|
|
Prometheus ResurrectingText of the speech at http://www.kolumbus.fi/aquilon/prom_1.htm Posted by Søren Renner on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 12:23 PM in Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2008, 06:49 PM | # Arthur, Quantcast is, well, wrong. And you appear to be simple-minded. Are you really able only to process the intellectual diversity of MR as conspiracy theorism? Two questions. What is your IQ, if known? What is your ethnicity? 3
Posted by Arthur on March 02, 2008, 09:41 PM | # Oops, never edited that comment, it was missing the end of a sentence there. IQ: Unknown, top one or two percent based on GRE/SAT scores. Graduate student in physics. Re: Quantcast http://www.quantcast.com/majorityrights.com Re: The XKCD comic I don’t think you’d disagree that in general the views on this website are less acceptable to the general public (even the caucasion public) now than they would have been 30 years ago. And iteratively further back. (That’s why I said I thought the numbers would skew older) And so it seems implausible that things will shift so far in the other direction, you’d need the momentum not just to stop, but to completely reverse. A shift of that magnitude would require a major cause. I see people talk about the dire state of the western world, but things look pretty good to me: I get as annoyed as any think individual when subject to particularly egregious “All white people everywhere are racists,” but that’s why I didn’t major in women’s studies. Ignoring the crazy fringe, I can hop on in thr multicultural bandwagon. It’s done pretty well by us so far. 4
Posted by arthur on March 02, 2008, 10:08 PM | # More quantcast stuff: Much more likely to be college educated than your average internet user. The middle class is heavily represented in visits, it looks like 80% above normal. Upperclass (100k+/year) visits are almost nonexistent. Upperclass households are less likely to be dissatisfied with the status quo? 5
Posted by Al Ross on March 02, 2008, 10:27 PM | # More Quantcast stuff: The CEO is a Jew called Konrad Feldman so we can rest assured that the company’s (like the tribe’s) business ethics will be unimpeachable. 6
Posted by onlooker on March 02, 2008, 10:36 PM | # “Upperclass (100k+/year) visits are almost nonexistent.” 100k to 200k per year in the USA is still well within the middleclass in my book.
How long do you think that can last? Past performance of the multicultural experiment certainly does not predict future results, you know? On the flip side of the brain drain aspect of immigration is the tens of millions of uneducated unskilled workers flooding in. How long do you think the USA can absorb low IQ uneducated non-white hoards from the third world without it collapsing our whole economy, culture, and quality of life? 7
Posted by Desmond Jpnes on March 02, 2008, 11:40 PM | # “-Violent crime (especially rape) tends downward over time” From 1960 to 2006 rape victims per 100,000 increased massively. http://www.in.gov/cji/SAC/pdf/Rape.pdf “-The pace of scientific and technological progress is ridiculously fast and onlt increasing.” Steve Sailer: “The truth is that cheap labor discourages inventiveness.”
“-Quality of education seems good to me, we have the best research institutions in the world. We a giant brain drain sucking up the worlds best and brightest.” If US education quality is high was does it ranks behind homogeneous Finland? “- There are some negative trends (like divorce rates) but overall we seem to be doing pretty well.” Negative trends like the transfer of wealth from native Americans to low skilled immigrants.
8
Posted by icr on March 03, 2008, 12:11 PM | # I looked around quantcast for a few minutes to check for indications of its reliability. 9
Posted by Darren on March 03, 2008, 02:59 PM | # Right, I’m sure low-income minorities are the ones who are interested in European third positionist stuff. LMAO! I think quantcast does their statistics using census data and physically locating an IP you assume the population average represents the same average of people visiting (see above) Either way it’s an interesting set of numbers. You haven’t established that the methods used are even accurate. I see the conspiracy theories in most of the comments that mention judaism. No, these are conspiracy facts. You call it a theory because you don’t want to believe what can be reliably proven by simple observation. But the more general point is that you seem to be moving in the opposite direction of the culture as a whole. Intelligent people tend to have the ability to understand history and apply it to the current state of affairs. If “culture” is moving in the opposite direction than what those here advocate, it simply reflects the mypoia of the people driving it in that direction. -Violent crime (especially rape) tends downward over time That would be because of major police reforms over the years to combat it. The underlying problem - the minority reflection of crime statistics - does not change. Maybe you enjoy living in a police state. I don’t. -The pace of scientific and technological progress is ridiculously fast and onlt increasing. Materialism is an incredibly myopic philosophy and that is reflected by the terribly disassociated and broken society we live in. -Quality of education seems good to me, we have the best research institutions in the world. We a giant brain drain sucking up the worlds best and brightest. Actually, America has some of the worst systems in terms of overall achievements of industrialized nations. - There are some negative trends (like divorce rates) but overall we seem to be doing pretty well. You’re happy as long as you live in your little piece of suburban utopia! How droll. I get as annoyed as any think individual when subject to particularly egregious “All white people everywhere are racists, Everyone has latent racism. Even liberal academics admit this! Ignoring the crazy fringe, I can hop on in thr multicultural bandwagon. It’s done pretty well by us so far. How do you qualify that statement? Perhaps you would like to take a look all over Europe, where people have a harder time running away from the problems. France, anybody? 10
