← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Conservative

Thread 8326

Thread ID: 8326 | Posts: 73 | Started: 2003-07-21

Conservative [OP]

2003-07-21 19:32 | User Profile

Eugenicists seek to change the very gene frequencies which define the White race, hence, they are destroyers of White ethnicity and thus not White Nationalists. Eugenicists are the same as those who want to interbreed Whites with East Asians. Since Prodigal Son is a eugenicist, he is no White Nationalist, and as such should stop engaging in the dubious practice of referring to himself as that which is nothing but a fraudulent misnomer.

Now, on a different thought, we are not "White," we are incorrectly using the term "White" to describe our race. About 40,000 years ago, there was a race called "Whites," but over the times, the gene frequencies that defined that White race has changed many times, resulting in the destruction of the older races and replacement by newer ones. In fact, the majority race that existed in America in 1850 which was falsely called "Whites" has evolved into a completely different race which are still falsely being called "Whites." Richard Lynn Explains in his book "Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations" how the majority race in 1850 experienced massive changes in gene frequencies that distroyed the old race and created a completely new one, the one that is the majority one in America today. In fact, gene frequencies are changing at this very second, so we are in the process of evolving into yet another completely new race. So, we should stop falsely calling ourselves "Whites" which is a race that only existed some 40,000 years ago.

Regards,

Ares

Alka

2003-07-22 01:02 | User Profile

Now you're trying to bash one person and isolate them from the crowd: this person neither is interested in your opinions nor are they interested in your agendas.

All eugenicists do not advocate what you claim they do: your claim is false and absurd.

I have a good measure of respect for Prodigal Son and nothing you say will be able to sway my high regard for this individual. The fact that you dislike him, in fact, is more incentive for others to like him.

Like the disinformationalist agent are, you spam a board, visit it constantly to surveil it, complain incessently about content/conduct etc. to change it to your personal preferences and conform to your agendas, and try to discredit/flame those who disagree with your stance. You are a pathetically transparent tool.

Conservative

2003-07-22 01:46 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Alka@Jul 21 2003, 19:02 * ** Now you're trying to bash one person and isolate them from the crowd: this person neither is interested in your opinions nor are they interested in your agendas.

All eugenicists do not advocate what you claim they do: your claim is false and absurd.

Hello Alka,

My post was a satire.

Regards,

Ares

Ruffin

2003-07-22 03:32 | User Profile

Ares, don't give up your career as a pathetically transparent tool to become a satirist. You'll starve.

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-22 03:32 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ares@Jul 21 2003, 13:32 * *Eugenicists seek to change the very gene frequencies which define the White race, hence, they are destroyers of White ethnicity and thus not White Nationalists. Eugenicists are the same as those who want to interbreed Whites with East Asians. Since Prodigal Son is a eugenicist, he is no White Nationalist, and as such should stop engaging in the dubious practice of referring to himself as that which is nothing but a fraudulent misnomer.

I digress. For the definition of the term "eugenics" I will quote the very individual who coined it:

"eugenics

\Eu*gen"ics\, n. The science of improving stock, whether human or animal. --F. Galton."

The difference between you and me is that I am in favor of preserving my people, as well as improving the overall quality of the genepool. And like Galton, I am more interest in increasing the quantity of exceptionally intelligent individuals, rather than narrowing the Iq distribution and bringing the average up 2-3 points.

Texas Dissident

2003-07-22 04:27 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ruffin@Jul 21 2003, 22:32 * Ares, don't give up your career as a pathetically transparent tool to become a satirist. You'll starve.*

:lol: LOL. That was pretty funny, Ruffin.

Conservative

2003-07-22 06:39 | User Profile

**The difference between you and me is that I am in favor of preserving my people, as well as improving the overall quality of the genepool. **

These desires are antagonistic. Preserving your race means preserving the very gene frequencies that characterize it, while eugenics is the desire to CHANGE the very genes that define the White race. Thus, you are advocating the destruction of the White ethnicity, which is no different from me advocating the alterations of the White gene frequencies by interbreeding it with East Asians.

And like Galton, I am more interest in increasing the quantity of exceptionally intelligent individuals, rather than narrowing the Iq distribution and bringing the average up 2-3 points.

