind, after some left into Asia, later migrating into Europe, via the Caucasus, stagnated in comparison to the tribes that were pushed out.
It is this nurturing continuity within different environments that produced the stresses required to help some tribes adapt, or perish, and emerge as creative, stronger, later returning as conquerors.

It is individuals like PDitty who give a bad name to those who believe in racial divercity.
His stupidity only reinforces the common Modern's ideas about what "racists" are supposed to think like.
But what do you expect from a moron who could only think of masculinity and femininity, in absolutist terms...or anything for that matter in the same way these modern cunt do: either/or.

The only other alternate explanation for racial diversity, which is an addendum really to the previous model, is that two different species diverged from a common ancestor, one the homo sapien and the other the Neandertal.
Later the tribes that left Africa must have mingled with this already present in Europe sub-species.

But this would mean that an exodus must have occurred at a far earlier date through Gibraltar, from solitary stragglers or small bands.

Interesting comment by Kriswest in reply to insightfoul.

Kriswest wrote:

ROFL. So now humans popped up just randomly throughout the world simultaneously? And they all have identical bloodtypes, organs, bodyparts.etc.... ?

It's nature now. In this case there is a physical past, the body which 'remembers' the past, its evolution. So she's either conditioned to argue the nurture argument when it goes against the party line or she does it willingly. Either way, it seems to come natural to her to argue with a physical reality when it's politically correct - That forum's politics in particular. If it's not, then bullshit-mode is on.

When it comes to the "human race" we are all nature's children....when it comes to races, we are all nurtured.

When it comes to the sexual type human, we are all the products of natural selection, produced by sexual reproduction, but the specialized forms of this reproduction do not matter.

The category Human supersedes all sub-categories....simplification and generalization with a seelctive bias.

The only Holocaust these hypocrites can recognize is the Jewish one....the most successful extinction of a people perpetrated by their "ancestors" is not even a footnote.
There's no Native-American lobby, no native Spielberg to remind them of how much these chosen to suffer noes suffered....living up to their God's intent.

The only victims these douche-bags know about are themselves, fags, "strong women", negroes...that their standard of living is based on exploiting and thieving other countries, is not on their superficial radar screen.

See, appearances do not matter, but ask one of these cunts to bang a random bum from the streets...ask them to date a man shorter than them, or obese.

It goes on and on...ask the cow Kriswest to explain, using her own words, how intelligence evolved and why it is a survival advantage if it is distribute evenly across populations.
Did intelligence spontaneously emerge?
Why only in the human species?
Why is it the only trait, according to these cunts, that is evenly distributed and not inherited?

Ask the shit-Smear to explain Satyr's views, to  link to where I said I was an "alpha" or an overman.
Ask him to explain his positions on Nietzsche...on Schopenhauer....he's a "philosophy student no?
Ask him to do so without deferring and referring to an other authority.

Ask ImbeSil how being smart enough to be a member of MENSA manifests in real life, if all he does is repeat what the average moron says, and defends it with a passion.

Ask Fausty, the douche-bag, if he's happy with what he did to make ILP as it is today.

Ask Stew-y if he belongs on ILP, or why offering him insights represents an author's value.  

Go ahead.

Latest Cunt wrote:

There are numerous examples where given the same chances in life, people of so-called "other races" have equalled and surpassed "whites" in every field.

HA!!!
  

We'll have to assume it is so in "all" fields.
so, whereas race is a social construct, the Indo-Euroepan one, he enjoys, even if it is ill, is full of examples of Negros "surpassing" Europeans....but before, in the sub-Sahara, where no European existed to be a bigot, they produced what?

Ouga...booga!!


Race: a sub-category of the species homo sapient, produced when genetic isolation, environmental conditioning, and historical circumstances, produced a genetic divergence. A divergence  not sufficiently long to produce a total diversion, spieciation, but sufficient enough to produce evident physical and mental/psychological differences between populations.
As always a type is a reference to potentials.

Appearance is not accidental nor is it superficial...because if it is so for humans it must also be so for all species.
If appearance is irrelevant then empiricism is out the door.

