White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Locked
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv »

Firstly, thanks to Diebert for the exemplary execution of admin responsibilities.

Now, insults aside, I do see the merits (such as they are) in awiseman's position. There are clearly demonstrable differences in intelligence and even character between various races, but what is unclear is the distribution and causes of those differences.

The best way to study the main cause of racial IQ differences would be to subject X number of randomly selected coeval infants from each race, and from the native region of that race, to the exact same environment and upbringing. The result can then be compared to studies done without those controls, and using the same testing methods and curricula. However, it's unlikely that will be done anytime soon, or ever. For the present, it's safe to assume that reasoning ability is inherited but to an undefined degree.

The point where awiseman's position gets ridiculous is the postulation of the inherent and incontrovertible superiority of the white race based (it seems) primarily on its scientific and cultural achievements over a short period period of time. The elusiveness and complexity of the development of human civilisations makes any such premise laughable. It is even more so when the measure of superiority is wisdom. The basic delusions that rule the lives of virtually all human beings are exactly the same regardless of race, creed or intelligence. There is no reason why white pride should rid people of their attachments, not least because white pride is itself quite obviously an attachment.
Last edited by jupiviv on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

Santiago Odo wrote:A couple of details that will surely be useful to you AWM: Russsell is Black; obviously you know that Jupi is from India; and I was raised in a Jewish non-practicing family (which veered away into Eastern religions).
Of course it would be you, "Alex," our most secretive member of all time, who is quick to jump in and reveal my racial identity. I thought it would have been interesting to go on and see how awm would continue debating with me thinking that I am white. No matter, we've already seen the effects of awm's error of assumptions. First I had to be white, probably because I articulate myself in a calm manner, when in reality I'm simply a mature man. Then, I can't be all black, but he reveals this only after Jim came through and exposed this. He was probably having a severe identity crisis til that point.

Oh and Jim,
jimhaz wrote:I only mention this as I've always been curious as to whether it was the understated white part of Obama that was really the factor in him being very politically capable - did it enable him to be very good with the technicalities of political argument and enable him to keep his emotions in check.
Ah, interesting point. Reminds me of the blue eyes and white brown eyes in this Jane Elliot video.

Notice how hunky dory those blue eyes are. All smiling and jiving around like everything's a big joke. Throughout the whole experience, you can see this defiant attitude emoting from them. Some of them are able to cooperate, but there's a clear problem with a few of them. When they aren't just being lackadaisical, they are openly and outlandishly uncooperative, like the school teacher. It's just a two hour exercise, what is the big deal? Also observe the mixed, erm, white brown eyes.. they aren't much better! Very early on a younger WBE goes into an emotional tantrum, refusing to participate in the exercise, and trots off. A bit later a WBE woman becomes an emotional wreck as well, and ruins part of the exercise. If she weren't so emotional (probably inherent to her WBE genes), she probably would have understood the point of it all.

Let's look and see who the most patient, understanding, and dignified of the participants were. Oh, it was the black brown eyes! Even the youngster, despite his defiant appearance, showed remarkable calmness and patience throughout. We should all take note of these black people, and try to be more like them.

___

Victimhood, marked by uncooperativeness and defiance, is a survival technique embraced by those who are insecure with their identity. You can see this happen quite clearly in the Jane Elliot videos. This is a big problem with blacks in the West. There isn't nearly enough being done to encourage blacks to be confident in themselves to the point of overcoming the influences of negative stereotypes in order to live their lives in a progressive, ever improving manner. But what doesn't help, and indeed perpetuates this attitude, is for others to believe and behave as if there are inherent, unbreakable flaws within blacks.

White guilt, in part, is a response to black victimhood. Both attitudes have regressive effects on society, and indeed reward and cater to the weaknesses of others. But it must be said, when there are whites that believe in their own inherent superiority (edit: in a demonstratively derogatory manner, I should say), both victimhood and white guilt will continue to exist.
awiseman

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by awiseman »

Russell Parr wrote:Of course it would be you, "Alex," our most secretive member of all time, who is quick to jump in and reveal my racial identity. I thought it would have been interesting to go on and see how awm would continue debating with me thinking that I am white.
I thought you were a white person who had been brainwashed with self hatred for being told they original white sin. I was convinced you were in desperate need of some help and guidance after you linked to that disgusting video promoting that hatred of whites. Knowing that you are black, it now makes sense how you can actually get behind that sick shit that makes me want to ask Dylan Roof for his autograph before they execute him.

It's pretty sickening that you would toy with someone who sincerely believes you need some help. But I guess you're used to playing the role of victim, as that is what most blacks do their entire life. Furthermore, don't be too proud of yourself for tricking me into think you were white just by being literate unlike most blacks who are illiterate or barely so. As I already stated, the only kind of white person you'd pass for is a mentally disturbed one. It actually relieves me to know you're just a shitty nigger who hates white people.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Russell Parr »

Lol. Toodles, awm.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

awiseman wrote: I'm just not a pantie waste leftist who's too afraid to make politically incorrect statements about how a race of men ought to go about conquering a continent.
Did you conquer anything of interest in your life yet? This is not a lame trick question and it doesn't need stupid little details. Just a possible road leading into something more interesting to discuss than topics which I think you're uninformed about.
You've never heard 'Native Americans' referred to as aboriginals? I use the term to refer to any natives. I don't like the term 'Native American' because it implies that this continent was America before we got here when in fact wemade it America
No I didn't realize it was used in the States as well. But what's wrong with using "Indians" -- still perhaps better since it's based on ignorance and misunderstanding of any goal and place. So fitting!

