Scientific Racism

[Johan Schmidt]

You mean like James Watson or most of the people who studied DNA and biology for the better part of the last century, or are you just trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is an incel?

Essentially everyone pre-1980's was on board with scientific racism; and as a scientist I'm on board with scientific racism. I think the modern issue is not that people can't clearly see the data; but that they choose not to interrogate it and follow it down. I'd personally rather be working on essentially anything other than racial shit in any given moment honestly.

EDIT: It's not a profitable, safe (in terms of career) or easily 'marketable' area of study unless you just shit out some selective piece that makes the data do what you want. The entire academic freedom thing is bullshit.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Wait why the defeatist attitude now? Surely they can just be given access to better education and food and home life and there will be no more retards ever, right?

Lol, I never said there's no limits to what people can achieve. No, hell will freeze over before Chris-chan becomes a rocket scientist. That being said, if we want to lower the amount of shit-smearing retards in the world, they should be encouraged to reach their limits.

What I've been trying to say is that everybody should just do the best they can. A retard does not have to smear their shit on the wall and occasionally, people from bad backgrounds manage to do great in life.

You don't need fancy studies of brains to know that humans evolved from animals and that our behaviors are only slightly more complex than the behaviors of other animals.

Well yeah, obviously. That's the basic aspect of it. It's the details we don't understand. How do different genes interact with each other? How does outside stimuli affect behavior? Just how malleable are brains? What someone does in any given moment is the result of innumerable factors.

As in select people who will never take a job that a current citizen could have gotten if the school and college systems weren't so severely broken by the banking establishments and the debt-based economy? I don't think we want anyone like that.

But according to you, isn't the state of a society caused by the genes of its citizens? That would imply the college and banking systems are caused by a dirty gene pool and dumb natives. Since IQ is relevant to employment, doesn't that imply poor people tend to be dumber than the rich? Doesn't that imply people who can't afford a college education probably wouldn't do well in college anyways since they come from low IQ stock? And if the job pays well and the immigrant has experience, why wouldn't he take it?

Anyways, I agree that the American college system is a mess and education should be more accessible. I agree that citizens should get priority over immigrants. I must admit my main motive for shilling immigration is selfish: it's sociological nerdery and love of other cultures. I don't know enough about the costs and benefits of immigration to debate this properly. You may be right, the country may be better with no immigrants at all. I dunno.

So what? Jews can only act in their own interests when they have a criminal hive to retreat to?

Shitting on their own lawn would not have been in their best interest, lmao.

No they profited off of slavery and they did not live for several hundred years and so did not suffer any consequences for being slave traders of all races.

Their children lived in the USA. Knowingly screwing over the country would have been knowingly screwing over their own offspring.

Arabs mostly, so other Semites.

And whites, too. In the USA Jews were more likely than gentiles to own slaves but gentiles had a greater number of slaves in total.

View attachment 1582165View attachment 1582169
Below that and welfare is the only income you can make, aside from the most menial positions like sorting glass at a recycling plant. [/quote]
When I said useless failure, I meant people like drug dealers and welfare leeches. Society needs menial laborers.

I might be better inclined towards it if everyone who espoused it wasnt a solid arguement against the merits of there own race.

Racial mutt here. I believe in it but find it more useful to judge people by their demeanor and actions than by their background. It's easy and has not yet led me astray.

You mean like James Watson or most of the people who studied DNA and biology for the better part of the last century, or are you just trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is an incel?

He's saying that in today's world 99% of people who espouse these views are white guys who lurk Stormfront and phrase things in a way that makes them sound like racial narcissists. It's unfortunate but statistically, it seems true. Racial realism needs a rebrand.

 

[Belvedere]

Culture comes from genetics.

If anything it is the regional environment and climate that which shape both culture and genetics. Cultures that developed in regions where there are defined seasons with harsh climates are the ones that learned to recognize patterns, cycles and the need to plan ahead. Societies that understood early on that there were times for sowing, harvesting, storing and preserving food stocks were the ones that learned planning ahead, to keep time, keep records, understanding the value of working hard and saving for the future not to go hungry became the precursors that laid the foundation for their future advancement as societies. Culture and genetics adaptations developed as part of these cycles.