If a shared controlled environment enforces a strict behavioral code this does not eliminate the pre-existing inherited potentials, as the appearance exposes a divergence that persists, and it is not accidental...also proven by difference in performances in various fields of human interest.
Training two different types to behave in the same way,, restricting how they develop and direct their potentials, or training them to function within a shared level of mediocrity, does not produce parity, it only hides disparity.
Still, the absence of particular population groups from the highest levels of philosophy, cosmology, literature, art, science, creativity in general is evidence enough that no matter what social pressures exist to hide the truth, or to justify it away, it persists.

The cultures produced by different population groups before they came into contact with each other testifies to this disparity in potentials.

That's the way of the feminine mind.
By now I think that this duplicitous kind of thinking comes natural to them.
Which is becoming so pervasive in all areas because there is only one authority out there and it's a mass psychological phenomenon, a feminine phenomenon. Society is dominated by this feminine psyche-entity and so a sense of reality, of seeking of truth, goes out the window.

If we assume that the average IQ of a particular tribe in Africa were to be around 80. Then we can assume that the individual IQs are distributed via a Gauss-function, just like we see in the tests today. So we can find individuals with high IQs above 100, even above 120 and so on but it's getting very thin in the upper regions. Much thinner than to find a 120+ individual among Mongolian-Asians.
And what are the one or other relatively high IQ exceptions gonna do in an environment which is filled within an ocean of IQ 80 brutes? If being intelligent is not an advantage, if there is no cold winter to plan ahead for and the space is too crowded then there is not much evolutionary benefit to being more intelligent. Better to direct the blood-flow away from the brain into the muscles.

The kind of intelligence which is selected for in such an environment is social intelligence, cunning, manipulative skills, rhetoric.

shit-Smear wrote:

Its only been in the lasy few months that ive even payed attention to wbo im talking to. I dont even know these people. I mean i just realized not long ago that james is on the RM kick. I make it a point not to know any of you. It helps me sort the bs. Lately, the site has been flooded and spammed by the same racist, sexist kts member hiding thier idebtitjes and ruining any kind of good discussion. I think that has to be addressed. Even still, its not the racism or sexism that's the main problem. Its that the reasoning is poor. The posters are incoherent and the shit only serves as a distraction to good discourse. Anyone who doesnt see this is an idiot.

HA!!!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This guy is a gem.

Don't talk about the human condition....sex race are social constructs, and discussing them in a society being blinded to their reality is hateful......talking about race and/or sex or homosexuality, in any honest way, that contradicts the modern mythologies popular in this age is the same as saying one should do harm to women, people of other races and homosexuals....if you disagree you are an idiot.

Yeup...that book the shit-Smear bought "Thinking for Retards" is really paying off.
Now we know that philosophy is NOT about value judgments, the race, sex question is settled - its' all nurturing - having an I.Q. of 150 doesn't really amount to anything other than discussing about how many whores you've, supposedly, banged, what drugs you are doing/selling, and thinking that your hypocrisy cannot be detected, because the retards in your neighborhood have been duped by your simplistic methods.

Philosophy?
The discipline of discussing the mundane, the so abstracted that they have no personal applications...like "how is object other than subject"....or, "vat in the box" mind-candy games.
Challenging current social and cultural delusion sis NOT philosophy...this would entail value judgments, and we cannot have any of those.

Good discourse, you say?
Yes....help shit-Smear decorate his bathroom.....help shit-Smear take advantage of any drug addicted whore he finds on-line....help shit-Smear preserve his "happy" life, by giving him his daily dose of encouragement:


Side note:
Skim through the multiple pics he posts.
In the ones he's with a pretty female he has that "I can't believe she agreed to this" look of a boy in a candy store.
The exaggerated contorted face, with the requisite "thumbs up", and the repeating toothy clown smile, with wide-eyes.

In one, you can see him trying to appear tough, next to his friends (geniuses all of them), who seem relaxed in comparison.