Posted by Arthur231 on March 11, 2008, 11:25 PM | # Re: Quantcast Re: Al Ross’ “More Quantcast stuff: The CEO is a Jew called Konrad Feldman so we can rest assured that the company’s (like the tribe’s) business ethics will be unimpeachable.” Would you (or others here) acknowledge that jewish people have made significant contributions contributions to our understanding of the physical world? Would you not accept, say, Quantum Electrodynamics because Feynman was jewish? If you accept that a jewish person can be a scientist who works in good faith, advancing the forefront of human knowledge, why is it unreasonable for any particular jewish businessman not to be doing the same? I guess I’m trying to discover where my viewpoint diverges so radically from yours. I’m trying to find a point in common, something somewhere along the line, that we would agree on. I don’t understand, and things I don’t understand nag at me. I can grok the widescale picture you paint. For example I can recognize the possibility that different races have significantly different intelligence. I do not believe this to be the case, based on personal experience and some academic knowledge of evolutionary biology, but let’s posit that you’re right, in that case white people would maintain a higher level of intelligence by not intermarrying. But what about when you move from the general to the specific. I’m white. A serious girlfriend I had as a undergraduate was black, smoking hot, and exceedingly bright. I granted you your supposition, grant me my pretty certain one that such women exist. Even granting a significant difference between the races, statistics and the bell curve tell us there would be members of other races that by whatever measure of genetic quality we would be fools not to “misceginate” with. What would my motivation not to hit that be? Assuming, as in our culture today, that it wouldn’t be a social liability, and I’m getting good value on the genetic front, why would you argue I shouldn’t have married the woman and brought loads of kids into the world? Is it an abstract loyalty to race? Because while you acknowledge in this case it would be a good idea it should be refrained from because it sets a bad general example? Because the act of mixing would somehow degrade the progeny even if both parents performed significantly above the “white average?” It seems a rational actor would chose the best possible mate, and even if there is a significant difference in intelligence, occasionally that best possible genetic mate will be of another race. But do your arguments rest on genetic quality, I can’t really tell. I think they rest on loyalty to race, which I can get intellectually, but is totally foreign to me personally. I personally understand loyalty to self, to family, to coreligionists, to humanity as a whole, and even to country (as its interests are correlated to my own), but the tribal/ethnic loyalty meme has no traction at all in my headspace. Reply if you’d like to respond to someone who disagrees with you, but is always willing to listen to an argument. And I genuinely am trying to understand. 11
Posted by Desmond Jones on March 12, 2008, 01:08 AM | # Because the act of mixing would somehow degrade the progeny even if both parents performed significantly above the “white average?” Jared Taylor writes about regression to the mean: ” In his book, The g Factor, [Page 471] Arthur Jensen gives a striking example of regression to the mean. He collected the IQ scores of all the elementary school students in one California school district. He then picked out all the students—both black and white—with IQs of 120, a score well above the white mean but even further above the black mean. He found that the average IQ scores for the brothers and sisters of these children was 113 for the white children and 99 for the blacks. It was to be expected that siblings have lower IQs than the hotshots. But these figures show just how much more freakish it is for black than white children to have IQs of 120. These very smart blacks were, on average, 21 points ahead of their brothers and sisters; the whites were only seven points ahead. To repeat: Very smart whites have somewhat less smart children, but very smart blacks are likely to have markedly less smart children.” Ethnic interest is an extension of family interest. Jared Taylor on EGI: ” According to Darwinian theory, the goal towards which all living things strive is to make copies of their distinctive genes. This is seen most clearly in the devotion of parents to children. As Dr. Salter writes, “The importance of genetic continuity is an end in itself, for humans as well as for other species.” From an evolutionary point of view, “propagating one’s genes is life’s raison d’être.” Perhaps the most important conceptual breakthrough in On Genetic Interests is to recognize that loyalty to one’s ethny — Dr. Salter prefers this term to race, nation, or ethnic group — is just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children. This is because each ethny is a storehouse of its members’ distinctive genes, just as children are carriers of their parents’ genes. A person’s children are very concentrated stores of his genes, but his ethny is a vastly larger, though more dilute, pool of the same genes. Given the size of most ethnies, they are repositories of far more copies of a member’s distinctive genes than even his own children, and therefore have a theoretical genetic claim to loyalty even greater than that of his children. An ethny is an extended family. The larger one’s ethny, the larger a store it becomes of distinctive genes, so its members have an interest in seeing their numbers rise or at least remain constant. A shrinking ethny is like a family whose members are dying off — either condition represents a loss of genetic interests. “ Read the EGI links on the MR front page. Israel is an excellent example of the pursuit of tribal interests. Chinese guest workers, for example, sign a contract with their Jewish contractors to not engage in sexual intercourse with any Jewish women, including prostitutes. Why do Israeli Jews so fear Chinese/Jewish offspring? 12
Posted by Arthur232 on March 12, 2008, 04:33 AM | # So why shouldn’t I as a white man, marry and reproduce with this high IQ woman, who I find attractive and compatible, but who is of a different race? Because it violates the bond between my ethny and I? I wouldn’t find that argument compelling, would you sacrifice happiness to your loyalty to your ethny? Do you feel these views should be enshrined in law, supported by social convention, or enforced by teams of morality police? Shouldn’t people be allowed to marry whoever they wish? When you say “just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children” you can’t be making the argument that people should feel some sort of ethnic bond of equivalent strength to the family bond can you? I mean, if I had to weight the bond strengths of my connections to people, it would be in some sort of order like this: Family It would never have occurred to me to add ethny to the list before coming across this site, and I’d rank it as less important than a common humanity. It just seems like such a weak force relative to all the other things that connect me to people. And why would you choose to draw the line at white people in general after all? Because skin color doesn’t require any complicated DNA testing? I’m 75% dutch, should I feel that bond more strongly with dutchman than with a belgian? (((Does the strength of the ethny bond grow as the group you select shrinks until it asymptotically approaches the strength of the immediate family bond?))) From a pragmatic perspective the success of an black american would be of more benefit to me (and my progeny) than the success of some guy in belgium. And it’s just a matter of finding a common ancestor slightly sooner or later in the larger scheme of things. 13