Not sure about your logic of "America" the continent, including South America, Canada and so on. Who is then "we", the dark-skinned, southern European conquerors and explorers? Or is it the founders of the "United States" or "Confederation"?
To go about conquering properly, the conquering race needs to have an unshakable confidence in themselves. We used to have that confidence, but WWII has left us hobbled and open to exploitation.
What do you think about the British empire and their overseas actions? This whole "civilization" project they had going.
Of course one's genetics can be superior in a meaningful way. Genes are not expressed in a vacuum.
But what leads to "fitness" is a circumstance until that changes. This is the reason we have something "racial" in appearance, as features like bone structure, lung capacity and skin adaptations. The base genetic differences are not considered that meaningful beyond a very limited field, if you care to research it. Culture and social factors, geography, climate and the insane randomness of economical making and breaking of developments are influences so much more significant and determinable!
awiseman wrote:(to Santiago Odo)I think everyone could tell you were Jewish by your writing style. It's not very goyish.
It's more the inability to have faith in anything at all. No solid core, no ground of reason. It spins quickly out of control if not kept in check by goods, books, rules or laws. But it's not so much any "Jewish" problem, it's also the one of ignorance, Eve, etc.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Russell Parr wrote:Oh and Jim,
jimhaz wrote:I only mention this as I've always been curious as to whether it was the understated white part of Obama that was really the factor in him being very politically capable - did it enable him to be very good with the technicalities of political argument and enable him to keep his emotions in check.
Ah, interesting point. Reminds me of the blue eyes and white brown eyes in this Jane Elliot video.
How in fuck was this frigid harpy allowed to traumatise a bunch of kids with her SJW bs in the 60s? If an authority figure tells a boy he is better than *anyone* in his peer group because of XYZ, you can bet he'll believe it.
Notice how hunky dory those blue eyes are. All smiling and jiving around like everything's a big joke. Throughout the whole experience, you can see this defiant attitude emoting from them.
But that's what all people do when you start calling them names for no apparent reason! Admittedly, that does explain to an *extent* the anger and unruliness which many black people (based on my indirect, media-based experience of them) nowadays seem to think is their birthright. But does it explain it entirely? I don't think so, because it seems to me that black people are unable to properly distinguish between intentional oppression and misfortune/suffering in general. People like Jane Elliot are not helping them to become less terrible at doing that.
Victimhood, marked by uncooperativeness and defiance, is a survival technique embraced by those who are insecure with their identity. You can see this happen quite clearly in the Jane Elliot videos. This is a big problem with blacks in the West. There isn't nearly enough being done to encourage blacks to be confident in themselves to the point of overcoming the influences of negative stereotypes in order to live their lives in a progressive, ever improving manner.
As I've mentioned before, I grew up with Muslims. The reason I didn't feel any hatred towards them is because the only difference between myself and them was religion. Apart from that, we shared the same culture. That culture wasn't wise or exalted in any meaningful way, but it was very palpably and organically the *same* for all of us to the extent that differences were trivial and indeed often subjects for mutual ragging/mockery.

Modern liberals and SJWs attempt to *impose* ideas of racial-cultural equality and tolerance on a society which doesn't match those ideas on a fundamental level. The result is a small-scale model of what is happening in global politics/economics right now i.e. pandemonium. The concerns and complaints on all sides are too numerous, varied and interwoven to make sense of, so people do what they always do and pluck the low-hanging fruit of feeeeeelings. And those feeeelings are as varied as their causes, which only serves to increase the confusion by an order of magnitude.

Another order of magnitude is added due to the fact that these ideas of equality are - even in their *most* rational forms - barely rational at all. The people who come up with them don't possess an inkling of genuine wisdom. They can talk about human dignity, the economic benefits of open-mindedness, the soul, compassion or the oneness of all things all they want, but they still aren't wise. Their thoughts, careers, lusts and passions stand testimony to that.

The solution to black, white, brown or yellow strife doesn't lie in vacuous concepts like equality or being confident. It lies in sacrificing *all* - not just race or religion - for the sake of truth. As it stands, people are only willing to do that "to a certain extent". But perhaps I'm getting too lofty. The practical solution is simply less complexity and more localisation. The USA might be too big and diverse for its own good.

I don't think most white people are like awiseman. They would accept black people of similar economic status if the latter behaved decently. Based on my - albeit indirect and sparse - experience of black culture, a lot of their grievances seem to stem from the fact that they can't "make it" like whitey. Well it seems that nowadays whitey can't "make it" in a lot of cases as well. That particular form of misery may well be race-neutral when it comes to company, but liberal politicians, pro activists and celebrities acting as ombudsmen will inevitably turn it into a circus. Again, for ideas of racial equality and harmony to work, those things should already be naturally present, i.e., due not to abstract concepts of diversity but environment, culture, prosperity and so on. If not, segregation might be the only peaceful option.

On a related note, here is Malcolm X talking for 23 minutes about a man whom awiseman would regard as a typical black, without once sounding typically (in awiseman's view, and of idiots like him) black.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:How in fuck was this frigid harpy allowed to traumatise a bunch of kids with her SJW bs in the 60s? If an authority figure tells a boy he is better than *anyone* in his peer group because of XYZ, you can bet he'll believe it.
As I've stated before, I'm not really a fan of her or her work, but her exercise quickly and clearly demonstrates the effects of derogatory discrimination.
Notice how hunky dory those blue eyes are. All smiling and jiving around like everything's a big joke. Throughout the whole experience, you can see this defiant attitude emoting from them.
But that's what all people do when you start calling them names for no apparent reason! Admittedly, that does explain to an *extent* the anger and unruliness which many black people (based on my indirect, media-based experience of them) nowadays seem to think is their birthright. But does it explain it entirely? I don't think so, because it seems to me that black people are unable to properly distinguish between intentional oppression and misfortune/suffering in general. People like Jane Elliot are not helping them to become less terrible at doing that.
Her job isn't to offer solutions, but point out the problem.