On the other side of the spectrum, societies that developed in regions where climate was stable year round ( no need to develop clothing or sturdy structures to protect from the weather) and there were plentiful animals to hunt ( again, no need to plan long term to store food for extended periods of time ) did not develop culturally or genetically in any significant manner for millennia.

Then maybe by extension saying that societies that had the necessity to become more resourceful to face their adverse conditions passed on their genes because they were smart enough to survive continued cycles of adversity. Not doing so meant certain death. The smarter the societies became, the more sophisticated their culture developed and hence also their genetics change alongside it as both physical and cognitive adaptations to deal with the environment.

Culture doesn't just "pop up" out of some genetic sequence, culture requires a society of living individuals that practice it and can teach it to a next generation for it to continue to exist.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Culture comes from genetics.

And external influences. I'm telling you, the average second generation Asian immigrant to the USA has more in common with White Americans than the average White European would. Source: personal experience. It's beyond obvious when you see it firsthand. Heck, most fresh off the boat immigrants assimilate better than African Americans who have lived in the country all their life. It's kinda baffling in a way.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

Are we still seriously arguing nature vs nurture here in 2020? I thought that was all tapped out by 1996.

People who deny evolution cannot accept that not all men are created equal.

If anything it is the regional environment and climate that which shape both culture and genetics. Cultures that developed in regions where there are defined seasons with harsh climates are the ones that learned to recognize patterns, cycles and the need to plan ahead. Societies that understood early on that there were times for sowing, harvesting, storing and preserving food stocks were the ones that learned planning ahead, to keep time, keep records, understanding the value of working hard and saving for the future not to go hungry became the precursors that laid the foundation for their future advancement as societies. Culture and genetics adaptations developed as part of these cycles.

On the other side of the spectrum, societies that developed in regions where climate was stable year round ( no need to develop clothing or sturdy structures to protect from the weather) and there were plentiful animals to hunt ( again, no need to plan long term to store food for extended periods of time ) did not develop culturally or genetically in any significant manner for millennia.

Then maybe by extension saying that societies that had the necessity to become more resourceful to face their adverse conditions passed on their genes because they were smart enough to survive continued cycles of adversity. Not doing so meant certain death. The smarter the societies became, the more sophisticated their culture developed and hence also their genetics change alongside it as both physical and cognitive adaptations to deal with the environment.

Culture doesn't just "pop up" out of some genetic sequence, culture requires a society of living individuals that practice it and can teach it to a next generation for it to continue to exist.

Obviously. But even when people leave those environments they still have the genetic predispositions that were selected for in that environment, just as they still have the same skin color and bone structure.

And external influences. I'm telling you, the average second generation Asian immigrant to the USA has more in common with White Americans than the average White European would. Source: personal experience. It's beyond obvious when you see it firsthand.

Data is not the plural of anecdote. Their voting record shows otherwise.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

Lol, I never said there's no limits to what people can achieve.

You very much have. You've stated repeatedly that the trouble blacks have is entirely due to socio-economic reasons and not a genetic hamstringing.

That being said, if we want to lower the amount of shit-smearing retards in the world, they should be encouraged to reach their limits.

That is exactly what I am proposing by isolating them until they can make a civilization that will stand the test of time, just as everyone else has. They are quite a bit behind us and it will take eons for them to catch up, but they will. The only other option is selective breeding, which is too much work, and genetic engineering, which I am for but everyone has been convinced that it's evil too, so all we have left is the naked brutality of natural selection to fix them.

Well yeah, obviously. That's the basic aspect of it. It's the details we don't understand. How do different genes interact with each other? How does outside stimuli affect behavior? Just how malleable are brains? What someone does in any given moment is the result of innumerable factors.

None of that is required to understand how people work. It's like saying you can't know how to drive a car until you know how to build one from parts.

