Humanism, Racism and other -isms

[AutSider]

Moreno, some of those points are good… others are less so. First I’d like to point out that I’m not an objectivist, aka, I don’t think my answers are reflective of some objective, cosmic moral law all are obliged to follow.

How does the nationalist demonstrate to them that it is more moral to draw the line at nations or at race?

There isn’t.

However, oligarchy usually results in a pooling of resources in a small number of people, while drastically weakening the rest, which weakens the nation overall and makes it ripe for conquest. So unless all, or at the very least the most powerful outside threats to the family are eliminated, oligarchy is self-destructive in the long run.

A family cannot sustain a society - a nation can.

2. Treating it as a line is misleading. Often what is meant is not that everything above the line of equal value and everything below it is of no value, has no rights, but rather that degrees of rights, respect and empathy should be shown to categories X, Y, Z……and so on.

Of course, I agree with that.

a) only very few traditionalists think we should return to chattel slavery, even few racists. IOW whatever they may think of other races, they tend not to think former types of relations were OK, despite not thinking they are the same.

I don’t either. It’s a thought I entertained, but no.

I definitely am in favor of segregation however.

Agree with b.

c), who has the right to something or not is determined by the state. Are you implying that there are some sort of natural rights people have to do or not to do something which are independent of the state?

3. I think even Hitler accepted Islam, which is not to mean that he wanted Muslims in Germany, but that Germans should stay in Germany, Muslims in Muslim countries, and all would be happy. Blood based ethno-nationalism where each ethnic group should develop separately.

4. I can see why they do that. For example, they may see negroes as a disgrace to humanity compared to caucasians, because of the negro’s more primitive nature, so they may want to exterminate them like one wants to exterminate degenerate dogs because they are a disgrace to other dogs.

5. Anarchists value people? Whaaaaaaat?

Ah, I see your confusions. Anarchists aren’t left and libertarians aren’t right. Anarchists are more extreme libertarians - libertarianism and anarchism are about the degree of government intervention/authority, not about any specific social or economic policy.

But ultimately I consider these discussions pointless because the reality, the objective world, is the final determiner of what is superior and what is inferior. And it seems to be an undeniable pattern in history that liberal/pacifist countries can only survive under the protection of a friendly military/conservative, more nationalist country, otherwise they get conquered by a more hostile one.

So yeah, people can argue for liberalism all they want, just like a retard can argue that a lion is a vegetarian. The difference being that the society that takes into account liberal opinions is slowly writing its own demise, so the process of liberalism being proven wrong by nature/objective world may take decades and even centuries, while if a retard faces a lion, he will very swiftly be corrected and suffer the consequences of his stupidity.

Consider this:

Every country is like a superorganism.
The native citizens are its organs, tissues, cells, blood, etc. and they all contribute to the functioning, health, and well-being of the organism.
Liberals are the organs/tissues/cells that are ill, sick, diseased. Infected with a memetic virus, they attract foreign, alien bodies (Muslims) into the superogranism (European country) which begin to cause illness in the entire superorganism and weakens it from the inside.
Eventually, the foreign alien superorganism (Muslim country), having infiltrated the other superorganism (European country) and caused internal conflict in it, thus weakening it, can now invade it and destroy it in its weakened state.

So indeed, liberalism is a mental disorder. It’s self-hatred, masochism, death wish, etc. in its purest forms and it destroys countries inside out.

I can’t blame Muslims for killing their own liberals who dare to speak out. That’s the only efficient way of dealing with them - you can’t reason with them just like you can’t reason with a spoiled child, or a malevolent person.

You don’t argue with a virus that wants to destroy you the same way you don’t argue with people trying to kill and rape your family - you fucking split their head open with an axe. That is the appropriate and rational response.