I know a guy who sold drugs - probably still does. he took the wrap for his boss, and he got cash reward when he got out a year later.
Funny, he also claims to be playing the market - commodities....waiting for the big crash.
A gambler...
He also played the part...but was not the part.
Now he's married to a Cuban girl. He met her in one of the many tourist bars there, where desperate Cuban girls go to meet rich Americans, and get the hell out of there. Tattoos on her, in a Communist culture.
They usually find out that those men are not really that rich, by western standards...and sometimes they are bums who barely had enough to go on vacation in Cuba, because it's cheaper there.

There's a pattern here that crosses borders.

Some think humans are "complex", like they think females are too complex to comprehend, when, in fact, there are repeating characters/personalities.
A personality is formed when a person's innate predispositions, his nature, his essence/spirit, his genetic programming, confronts the socioeconomic, cultural environment...or the natural environment...but in modern times the environment is almost always a man-made one.
This "confrontation" usually happens during the teenage years, and the outcome is a personality that may last a lifetime.

The innate factors are not difficult to understand...we all have them; we all feel them in us.
Food, drink, shelter...sexual impulses (greater or lesser), social instinct(need to belong to a group)...to be appreciated, acknowledged, loved...pride, courage, masculine/feminine balances etc.
The culture changes but remains relatively similar in its demands: discipline, service, production.
The symbols change, the levels the methods, but the general demands are similar.

This confrontation of nature/nurture, and the need to find and preserve your true self within it, is what shapes an individual's character.

No, humans are not complex.
Their past is hard to know, because it is usually buried and the individual himself has no clue, or lies, or is purposefully ignorant...so that's where the "complexity" stems from. It's the experiential past, and how this impacted the inherited past, which is the hard part to figure out...though people usually wear their past, they carry it.
Humans are simple enough to fall into psychological categories, and to be easily manipulated by political and marketing schemes.
They may change their outer appearance, but the innate factors underlying them are common, comprehensible....genetic.

The common Modern turd having been exposed as being a turd will now fall back on his final ploy: accusing the other of an obsession he created by rejecting the very premises he now claims to believe in himself.

I quote, from a master of propaganda sniffing:

Orwell, George wrote:

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

And here we are in an Age of deceit, surrounded by retards who deny race, and sexual differences, or the nature of homosexual sexuality, and we, wanting to be noble men and defenders of anture repeat what should be self-evident....

The rabble resist, they attack, they declare, defer, refer, make excuses, fall back on emotion, deceive, divert, LIE.

Then, when they cannot handle the truth they accuse us of obsessiveness.

Shall we allow lies and lairs to carry on lying without resistance?
In a world dominated by them, where their bullshit is repeated as if it was reasonable, should we not remind them continuously what they are, and what we think of them?

An emasculated man, a female, cannot think outside social constructs when speaking about humans.
He cannot approach the subject human - in other words himself- from a detached rational perspective, as someone observing a species and its behavior.

The psychology of sex as a fundamental aspect of a biological life-form dependent on heterosexuality and its specialized roles, become incomprehensible to him.
His mind is trapped in the meme of uniformity, anti-nature Nihilism...but only when it comes to one species.

The modern, Nihilist, nit-wit, feels secure in his social reality. He wants to believe things are settled, taken care of, and that he is living in the best of all possible worlds.
He must think so, because, as a child, stunted in development, and in need of parental care, he must turn his attentions to basic feeding, pleasuring himself, playing games...distracting himself, and, as Postman said, "Amusing himself to Death."

Race, no issue.
Sex, no issue.
The reversal of everything man knew as true up to these moderns times...no issue.
Philosophy, for such a mind, is another candy-cane, one more shot of adrenaline, to get a jolt before he drifts off to sleep.

Nothing touches the emasculated nihilist, the Modern, because he's sheltered away from nature (past) into a realm of good intentions and feel good, self-correcting system of automatic benevolence.
He wonders what all the shouting is about...like an infant watching adults fighting.

The fate of the entire human race is decided daily in subtle ways, and he is unaware, and, more importantly, indifferent.
Apathy is the benefit of being ignorant of what ails you.