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 12, 2008, 01:12 PM | # I guess I’m trying to discover where my viewpoint diverges so radically from yours. I’m trying to find a point in common, something somewhere along the line, that we would agree on. I don’t understand, and things I don’t understand nag at me. What a delightful attitude! (isn’t it depressing how simple, obviously beneficial attitudes like this are exceptional and remarkable?) Incidentally, do you find it in non-whites much, relative to whites? Would you (or others here) acknowledge that jewish people have made significant contributions contributions to our understanding of the physical world? Sure, though I’m not all that familiar. Would you step back a bit and acknowledge that Jews have made, on balance, far more significant contributions to the disintegration of Europeans as a group than they have to their advancement? Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that we have helped Jews far more than Jews have helped us. Would you not accept, say, Quantum Electrodynamics because Feynman was jewish? The thing about most of the positive Jewish contribution to European societies is that they are instrumental; i.e., they help everybody willing to use them. But the negatives have been spectacularly personal, i.e., specific to Europeans. In other words, Jews have done practically nothing (I use this language advisedly) for Euros per se, and done a great deal of harm to Euros per se. If you accept that a jewish person can be a scientist who works in good faith, advancing the forefront of human knowledge, why is it unreasonable for any particular jewish businessman not to be doing the same? Not going to answer that directly as I don’t want to bother with the premises. But it does seem obvious that they’re two distinct things; generally scientists are rewarded for good science, and businessmen are rewarded for good business, and science and business are very, very different. I can grok the widescale picture you paint. For example I can recognize the possibility that different races have significantly different intelligence. I do not believe this to be the case, based on personal experience and some academic knowledge of evolutionary biology, but let’s posit that you’re right, in that case white people would maintain a higher level of intelligence by not intermarrying. Heh, you don’t believe that to be the case? Open your eyes man. Google is your friend. Clearly you’re either actively disbelieving (which I doubt), or you aren’t paying attention to the issue (seems more likely to me). I’m white. A serious girlfriend I had as a undergraduate was black, smoking hot, and exceedingly bright. I granted you your supposition, grant me my pretty certain one that such women exist. Even granting a significant difference between the races, statistics and the bell curve tell us there would be members of other races that by whatever measure of genetic quality we would be fools not to “misceginate” with. An interesting proposition. I’ll grant you that on the face of it, you have a point. But, there are lots of caveats. The first that springs to mind is that we’re talking about races, not individuals (I realize you framed your point otherwise but bear with me); if we elevate your proposition to ethical status, then we’re talking about the destruction of our race because there are more than enough such non-whites in the world to alter our gene pool irrevocably. There’s EGI to think about; if we shift ourselves from our race to another race via mass miscegenation, our genetic interests have suffered and theirs have gained. This is just a slippery slope where we continually lose out. Eventually we’ll be them, not us. I know that seems a-okay to Homo Economicus, but it doesn’t sit well with me, for many reasons (aesthetics, prudence (whites the modern world, not non-whites), self-love, etc.); you’re talking about extinction. Not to say that a single exception to the rules (you miscegenating) is Earth-shattering, mind you. Then there’s regression toward the mean. You and your girlfriend would have children who would tend to be less intelligent (inter alia) than the children of two whites with similar traits. I can go on but I don’t want to ramble too much. Is it an abstract loyalty to race? Nope. The loyalty is firmly ensconced in concrete. Because while you acknowledge in this case it would be a good idea it should be refrained from because it sets a bad general example? That’s another good reason, yes. Because the act of mixing would somehow degrade the progeny even if both parents performed significantly above the “white average?” As I stated above; “somehow” is regression toward the mean. It seems a rational actor would chose the best possible mate Yes, but “best” is a complex issue. and even if there is a significant difference in intelligence, occasionally that best possible genetic mate will be of another race. True, but this can too easily result in self-deception, given the wrong (i.e., hostile or even neutral to white EGI and what follows) mindset. But do your arguments rest on genetic quality, I can’t really tell. Yes and no. We are not pure eugenicists, at least not in the simple sense. But, then again, given the emerging data on EGI and the complexity of genetics, maybe we are. I don’t think the understanding of genetics is sophisticated enough to even make the call yet, ehich only points out the wisdom of being conservative. We can always change our minds later and decide panmixia is a good idea, but we can’t just unmix ourselves if we make a foolish mistake before all the facts are in (and no one even seems interested in finding the facts, which I find telling). I think they rest on loyalty to race, which I can get intellectually, but is totally foreign to me personally. I personally understand loyalty to self, to family On what basis, your understanding of loyalty to self? In a scientific/materialist sense, the loyalty to family (and self, but I digress) is practically identical to loyalty to race. to humanity as a whole I don’t quite understand this one, at least not where the rubber hits the road. In theory, sure - if some existential threat emerges, say an asteroid or little green men from Mars, but given current circumstances? Why? “Mankind” is an abstract myth (a honkey one) in my opinion. the