[phyllo]

Consider this:

Every country is like a superorganism.
The native citizens are its organs, tissues, cells, blood, etc. and they all contribute to the functioning, health, and well-being of the organism.
Liberals are the organs/tissues/cells that are ill, sick, diseased. Infected with a memetic virus, they attract foreign, alien bodies (Muslims) into the superogranism (European country) which begin to cause illness in the entire superorganism and weakens it from the inside.
Eventually, the foreign alien superorganism (Muslim country), having infiltrated the other superorganism (European country) and caused internal conflict in it, thus weakening it, can now invade it and destroy it in its weakened state.

So indeed, liberalism is a mental disorder. It’s self-hatred, masochism, death wish, etc. in its purest forms and it destroys countries inside out.

I can’t blame Muslims for killing their own liberals who dare to speak out. That’s the only efficient way of dealing with them - you can’t reason with them just like you can’t reason with a spoiled child, or a malevolent person.

You don’t argue with a virus that wants to destroy you the same way you don’t argue with people trying to kill and rape your family - you fucking split their head open with an axe. That is the appropriate and rational response.

That’s how you get genocide … by dehumanizing a part of the population.

[phyllo]

3. I think even Hitler accepted Islam, which is not to mean that he wanted Muslims in Germany, but that Germans should stay in Germany, Muslims in Muslim countries, and all would be happy. Blood based ethno-nationalism where each ethnic group should develop separately.

If that was true, then there would have been no war in Europe … the Germans would have been content with their own lands. But in fact, there was a desire to expand and enslave the surrounding sub-humans.

It is unlikely to be any different in the future.

[phyllo]

I definitely am in favor of segregation however.

Why do you need segregation?
In a naturally competitive society, the inferior people will fall to the bottom and the superior ones will rise to the top. Right?

[Moreno]

@Arbiter of Change

Moreno, some of those points are good… others are less so. First I’d like to point out that I’m not an objectivist, aka, I don’t think my answers are reflective of some objective, cosmic moral law all are obliged to follow.

Well, that’s good. Assuming that genetic closeness should determine ones decisions and relations is certainly an objectivist leap.

There isn’t.

However, oligarchy usually results in a pooling of resources in a small number of people, while drastically weakening the rest, which weakens the nation overall and makes it ripe for conquest. So unless all, or at the very least the most powerful outside threats to the family are eliminated, oligarchy is self-destructive in the long run.

A family cannot sustain a society - a nation can.

I am not arguing for Oligarchy, just pointing out that just as you are challening the liberal by saying the line is arbritrary, the oligarches are de facto challening nationalists by destroying nations given their focus on their own familes and selves. They may be wrong to do this strategically or morally,but they present a problem for any nationalist saying should. Now it seems you are not saying should.

Of course the oligarches, since they do not care about nations, do not care if their policies damage nations. When they can use nations (and nationalism) they do. When it helps them to undermine nations, they do that. There use for nations is waning, and so nations are waning.

c), who has the right to something or not is determined by the state. Are you implying that there are some sort of natural rights people have to do or not to do something which are independent of the state?

I don’t think so. I would say that the state is generally how it formally happens, via law. But if your life and the quality of you life is valued by power, then something like rights will to the degree of that value and the degree of the power having that value be supported. I do not think of rights as internal qualities of things. I think it is a shorthand for relations.

3. I think even Hitler accepted Islam, which is not to mean that he wanted Muslims in Germany, but that Germans should stay in Germany, Muslims in Muslim countries, and all would be happy. Blood based ethno-nationalism where each ethnic group should develop separately.

Islam is a religion so it may and does slide across races and states. But sure, Hitler may well have thought something like this.

4. I can see why they do that. For example, they may see negroes as a disgrace to humanity compared to caucasians, because of the negro’s more primitive nature, so they may want to exterminate them like one wants to exterminate degenerate dogs because they are a disgrace to other dogs.

Well, we have different experiences of blacks, and white for that matter.

5. Anarchists value people? Whaaaaaaat?

Ah, I see your confusions. Anarchists aren’t left and libertarians aren’t right. Anarchists are more extreme libertarians - libertarianism and anarchism are about the degree of government intervention/authority, not about any specific social or economic policy.