Total numbness.
It takes high volumes, and numerous hits, to sense anything through his thick hide.
Drugged with more than chemical joy, he is high on delusion.

Satyr wrote:

shit-Smear wrote:
Its only been in the lasy few months that ive even payed attention to wbo im talking to. I dont even know these people. I mean i just realized not long ago that james is on the RM kick. I make it a point not to know any of you. It helps me sort the bs. Lately, the site has been flooded and spammed by the same racist, sexist kts member hiding thier idebtitjes and ruining any kind of good discussion. I think that has to be addressed. Even still, its not the racism or sexism that's the main problem. Its that the reasoning is poor. The posters are incoherent and the shit only serves as a distraction to good discourse. Anyone who doesnt see this is an idiot.
HA!!!

From Den of Dim-Wits

This guy is a gem.

Don't talk about the human condition....sex race are social constructs, and discussing them in a society being blinded to their reality is hateful......talking about race and/or sex or homosexuality, in any honest way, that contradicts the modern mythologies popular in this age is the same as saying one should do harm to women, people of other races and homosexuals....if you disagree you are an idiot.

Can you not feel it? There's euphoria in enlightenment & internet pwnage.

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] strikes again:

Big Bang Theory blues.

Loser nerds belonging the the Caucasian, Indian and Jewish kind, being sold on the idea that if you remain "nice" a hot girl will have you, because it's not your job, its that women love you for who you are.
Nerd is the new cool.

To be smart you must also be antisocial... or socially inept.
An Indian who must get drunk to speak to females.
A Jew, with no physical appeal and a high opinion of himself, living with his mother.
An a-sexual genius, because to be a genius there must be a sexual cost.
Finally, a Caucasian weakling, physically frail, but tolerant, boyish.

All of them have their respective mates.
All of them could care less for anything besides work and playing games.
Sex enters the scene as a dream none think they deserve but who are fortunate enough to find those rare women who, despite their beta-male status still find something adorable about them.
The women are enlightened, loving them despite them... and they remain simple, no matter how smart they are in a "bookish" nerdy kind of way.

None of them actually does something outside their little cocooned reality.

29.00
I bet there's a number of people would stop further research given the chance. Deniability is getting to the point of religious zealotry.


Some of the sarficial lambs.



Really there's no distinction in my mind. But unless you are on top of that temple, instead screaming your lungs out in ecstasy, then you are a loser of the 9th degree, and the secret is the temple dwellers aren't actually believers.

I'm going to start asking these people -- what if any new information would change your mind?


It's a check mate. Either they admit emotional attchments surpass rational reasoning capabilities, or a hypocrite. And to think they actually accuse me of emotional attachment, this is absolute detachment.


This is an illusion, social constructs made it smarter.

Satyr wrote:

Was Fixed banned?
What moniker did he use here?

He thinks he was banned and its You who were "Resentful" because he didn't reply to me - or so he thinks...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

His new haunt for "profane" and those third-rate participants unworthy of his Before the Flight forum:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Where it began:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr wrote:

I loved the revenge though.
It was delicious.
Also that disappointed nod to apaosha..."He's an idiot but I expected more from you, dude". 
 

Looks like he's not over it/you yet!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You're a bit too good of a crack-er for him,, all his "reasoning" and "ontology" was really exposed that day, fun...

Lyssa wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Was Fixed banned?
What moniker did he use here?

He thinks he was banned and its You who were "Resentful" because he didn't reply to me - or so he thinks...

Was I?
I don't even know what the hell he didn't respond to.

Lyssa wrote:

Looks like he's not over it/you yet!

It never is.

They only change masks.

Lyssa wrote:

You're a bit too good of a crack-er for him,, all his "reasoning" and "ontology" was really exposed that day, fun...

Know what's funny?
Some of these turds use words like "ontology" trying to sound smarter than they are, and in Greek, the word οντολογια...is fuckin' common.

We call living organisms οντα.
One would be ον.
They learn a bit of Greek, and then go of in pseudo-intellectual ramblings.