tribal/ethnic loyalty meme has no traction at all in my headspace. Better run now mate; we’re going to change that if you stick around. So why shouldn’t I as a white man, marry and reproduce with this high IQ woman, who I find attractive and compatible, but who is of a different race? I’ve already gone over this but to recapitulate: 1) It would severely damage your EGI, given the likelihood you could find a more suitable mate. would you sacrifice happiness to your loyalty to your ethny? That question is somewhat self-contradictory, in direct proportion to how much my loyalty was rewarded. In other words, it’s too abstract a question. Do you feel these views should be enshrined in law, supported by social convention, or enforced by teams of morality police? Which views? Opposition to miscegenation? Yes, they should absolutely be supported by social convention. No, I’m not in favor of laws against miscegenation, because my views are rather traditionally American and I don’t think the state should make those decisions; I do think communities (or perhaps governments) should have the right to choose their constituents (e.g., evict people who marry outside the lines). Shouldn’t people be allowed to marry whoever they wish? Yes. Shouldn’t groups (communities, polities, states) have the right to choose their members (citizens, residents, etc.)? When you say “just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children” you can’t be making the argument that people should feel some sort of ethnic bond of equivalent strength to the family bond can you? I mean, if I had to weight the bond strengths of my connections to people, it would be in some sort of order like this: Family That’s retarded. How can you put your own kin (ethny) lower than the entire species? Are you just being contrarian? So you’re saying if you only had the chance to pull one person up from the cliff before it collapsed, you’d always pick the Amazonian pigmy with a bone through his nose before the Dutch sarariman in loafers? Surely you’re just being contrarian. Btw, what makes humans so special? Don’t other species get any love? It would never have occurred to me to add ethny to the list before coming across this site, and I’d rank it as less important than a common humanity. So, if you were sent back in time by God to the 13th century and had to choose between letting western civilization die, or the rest of the world die, you’d save the latter, hands down, every time? I find that just odd. Not rational, or humanitarian, or selfless…just creepily odd (in the sense that, if one starts from a humanitarian position, one should wind up caring more for whites than others because whites have been of so very much more value to humanity than others). It just seems like such a weak force relative to all the other things that connect me to people. That’s because you can afford to be self-deceptive, given your environment. I.e., you’re not being forced to choose, or think about the matter. And why would you choose to draw the line at white people in general after all? Because skin color doesn’t require any complicated DNA testing? I’m 75% dutch, should I feel that bond more strongly with dutchman than with a belgian? Of course (assuming for a moment there’s a difference between the two genetically, and culture isn’t a factor) (((Does the strength of the ethny bond grow as the group you select shrinks until it asymptotically approaches the strength of the immediate family bond?))) The bond increases as you approach family level, yes, but as another poster pointed out in a recent comment in another thread, it’s more complicated than that since ethnies are such huge storehouses of our genetic selves, compared to the immediate family. From a pragmatic perspective the success of an black american would be of more benefit to me (and my progeny) than the success of some guy in belgium. No, that’s from the perspective of Homo Economicus, not pragmatism. And it’s just a matter of finding a common ancestor slightly sooner or later in the larger scheme of things. Well, yes and no. Strictly speaking, common ancestry is the history of the thing, not the point. 14
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 12, 2008, 01:14 PM | # Well, yes and no. Strictly speaking, common ancestry is the history of the thing, not the point. In other words, yes blacks and whites share a degree of common genetic interest - it’s just a hell of a lot less significant than that shared by whites and whites, or blacks and blacks. 15
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 12, 2008, 01:17 PM | # And why would you choose to draw the line at white people in general after all? Because skin color doesn’t require any complicated DNA testing? I’m 75% dutch, should I feel that bond more strongly with dutchman than with a belgian? Of course (assuming for a moment there’s a difference between the two genetically, and culture isn’t a factor) Let me rephrase: Ceteris paribus, assuming there’s a difference genetically, yes. 16
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 12, 2008, 01:24 PM | # I should expand on my distinctions between eugenics and our position. I don’t mean to say that “pure” eugenics would be a bad thing. What I mean is that conservation should come first. If a strong European race wants to do side experiments with creating a master race via racemixing, I’m not opposed. Do controlled experiments on the periphery to your heart’s content. Just don’t talk to me about it while my race is being destroyed. That’s like pissing down my back and telling me it’s raining. 17
Posted by Arthur2718281 on March 12, 2008, 10:26 PM | # Re: “do you find it (an attitude of inquiry) in non-whites much, relative to whites?” Yes, but then my social circle consists mostly of graduate students in science, where foreign students are fairly common and inquiry is encouraged. Re: “The thing about most of the positive Jewish contribution to European societies is that they are instrumental; i.e., they help everybody willing to use them. But the negatives have been spectacularly personal, i.e., specific to Europeans. In other words, Jews have done practically nothing (I use this language advisedly) for Euros per se, and done a great deal of harm to Euros per se.” Shouldn’t this site be supportive in principal of this behavior, (you allege) they are putting their ethny before others, avoiding interbreeding, etc. In what ways don’t you want white culture to become more like jewish culture? The way you’ve presented it they provide instrumental help which benefits all of mankind (They do lots, and lots, of good science (as well as art I hear,but that’s not my thing)), but also work to keep their particular bit of mankind on top, isn’t that exactly what you want white people to do? Re:“Would you step back a bit and acknowledge that Jews have made, on balance, far more significant contributions to the disintegration of Europeans as a group than they have to their advancement? Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that we have helped Jews far more than Jews have helped us.” I think jewish contributions to science, art, and literature have been significant. These would be the instrumental help you describe. I honestly can’t think of much of anything they’ve done to destroy the white peoples. Do you have specific examples, or just a general “The jews control the media which preaches the message for us to destroy ourselves?” The strangest thing to me is seeing them as jewish first, and individuals second. If I read a scientific paper, or a fiction novel, I judge it on its merit, I’m not going to look into the author’s ethnic background, I can’t imagine that altering my opinion of a work. As to whether we helped them more/less, I think history is too twisted and intertwined to make a call like that. They got in on the ground floor of western civ, which was to their benefit, certainly they received their fair share of abuse too though, in the form of pogroms and the holocaust. (Which I know many of you don’t believe in (A POV far enough from my own I doubt any communication is possible on that front)) Re: Motivation for (avoiding) miscegenation Your arguments were: Kant’s ethics are nothing if not personal, so they don’t work well in arguments where you differ on fundamental values. 2. Finding blacks attractive is weird I’d wager a small fortune that only a vanishingly small percentage of the white male population could spend a year at a top 10 university without running into women of other ethnicities he found attractive, intelligent, and potentially worthy as mates. (Men being what they are, and again back to the bell curve and statistics, I don’t see how you can argue this) 3. Bad example 4. The other argument you advance is the genetic interest/regression to the mean argument, which I don’t find personally compelling. It is clear to me that the strength of this ethny bond is important to you, but it’s hard for me to tell whether you are arguing for the existence of such a bond, for the desirability of such a bond, or for the social legitimization of such a bond (which you believe exists independently). I suspect any such bond people feel emotionally is just an instance of the basic psychological principal of an in group bias. Marrying a unintelligent white woman would no doubt results in much less intelligent children, and so would be a more grievous sin against my genetic interests. Should that be equally frowned on by society? Modesty aside, any kid I have is going to be pretty well off from a genetic, social, and financial perspective, even if there is a significant regression to the mean, the kid would have many more powerful forces working for his or her success, and would (likely) be smarter than your average white kid, richer than your average white kid, and certainly better educated than your average white kid. Even granting your regression to the mean the potential for a small statistical difference in the likely intelligence of a child isn’t going to affect my decision making. Re:“That’s retarded. How can you put your own kin (ethny) lower than the entire species? Are you just being contrarian? So you’re saying if you only had the chance to pull one person up from the cliff before it collapsed, you’d always pick the Amazonian pigmy with a bone through his nose before the Dutch sarariman in loafers? Surely you’re just being contrarian. Btw, what makes humans so special? Don’t other species get any love?” You misunderstood me with regard to the bond strengths. Let’s assign values to clarify. Let’s say the bond of common humanity has a strength of 50, I’d assign my own personal ethny bond a value of 2. So the strength of my bond to a random white stranger would be 52, and the strength of my bond to a random black stranger would be 50. (Actually, probably slightly higher as there would still be an ethny bond to the black, as you pointed out, just a weaker one) But yes, I would rate the ethny bond as having a magnitude vastly smaller than the bond of common humanity. In the cliff rescue situation, I’d like to think I’d get whoever was closer. In the hypothetical that they were equidistant, perhaps I’d choose the dutchman based on the strength of 52 to that of 50, but it wouldn’t be a significant factor. Other species get love too, my list of bonds wasn’t meant to be comprehensive. I suppose I feel a bond with animals related to their complexity. (I kill mosquitos, but wouldn’t kill a dog who was the annoyance equivalent of a mosquito.) I’d assign common humanity a greater strength because I can empathize with people regardless of race, I can recognize in others reflections of my own hopes, dreams, and secret shames, and the knowledge that their interior lives are as rich as my own. In addition to that in white people I can also see people that look like me, but in comparison this doesn’t really add much to the bond. (Maybe 52 instead of 50) Re: “So, if you were sent back in time by God to the 13th century and had to choose between letting western civilization die, or the rest of the world die, you’d save the latter, hands down, every time?” The question is framed strangely, allow me to slightly rephrase. (I think its a reasonably fair rephrasing) If sent back by God etc. etc. you had to kill all the non-whites, or kill all the whites what would you do? Well, it’s like asking who would you kill if you had to, your wife or your mother…there is no good answer. I suppose I’d choose to kill whichever was the smallest number of people if there were some force driving me to it. I wouldn’t be particularly pleased with the situation. (Possibly in the case of = numbers, I’d choose the white ones to save (52 vs 50 again)) As before, any replies are welcome. I’m willing to listen, if not agree. I’m a firm believer that on a level playing field true ideas will win out against false ones, and reasonable discussions in good faith are the only way to advance in understanding. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 12, 2008, 10:57 PM | # Arthur looks like another prize package. A real find. A diamond-in-the-rough. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 12, 2008, 11:00 PM | # I would not waste one atom of oxygen on this character. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on March 13, 2008, 07:18 AM | # Fred, every one is worth the effort once. Arthur, They do lots, and lots, of good science (as well as art I hear,but that’s not my thing)), but also work to keep their particular bit of mankind on top, isn’t that exactly what you want white people to do? No. Jewish ethno-aggression is essentially supremacist. We are not interested in supremacism. We want our people to enjoy a free life, which infers a life free of the burdens of race-replacement, cultural denigration, ethnic criminal violence, et al. I think jewish contributions to science, art, and literature have been significant To science, of course. The Jewish contribution to painting and sculpture is negligible. Religious Jews are prohibited from creating images anyway. But there have been no Jewish geniuses of the canvass or in marble. In serious music there has only been (the young) Mendelssohn. In Jewish literature we come into contact with politics and ethno-aggression again. Where are the great Jewish poets and authors of the 18th and 19th Centuries? In the schtetl, I suppose. But not in intellectual circulation. And don’t even get me started on the Jewish contribution to philosophy. I honestly can’t think of much of anything they’ve done to destroy the white peoples. All the following little treasures are Jewish-authored, and in some cases almost exclusively Jewish executed. All are objectively harmful to the host culture or costly to the ethny itself. Marxism Critics like us see in them an overt and relentless drive to weaken the host for the purpose of strengthening Jewish genetic interests. In some cases, like minority rights and porn, that’s the whole of it. But in others the strategy is more interesting. Take Holocaustism, for instance. Its shift-change into “the defining event of the 20th Century”, its industrialisation in the 1970s, and its metamorphosis in the 21st Century into a teaching tool has nothing to do with the history of Germany from 1941 to 1945. It’s about the control of how you and I think and act and, especially, of how our children will think and act. Under the guise of a faux-humanitarianism we are taught to reject our own ethnic interests as something bestial, and to take-on the ethnic interests of Jews. We live for their good, which some nationalists will tell you is only how Jews think it should be. Another excellent working model of the same phenomenom is the theft of the GOP by neocons, and the driving out of traditional American conservatism which was predicated quite substantially on white interests. In this instance, white Americans are manouevered into expressing both Jewish ethnic and elite WASP interests (Israel and open borders on the one hand, global power on the other). I hope that gives you some insight into what we talk about here in relation to Jewry. 21
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 13, 2008, 07:40 PM | # Shouldn’t this site be supportive in principal of this behavior, (you allege) they are putting their ethny before others, avoiding interbreeding, etc. In what ways don’t you want white culture to become more like jewish culture? The way you’ve presented it they provide instrumental help which benefits all of mankind (They do lots, and lots, of good science (as well as art I hear,but that’s not my thing)), but also work to keep their particular bit of mankind on top, isn’t that exactly what you want white people to do? Reciprocation! Sovereign separation! If whites behaved like Jews there’d be progroms. It’d be Israel and Palestine. Jewish behavior is a recipe for eternal, escalating conflict. No, I’m not a supremacist. Supremism has a lot to do with what got us into the mess we’re in now. Besides, let’s assume for a moment I did want my race to act just like Jews - in what ways would my behavior differ from my current behavior? I think jewish contributions to science, art, and literature have been significant. These would be the instrumental help you describe. I honestly can’t think of much of anything they’ve done to destroy the white peoples. Do you have specific examples, or just a general “The jews control the media which preaches the message for us to destroy ourselves?” Examples abound. Start with the movements to which Kevin MacDonald refers. Until you’ve gone over the data you’re not capable of making an informed decision. The strangest thing to me is seeing them as jewish first, and individuals second. Who says I do? If I read a scientific paper, or a fiction novel, I judge it on its merit, I’m not going to look into the author’s ethnic background, I can’t imagine that altering my opinion of a work. Altering? Maybe not. Explaining? Hell yes. As for merit, I know to look harder at Jewish contributions that touch on the political because I know they’re rarely working in my interests. My beliefs on Jews have predictive and explanatory power, hence their value. Scientific papers, well, that depends on the “science” in question; I have no problem with the Jewish contribution to physics. On the other hand, anthropology and sociology, for example, have been destroyed by Jews. As to whether we helped them more/less, I think history is too twisted and intertwined to make a call like that. Ridiculous. You need to pull your head out of your ass if you really believe that - if you even have to think about it. They got in on the ground floor of western civ, which was to their benefit, certainly they received their fair share of abuse too though No, you’re answering a question I didn’t ask. I didn’t ask you if you think Jewry has on balance been harmed or helped by living amongst us (another stupid question to even entertain, as if one answers the former, one accuses Jewry of collective madness). I asked who’s gotten the better deal, Jews or Europeans, out of the presence of Jews in the west; to ask the question is to answer it, unless you think Jews are saintly altruists or masochistic maladaptives. As for their fair share of abuse, they’ve always given better than they’ve gotten. Israel Shahak talks about this a bit in Jewish History, Jewish Religion (available online), as does MacDonald in his trilogy. I appreciate that you’ll grant that miscegenation can make sense for an individual, even if you believe it is to be avoided at a societal/racial level. If you would not accept that I think I would have given up trying to figure you guys out. Nothing to appreciate, it’s simple math. But the circumstances justifying it are a lot narrower than you probably think - bordering on the hypothetical. Your interpretation of Kant’s categorical imperative says no, but my utilitarian ethics say go for it. (And in fact from my perspective, Kantian ethics would say go for it, because I can will that all white men who find good looking, intelligent women who they feel compatible with of other ethnicities marry them to be a universal law) So you think it would be okay if Europeans (and by extension, western civilization) go extinct. How about the snowy egret? How about the Amazon? How about the entire ocean ecology? The Earth’s? Where’s your limit? Would you sacrifice all life on Earth in pursuit of your own “needs”? Kant’s ethics are nothing if not personal, so they