Well, in my experience anarchists are leftists. They tend to share many values with the left in general, but dislike all hierarchy and authority. Libertarians share more values with the right, however they tend not to have problems with authority, private authority, say within corporations. Empathy is not embedded in their policy ideas whereas it is in anarchist policies. So I disagree and you will see anarchists forming coalitions with leftists and libertarians working with the right much more than with the left.

So yeah, people can argue for liberalism all they want, just like a retard can argue that a lion is a vegetarian. The difference being that the society that takes into account liberal opinions is slowly writing its own demise,

It seems like any society that does not combine them has a great deal of trouble lasting. Without liberals you tend to get fascism and that does not last very long. But the whole thing is moot because nations barely exist anymore.

Consider this:

Every country is like a superorganism.
The native citizens are its organs, tissues, cells, blood, etc. and they all contribute to the functioning, health, and well-being of the organism.
Liberals are the organs/tissues/cells that are ill, sick, diseased. Infected with a memetic virus, they attract foreign, alien bodies (Muslims) into the superogranism (European country) which begin to cause illness in the entire superorganism and weakens it from the inside.
Eventually, the foreign alien superorganism (Muslim country), having infiltrated the other superorganism (European country) and caused internal conflict in it, thus weakening it, can now invade it and destroy it in its weakened state.

Conservatives allowed the disease of corporations to destroy the very existence of nations. becaue they confused the freedom of the individual to be conflated with the freedom of organizations, corporate charterhood shifted from a priviledge to an entitlement and voila: corporate personhood.

There are other ways to challenge your simple liberal bad, conservative good schema, but this is one of the clearest because today it is not Muslims who are eliminating nations, it is the oligarchs. Hell, the US was hardly a nation well before Gulf WAr 1. The Islam vs. West is like the drug wars, another cris to be used to drive splits between liberals and conservatives, increase law enforcement and military spending, and distract from the termination of nations and democracy.

So indeed, liberalism is a mental disorder. It’s self-hatred, masochism, death wish, etc. in its purest forms and it destroys countries inside out.

I can’t blame Muslims for killing their own liberals who dare to speak out. That’s the only efficient way of dealing with them - you can’t reason with them just like you can’t reason with a spoiled child, or a malevolent person.

Hm, if I were in a Muslim nation I would not want to live under Sharia, or say with patrols driving around to make sure my girlfriend, sisters mother were acting like nuns and so on. I can blame Muslims for shitting on their liberals. Just as anyone rebelling against conservative religious practices, say Christian ones in Europe, may very well have gotten my vote, sword, support, refuge…

You don’t argue with a virus that wants to destroy you the same way you don’t argue with people trying to kill and rape your family - you fucking split their head open with an axe. That is the appropriate and rational response.

There are a lot of ways to kill a family. I see conservatives as killers also. They killed souls and they sent men to war for bullshit. They wanted us to live in little dead boxes feeling ashamed of ourselves. Over at KT you have a non-religious traditionalism, a Classical version. And it is shame based, and shame is wielded as the primary taser there. Everyone notices liberal guilt, but conservatives seem not to notice how much they destroyed the soul with shame. They suddenly woke up to the ideas of political correctness when liberals managed to challenge the old political correctness, which was more shame based, with the liberal more guilt based one. Conservative pedagogical choices, coupled with small town shunning practices that are incredibly powerful, and the citizens in a nation dominated by conservatives become cardboard figures. To mention just a couple of problems with that end of the spectrum.

But really, one does not need to choose between these two modes. The whole conservative vs. liberal is just a false dilemma. AS if they were the options.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

@phyllo

I definitely am in favor of segregation however.

Why do you need segregation?
In a naturally competitive society, the inferior people will fall to the bottom and the superior ones will rise to the top. Right?