That would imply the college and banking systems are caused by a dirty gene pool and dumb natives.

Yep. Naive natives at the least, conned, fooled, and tricked natives by a race that is smarter than they are, especially verbally.

Doesn't that imply people who can't afford a college education probably wouldn't do well in college anyways since they come from low IQ stock?

Probably, which is why we need to bring back manufacturing jobs so those people can still have good lives and not live as slaves to mcdonalds or wal-mart.

And if the job pays well and the immigrant has experience, why wouldn't he take it?

Because the immigrant will work for less which means the businesses have an immoral incentive to hire from abroad which hurts the value of labor in this country and therefore hurts the natives of this country.

Shitting on their own lawn would not have been in their best interest, lmao.

They've never really had a lawn.

Their children lived in the USA. Knowingly screwing over the country would have been knowingly screwing over their own offspring.

I'm not actually sure how many of the jewish slave owners actually lived in america as opposed to selling their livestock to america. In either case they likely amassed enough money that relocating wouldn't be impossible.

And whites, too. In the USA Jews were more likely than gentiles to own slaves but gentiles had a greater number of slaves in total.

Owned slaves, yes. Enslaved them? No. Big difference, wouldn't you say? Especially considering that slaves in america were treated better than anywhere else in the world.

When I said useless failure, I meant people like drug dealers and welfare leeches. Society needs menial laborers.

Yes it does, another reason for menial factory work to be shipped back to this country.

He's saying that in today's world 99% of people who espouse these views are white guys who lurk Stormfront and phrase things in a way that makes them sound like racial narcissists.

Citation needed for that statistic.

It's unfortunate but statistically, it seems true. Racial realism needs a rebrand.

Good luck with that.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

You very much have. You've stated repeatedly that the trouble blacks have is entirely due to socio-economic reasons and not a genetic hamstringing.

I've been trying to say that it's both. Most don't have the potential to be rocket scientists, but they can be productive members of society regardless. I believe their culture is what's screwing them over the most: imagine a special ed class where the kids are encouraged to hit each other and eat their poop. Imagine the bright ones who are put in the special ed class by mistake are shamed for being different and are encouraged to conform to the shitty behavior of their peers. That's what we're dealing with.

That is exactly what I am proposing by isolating them until they can make a civilization that will stand the test of time, just as everyone else has. They are quite a bit behind us and it will take eons for them to catch up, but they will. The only other option is selective breeding, which is too much work, and genetic engineering, which I am for but everyone has been convinced that it's evil too, so all we have left is the naked brutality of natural selection to fix them.

You can't isolate them. If they don't flee to America, they'll flee elsewhere. The whole world would have to agree to stop immigration for it to work.

None of that is required to understand how people work. It's like saying you can't know how to drive a car until you know how to build one from parts.

There's understanding and understanding.

Yep. Naive natives at the least, conned, fooled, and tricked natives by a race that is smarter than they are, especially verbally.

Doesn't it make sense for the smarter race to rule over the naive natives, then? Since IQ correlates to the quality of a society and all that.

Probably, which is why we need to bring back manufacturing jobs so those people can still have good lives and not live as slaves to mcdonalds or wal-mart.

Agreed.

Because the immigrant will work for less which means the businesses have an immoral incentive to hire from abroad which hurts the value of labor in this country and therefore hurts the natives of this country.

Only illegal immigrants who are afraid to talk to legal authorities. Legal immigrants have to get paid the same as natives, as far as I know.

They've never really had a lawn.

If your lawn is where you live and where you plan to raise your family, they do. Country hopping is not easy, everyone hopes to settle down somewhere.

I'll finish responding to the post later, I gotta go again.

●ᴥ●

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Alright, I'm back. First of all, I should clarify some things:
- I don't mean to advocate for Jewish supremacy or to insinuate rich people are superior to the poor. It's kind of like the big brain ethnostate thread I made a while ago: these are thought experiments. Truth is, I'm not fond of supremacist ideas of any kind. In my opinion the fact that some people more easily climb to the top than others is just a fact of life.