The White race is defined party by a certain IQ level. If you alter this White characteristic, you alter something that actually defines the White race, resulting in a new race, aka the destruction of the old race.

I support reducing the White IQ standard deviation, but also increasing the median score. The lower the standard deviation, the less hierarchy there will be.

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-22 11:29 | User Profile

**These desires are antagonistic.ÃÂ Preserving your race means preserving the very gene frequencies that characterize it, while eugenics is the desire to CHANGE the very genes that define the White race. **

Eugenicists desire to improve some of the characteristics that definite the white race. In any case, "change" is not tantamount to destruction. A white with an IQ of 135 or 105 is still a white. Someone with high cheekbones, coarse black hair, an epicanthic eyefold and 50% Japanese ancestry is not a white (I believe the term in vogue for such people these days is "Hapa")

** Thus, you are advocating the destruction of the White ethnicity, which is no different from me advocating the alterations of the White gene frequencies by interbreeding it with East Asians.**

Not so. Average IQ level, in my opinion, does not in any way "define" the white race, since it is already variable within whites, and fluctuates in accordance with various demographic and environmental trends (Flynn effect, dysgenics, etc..). IQ is to a fair extent environmentally determined. Something that is as heavily influenced by the environment as IQ cannot be a bona fide racial characteristic.

I support reducing the White IQ standard deviation, but also increasing the median score.ÃÂ The lower the standard deviation, the less hierarchy there will be.

I am more concerned with maintaining the high standard deviation which has allowed whites to be the creators of most scientific, philosophical, cultural and technological innovation for the past several thousand years.

Alka

2003-07-22 18:55 | User Profile

My post was a satire.

A satire of what? It is questionable that you even know what [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=satire]satire[/url] is.

With complete disregard,

Alka :sm:

Roy Batty

2003-07-22 23:08 | User Profile

Originally posted by Alka@Jul 22 2003, 10:55 * ** > My post was a satire.*

A satire of what? It is questionable that you even know what [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=satire]satire[/url] is.

With complete disregard,

Alka :sm: **

Have him look at rban's posts for satire. Rban doesn't intend them to be such, but that's what they are, generally :D .

Alka

2003-07-22 23:21 | User Profile

:lol: I'd agree with that, although in my opinion rban rises not much above buffoonery. Both do not seem to warrant much attention other than scorn and derisive laughter, and it is fortunate (for them) that they seem to masochistically feed upon this negative contact with others. Perversion of one's world view and particularly low intellect and self-esteem seem to have that effect on the beastly.

On a totally unrelated note, I just watched Blade Runner again the other night, and I was reminded exactly why my all of my sympathies lay with Roy ~ the Nexus1 ~ rather than the pale excuses of the humans trying to exterminate him, (and vice versa). More human than human indeed...

Conservative

2003-07-23 00:14 | User Profile

Eugenicists desire to improve some of the characteristics that definite the white race. **

"Improve" meaning change the current gene frequencies for something better, something NOT characteristic of the White race at the moment, something FOREIGN, hence the destruction of the White race by changing the very characteristics that define it. This is EXACTLY what I am advocating also, the "improvement" of the White race by concentrating more desirable alleles in it.

** A white with an IQ of 135 or 105 is still a white. **

What defines a race are gene frequencies and median scores of psychometric traits. As Professor Rushton has shown, average cognitive abilities is one characteristic which defines races. Whites are defined partly by an AVERAGE IQ score of 103.

A "White" person with an IQ score of 135 would only be White if at least the majority of his other traits were measured at around the median scores of the White race as a whole.

Average IQ level, in my opinion, does not in any way "define" the white race, since it is already variable within whites

White IQ is more variable than East Asians, but it is still defined by a normal distribution curve, and the median score defines the race. Saying that IQ is variable and thus not a descriptor of race is like saying all races are equally smart because IQ is variable within all the races; you would be completely ignoring the statistical distrubution of IQ scores.

**IQ is to a fair extent environmentally determined. **

IQ is 80% heritable by adulthood. What you are falsely saying is that IQ does not define a race because environment influences it too much; so to extrapolate, you would then probably believe that personality differences don't matter between races because they too are influenced by environment too much. In other words, what you would be saying is that basically there are NO genetic differences between races because everything is influenced by environment, and the only thing that is different between races is skin color. In other words, you are now using the Liberal argument!