Not neccesarily. Consider a virus, which rises to the top. Is a virus superior? Superior beings are not eternally vigilant, nor are they omnipotent to defend themselves from all secret schemes and plagues of schemes.

For example, 3 or 4 inferiors might be more powerful than one lone superior. Because of this, inferiors could propagate at a faster rate than superiors. I don’t think you really thought the mathematics of this through before you made your claims. It is not such a simplistic equation.

[Moreno]

@Trixie Z

@phyllo

I definitely am in favor of segregation however.

Why do you need segregation?
In a naturally competitive society, the inferior people will fall to the bottom and the superior ones will rise to the top. Right?

Not neccesarily. Consider a virus, which rises to the top. Is a virus superior? Superior beings are not eternally vigilant, nor are they omnipotent to defend themselves from all secret schemes and plagues of schemes.

If you are worrying right now about the schemes of blacks, you are very likely nicely distracted from the scheming that will affect your life and the lives of any offspring you ever have. That scheming happens to be made mostly by white people - not that they give much fo a shit about race seeing mostly everyone as a nigger -who do not give a shit about you and if you a tricky enough to get caught between their teeth, they will floss you out and spit you down the drain. Your vigilance is poorly prioritized.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

You know what they say about assumptions, they make an ass out of you and me.

I wasn’t thinking of particularly anyone in mind, but if I had to pick a group of schemers of the year I’d have to say either the Zionist Jews or the towelheads.

[AutSider]

Moreno

I am not arguing for Oligarchy, just pointing out that just as you are challening the liberal by saying the line is arbritrary, the oligarches are de facto challening nationalists by destroying nations given their focus on their own familes and selves. They may be wrong to do this strategically or morally,but they present a problem for any nationalist saying should. Now it seems you are not saying should.

Of course the oligarches, since they do not care about nations, do not care if their policies damage nations. When they can use nations (and nationalism) they do. When it helps them to undermine nations, they do that. There use for nations is waning, and so nations are waning.

Well, if oligarchs can exploit their own nation and not suffer the consequence of weakening their own nation (getting conquered), power to them. This may be what’s happening with the advent of globalism, oligarchs allowing swarms of immigrants as cheap labor force at the expense of the native population. This is why globalism is perfect for oligarchs - if there is no outside threats because a single political ideology is spread throughout everywhere where threats could possibly come from, then there is no reason to care about the strength of your own people and you can just exploit them.

Well, we have different experiences of blacks, and white for that matter.

Ah, you are indeed more sophisticated than an average retard.

An average retard here would say how he has a different opinion.

You, on the other hand, have different experiences, meaning that you had first hand contact with something, suggesting a higher knowledge.

Too bad that not even experiences change the facts, the reality of blacks and whites.

Well, in my experience anarchists are leftists. They tend to share many values with the left in general, but dislike all hierarchy and authority. Libertarians share more values with the right, however they tend not to have problems with authority, private authority, say within corporations. Empathy is not embedded in their policy ideas whereas it is in anarchist policies. So I disagree and you will see anarchists forming coalitions with leftists and libertarians working with the right much more than with the left.

You’re conflating empathy and sympathy. I would say the right has more empathy, aka, they are more aware of how the average worker’s mind works and how he feels, they just don’t give a shit and use their knowledge to exploit him.

If anarchy is the lack of any sort of government, then it can’t be right or left or have anything to do with any political position - it would contradict its very essence.

Also, I don’t see how anarchy is possible at all since no 2 organisms are the same so if even only 2 organisms are interacting, there is a hierarchy and one of them is the governed/dominated, while the other is the governing, the dominating one.

I think the closest any situation can come to anarchy is during conflict itself, where the outcome of who will be the dominating one is yet to be decided, but again, even during that conflict one side is stronger and the other is weaker and it’s only a matter of time before the weaker one loses.

It seems like any society that does not combine them has a great deal of trouble lasting. Without liberals you tend to get fascism and that does not last very long. But the whole thing is moot because nations barely exist anymore.