Owned slaves, yes. Enslaved them? No. Big difference, wouldn't you say? Especially considering that slaves in america were treated better than anywhere else in the world.

Probably true. I'm too lazy to research this right now.

Citation needed for that statistic.

Personal experience, lol. Yeah yeah, I know it's not a good source.

Good luck with that.

It's doable. You just need to word things differently and make the differences seem like a good thing while stressing that it's okay not to fit in the mold. This image is relevant:

It's using provocative language and focuses on black people, but the concept is pretty solid. Framing affects the way we all perceive things.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/uc/2014/06/can_language_influence_our_perception_of_reality.html

This is important:

https://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype

Being reminded of their group's flaws makes people perform more poorly, so convincing them to acknowledge general differences should be done carefully or it could do more harm than good.

I could go on, but I feel like looking for riot videos right now.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Your "culture of poverty" expresses itself differently in different demographics and very obviously in racial ones. Your quippy reply to me asking for me to 'back up claims that different racial groups behave differently at the same wealth level,' an obviously true statement which yes also obviously includes criminality rates and types of crime, is the only misreading going on here.

Taking a realistic accounting of things isn't the same as "hrrgggh! Blacks are monkeys who always commit crime." Culture is very obviously informed by race on a statistical level.

You really got a boner for this conversation and insist on fighting with me about this shit, huh. Go back there and reread your original statement. You were making a claim other than "different racial groups behave differently at the same wealth level".

Here, let me help you remember what you forgot.

No you don't actually, well not to nearly the same levels. Realistically if you fight IDPol with individualism, you're going to lose every time. People who think this way are as bad as the Libertarian Party.

Back that statement up that you sourced from the epicenter of your ass. It has nothing to do with crime rates or white people or joggers jogging. It is a bold statement saying that a highly fractured pyramid of competing groups struggling for power who constantly backstab each other for control cannot be fought effectively by an egalitarian individualistic rights-focused movement. Like, Jesus dude. Are you new to this whole America Constitution thing or what? It's what our whole society is built on.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

I believe their culture is what's screwing them over the most

I don't disagree with that. I just don't think you can change their culture since what their culture will be is largely dictated by their capacity for reasoning, their capacity for morals, their capacity for higher thought, etc etc basically their genetics. That's why they formed a distinctly different culture on their own in america and largely refuse to assimilate.

You can't isolate them. If they don't flee to America, they'll flee elsewhere. The whole world would have to agree to stop immigration for it to work.

Then that's their problem. The constant competition between natives and the new races will destabilize their societies, as is has ours.

There's understanding and understanding.

Yes and i'm arguing that the non-italic version is all that is necessary. Hell, if you don't set a definitive cutoff point you could say we need more information before deciding literally forever.

Doesn't it make sense for the smarter race to rule over the naive natives, then? Since IQ correlates to the quality of a society and all that.

Ideally yes, but in this particular case the smarter race wants to eradicate all the races that are close to the same intelligence as them because they irrationally/rationally fear them.

Agreed.

Keen bean.

Only illegal immigrants who are afraid to talk to legal authorities. Legal immigrants have to get paid the same as natives, as far as I know.

Not every job has fixed wages. Some people negotiate for higher wages. Immigrants largely do not or will accept lower offers. But you bring up a good point in that the illegals are stealing menial jobs that our menial people should get to fill.

If your lawn is where you live and where you plan to raise your family, they do. Country hopping is not easy, everyone hopes to settle down somewhere.

Depends on the people, as you've said some people are more flighty than fighty and will up and leave at a moment's notice.

Probably true. I'm too lazy to research this right now.

You know that the arabs raped and castrated most of their slaves, right? Before they marched them several hundred/thousand miles back home? Did you know Mamlukes were all slaves?

Personal experience, lol. Yeah yeah, I know it's not a good source.

I mean it is in some cases but you might as well be calling your detractors big stupid doody heads.