don’t work well in arguments where you differ on fundamental values. The UI is useful in sussing out someone’s ethics, though. Personally I tend to find white and asian women more attractive than black women, but there are certainly black women I am attracted to. I don’t read anything more into than my own personal foibles though. Few would disagree that concepts of beauty seem to be more cultural than ingrained and that they shift with time. (Look at all the ugly fat women in paintings by “the masters”) Why do the masters get scare-quotes? As for beauty, it’s a lot less subjective than people think. It’s one thing to be part of a clique, dependent on a monied elite and beholden to their tastes and wishes; it’s another to find status (necessary to become fat) attractive; and still another for a standard of beauty to overtake an entire society. I’d wager a small fortune that only a vanishingly small percentage of the white male population could spend a year at a top 10 university without running into women of other ethnicities he found attractive, intelligent, and potentially worthy as mates. (Men being what they are, and again back to the bell curve and statistics, I don’t see how you can argue this) Why would I argue with it? 4. The other argument you advance is the genetic interest/regression to the mean argument, which I don’t find personally compelling. You don’t have to find any natural law compelling for it to act on you. It is clear to me that the strength of this ethny bond is important to you, but it’s hard for me to tell whether you are arguing for the existence of such a bond, for the desirability of such a bond, or for the social legitimization of such a bond (which you believe exists independently). I suspect any such bond people feel emotionally is just an instance of the basic psychological principal of an in group bias. You’re the one talking about bonds. In this context the only reason bonds are useful is in that they serve genetic interests. You haven’t addressed these interests at all. Marrying a unintelligent white woman would no doubt results in much less intelligent children, and so would be a more grievous sin against my genetic interests. If one faces the prospect of only stupid white women or intelligent black women (hard to imagine such circumstances) then this militates for miscegenation, yes (though regression to the mean is still a factor, as is EGI). Don’t you find such gymnastics absurd? Should that be equally frowned on by society? Modesty aside, any kid I have is going to be pretty well off from a genetic, social, and financial perspective, even if there is a significant regression to the mean, the kid would have many more powerful forces working for his or her success, and would (likely) be smarter than your average white kid, richer than your average white kid, and certainly better educated than your average white kid. What’s your point? That a bad thing that isn’t “too bad” is okay? Even granting your regression to the mean the potential for a small statistical difference in the likely intelligence of a child isn’t going to affect my decision making. I know, nothing that argues against your current, crystalized positions will affect your decision-making. That much is becoming obvious. Why isn’t, but I’m not really that concerned with why. E.g., why you think bringing a child with no race, a child likely to be despised by many of both races (lol, you should see how many in the black middle class view such liasons), is “not too bad,” as opposed to bringing a child into the world with no such problems? Actually, on second thought that’s a bad example, since I think I know the why of that one (it wouldn’t harm you). I’m a bit bored so I’m going to run a few errands. Maybe more later. 22
Posted by arthur1.0545714 on March 14, 2008, 09:50 PM | # Thanks for the responses. My New Years resolution was to spend more time exposing myself to different ideas and mindsets. I think I understand more about where you are coming from. Some of the posters here, particularly, Svyatoslav, would better the image of your subculture in the public consciousness, were their words more widely disseminated. Others seems hellbent on confirming as many of the negative stereotypes as they can. If you could improve the ratio of one to the other, you’d probably attract more adherents. I’ll leave you with this, I’m watching Fox’s Moment of Truth, and for the first time your posts about the decline of western civilization are finding me receptive. This is unspeakably sad. It’s the difference between accepting that terrible thing happen, and seeing terrible things happening and bieng lauded as good (or even televisable). Which I think gives me a more emotional glimpse of how I think you might see the world. I hope you all have a good weekend, and a happy St. Patrick’s Day. 23
Posted by arthur6.6728 on March 14, 2008, 10:05 PM | # I also meant to apologize for any bits that were inflammatory, I did quick edits for snark, but they could have been more comprehensive. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on March 15, 2008, 05:12 AM | # Thanks for your interest, Arthur. You are welcome to return. 25
Posted by JWH on March 15, 2008, 05:31 AM | # Marrying a unintelligent white woman would no doubt results in much less intelligent children, and so would be a more grievous sin against my genetic interests. You haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. Why don’t you read the genetic interests-related materials under “important issues” before making factually incorrect statements? 26
Posted by davey crockett on March 15, 2008, 08:14 AM | # Something that Arthur432423421(whatever) might want to watch. ‘So much junk mail… you gotta be kidding me.’ “All I can do is educate, and try to He made 2 videos in response to an Alon Ziv television interview as well: (original television interview) (the 2 responses) ‘Race Mixer Addendum’ 28
Posted by captainchaos on March 15, 2008, 10:30 AM | # Oops, this comment was originally intended for VNN but I accidentally posted it here. 29
Posted by Guessedworker on March 15, 2008, 11:02 AM | # “Oops, this comment was originally intended for VNN but I accidentally posted it here.” It gets that intellectual at Alex’s place? 30
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 15, 2008, 11:50 AM | # If you could improve the ratio of one to the other, you’d probably attract more adherents. True, but consider the idea that every sane person joining our movement increases the overall sanity of the movement, and is likely to drive one or more of the insane members out. 31