I consider political systems to go in cycles. For example, I consider conservatism or nationalism responses to austere environments with scarce resources, and liberalism a response to a permissive environment with abundant resources. So it’s impossible for any one system to last forever - conservatism dominates nature and creates civilizations, thus creating an environment which is perfect for liberalism, then liberalism takes over, drains resources and fucks everything up and destroys civilization and thus again creating an austere environment with scarce resources, leading to conservatism and so on forever.

Have you ever heard of liberal groups surviving in nature and creating civilizations? No, cause liberalism doesn’t survive in nature, it is a fragile, sheltered political ideology for infantile-minded people.

Conservatives allowed the disease of corporations to destroy the very existence of nations. becaue they confused the freedom of the individual to be conflated with the freedom of organizations, corporate charterhood shifted from a priviledge to an entitlement and voila: corporate personhood.

There are other ways to challenge your simple liberal bad, conservative good schema, but this is one of the clearest because today it is not Muslims who are eliminating nations, it is the oligarchs. Hell, the US was hardly a nation well before Gulf WAr 1. The Islam vs. West is like the drug wars, another cris to be used to drive splits between liberals and conservatives, increase law enforcement and military spending, and distract from the termination of nations and democracy.

Yeah, when I’m saying conservative I mean socially conservative and economically non-socialist, it seems that in modern times conservative came to mean socially cuckservative and economically an extremist capitalist faggot.

Hm, if I were in a Muslim nation I would not want to live under Sharia, or say with patrols driving around to make sure my girlfriend, sisters mother were acting like nuns and so on. I can blame Muslims for shitting on their liberals. Just as anyone rebelling against conservative religious practices, say Christian ones in Europe, may very well have gotten my vote, sword, support, refuge…

I’m not even a religious person, but at least Muslims and socially conservative Christians have their women in check and aren’t ashamed and afraid of dominating them.

Yes, there is nothing inherently objectively wrong with women being covered from head to toe and being forced to act like nuns, just like there is nothing inherently objectively wrong with women running around naked like whores.

In fact, I ADMIRE Muslims for putting women in their place and not being afraid to exercise their superiority over them. Strong dominate the weak is fine with me. They enforce masculinity in men and femininity in women. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

And it’s effective, isn’t it? Their family unit is strong and their numbers are swiftly growing, as is their religious influence.

European liberal Christian and secular liberal meekness is slowly getting conquered, genetically and memetically, by the more conservative Islam. Just further proof of what I talked about above.

But really, one does not need to choose between these two modes. The whole conservative vs. liberal is just a false dilemma. AS if they were the options.

So, what do you identify with? How would you describe your political positions?

[phyllo]

I’m not even a religious person, but at least Muslims and socially conservative Christians have their women in check and aren’t ashamed and afraid of dominating them.

Yes, there is nothing inherently objectively wrong with women being covered from head to toe and being forced to act like nuns, just like there is nothing inherently objectively wrong with women running around naked like whores.

In fact, I ADMIRE Muslims for putting women in their place and not being afraid to exercise their superiority over them. Strong dominate the weak is fine with me. They enforce masculinity in men and femininity in women. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

And it’s effective, isn’t it? Their family unit is strong and their numbers are swiftly growing, as is their religious influence.

European liberal Christian and secular liberal meekness is slowly getting conquered, genetically and memetically, by the more conservative Islam. Just further proof of what I talked about above.

There is nothing admirable about the violence and abuse that extremist Muslim men inflict on women and children.

[AutSider]

That’s how you get genocide … by dehumanizing a part of the population.

Nothing inherently wrong with genocide.

Genocide of those who are not like me and who threaten the existence of those who are like me, I find acceptable.

If that was true, then there would have been no war in Europe … the Germans would have been content with their own lands. But in fact, there was a desire to expand and enslave the surrounding sub-humans.

That’s not incompatible with ethno-nationalism.

Ethno-nationalism is, simply, may everybody develop separately, and if one chooses to declare war on another, may the most powerful nation win.