It's doable. You just need to word things differently and make the differences seem like a good thing while stressing that it's okay not to fit in the mold. This image is relevant:

Nah, there's waaaay too much invested into making everyone believe a multicultural world is possible. This video is relevant:

Being reminded of their group's flaws makes people perform more poorly

They will be reminded of that every single time they see a white person.

 

[Freedom Fries]

You really got a boner for this conversation and insist on fighting with me about this shit, huh. Go back there and reread your original statement. You were making a claim other than "different racial groups behave differently at the same wealth level".

Are you really so assblasted that people don't agree with you that poor Blacks and poor Whites, and indeed poor people of most significant demographic groups act in significantly different ways?

I was directly replying to someone saying poor Blacks and poor Whites act the same, which is blatantly untrue. There are certainly similar behaviors that can be inferred to be effected by poverty and then there are different behaviors which we can infer to be influenced by something else about that demographic. It's not hard to wrap your head around.

Back that statement up that you sourced from the epicenter of your ass. It has nothing to do with crime rates or white people or joggers jogging. It is a bold statement saying that a highly fractured pyramid of competing groups struggling for power who constantly backstab each other for control cannot be fought effectively by an egalitarian individualistic rights-focused movement. Like, Jesus dude. Are you new to this whole America Constitution thing or what? It's what our whole society is built on.

It looks like you have a united identity and a group of individuals reversed there bud. It also looks like you have the direction of politics throughout the west and indeed the world backwards. Have the Libertarians been winning? Anywhere? What have the Conservatives conserved? Let's set a low bar. Have they even successfully defended the Founding Fathers?

Your weird American revisionism is hilarious. I don't even think we have to form a race-based American Identity (although we should obviously stop pretending race means nothing), but the Founders of this country and authors of the Constitution did. They passed a law that all immigrants had to be White before they even passed the bill of rights.

You hide behind tired platitudes that are easily seen to have zero internal agreement on a simple skimming of history.
I'm just disappointed more people won't point and laugh at this because some janny swept up my and your posts that have nothing to do with racism into some "racism" thread yet somehow missed my "Jon Jafari Rich Black Crime Safari" post (which also was in no way racist)

 

[BOONES]

Racism has been a thing since we were monkeys, it exists and libs can't handle the fact that its real and not a state of mind.

 

[polyester]

This is important:

https://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype

Being reminded of their group's flaws makes people perform more poorly, so convincing them to acknowledge general differences should be done carefully or it could do more harm than good.

"Stereotype threat" is junk science.

You may have heard about the replication crisis in psychology... Well, the studies cited as proof for the "stereotype threat" theory are squarely among those that can't be replicated.

All things considered, it looks like publication bias is the only reason the stereotype threat theory ever got as far as it did:
The academic left looooves the "stereotype threat" theory for ideological reasons, and so over the decades, leftist-dominated psychology departments have performed many studies attempting to proof it's true.
But due to small sample sizes, shaky methodology, and the inherent fuzziness of social science, pretty much all of those studies measured mostly just random noise.
The ones where the random-noise results happened to coincide with the wanted results, they published them.
The ones where the random-noise results happened to go in the other direction, they canceled the studies and didn't publish the results.
Then they did meta studies which smugly proclaimed: "Wow look, all these studies finding evidence of stereotype threat! No need to even evaluate the quality of the individual studies, there's so many of them!"

And that's how stereotype threat became a "known fact" among the academic and journalistic left.

Only in recent years, with the large-scale efforts to test old results for replication (and thereby uncovering the replication crisis), has it turned out that when those "stereotype threat" studies are re-done using the same sample sizes and methodology, the results are randomly for or against the theory. Whereas if they're redone with larger sample sizes and more robust methodology, they reliably debunk the theory.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

"Stereotype threat" is junk science.

You may have heard about the replication crisis in psychology... Well, the studies cited as proof for the "stereotype threat" theory are squarely among those that can't be replicated.