But yes, I agree with your sentiments. Many black people have learned to embrace victimhood as a way of life to their detriment. It is something their ancestors learned, and have passed down all the way to today. It is no longer needed, and that is why blacks need to do more to cultivate a higher self esteem and a more positive attitude towards whites and life in America. In my opinion, this is actually happening, slowly but surely, despite setbacks like the election of Trump, the rise of the racist factions of the alt-right, and the liberal media exaggerating white injustices towards blacks.
Victimhood, marked by uncooperativeness and defiance, is a survival technique embraced by those who are insecure with their identity. You can see this happen quite clearly in the Jane Elliot videos. This is a big problem with blacks in the West. There isn't nearly enough being done to encourage blacks to be confident in themselves to the point of overcoming the influences of negative stereotypes in order to live their lives in a progressive, ever improving manner.
As I've mentioned before, I grew up with Muslims. The reason I didn't feel any hatred towards them is because the only difference between myself and them was religion. Apart from that, we shared the same culture. That culture wasn't wise or exalted in any meaningful way, but it was very palpably and organically the *same* for all of us to the extent that differences were trivial and indeed often subjects for mutual ragging/mockery.

Modern liberals and SJWs attempt to *impose* ideas of racial-cultural equality and tolerance on a society which doesn't match those ideas on a fundamental level. The result is a small-scale model of what is happening in global politics/economics right now i.e. pandemonium. The concerns and complaints on all sides are too numerous, varied and interwoven to make sense of, so people do what they always do and pluck the low-hanging fruit of feeeeeelings. And those feeeelings are as varied as their causes, which only serves to increase the confusion by an order of magnitude.

Another order of magnitude is added due to the fact that these ideas of equality are - even in their *most* rational forms - barely rational at all. The people who come up with them don't possess an inkling of genuine wisdom. They can talk about human dignity, the economic benefits of open-mindedness, the soul, compassion or the oneness of all things all they want, but they still aren't wise. Their thoughts, careers, lusts and passions stand testimony to that.

The solution to black, white, brown or yellow strife doesn't lie in vacuous concepts like equality or being confident. It lies in sacrificing *all* - not just race or religion - for the sake of truth. As it stands, people are only willing to do that "to a certain extent". But perhaps I'm getting too lofty. The practical solution is simply less complexity and more localisation. The USA might be too big and diverse for its own good.

I don't think most white people are like awiseman. They would accept black people of similar economic status if the latter behaved decently. Based on my - albeit indirect and sparse - experience of black culture, a lot of their grievances seem to stem from the fact that they can't "make it" like whitey. Well it seems that nowadays whitey can't "make it" in a lot of cases as well. That particular form of misery may well be race-neutral when it comes to company, but liberal politicians, pro activists and celebrities acting as ombudsmen will inevitably turn it into a circus. Again, for ideas of racial equality and harmony to work, those things should already be naturally present, i.e., due not to abstract concepts of diversity but environment, culture, prosperity and so on. If not, segregation might be the only peaceful option.

On a related note, here is Malcolm X talking for 23 minutes about a man whom awiseman would regard as a typical black, without once sounding typically (in awiseman's view, and of idiots like him) black.
I don't have much to argue with here. I completely agree that most white people aren't like awm; many if not most aren't prejudiced at all, except perhaps in some subtle subconscious ways. Even that is not a big deal, and completely understandable; just lingering remnants of an unfortunate past. Blacks have to overcome their bitterness of past and present injustices (to the degree that present injustices actually exist) and strive to become an example of a proper human being for all people. As for segregation, I am OK with it to some degree, but it's kind of tricky because it could reinforce unfair stereotypes in the minds of those that aren't wise and mature enough to understand its purpose and benefits. We may not be ready for it.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Russell Parr »

To whom it may concern, I've banned awiseman. If anyone would like to continue a conversation with him, I'm OK with unbanning him, either by myself or another mod.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Russell wrote:Of course it would be you, "Alex," our most secretive member of all time, who is quick to jump in and reveal my racial identity. I thought it would have been interesting to go on and see how awm would continue debating with me thinking that I am white. No matter, we've already seen the effects of awm's error of assumptions. First I had to be white, probably because I articulate myself in a calm manner, when in reality I'm simply a mature man. Then, I can't be all black, but he reveals this only after Jim came through and exposed this. He was probably having a severe identity crisis til that point.
These are not accurate statements. First, all the Forum Fathers know my actual name (Alex is not my first name). Diebert knows the city in the US I used to live in and some businesses I am associated with as well as my full name. I have not ever misrepresented any detail and have even explained I live in Colombia, am married, etc. Aside from the fact that I have used various screen names (and always clearly revealed who it was behind it) I have not been at all secretive. I have also talked about my upbringing and mentioned living in India with my parents and other details, for example their Zen community involvement.