Posted by ben tillman on March 15, 2008, 01:26 PM | # Would you (or others here) acknowledge that jewish people have made significant contributions contributions to our understanding of the physical world? No. To secure such an acknowledgment, you would have to demonstrate that no gentile would have made the same discovery in the absence of Jews. And, of course, that’s an impossible proof. Would you not accept, say, Quantum Electrodynamics because Feynman was jewish? That’s an entirely different question. Argumentun ad hominem is a logical fallacy. 32
Posted by ben tillman on March 15, 2008, 02:03 PM | # Even granting a significant difference between the races, statistics and the bell curve tell us there would be members of other races that by whatever measure of genetic quality we would be fools not to “misceginate” with. “Miscegenation” is a synonym for mutation. Mutations can provide fitness advantages, but they usually do not. See Ernst Mayr’s take on species: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_02.html
How do you imagine that the genes of the “smoking hot” black girl would facilitate the harmony of our gene pool? You say she is “smoking hot” and “exceedingly bright”. But we are already capable of being “smoking hot” and “exceedingly bright”. Her genetic attributes bring nothing to the table besides the disadvantage of disharmony. 33
Posted by ben tillman on March 15, 2008, 02:26 PM | # So why shouldn’t I as a white man, marry and reproduce with this high IQ woman, who[m] I find attractive and compatible, but who is of a different race? Because it’s not reproduction; it’s mutation. It’s bad for the group of humans to which “you” belong. (I put “you” this in quotes to indicate the same phenomenon we have seen with Birch Barlow; there is a physical body that others call Arthur, but it is operated in some respects by remote control by the organism whose extended phenotype it is part of). And, what seems more important to “you”, it is bad for “your” offspring. They will be genetically dissimilar to others, and life is a team sport. (See David Sloan Wilson and Kevin MacDonald.) They will be outnumbered. They will be defenseless against aggression by organized groups of humans with harmonious gene pools. Moreover, they will be genetically dissimilar to “you”, and “you” will have little if any evolutionary incentive to care for them as opposed to random children of your own race! (See Frank Salter.) Because it violates the bond between my ethny and I? I wouldn’t find that argument compelling, would you sacrifice happiness to your loyalty to your ethny? “Your” question is implicitly premised on an a belief that I am somehow separate from my ethny. My happiness depends on the well-being of my ethny. Now, with all the discussion of EGI here, it is sometimes forgotten that each person has his own personal genetic interests (PGI), which can conflict with his ethny’s genbetic interests (EGI). However, there is no such conflict in the scenario you propose. “Your” PGI would be better served by doing what is best for the group: breeding with a member of the group. 34
Posted by ben tillman on March 15, 2008, 02:34 PM | # Assuming, as in our culture today, that it wouldn’t be a social liability, and I’m getting good value on the genetic front, why would you argue I shouldn’t have married the woman and brought loads of kids into the world? Is it an abstract loyalty to race? Because while you acknowledge in this case it would be a good idea it should be refrained from because it sets a bad general example? It is morally wrong, which means it pursues (or at leats is intended to pursue) personal interests at the expense of the moral community. “You” would be diverting group resources out of the group. 35
Posted by ben tillman on March 15, 2008, 02:38 PM | # It seems a rational actor would chose the best possible mate, and even if there is a significant difference in intelligence, occasionally that best possible genetic mate will be of another race. But do your arguments rest on genetic quality, I can’t really tell. No, they rest on genetic similarity (i.e., the difference between reproduction and mutation) and genetic harmony, which—within groups of humans—is itself a function of genetic similarity. 36
Posted by ben tillman on March 15, 2008, 02:56 PM | # When you say “just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children” you can’t be making the argument that people should feel some sort of ethnic bond of equivalent strength to the family bond can you? As quoted by Desmond above: Perhaps the most important conceptual breakthrough in On Genetic Interests is to recognize that loyalty to one’s ethny — Dr. Salter prefers this term to race, nation, or ethnic group — is just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children. This is because each ethny is a storehouse of its members’ distinctive genes, just as children are carriers of their parents’ genes. A person’s children are very concentrated stores of his genes, but his ethny is a vastly larger, though more dilute, pool of the same genes. Given the size of most ethnies, they are repositories of far more copies of a member’s distinctive genes than even his own children, and therefore have a theoretical genetic claim to loyalty even greater than that of his children. An ethny is an extended family. The larger one’s ethny, the larger a store it becomes of distinctive genes, so its members have an interest in seeing their numbers rise or at least remain constant. A shrinking ethny is like a family whose members are dying off — either condition represents a loss of genetic interests. 37
Posted by ben tillman on March 15, 2008, 03:42 PM | # The strangest thing to me is seeing them as jewish first, and individuals second. First, the term “individual” has no place in this discussion. If you mean “person” or “human”, say it. Second, and more importantly, you would find Jews exceedingly strange if you ever decided to study them. They see themselves as Jewish first. We’re not the ones setting up the framework. Next entry: Southgate on Russia at Welf’s NR blog Previous entry: Eugenics in a most unlikely place. |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. payday loans commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/24/12, 10:27 AM. (go) (view) Verlene Zumwalt commented in entry 'Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine' on 05/24/12, 10:16 AM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Arthur on March 02, 2008, 05:33 PM | #
The quantcast statistics for this site are interesting. Apparently this site is more often visited by blacks, asians, and hispanics than by caucasians. The audience also tends to be relatively low income and without children in the house. (Also overwhelmingly male)
The age spike is at 35-44, which is lower than I expected, I though you’d attract an older crowd.
http://www.quantcast.com/majorityrights.com
How often do you folks enterain the notion that some of your beliefs, and that the wider culture does indeed have it right?
http://xkcd.com/258/