Υou know pseudo- as in ψευτο-...ψεμα...ψεματα.

Words.....words...so many damn words.
Words disconnecting, not connecting. Words used to hide, not to reveal, uncover...αληθεια.
Words used to hide...words along with clothes, garments, girdles, makeup, masks....surgical interventions, edumacations.

Satyr wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Was Fixed banned?
What moniker did he use here?

He thinks he was banned and its You who were "Resentful" because he didn't reply to me - or so he thinks...

Was I?

Not at all, obv.

Quote :

I don't even know what the hell he didn't respond to.

This - it was a big essay that he later edited out.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He thinks you banned him because he didn't reply to my question there, because he thinks I am 'You' and so its out of resentment you banned him for him not replying to 'you'...

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:

You're a bit too good of a crack-er for him,, all his "reasoning" and "ontology" was really exposed that day, fun...

Know what's funny?
Some of these turds use words like "ontology" trying to sound smarter than they are, and in Greek, the word οντολογια...is fuckin' common.

He summarized his principles:

The list of our principles, unedited, unauthorized, in the rough:

1. All beings are driven by their values. But all beings create their values in the core of their existence.

2. The core of any being is its value-standard. By this standard it keeps itself in being. This “self-valuing” is the core value which all its other values reflect.

3. A life lived according to ones deepest and highest values is a life of the greatest happiness.

4. Power is the ability to set values and attain them.

5. Power is there for the taking – for everyone. It will always resist being contained.

6. Ideologies are systems of pre-set human value. To subscribe to them is to submit to an others power.

7. The use of any ideology is whatever it accomplishes. There is no unquestionable truth (or value) to any ideology.

8. Hope is destroyed when the ability to set values is lost. When all values have been predetermined by the outside world, the individual is gone.

9. Society is its own reward. Society is the interactions of different self-valuings, a rich tapestry of comparable and contrasting values.

10. Life has no other purpose than to set values and to attain them. All meaning, love, loyalty, goals –

11. Humans can introduce each other to values – they can not set them for each other.

12. Humanarchy is the rule of human self-valuing: of free and complete individuals.

Clearly, these principles do not restrain human actions like a morality does. We do not present an ideology, only a kind of optimistic realism. This Forum is meant to host a wide range of discussions in all, or at least very many fields of life. Politics is ultimately just a means, the goal is whatever is worth living for.



Basically he's trying to platonize an anti-platonism into a system...

He's systematizing the saying 'Do not moralize', etc.
"I Value, Therefore I Am."

Quote :

They learn a bit of Greek, and then go of in pseudo-intellectual ramblings.

Words.....words...so many damn words.
Words disconnecting, not connecting. Words used to hide, not to reveal, uncover...αληθεια.
Words used to hide...words along with clothes, garments, girdles, makeup, masks....surgical interventions, edumacations.

Gross has made Sauwelios mod. and Stuart-li'l has joined to add to the edumacation:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lyssa wrote:

Not at all, obv.

I was being facetious, obviously.

Lyssa wrote:

This - it was a big essay that he later edited out.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He thinks you banned him because he didn't reply to my question there, because he thinks I am 'You' and so its out of resentment you banned him for him not replying to 'you'...

I never read it.
Whatever.

This Lyssa is Satyr is damn funny.
They can't imagine a female thinking like you, or liking Satyr's thinking.
You're an anomaly in their world-view, and their caricaturing of me.

Lyssa wrote:

He summarized his principles:

[color=#000066]The list of our principles, unedited, unauthorized, in the rough:

You've been poking around, I see.

Turd wrote:

1. All beings are driven by their values. But all beings create their values in the core of their existence.

"Core of their existence"?
What, the fuck, is a core?

Turd wrote:

2. The core of any being is its value-standard. By this standard it keeps itself in being. This “self-valuing” is the core value which all its other values reflect.

Sort of circular..."being creates values out of its 'core' and the core is the standard for creating its values.

Does a plant have a sense of value?
A core standard?