It was only fair to reveal to awm, as that ugly conversation progressed, who he was conversing with.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Russell wrote:But yes, I agree with your sentiments. Many black people have learned to embrace victimhood as a way of life to their detriment. It is something their ancestors learned, and have passed down all the way to today. It is no longer needed, and that is why blacks need to do more to cultivate a higher self esteem and a more positive attitude towards whites and life in America. In my opinion, this is actually happening, slowly but surely, despite setbacks like the election of Trump, the rise of the racist factions of the alt-right, and the liberal media exaggerating white injustices towards blacks.
It is very very hard to say what is going on in the US now in respect to race questions. Strange things are brewing. It would take pages and pages to disentangle the situation so to be able to talk about it. I think it is important to pay attention to the existence of people like AWM because, obviously, those sentiments are half-insane and unreasonable in the precise sense of the word. I remember reading on Stormfront when I was doing my racism research some of the opinions of quite reasonable people, I thought, who made it crystal-clear that when that cop gunned down the man running away in the video that everyone is aware of, that in no sense or in any sense did they feel such overt hatred could be justified. They said 'If that is what you are advocating for I do not want any part of it'. And this was on StormFront.

My own view, outrageous no doubt, and quite useless and even a little meaningless, is that after the Emancipation, and following Lincoln's sense of things, 4 million Blacks should have been given their own homeland. It was Lincoln who stated that in no sense should these people blend or become one shared polity. He was as adamantly opposed to the slavery of man as he was to the blending of inimical races. That anthropology still lives. I cannot help but see that as true in the most basic sense and, with that said, what America is tending toward is the creation of a sort of Brazil-like nation. There are a couple of factors though that have to be stated. One is that this was a deliberate choice and it took shape with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. I think I accept the view that the 'browning' of America was a deliberate choice and it was a decision made also by 'white elites'. But frankly I am not really sure how the decision came to be made, except that it was a whole wave of events. The humanism of the Sixties. The intolerable tension of overt race conflict. The idealism of American youth. The emotionalism and sentimentalism of the folk song and, it is true, the influence of the churches. And all this combined with a revisionist reading of the Constitutional documents in the context of Americanism which is its own civil religion in a peculiar way.

While it is true that sixty years on, and if one is inclined to it, Sixties idealism and the general rebellion has been largely destructive, and now, rather obviously, the glue binding a nation has begun to loosen, and so many different signs of decadence show themselves, and frankly stated the nation heads toward obvious and senses crisis, no one has a clear sense of what happened and why it is happening, and far less of a sense of what is needed. If I were a Cassandra I would definitely say that serious trouble is on the horizon. I suppose I think that everyone is aware of this at some level. Psychically, people begin to freak out. And it is the hysterics who show themselves and who first manifest the *spell* as it unfolds.

My own perception has been this: the Presidency of Obama was, largely, a disaster. I voted for him and, like so many, I believed that a Black president would demonstrate (to POC) that no one was blocked in this country. But the beginning of the present breakdown began, I think, with him and with his 'psychology'. Essentially, he represents the ex-slave, through a bizarre historical twist, winding up in the seat of power. I have to say, disgusting though it may be, that the thought of all those largely Black parties that went on with the rap stars and the old Black music icons showing up at those functions, did not *look right* to me. I was reminded of scenes out of Birth of a Nation (the old B&W film). I guess that reveals, at a very basic level, my own very basic sentiments. And I grew up in pretty evident liberalism. I would not have been able to admit such a thing in former times. The thought would not have been allowed to coalesce.

I became aware, and I do believe this, that as woman is a 'dependent species' (it was Esther Vilar who said that) so too was the Black man in America. But in a substantial sense so was the 'brown multitude'. That has to be carefully qualified of course but it is generally true. However, the democratic doctrine of Americanism --- as a religious tenet --- cannot allow that truth to stand as a truth. Yet it is true. If it happened that a Black American nation came to be, it would, either sooner or later, descend to the level of barbarism. Like what one sees now in South Africa. Or, better put, a struggling Black republic similar to the African states but, likely, many steps above. These seem to me to be *truths*. But they are not at all easy truths to assimilate.

Yet now, and in this democratic climate where resentment is peaking, the empowered brown demographic, after the Obama presidency, is clamouring at the somatic level for revenge. How could it be otherwise? It is the historical memory stored at a somatic level that now manifests itself in a desired reversal of fortunes. Classic stuff. And once the demographic threshold is passed, and when Whites begin to become more of a minority, the demand for revenge will only increase. To me it seems evident, obvious. I do not think this is fully conscious material though.

It really should never have been allowed to happen that the 90% majority voluntarily surrender its position. I myself cannot see America (or perhaps I do not want to) as anything but an Anglo-Saxon nation. I would beyond any shadow of doubt prefer to see America's cities as white, its countryside as white, and it cultural productions largely white. I am reminded of those 1950's photographs of the *perfect* white family in their perfect little Anglo-Saxon universe. Having read both Robert Bork and Pat Buchanan I tend, overall, to agree with their conservative analysis. The Sixties was a destructive nation-destructive event. But then there is another element that has to be talked about and that is America's insane militarism. This combination of neo-imperial power and domination, profoundly contradictory to stated and Constitutional American values and raison d'etre, in combination with a popular meltdown into dripping sentimentalism, and then the reverse-integration of *that* into the very structure of the perverse nation ... has spelled I think the beginning of the end.