Regards,

Ares

Roy Batty

2003-07-23 00:24 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 22 2003, 16:14 * ** White IQ is more variable than East Asians, but it is still defined by a normal distribution curve, and the median score defines the race. Saying that IQ is variable and thus not a descriptor of race is like saying all races are equally smart because IQ is variable within all the races; you would be completely ignoring the statistical distrubution of IQ scores.

The entire curve defines the races - in one fashion. The curves are different for the races, as the SD is different. However, it's not only the "scores" we are writing about, it's the structure. Caucasians and Asians have a different structure to their "intelligence", and the structure possesessed by Whites is no doubt what has enabled Whites to dream, to innovate, to advance. The structure possessed by Asians allows them learn, to understand, but not neccessarily create. This is why their development stuttered, despite what some say was a head start on Whites. Jews have a higher average IQ, but have never created their own civilization. For all their vaunted intelligence, they don't exactly light the world on fire with original thinking. Oh, they can claim so through their overwhelming media presence, and are fabulous at synthesizing, or outright stealing the work/ideas of others, but original thinking and inventiveness aren't exactly the forte of most non-Whites.

Conservative

2003-07-23 00:31 | User Profile

Originally posted by Roy Batty@Jul 22 2003, 18:24 * ** The entire curve defines the races - in one fashion. The curves are different for the races, as the SD is different. However, it's not only the "scores" we are writing about, it's the structure*. Caucasians and Asians have a different structure to their "intelligence", and the structure possesessed by Whites is no doubt what has enabled Whites to dream, to innovate, to advance. The structure possessed by Asians allows them learn, to understand, but not neccessarily create. This is why their development stuttered, despite what some say was a head start on Whites. Jews have a higher average IQ, but have never created their own civilization. For all their vaunted intelligence, they don't exactly light the world on fire with original thinking. Oh, they can claim so through their overwhelming media presence, and are fabulous at synthesizing, or outright stealing the work/ideas of others, but original thinking and inventiveness aren't exactly the forte of most non-Whites. **

Thank you for you post, Roy Batty. You make an excellent observation regarding how only the elites of the White race are creative, while the elites of all the other races can only copy the White elites. From my readings, this has nothing to do with some type of "creativity intelligence" but rather personality. It seems that Whites, and esp. White elites, use their high IQs in unconventional ways which leads to new creations, while East Asians and Jews use their high IQs only in conventional ways, thus they don't create new things, but just copy the White elites. So, this is more a result of personality differences between Whites/East Asians/Jews. Whites have the individualist personality type, which means they have to "do their own thing" and can't "go with the flow" or "be like the rest." On the other hand, Jews and East Asians are a lot more ethnocentric/collectivist as opposed to individualist, so they don't have individualists leaving the heard and doing innovative/unconventional things. Thus, they don't create anything original.

Some say Whites have higher concentrations of the personality trait of "psychoticism" which leads to creativity. I don't have any statistical or biological data on this though.

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-23 02:52 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 22 2003, 18:14 * ** "Improve" meaning change the current gene frequencies for something better, something NOT characteristic of the White race at the moment, something FOREIGN, hence the destruction of the White race by changing the very characteristics that define it. **

Sophistry. I want to increase the frequency of traits already commonly found in the white race, and amplify others, also found in the white genepool.

** This is EXACTLY what I am advocating also, the "improvement" of the White race by concentrating more desirable alleles in it.ÃÂ **

Again, sophistry. You either cannot understand that a 50/50 Mongoloid/Caucasoid population is not white or want to obfuscate the issue in order to avoid it.

Allow me to make an analogy. If a Husky is mated with a faster, larger Husky, the offspring are still Huskies. If a Husky is mated with a Labrador Retriever, the offspring are mongrels. The same holds true for a Mongoloid/Caucasoid hybrid.