All things considered, it looks like publication bias is the only reason the stereotype threat theory ever got as far as it did:
The academic left looooves the "stereotype threat" theory for ideological reasons, and so over the decades, leftist-dominated psychology departments have performed many studies attempting to proof it's true.
But due to small sample sizes, shaky methodology, and the inherent fuzziness of social science, pretty much all of those studies measured mostly just random noise.
The ones where the random-noise results happened to coincide with the wanted results, they published them.
The ones where the random-noise results happened to go in the other direction, they canceled the studies and didn't publish the results.
Then they did meta studies which smugly proclaimed: "Wow look, all these studies finding evidence of stereotype threat! No need to even evaluate the quality of the individual studies, there's so many of them!"

And that's how stereotype threat became a "known fact" among the academic and journalistic left.

Only in recent years, with the large-scale efforts to test old results for replication (and thereby uncovering the replication crisis), has it turned out that when those "stereotype threat" studies are re-done using the same sample sizes and methodology, the results are randomly for or against the theory. Whereas if they're redone with larger sample sizes and more robust methodology, they reliably debunk the theory.

Another case of this is the constant citing of (((Turkheimer))) for SES/IQ heritability interaction.

Turkheimer:

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Are you really so assblasted that people don't agree with you that poor Blacks and poor Whites, and indeed poor people of most significant demographic groups act in significantly different ways?

Fuck it. Effortpost time. Keep in mind I'm not some ivory tower liberal upset you insulted my pet niggers. I'm a hammer-swinging tradesman who spent decades either working on or leading scratch day labor crews in every shithole in the US. Lived the better part of my life in some shithouse meth-addled trailer park with tweakers and feral children and the whole bit. I know of what I speak. It isn't some bullshit repeated out of a textbook.

Ok first thing. Poverty culture is not something caused by poverty. It is what puts and keeps people in it. Giving someone money or special treatment or handjobs behind the shed isn't going to fix it. They have to break with it. Give it up and lead a different life.

It is composed of five different components that overlap and perpetuate a cycle.

1 SLOTH: This is characterised not just of typical laziness but intellectual. The unwillingness to think for oneself. To let someone else do the work. This breeds someone who just follows what everyone else does. They set no standards for themselves. No limits. No goals. No ambition. No drive. They just imitate whatever lifestyle seems easiest and fashionable to their in-group.

2 GLUTTONY: Instant gratification and avoidance of any long term planning is both easy and fashionable. It is, in a word, Hedonism. Emotionally driven decision making takes over. Nothing is done with careful considered objective reasoning. Cause and effect relationships don't real. Only how things make them feel right now in the moment.

3 NON-AGENCY: They feel they have no control over their lives because they never took it. This leads to a deeply held belief in their own helplessness and a refusal to take responsibility for their situation. The world banging down their door and demanding they take ownership of it (whether it be traffic cops handing out speeding tickets or paying the power bill) drives a sense of persecution by wider society.

4 JEALOUSY: This feeling of persecution breeds a sense of entitlement. They feel they are owed more. That prosperity is a zero-sum game. That the reason they struggle and others prosper is because they stole something from them. That they were cheated by the system. How exactly? However their in-group decides.

5 ANGER: Their little tribe of misfits needs an OTHER to lay their failures on and it is always some vague poorly explained ominous threat that takes a heaping helping of emotional knee-jerking to understand. The tribe develops a siege mentality about it too. They will give no ground to the OTHER. The wrongs committed by OTHER are unassailable and never to be questioned. Failure to adopt conformity to this belief will result in expulsion from the tribe. And with how everything of their identity and social structure and lifestyle is built upon the emotionally-driven fashionable whims of the tribe, they rarely let it go.

This applies the same to injuns on the res, or troons, or antifa, or the drunks down at the VFW hall. Whoever. People that adopt and live in this lifestyle of poverty all play the same game. But you are right. There is one outlier.