I am very aware of the 'white nationalist' perspective. It is that if it took 50-60 years for this to come about, one must reverse what had happened over a similar period of time. The only thing that could change the present circumstances could only be a general social will. But that social will does not, not really, exist. I know many many people who do not, in any sense, have that will nor do they wish to find it. If they lose their *identity*, to which they are not really that fastened anyway, well, it won't mean much.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

Russell Parr wrote:To whom it may concern, I've banned awiseman. If anyone would like to continue a conversation with him, I'm OK with unbanning him, either by myself or another mod.
He will remain banned. I was only a few posts away from banning him myself. I've no intention of providing GF as a platform for the likes of him, regardless of whether he touches on issues that might be - and over the years have been - worthy of analysis. He has/had no analysis. His posts were mere White Man Liturgy, a Canon of Belief Statements. His posts dripped with religious piety.

And it's worth noting that it is almost always the case with people like him, that it's not just people of different colour or race or 'culture' that are a thing to be excised - it's anything different or deemed inferior. People like him never stop in their discriminative process because it is pathological, not intellectual. No-one is ultimately safe from a person like that, not even racial kin.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Russell Parr »

Great point Dan, thanks.

Alex, how familiar are you with Black Wall Street of Tulsa? Here's an excellent documentary. Note not so much the riot, but the success of the segregated black man, and the efforts to erase the history of this success following the riots, and think about the effects that this erasing must have on the psyche of black and white people.

I remember not being able to find much about BWS on youtube some time ago. Now there's a number of videos, most of which posted less than 5 years ago. A fine example of the beauty of the Information Age, where the suppression of information is becoming moreorless impossible.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Looking back at awiseman, as I didn't read each and every post, some lines were clearly getting crossed without much compensating, redeeming value residing with the remainder, so banning seems quite reasonable.

Normally I'm not into banning anyone for any radical opinion, if at least it's all being phrased using normal grammar rules and some level of conversation is being established. To me the red line is generally: abuse of the forum soapbox, its members and/or cleaning ladies because of some urgent need, like becoming mainly some offloading of various personal issues or evangelizing doctrines one-way. And I think, looking back, in this case it was the latter: the impression of these racist, nationalist ideologies as religious fever and the desire to use the discriminative mind as some kind of weapon against others, just to prop up some imaginary "identity" against any price. This is also the reason why the intellectual content turned out to be so low as if half the brain was being shut down all the time: too busy processing all the religious sentiment.

Now if anyone would make some rational sounding case for identifying any "wise" or "ignorant" genes and the holy duty to elevate the one and first distinguishing, then extinguishing the other, then some kind of discussion perhaps could follow. But perhaps we should also realize that for example David Quinn's "Woman An Exposition for the Advanced Mind" could be interpreted as some genetically based distinction which might lead to more virulent forms of racism or just simply "unwise" misogyny. It doesn't matter if it attempted to address "masculine and feminine minds" first and foremost. To quote: "the male qualities of striving and conquering, of rationality, are being devalued or else are put to use toward feminine ends". Some might easily extent this to "white" or "Western" male qualities, based on the historical striving and successful conquests of European, British and American empires during the last centuries. The same logic elevating masculinity, even when taken in some spiritual, philosophizing sense, can be deployed in other ways. The same actually happened with Nietzsche and his contextual praise of "war" and conquest, putting down various "weak" and "slave" type values, like promoting peace because of degenerative, tired reasons, and so on. He was also disturbed how quickly his ideas became employed for other, more "hungry" sentiments, the "humanitarian" war mongering and nationalist fevers of the slave.

So I make the general case of being careful not to throw out too quickly the shadow cast by ones own radical writings and thoughts. And not to think that's all "completely different" and "everybody should understand the difference" or waving the issue away. When the singularity of wisdom hits the multiplicity of worldly matters, all becomes upset.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

In retrospect, horseshit. It was a mistake to ban him, as it is a mistake when any moderator, whether Dan or Diebert or Russell (how many fucking moderators are there anyway?) is so personally wrapped up in the forum that his moderation --- i.e. banning or, horror of horrors, having to receive the haranguing PMs or emails with pages of rebukes and other abuses such as one receives from the Dutch Matron --- is obviously a personal tool in a personal battle.

Having been on the receiving end of it I can say that I understand it. Once that line is crossed into inappropriate moderation, and once the people you used to notice suddenly are disappeared with no explanation or notice, the chilling effect begins. The 'chilling effect' is when one begins to measure one's words because one senses that at any moment one might be removed from the conversation by saying the wrong thing. And that will happen at the hands of someone who is totally wrapped up in the elements of the conversation, its contentiousness and what have you. At that point the declaration that to get to truth you must be willing to 'get bloody', becomes only an empty phrase mouthed by hypocrites. It is embarrassing to watch it unfold.

I cannot say that I liked AWM very much, and it is surely true that he has not ever been challenged to support his views with well thought through arguments, and it also seems true that he has likely not spent much time in an academic setting, and that he is only relying on a group of pre-fabricated attack-ideas. Still, moderation would have been served by insiting that he develop those approaches. He got banned by Russell when he called Russell a nigger.

'LOL Toodles'

And this is where the hypocricy that underpins the GF platform, in my view, becomes visible. And the episode of David and Dan barging back in to tattle-tale on Kevin is sort of the emblem of it. One wants to say: What a bunch of fakes! But for different reasons that one supposes. The 'Sage' pose is totally fake and everyone who does not know this should internalize it. It was fake then, it is fake now. It's a pose and as a pose it should be deposed.

What is interesting, from my angle, is that after years YEARS of the most stupid and introspectic garbled psycho-babble interchanges (Pam & Diebert & Russell & Jupi) the thing that brings life to the forum is a topic that has to do with values & meaning, the basic thing a Sage, according to this fake terminology, must do away with. The Sage latches onto some grand abstraction and is floated off into a never-never land of milky piss. Essentially, you seem men who can have no relationship to anything. Yet it is only in relationship to something, to something to be defended, argued, lived, that you come to some level of life. Then, when it gets too real for you, you intevene and interpose and shutdown what you do not like, and return to the fake and hypocritical Sage Pose.