Why do you need segregation?
In a naturally competitive society, the inferior people will fall to the bottom and the superior ones will rise to the top. Right?

Naturally competitive? Nature is naturally competitive. What kind of competition are you talking about? Economic competition? That only takes into account one aspect of natural competition.

Society tends to preserve weakness, and if it is a democracy, the weakness will tend to preserve itself too (welfare), and because the weak tend to care about quantity rather than quality the democratic system will be advantageous for them.

Also segregation based on reality - wherever negroes go, they make ghettos out of decent areas. Why would the white man tolerate that?

There is nothing admirable about the violence and abuse that extremist Muslim men inflict on women and children.

Children?

Depends on WHY violence was inflicted in the first place. If the woman was disobedient and wanted to run around the street naked then yeah, punishment is in order.

You want to spread the decadence and emasculation of the white man on Muslims too? Fuck no, we should learn a few tricks from them, and our ancestors.

[phyllo]

Nothing inherently wrong with genocide.

Genocide of those who are not like me and who threaten the existence of those who are like me, I find acceptable.

Ethno-nationalism is, simply, may everybody develop separately, and if one chooses to declare war on another, may the most powerful nation win.

You seem to be completely embracing thuggery. The one with the biggest muscles and clubs can do whatever he wants and he should do it.

Where is the wisdom in this? Where is the good life?

It sounds crappy to me.

Naturally competitive? Nature is naturally competitive. What kind of competition are you talking about? Economic competition? That only takes into account one aspect of natural competition.

Naturally competitive as opposed to artificially competitive. Natural competition would be productive. Artificial competition is wasting of resources.

Society tends to preserve weakness, and if it is a democracy, the weakness will tend to preserve itself too (welfare), and because the weak tend to care about quantity rather than quality the democratic system will be advantageous for them.

A segregated society protects the ‘retards’ of the superior race from the ‘able’ of the inferior race. So, it also preserves weakness.
Only a society which allows direct competition between individuals will identify the truly weak.

Children?

Yes, a 12-year old girl is not a woman. Although she will be abused.

Depends on WHY violence was inflicted in the first place. If the woman was disobedient and wanted to run around the street naked then yeah, punishment is in order.

Well, do the following deserve punishment? …
Going to school.
Wearing a dress that your father, brother or husband does not approve of.
Playing music. Dancing. Reading. Thinking.

You want to spread the decadence and emasculation of the white man on Muslims too? Fuck no, we should learn a few tricks from them, and our ancestors.

What exactly is the decadence and emasculation of the white man which has to be avoided?
(Muslim men who attack women and children don’t have any balls to start with.)

[AutSider]

phyllo

You seem to be completely embracing thuggery. The one with the biggest muscles and clubs can do whatever he wants and he should do it.

That’s how the world functions.

The current political elites in power in Europe f.e. destroy the nations under the pretense of humanism, liberalism, or whatever feel-good fantasy they use as an excuse, and yet they threaten with violence everybody who disagrees (police and military).

At least I’m honest about it.

Naturally competitive as opposed to artificially competitive. Natural competition would be productive. Artificial competition is wasting of resources.

So you advocate a lack of a society, government?

A segregated society protects the ‘retards’ of the superior race from the ‘able’ of the inferior race. So, it also preserves weakness.
Only a society which allows direct competition between individuals will identify the truly weak

That’s not a society, that’s nature.

Going to school.
Wearing a dress that your father, brother or husband does not approve of.
Playing music.

Males and females shouldn’t be taught the same subjects, and should be taught in separate classes.
And yes. Man is the head of the house.
And, sometimes, yes - not everybody always wants to hear their music. Can’t say I am very amazed with what female musicians have produced - it’s 99% cheap whorish pop trash. Don’t see the benefits of liberation of women here.

Reading. Thinking.

Some things should be banned from being read, yes. For example, I wouldn’t let a child read snuff porn stories.