"Black culture" as expressed by BLM typifies this type of dysfunction. Not only that but blacks have something the other tribes don't. Numbers. Not in absolute terms. But large concentrations of poverty with people who live this way. A shitty trailer park has, what, a couple hundred white trash denizens? The larger society swallows it up and makes them play nice. Keeps a lid on it. The ghetto, however, has tens of thousands. If you have that kind of concentration of weak-willed pliable vulnerable people, predators are going to move in. Namely organized crime. Street gangs who will chew you up and spit you out. Who run the neighborhoods. Who drive the culture. And they want to keep it broken. Really broken. Corrupt politicians want the same thing. It's job security to keep them on the reservation. Activists want it too because it keeps the checks flowing in. So it stays broke.

And all they gotta do is pretend they see the phantom OTHER boogeyman too.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

Fuck it. Effortpost time. Keep in mind I'm not some ivory tower liberal upset you insulted my pet niggers. I'm a hammer-swinging tradesman who spent decades either working on or leading scratch day labor crews in every shithole in the US. Lived the better part of my life in some shithouse meth-addled trailer park with tweakers and feral children and the whole bit. I know of what I speak. It isn't some bullshit repeated out of a textbook.

Ok first thing. Poverty culture is not something caused by poverty. It is what puts and keeps people in it. Giving someone money or special treatment or handjobs behind the shed isn't going to fix it. They have to break with it. Give it up and lead a different life.

It is composed of five different components that overlap and perpetuate a cycle.

1 SLOTH: This is characterised not just of typical laziness but intellectual. The unwillingness to think for oneself. To let someone else do the work. This breeds someone who just follows what everyone else does. They set no standards for themselves. No limits. No goals. No ambition. No drive. They just imitate whatever lifestyle seems easiest and fashionable to their in-group.

2 GLUTTONY: Instant gratification and avoidance of any long term planning is both easy and fashionable. It is, in a word, Hedonism. Emotionally driven decision making takes over. Nothing is done with careful considered objective reasoning. Cause and effect relationships don't real. Only how things make them feel right now in the moment.

3 NON-AGENCY: They feel they have no control over their lives because they never took it. This leads to a deeply held belief in their own helplessness and a refusal to take responsibility for their situation. The world banging down their door and demanding they take ownership of it (whether it be traffic cops handing out speeding tickets or paying the power bill) drives a sense of persecution by wider society.

4 JEALOUSY: This feeling of persecution breeds a sense of entitlement. They feel they are owed more. That prosperity is a zero-sum game. That the reason they struggle and others prosper is because they stole something from them. That they were cheated by the system. How exactly? However their in-group decides.

5 ANGER: Their little tribe of misfits needs an OTHER to lay their failures on and it is always some vague poorly explained ominous threat that takes a heaping helping of emotional knee-jerking to understand. The tribe develops a siege mentality about it too. They will give no ground to the OTHER. The wrongs committed by OTHER are unassailable and never to be questioned. Failure to adopt conformity to this belief will result in expulsion from the tribe. And with how everything of their identity and social structure and lifestyle is built upon the emotionally-driven fashionable whims of the tribe, they rarely let it go.

This applies the same to injuns on the res, or troons, or antifa, or the drunks down at the VFW hall. Whoever. People that adopt and live in this lifestyle of poverty all play the same game. But you are right. There is one outlier.


"Black culture" as expressed by BLM typifies this type of dysfunction. Not only that but blacks have something the other tribes don't. Numbers. Not in absolute terms. But large concentrations of poverty with people who live this way. A shitty trailer park has, what, a couple hundred white trash denizens? The larger society swallows it up and makes them play nice. Keeps a lid on it. The ghetto, however, has tens of thousands. If you have that kind of concentration of weak-willed pliable vulnerable people, predators are going to move in. Namely organized crime. Street gangs who will chew you up and spit you out. Who run the neighborhoods. Who drive the culture. And they want to keep it broken. Really broken. Corrupt politicians want the same thing. It's job security to keep them on the reservation. Activists want it too because it keeps the checks flowing in. So it stays broke.

And all they gotta do is pretend they see the phantom OTHER boogeyman too.

Culture is downstream of genetics.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Culture is downstream of genetics.