**What defines a race are gene frequencies and median scores of psychometric traits.ÃÂ As Professor Rushton has shown, average cognitive abilities is one characteristic which defines races.ÃÂ Whites are defined partly by an AVERAGE IQ score of 103. **

By your definition, the modern day Inhabitants of Ireland are not white (even though they are the purest Europeans) because the average IQ of Ireland is 93. The average IQ of the Irish in the United States is the same as that of other NW European ethnics. Thus by your definition, the inhabitants of Ireland are neither white nor Irish. I reiterate what I said before-average IQ scores are a single, discrete trait that is heavily subjected to selective pressures (such as the Potato Famine of the 1840s) and thus cannot be considered a racial trait except in a broader sense; most importantly, a single average IQ score cannot be considered a defining trait. I also reiterate that increasing the frequency of traits that are already found in the white population is not tantamount to admixing 50% foreign genes into it.

IQ is 80% heritable by adulthood.ÃÂ What you are falsely saying is that IQ does not define a race because environment influences it too much; so to extrapolate, you would then probably believe that personality differences don't matter between races because they too are influenced by environment too much.ÃÂ In other words, what you would be saying is that basically there are NO genetic differences between races because everything is influenced by environment, and the only thing that is different between races is skin color.ÃÂ In other words, you are now using the Liberal argument!

Sophistry coupled with argumentum ad hominem. What I am saying is average IQ fluctuates too much, and is a trait that is too unstable to be considered a defining trait of the white race. White American children of today score 10 points higher than those of 50 years ago. By your definition, your grandparents weren't white.

Conservative

2003-07-23 03:21 | User Profile

I want to increase the frequency of traits already commonly found in the white race, and amplifying others.

A race is not defined by what traits exist in it, but rather the frequency of these genes. With respect to brain psychometrics, what differentiates the races is simply the statistical distribution of traits; these traits are found in all races, but they have different statistical distributions based on race. For example, the combinations of psychometric traits that make Blacks criminal is also found in Whites, but to a lesser extent. So, by you trying to increase the gene frequency of a trait found in Whites that at the moment only occur at low frequencies, you are altering the White race, thus not making it White anymore.

**You either cannot understand that a 50/50 Mongoloid/Caucasoid population is not white **

It will be no more White than with what you want to do via eugenics. In either case, you change the very gene frequencies that define the White race.

**By your definition, the modern day Inhabitants of Ireland are not white (even though they are the purest Europeans) because the average IQ of Ireland is 93. **

Matt Nuenk at his site has some data that selective migration took place in Ireland: all the smarter ones left the country, leaving the less intelligent ones behind, hence the lower national IQ average. But, if you were to measure the other mental gene frequencies of the Irish, they will probably be the same as the White race as a whole, thus they are still White.

**I reiterate what I said before-average IQ scores are a single, discrete trait that is heavily subjected to selective pressures and thus cannot be considered a racial trait except in a broader sense. **

Well, if that is your personal taxonomic belief, then so be it, you are entitled. But I see using IQ as a racial descriptor as very practical, as do all race realist scientists, such as Rushton, Lynn, Jensen, and the like.

**I also reiterate that increasing the frequency of traits that are already found in the white population is not tantamount to admixing 50% foreign genes into it. **

As I said, all the personality traits that exist in Blacks or Asians also exist in Whites, but has a different statistical distribution. So then, by your own words, since Whites already have the same alleles found in Asians but with a different statistical distribution, then it would be okey to mate Whites with East Asians.

What I am saying is average IQ fluctuates too much, and is a trait that is too unstable to be considered a defining trait of the white race.ÃÂ White American children of today score 10 points higher than those of 50 years ago. By your definition, your grandparents weren't white.

Genetic IQ is dropping by one point each generation due to dysgenics, but the Flynn effect is not a biological reality, if genetic IQ truely was increasing by 10 points every 50 years, that would mean our ancestors were extremely stupid, assuming that each period of 50 years going backwards is a loss of 10 IQ points. The Flynn effect is environment affecting the biological correlates of IQ, but there is a limit to this. Also, students are being "taught to the test" to help increase IQ scores. Here is a good article putting forth one rebuttal to the Flynn Effect: [url=http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/TRC.htm]http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/TRC.htm[/url]

Also, how would you explain the biological correlates of IQ, such as brain size, glucose metabolism rate in the brain, average evoked potentials, speed of nerve conduction, the thickness of the mylin sheath around the axons and dendrites, etc? These things are for the most part genetically determined. And what about the fact that Black brains are 3 cubic inches smaller than Whites, while East Asian brains are 1 cubic inch larger than Whites, and that brain size has a .5 correlation to IQ? How does environment affect brain size?