I am always reminded that a pack of neutred dogs when they come upon one who still has his genitals, will instinctively attack and even kill that intact dog. This is how I think of our beloved big-titted Dutch Matron-Spider, the philosophical nurse of GF, and the visual is oddly fitting for many here. But the meaning is not sexual virility, though you are men rather obviously absent of women, though Russell (because of his race perhaps!) (an inappropriate joke) does have some girl he fucks from time to time. But the essence of the issue of 'having no relationship' is deeper and goes to an important core. And this core lives at the core here.

I have always been interested in exploring that one in more detail.

To have followed the lines that AWM was hardly able to follow himself, insofar as he did seem *possessed* to a degree (I use the Jungian sense), is something that could have been better worked out by him. Like it or not, when communicating such devlishly confrontative ideas, a certain diplomacy is required. But the interesting thing, which Mother Spider repeated in her wall of webbish text, just above, is that the radicalism of the posture of GF is in certain ways just as worthy of being shut down by some *moderator* somewhere out there in Cyberspace. In fact, it is exactly this level of censorship and application of *moral authority* that seemed to be at the heart of some of Kevin's efforts, arguments or critiques, whichever they were. (That is, his resistance to the SJW and his control-schemes).

Much better it would have been, and much better it always is, to allow a thread to proceed where it will. When you dandy ladies intervene you fuck things up. You do it time and time again, the same thing results, and you never learn the lesson.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Russell wrote:Alex, how familiar are you with Black Wall Street of Tulsa? Here's an excellent documentary. Note not so much the riot, but the success of the segregated black man, and the efforts to erase the history of this success following the riots, and think about the effects that this erasing must have on the psyche of black and white people.
The only way for the racial problem to be surmounted, in America or anywhere where there is a dominant Anglo-Saxon population, is to reengineer the attitude toward race questions and issues. It will have to be made into a non-issue or any race-based identity posture will have to be shamed, and social shaming is that mechanism. Ms. Elliott gives an exact example of what that entails. It is s Elliott, in the shape of the SJW, that is running around out there shaming and terrorizing. Indeed, she is there in the schools and in the universities, like some sort of metaphysical shadow. She is White Guilt turned into a shrill, harpy-like entity, the Paraclete of Our American Present and what you will receive and internalize, whether you like it or not, as you voyage on the road to Damascus.

Now, the 'project' has become internalized into Americanism, that is, the Civil Religion of Americanism. Not only is discrimination a Federal Crime, but the Federal Civic Religion begins to take dominance in local government and in business.

So, to create this 'America' which was dreamed up in a modified version of Americanism post Civil War, will involve and does involve a fundamental restructuring of the polity through ideological imposition. Substantially, that is a big part of the post-Sixties. In that process one can then make analysis of Cultural Marxism, Horkhiemer, Fromm, Adorno, etc. It becomes a reengineering project carried on in the mental and ideological realm as well as at a psychological level.

If the project is successful, you will have blended populations, as we now begin to have, and which blendedness is held up as an emblem of value. For example in Berkeley High-Schools the girls who are Jewish, American Indian, White and Black within that social context have the somatic make-up that makes them exemplary. They have bridged the tensions at the somatic level. Technically, conflict should abate at that point.

If you have two distinct populations, and what makes them distinct is such obvious physical difference, there is no way they will peacefully coexist in and amongst themselves unless they inter-blend. You are the somatic example of this! How could you turn against what had occurred in you? And what is manifest in you at the manifested level? This is how *the battle* will be won, or lost, and this is all completely understood and was understood, even at the time of the Civil War debates. America was desitned to become a 'copper-colored nation'.

That is why I say the American solution of the Brazilian solution. If not that, and if one proposes to hold oneself away from the race-blending project, one will cross Ms Elliott in violent controntation, as well as the Governmental Establishment which has mandaded racial blending as a Federal principle.

In my perspective, and again as much as I dislike AWM's presentation, I believe that I understand him as a manifestion within white culture. He will either be shamed out of existence, killed, modified at a brain-level, or he will gain the capacity and the ability to express his thoughts in an intelligent and convincing fashion and instigate what will likely be a momentous civil conflict.

Trippy, eh?
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

Horseshit yourself, Alex. The man had nothing of value to say. I will not allow this forum to be a platform for vacuous garbage like he was offering. White supremacist tropes expressed in the manner he was expressing them are tedious beyond belief. Seriously, if you don't like it, piss off and start a forum where trolls are welcome. We try not to shut down ideas here, but there's a vast difference between ideas and violent dross.

His entire worldview could be distilled down to: 'Let's just kill everyone that doesn't remind me of me.' Attempts to disguise or legitimise that distillation behind superficial references to the aforementioned supremacist tropes doesn't cut it.

We can, of course, discuss the psychology that produces such thinking, and some of the potentially meaningful themes raised by it, but I have no intention of giving that sort of genocidal schadenfreude a voice of its own, at least at that level of hysteria and wilful ignorance. The internet is already littered with places that cater for it.

Your protest and rebuke is, nevertheless, noted. I hope you feel better.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

I fully understand, and I grasp precisely your position. Since I already expressed myself on this point, no need to repeat it again.