Thinking? Females don’t think. They feel.

When you make a claim X
masculine entity reacts like this: “I wonder how much evidence there is in support of X? Did I myself experience this too? How does it fit with other facts I know? How probable is it?”
A feminine entity: “How does it relate to meeee? How does it affect my emotions? Does it flatter me? Or does it insult me? Does it make me feel good or bad? Me, emotions, me, emotions, ME EMOTIONS EMOTIONS!!!”

Are you trying to say that females who don’t have the same positions you do, or Western females do, necessarily don’t think?
Do you think the positions of Western females are a result of independent thought and objective research of facts, or of brainwashing and female emotional inclinations?

What exactly is the decadence and emasculation of the white man which has to be avoided?
(Muslim men who attack women and children don’t have any balls to start with.)

My dear phyllo, punishing to prevent the societal collapse is very different from just being violent for shits and giggles.

A very visual, visceral example of emasculation:

youtube.com/watch?v=wPUvUYU7Qzw

[phyllo]

That’s how the world functions.

The current political elites in power in Europe f.e. destroy the nations under the pretense of humanism, liberalism, or whatever feel-good fantasy they use as an excuse, and yet they threaten with violence everybody who disagrees (police and military).

You said that you are okay with violence on a far greater level than anything being done by European ‘elites’.
If you disagree with the current state of affairs, then don’t promote something much worse.

Do you want to live in a world ruled characterized by violence? Who does, besides psychopaths and sociopaths?

So you advocate a lack of a society, government?

Humans can’t live without society or government.

That’s not a society, that’s nature.

It’s society with equal opportunity and fair rules of engagement - a society where you can win or lose based on your abilities.

My dear phyllo, punishing to prevent the societal collapse is very different from just being violent for shits and giggles.

I tend to think that punishing girls and women for wanting to become educated is not preventing societal collapse. It is preserving the lame masculinity of dumb old men.

(Your comments about about women were so juvenile that I don’t think they merit a response.)

[phyllo]

Since you think that IQ is an important measurement when it comes to race, then maybe you could explain your comments about women and thinking, in the context of studies which show that men only score marginally better on IQ than women.

Several meta-studies by Richard Lynn between 1994 and 2005 found mean IQ of men exceeding that of women by a range of 3–5 points.[1][29][2][30] Lynn’s findings were debated in a series of articles for Nature.[31][32] Jackson and Rushton found males aged 17–18 years had average of 3.63 IQ points in excess of their female equivalents.[6] A 2005 study by Helmuth Nyborg found an average advantage for males of 3.8 IQ points.[7] One study concluded that after controlling for sociodemographic and health variables, “gender differences tended to disappear on tests for which there was a male advantage and to magnify on tests for which there was a female advantage.”[9] A study from 2007 found a 2-4 IQ point advantage for females in later life.[33] One study investigated the differences in IQ between the sexes in relation to age, finding that girls do better at younger ages but that their performance declines relative to boys with age.[34] Colom et al. (2002) found 3.16 higher IQ points for males but no difference on the general intelligence factor (g) and therefore explained the differences as due to non-g factors such as specific group factors and test specificity.[14] A study conducted by Jim Flynn and Lilia Rossi-Case (2011) found that men and women achieved roughly equal IQ scores on Raven’s Progressive Matrices after reviewing recent standardization samples in five modernized nations.[35] Irwing (2012) found a 3 point IQ advantage for males in g from subjects aged 16–89 in the United States.[36]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_diffe … telligence

[AutSider]

You said that you are okay with violence on a far greater level than anything being done by European ‘elites’.

Violence itself isn’t inherently good or bad. All that matters is for what goal it was done.

Of course, you and I may disagree on the goal being good or bad.

It’s society with equal opportunity and fair rules of engagement - a society where you can win or lose based on your abilities.

Equal opportunity (equal rights) already artificially affects people’s natural opportunities.

Since no 2 organisms are equal, giving them equal rights will affect them differently.