Aside from that, I have already made the argument that none of us are White, the whites existed some 40,000 years ago, but there have been much changing in gene frequencies of that original group to where new races were created many times, ending it what you and I see in the mirror every morning. We are still evolving at this very minute.

Regards,

Ares

Roy Batty

2003-07-23 03:34 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 22 2003, 16:31 * ** ... how only the elites of the White race are creative, while the elites of all the other races can only copy the White elites. From my readings, this has nothing to do with some type of "creativity intelligence" but rather personality. It seems that Whites, and esp. White elites, use their high IQs in unconventional ways which leads to new creations, while East Asians and Jews use their high IQs only in conventional ways, thus they don't create new things, but just copy the White elites. So, this is more a result of personality differences between Whites/East Asians/Jews. Whites have the individualist personality type, which means they have to "do their own thing" and can't "go with the flow" or "be like the rest." On the other hand, Jews and East Asians are a lot more ethnocentric/collectivist as opposed to individualist, so they don't have individualists leaving the heard and doing innovative/unconventional things. Thus, they don't create anything original.

Some say Whites have higher concentrations of the personality trait of "psychoticism" which leads to creativity. I don't have any statistical or biological data on this though.

Regards,

Ares **

Gosh, being of Irish extraction ties me to the purest of Europeans? Holy cow ...

Oh, the difference between Whites and less creative Asians and jews is "in the wiring", no doubt about it. It's beyond "personality" differences. Jews and E. Asians wish it were that simple. The "biology" of the brains of the two latter groups won't let them be (as) creative as Whites. Couple that with their cultures, and we can see why those groups try so hard to give the appearance of creativity, of being intellectual pillars. It's the outgrowth of what some may term an inferiority complex. The real fun is knowing for sure if their cultures are a result of their particular "biology", their intentional or unintentional eugenics programs, or if their biology is a result of their cultures, etc. Most of us have a pretty darn good idea of what the answer is. However, whatever the answer, things are what they are, and they are what they are. And they aren't White. Picking and choosing among "desirable" traits isn't something that can be done at Kaiser Permanente at the moment.

Whites in general are indeed wired for creativity, adventure, innovation. Not just the elites. Take a look around. Generally, most of the East Asians, and the jews, from low end of the spectrum to the elite, are not. This obvious fact leads to some of the disdain they feel toward Whites. In fact, the jews are hard wired to despise all those outside their tribe, whether they are consciously aware of it or not. That's the source of most problems with this tribe. That's why they are consumed with acquiring the work of others, taking the credit - and actually BELIEVING the acquired work is the result of their own dilligence. Self deception reigns supreme among the "tribe" when it comes to this inconvenient fact. Their incessant trumpeting, again and again, about the few great accomplishments by a few of their tribal members is one proof of this. Got to reinforce the myths, eh?

Yes, jews try to be snide and bring up some correlations between mania, depression, manic depression, etc. and creativity. But even those "traits" are found among the minority of creative White individuals. Given the higher incidence of mental illness among jews, it goes to show that there is definitely something else at work when it comes to creativity. The Asians and their failed attempts at teaching creativity in their schools are another testament to that fact.

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-23 03:37 | User Profile

A race is not defined by what traits exist in it, but rather the frequency of these genes.

Incorrect. Some traits are absolutely unique to certain races.

With respect to brain psychometrics, what differentiates the races is simply the statistical distribution of traits; these traits are found in all races, but they have different statistical distributions based on race. For example, the combinations of psychometric traits that make Blacks criminal is also found in Whites, but to a lesser extent.

Agreed.

** So, by you trying to increase the gene frequency of a trait found in Whites that at the moment only occur at low frequencies, you are altering the White race, thus not making it White anymore. **

Sophistry. Gene frequencies are subject to natural selection. A race does not spotaneously change into another race and then change back. Furthrmore, a single trait, such as an average IQ score, which is more susceptible to selective pressures than other traits cannot be considered something that defines the white race.

**It will be no more White than with what you want to do via eugenics. **

Indeed, it will be far less white.