So you are saying aristocrats have different genetics than the commoners? 'Cause they don't share the same culture. High society never has.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

So you are saying aristocrats have different genetics than the commoners?

Yes

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

I don't disagree with that. I just don't think you can change their culture since what their culture will be is largely dictated by their capacity for reasoning, their capacity for morals, their capacity for higher thought, etc etc basically their genetics. That's why they formed a distinctly different culture on their own in america and largely refuse to assimilate.

They formed a distinctly different culture partly because of biology and partly because they were treated distinctly differently for many years. It's the result of long term slavery and segregation.

A lot of them have European blood. If their natal biology dictated most of their behavior, there wouldn't be such a wide culture gap between them and White Americans.

Then that's their problem. The constant competition between natives and the new races will destabilize their societies, as is has ours.

Some immigrants come from races that are already in the country, unless you mean to imply Austrian Whites and American Whites aren't both Caucasian.

If immigrant numbers were low enough, they would be forced to integrate or leave. Right now they're only able to form little cultural enclaves because they come in packs. Integration is possible, although it takes time.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/09/measuring-assimilation/

It's worth noting that this is counting African Americans as natives. Immigrants probably have a higher crime rate than White natives, particularly if they come from poor backgrounds.

Yes and i'm arguing that the non-italic version is all that is necessary. Hell, if you don't set a definitive cutoff point you could say we need more information before deciding literally forever.

The thing is, we don't understand how all genes interact with each other or how outside influences affect biology. We can't predict if someone will be born with mutations that will affect their life in strange ways. We don't know what genes will be inherited from whom. Having a sociopathic father doesn't guarantee the kid will be a sociopath too, know what I mean? It increases the odds, but the kid's fate isn't sealed.

I think assuming someone is bad because they come from bad stock is only useful for people who are bad at reading social cues.

Ideally yes, but in this particular case the smarter race wants to eradicate all the races that are close to the same intelligence as them because they irrationally/rationally fear them.

They're not going after Asians.

Not every job has fixed wages. Some people negotiate for higher wages. Immigrants largely do not or will accept lower offers. But you bring up a good point in that the illegals are stealing menial jobs that our menial people should get to fill.

Well whaddaya know, you're right. Legal immigrants tend to get paid less than natives for many years. I learned something today.

Cheap labor is a bad reason to let immigrants in, for sure.

You know that the arabs raped and castrated most of their slaves, right? Before they marched them several hundred/thousand miles back home? Did you know Mamlukes were all slaves?

I'm not surprised. Humanity has been very brutal throughout history.

I mean it is in some cases but you might as well be calling your detractors big stupid doody heads.

It wasn't an insult, just an observation. That other poster noticed it too and it lowered his opinion of this ideology. If you bring up the topic with others, maybe try stressing the fact that you're arguing the fact that Asians and Jews are (generally) superior to Whites and deserve to be the ruling class. If you call it Jewish supremacy, no one will assume you're claiming to be part of the master race and they might be more inclined to listen.

To be clear, I'm not being a tricky Jew asserting dominance here. I'm mixed and the close descendant of genuinely primitive people, lol.

Nah, there's waaaay too much invested into making everyone believe a multicultural world is possible. This video is relevant:

I still think it's possible if you select immigrants very carefully. It might not be ideal, though. Closing the borders altogether might be beneficial I suppose.

They will be reminded of that every single time they see a white person.

Lol, why? That would be falling into what I call the "we wuz kangz" fallacy. Feeling chronic shame or pride over other people's actions is usually counterproductive.

Yes

Well, their genetic divergence had to start somewhere. One of every Aristocrat's ancestors somehow made the jump from plebian to top dog, unless they're first generation billionaires like Bill Gates. All aristocratic families were not so different from those of common people at one point or another.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Culture is downstream of genetics.

Cultures sometimes merge with each other or mutate without genetic change in the population, though. See: American culture spreading all over the globe thanks to the media. People are gradually abandoning their traditions in favor of what America says is cool.