For example, if organism A is physically stronger than B then outlawing physical violence and banning all organisms from physical conflict will benefit B and disadvantage A.

I tend to think that punishing girls and women for wanting to become educated is not preventing societal collapse.

I don’t have a problem with educating women itself, on the contrary, I find intelligent and educated women who can keep up a conversation to be more interesting.

The problem is that I know you aren’t talking about educating women in things that matter, and having them read things that matter, such as biology, math, chemistry, physics, etc.

You’re talking about teaching women degenerate political positions and philosophies - that’s something that should be kept away from women just like you keep away from children things that are inappropriate for them.

Females have to be controlled and subdued. They despise men who can’t control and subdue them and lose all respect for such men because they are attracted to what is superior to them, what can dominate them.

No female should ever have any say in politics, ever.

[AutSider]

Since you think that IQ is an important measurement when it comes to race, then maybe you could explain your comments about women and thinking, in the context of studies which show that men only score marginally better on IQ than women.

You have to take into account gender and how it influences thinking too. If you start from this blatantly false presupposition that females and males are the same then indeed a female and male with the same IQ will think the same.

But that is so obviously false I won’t even bother to argue it.

[phyllo]

Violence itself isn’t inherently good or bad. All that matters is for what goal it was done.

Of course, you and I may disagree on the goal being good or bad.

Right. You better have a very good goal if you want to justify genocide. And you don’t have that.

Equal opportunity (equal rights) already artificially affects people’s natural opportunities.

Since no 2 organisms are equal, giving them equal rights will affect them differently.

For example, if organism A is physically stronger than B then outlawing physical violence and banning all organisms from physical conflict will benefit B and disadvantage A.

Right. It comes down to what kind of society you want to create. If you don’t equalize opportunity for the young, then you will get a society where the old use their advantages to protect their dimwitted young. That leads to stagnation.
If you do equalize opportunity for the the young, then you get competition and advancement.

I don’t have a problem with educating women itself, on the contrary, I find intelligent and educated women who can keep up a conversation to be more interesting.

The problem is that I know you aren’t talking about educating women in things that matter, and having them read things that matter, such as biology, math, chemistry, physics, etc.

Shit. You just wrote that fathers, brothers and husbands could decide what is appropriate for women.
And you also wrote that women can’t think.

You’re talking about teaching women degenerate political positions and philosophies - that’s something that should be kept away from women just like you keep away from children things that are inappropriate for them.

And now you write that women should be treated like children. FFS.

Females have to be controlled and subdued. They despise men who can’t control and subdue them and lose all respect for such men because they are attracted to what is superior to them, what can dominate them.

Women tend to take a subservient position because they are interested in relationships between people. There is no reason to control and subdue them.

No female should ever have any say in politics, ever.

That makes no sense. Relationships are important in politics and women are good at creating relationships.

[phyllo]

You have to take into account gender and how it influences thinking too. If you start from this blatantly false presupposition that females and males are the same then indeed a female and male with the same IQ will think the same.

So by that logic, it is possible that women are smarter than men, in spite of lower IQ, because of ‘thinking differently’.
You could also say that blacks are smarter than whites, because of ‘thinking differently’.

Do you want to go there with supporting facts or do you want to stick with IQ as a correct measurement of thinking ability?

[AutSider]

Right. You better have a very good goal if you want to justify genocide. And you don’t have that.

Yes I do.

Right. It comes down to what kind of society you want to create. If you don’t equalize opportunity for the young, then you will get a society where the old use their advantages to protect their dimwitted young. That leads to stagnation.
If you do equalize opportunity for the the young, then you get competition and advancement.

You failed to address my point and how exactly your conception of equality of opportunity evades it.

Hey phyllo, how would you react if you were amongst the men defending the cathedral? youtube.com/watch?v=wPUvUYU7Qzw
What would you be thinking while being spat on and forced to endure their degeneracy while threatened with prison and police if you dare to oppose them?