Turd wrote:

3. A life lived according to ones deepest and highest values is a life of the greatest happiness.

How absurd. Living by your values makes you noble, not necessarily happy.
Pain and suffering may be the cost, when your values conflict with the popular ones.

Turd wrote:

4. Power is the ability to set values and attain them.

Yes...except that one never attains anything. The voyage is never completed, the absolute, the perfect, is never reached.
One approaches it.

Turd wrote:

5. Power is there for the taking – for everyone. It will always resist being contained.

Huh?

This is a convoluted way of saying 'Being is never achieved, it slips away because all is Becoming'.
Contradicts the previous allusion of "attainment".

Power is not a thing...not a thingness. It cannot be grasped because it is fluidity. One accumulates power, energies, and then expends them TOWARDS an object/objective.
Here, the turd, is using Judeo-Christian imagery. He replaces God, the Ideal, the One, with the word "Power"...like Christians do with the word "Love".
Omnipotence slips away, as you reach for it....because reaching is a sign of need which contradicts omnipotence, or perfection, or even love.
It is the projected object/objected, taking the form of an absolute.
The absolute is absent, and we feel it as need/suffering.

To attain a superior level of power one must, ironically, become indifferent, for indifference is a sign of absence of need.
An approach towards omnipotence, the Being, the perfect, the oneness.

The irony, is to be understood as a result of human hubris.
The confusion of the word, for the thing...the noumenon for the phenomenon...the ideal for the real.

Man does not attain power, he becomes powerful in relation to an otherness....and this empowerment relationship manifests as an increasing independence...indifference.
Magnanimity, is a noble act...where the actor does not really care, but gives just because, at the moment, he wants to.
He gives, sometimes, unintentionally...letting himself release energies not caring who partakes.

Turd wrote:

6. Ideologies are systems of pre-set human value. To subscribe to them is to submit to an others power.

"Pre-set" by whom?
Yes, by humans.
How does one build said values?

The "core" alludes to the real answer: the past.
Past, being nature.
Man builds, creates, by sampling the past knowledge, experiences...genes being a form of inherited experiences.
Then he projects the abstraction, the manufactures object/objective, as a destination, desirable goal.

The more detached from reality the abstracted object/objective is, the more fantastic, supernatural it is - the more it displays the projecting mind's own need, and/or dissatisfaction with the past.

Turd wrote:

7. The use of any ideology is whatever it accomplishes. There is no unquestionable truth (or value) to any ideology.

Duh!

Turd wrote:

8. Hope is destroyed when the ability to set values is lost. When all values have been predetermined by the outside world, the individual is gone.

Values are shared.
One inherits the knowledge, experiences, sometimes from other minds.
No mind, except a mind raise din the wilderness, constructs his own values out of nothingness or by not being influenced by an other mind.

The quality of a value is in how well it matches with the individual's own past, its own inheritance, its own nature.

Turd wrote:

9. Society is its own reward. Society is the interactions of different self-valuings, a rich tapestry of comparable and contrasting values.

What a broad sweeping statement, as if all societies are equally noble, good, creative.

A system has its own ingrained set of values...and if they are nihilistic no "rich tapestry" is present. Only decay.
A mind raised in a nihilistic society will build values reflecting nihilistic values.

Turd wrote:

10. Life has no other purpose than to set values and to attain them. All meaning, love, loyalty, goals –

Really?
Plant like, amoeba, worms, germs...all have that purpose?

Know what's funny about this?
When I went to Before the Light and said that sex evolved for the purpose of reproduction, the Turd's friend pounced on me.
Now, the Turd, is declaring that all life, no matter its sophistication, has an underlying purpose.

Turd wrote:

11. Humans can introduce each other to values – they can not set them for each other.

Really?
Not even at birth, and by raising one in a particular set of values system?
Is this naive or just another version of the Blank Slate?

Turd wrote:

12. Humanarchy is the rule of human self-valuing: of free and complete individuals.

A noble endeavor.

Lyssa wrote:

Gross has made Sauwelios mod. and Stuart-li'l has joined to add to the edumacation:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Really?
I'll be watching, then.

Might be fun.