In the end, or at the beginning I guess I should say, I am interested in the white identity movement, its postures and its philosophy. I want to see it develop intelligently. I also want to see it develop *spiritually* if such a term can be used. I suppose I would say that AWM --- though he might not have taken up the offer --- should have been given some guidelines to follow. Then, if he did not, his banning could be justified.

Along those lines, I thought to include a link to a talk by E Michael Jones on his book 'The Slaughter of Cities'. The reason I suggest listening to it, or some part of it, is that E Michael Jones reveals the intrusive, but clandestinely brought-about, social engineering which, in his view, destroyed his Catholic neighborhood, but is part-and-parcel of the postwar engineering of culture. He is a practicing Catholic though, and he represents an aspect of the devloping white identity movement. While he is not a racist or a *racialist* nor a race-realist, he does have a specific position in relation to Jews and Judaism. He is on the SPLC list of naughties (not hard to wind up there) for his so-called anti-Jewish posture. But if he has such a posture it is simply an old school Catholic posture (never friendly to Jews and Judaism, obviously).

Since I assume that dearly departed AWM is still reading, I wish to suggest, emphatically, that it will not ever happen that the influence of Christian idealism will be excised from the Occidental self. It is an impossibility. Not making this up. Similarly, I say the same thing to our GF Fathers who suffer under an aspect of the same misunderstanding and delusion.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Russell Parr »

Santiago Odo wrote:
Russell wrote:Alex, how familiar are you with Black Wall Street of Tulsa? Here's an excellent documentary. Note not so much the riot, but the success of the segregated black man, and the efforts to erase the history of this success following the riots, and think about the effects that this erasing must have on the psyche of black and white people.
The only way for the racial problem to be surmounted, in America or anywhere where there is a dominant Anglo-Saxon population, is to reengineer the attitude toward race questions and issues. It will have to be made into a non-issue or any race-based identity posture will have to be shamed, and social shaming is that mechanism. Ms. Elliott gives an exact example of what that entails. It is s Elliott, in the shape of the SJW, that is running around out there shaming and terrorizing. Indeed, she is there in the schools and in the universities, like some sort of metaphysical shadow. She is White Guilt turned into a shrill, harpy-like entity, the Paraclete of Our American Present and what you will receive and internalize, whether you like it or not, as you voyage on the road to Damascus.
No, race-based identity does not have to be shamed. But it does need to be corrected when there are unfounded and distorted beliefs and assumptions regarding race.
Now, the 'project' has become internalized into Americanism, that is, the Civil Religion of Americanism. Not only is discrimination a Federal Crime, but the Federal Civic Religion begins to take dominance in local government and in business.
Unfair discrimination is a crime. Not unfair in the sense that true disparities in advantages are to be ignored, but unfair in the sense when there are false advantages being promoted with intent to oppress due to insecurities. This goes both ways, from both and all sides.
If you have two distinct populations, and what makes them distinct is such obvious physical difference, there is no way they will peacefully coexist in and amongst themselves unless they inter-blend. You are the somatic example of this! How could you turn against what had occurred in you? And what is manifest in you at the manifested level? This is how *the battle* will be won, or lost, and this is all completely understood and was understood, even at the time of the Civil War debates. America was desitned to become a 'copper-colored nation'.
Most black and white people get along just fine. Go to an American mall if you doubt this. It is only insecure simpletons, who are ate up with racist ideologies like AWM or Black Hebrew Israelites, that think mixed populations cannot coexist. We shouldn't enforce segregation just to appease these morons.
That is why I say the American solution of the Brazilian solution. If not that, and if one proposes to hold oneself away from the race-blending project, one will cross Ms Elliott in violent controntation, as well as the Governmental Establishment which has mandaded racial blending as a Federal principle.
There is no "race blending project." Blending is simply a natural occurance within diverse populations.
In my perspective, and again as much as I dislike AWM's presentation, I believe that I understand him as a manifestion within white culture. He will either be shamed out of existence, killed, modified at a brain-level, or he will gain the capacity and the ability to express his thoughts in an intelligent and convincing fashion and instigate what will likely be a momentous civil conflict.
Civil conflicts will indeed continue to occur as long as violent extremists are part of the equation. Killing or getting killed, shaming and being shamed, are natural consequences of demented, ignorant behavior.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Now if anyone would make some rational sounding case for identifying any "wise" or "ignorant" genes and the holy duty to elevate the one and first distinguishing, then extinguishing the other, then some kind of discussion perhaps could follow.
Rational "sounding" isn't enough, though. If someone wants to propose genocide, their logic at least should be airtight. Eugenics and racial genocide aren't necessarily unwise concepts. However, like everything else, they can't be discussed in a vacuum. awiseman was doing precisely that: no attention paid to context, apart from that which he himself fabricates ad hoc.
Santiago Odo wrote:In retrospect, horseshit. It was a mistake to ban him, as it is a mistake when any moderator, whether Dan or Diebert or Russell (how many fucking moderators are there anyway?) is so personally wrapped up in the forum that his moderation --- i.e. banning or, horror of horrors, having to receive the haranguing PMs or emails with pages of rebukes and other abuses such as one receives from the Dutch Matron --- is obviously a personal tool in a personal battle.
Banning people who repeatedly make personal attacks unaccompanied by any coherent point/argument is standard policy on all respectable forums I am aware of. If any of the moderators were personally wrapped up in the forum, they would have kicked you to the curb on sight just for being you. The only reason you're still here is because your current incarnation hasn't crossed the line too often, yet. What iteration is it again? 20? 30?
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

I am sure that you actually believe that whole story. When you see through it, and when you see it is false, you will as a result have made some progress.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Russell wrote:No, race-based identity does not have to be shamed. But it does need to be corrected when there are unfounded and distorted beliefs and assumptions regarding race.
'Correction' and shaming are of a kind. What is unfounded and distorted in your sense is always interwoven with ideology, chosen perspective, and operative belief system, and then simple exercise of the will. I am sure that when we speak to each other on these issues our perspective differs a great deal. There are various reasons for that. But one reason is that I have read the texts where 'race-realism' is defined. Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, etc. I imagine that you haven't and that you are not aware of those rather lengthy arguments. They are Anglo-centric arguments, absolutely they are, and as such they cannot be expressed in our present, anywhere. Well, except that there is a fringe, as the term is used, which is asserting itself. What has been pushed way to the fringe is now rebounding back. There you have an explanation of AWM in his unconscious manifestation, and the rage just under the surface. If you wish to understand the conscious manifestation read David Duke, Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer, and people like them.

Why do you suppose that I should take any part of what you, Russell, think or say as being either true, or useful, or of any particular value at all? What would be the basis of your claim? Though you don't think so, and I respect this, you are the intellectual equivalent of a man gone on welfare. That will seem like a slap but I don't mean it that way. You presume to have some wisdom, some knowledge and understanding though, but it is not ever manifest. In this managed cabal, yes I agree, you and Diebert and Jupi can preen yourselves up to an exalted 'wise' status but it is seen through. Just sayin'.
Most black and white people get along just fine. Go to an American mall if you doubt this. It is only insecure simpletons, who are ate up with racist ideologies like AWM or Black Hebrew Israelites, that think mixed populations cannot coexist. We shouldn't enforce segregation just to appease these morons.
Sure, but it is that 'American Mall' that has been designed exactly for that constructed mass of people; the multicultural consumer-base. Yes, they show up there, reduced to a uniformity, and do what they have been bred to do: buy. It is a grave sin to interrupt the *harmony* of this process and doing so will get you punished. Also, these are private spaces, outside of the public domain, and though the public is invited to them, the governing rules are established by the private entity.

But that is not really an environment of interrelationship. It is not a *neighbourhood*. It is a highly artificial place for a sort of simulacra of human life to occur.

'Insecure simpleton' is a shaming term, Russell, as is 'moron'. It is one of the main ones and a great deal of mileage has been gotten out of it. I have used some clips from the movie 'Mississippi Burning' to indicate how this works. The use of those sorts of terms have been parts of sophisticated public relations campaigns, managed by psychologists, and part of social engineering projects. I refer again to E Michael Jones. But what I have noticed, and this came about through my own researches on the topic, is that many of the so-called 'insecure simpletons' have begun I guess you would say to wake up from their torpor. They begin to understand the degree that they have been victims of elaborate social-engineering schemes and that the interests those schemes serve (your WalMart) is not really in their interest. (And this is just as true in the Black communities, as E Michael Jones relates interestingly).

'Mixed populations' means, and can only mean, populations that are placed in proximity, by fate or by design, to breed together. This must be understood. That is what a mixed population is, Russell. What I discovered is that there are unmixed populations who want no part of it, and will have no part of it. Who have begun to determine, as I said, that interests not their own are behind that process, and which interests do not serve their own interests, and their values and valuations.
There is no "race blending project." Blending is simply a natural occurance within diverse populations.
Oh? I can point you in the direction of some reading and some listening that suggest very much otherwise. Again, E Michael Jones and 'The Slaughter of Cities' (though many of his talks are quite good, and he talks on other aspects).
Civil conflicts will indeed continue to occur as long as violent extremists are part of the equation. Killing or getting killed, shaming and being shamed, are natural consequences of demented, ignorant behavior.
That is a non-wise statement, Russell. It is an uniformed one too. Civil conflicts occur where there are civil interactions, and when it comes to issues of race and culture they will inevitably occur when the contact occurs. True, there are borderlands where two distinct peoples come into contact. Then there are nation-states that have been produced by war and other factors in which different races and cultures find themselves in contact when, in fact, they would rather not. And finally there is the American version of the race-blending project: a civic religion with a legal Constitutional arm, a specific immigration policy designed, consciously, to shift the demographics from 90% white to mixed and mixing; and then the social mood and the propaganda tools that are used (social engineering) to achieve it.

Notice that you use the word 'ignorant' as it is used socially and publicly. You determine who and what is ignorant? Come now Russell.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Jupi wrote:The only reason you're still here is because your current incarnation hasn't crossed the line too often, yet.
And what line motherfucker is that? ;-)

It is in my nature to push boundaries and that is why I ask. What particular thing have I said so far can you offer as an example?
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:Rational "sounding" isn't enough, though. If someone wants to propose genocide, their logic at least should be airtight. Eugenics and racial genocide aren't necessarily unwise concepts. However, like everything else, they can't be discussed in a vacuum. awiseman was doing precisely that: no attention paid to context, apart from that which he himself fabricates ad hoc.
That's what I call "rational sounding" simple because discovering if it's airtight or not would come at a later stage (bad pun, okay).
jupiviv to Alex wrote:If any of the moderators were personally wrapped up in the forum, they would have kicked you to the curb on sight just for being you.
If interested, please continue discussing forum moderation in the Helpdesk as not to muddle up this topic further (and I might move posts if it continues). My own take has been repeated already five or six times and is no secret but gets a bit stale.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

Note to self:

Diversity+Proximity=War
Tribalism+Proximity=War
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Dan, listen to 10-15 minutes of Jones' talk and you will understand better the American situation. Then tell me your thoughts.
You I'll never leave
Locked