** In either case, you change the very gene frequencies that define the White race.**

Sophistry. By changing the frequency of several genes that are highly suceptible to selective factors and affect traits that are highly influenced by the enivoronment is not tantamount to 50% foreign admixture.

Matt Nuenk at his site has some data that selective migration took place in Ireland: all the smarter ones left the country, leaving the less intelligent ones behind, hence the lower national IQ average

Exactly.

** But, if you were to measure the other mental gene frequencies of the Irish, they will probably be the same as the White race as a whole,**

Speculation.

** thus they are still White. **

But a population whose IQ has been increased is not white??? You've moved beyond mere sophistry into complete irrationality.

**I reiterate what I said before-average IQ scores are a single, discrete trait that is heavily subjected to selective pressures and thus cannot be considered a racial trait except in a broader sense. **

**As I said, all the personality traits that exist in Blacks or Asians also exist in Whites, but has a different statistical distribution. **

Relevance?

** So then, by your own words, since Whites already have the same alleles found in Asians but with a different statistical distribution, then it would be okey to mate Whites with East Asians. **

Before attributing this to me, could you please tell me what convoluted train of thinking made you arrive at this conclusion?

Genetic IQ is dropping by one point each generation due to dysgenics, but the Flynn effect is not a biological reality, if genetic IQ truely was increasing by 10 points every 50 years, that would mean our ancestors were extremely stupid, assuming that each period of 50 years going backwards is a loss of 10 IQ points. The Flynn effect is environment affecting the biological correlates of IQ, but there is a limit to this. Also, students are being "taught to the test" to help increase IQ scores. Here is a good article putting forth one rebuttal to the Flynn Effect: [url=http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/TRC.htm]http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/TRC.htm[/url]

Irrelevant. We were discussing average IQ scores, not g

Roy Batty

2003-07-23 03:49 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ares@Jul 22 2003, 19:21 * ** > I want to increase the frequency of traits already commonly found in the white race, and amplifying others.*

**You either cannot understand that a 50/50 Mongoloid/Caucasoid population is not white **

It will be no more White than with what you want to do via eugenics. In either case, you change the very gene frequencies that define the White race.

**By your definition, the modern day Inhabitants of Ireland are not white (even though they are the purest Europeans) because the average IQ of Ireland is 93. **

**I reiterate what I said before-average IQ scores are a single, discrete trait that is heavily subjected to selective pressures and thus cannot be considered a racial trait except in a broader sense. **

**I also reiterate that increasing the frequency of traits that are already found in the white population is not tantamount to admixing 50% foreign genes into it. **

What I am saying is average IQ fluctuates too much, and is a trait that is too unstable to be considered a defining trait of the white race.ÃÂ White American children of today score 10 points higher than those of 50 years ago. By your definition, your grandparents weren't white.

Regards,

Ares **

Actually, brain size has a .3 correlation with intelligence, not .5. The Bell Curve, Lynn, Jensen, Seligman, Rushton etc., check their work if you'd like. Neurological efficiency also plays a role in intelligence. The brains of more intelligent individuals don't have as many "pathways", as many "passages" is the thinking. They are more efficient. Caucasians actually have more absolute numbers of neurons, etc. but the numbers for Asians are corrected to allow for their smaller stature. How much the size difference between Whites and Asians relates to absolutes in terms of intelligence etc. is still open to debate. This is why neurological effiency is now being explored. While there is a .3 correlation, there have also been enough "smart people" that possessed averaged sized brains to warrant the research. Remember, Hawiians and Samoans have the largest overall brains, their size putting Whites and Asians to shame :D, yet neither group is considered very smart at all. Diet may affect brain size to a small extent, but malnutrition in the truest sense of the word is not overtly present in the West or in Japan, etc.

We can talk about selective traits, but that is really beyond anyone's complete control at the moment, and probably for quite awhile.

I'm no big believer in the Flynn effect, but Flynn himself has stated the effect has for the most part occured in very recent times.

This is all interesting stuff, but I have to log off for the night. Ciao.

Conservative

2003-07-23 03:53 | User Profile

Incorrect.ÃÂ Some traits are absolutely unique to certain races.

I am strictly referring to mental traits, not physical. There are no mental traits that are absolutely unique to Whites.

A race does not spotaneously change into another race and then change back.

A race changes through changes in environment or changes in reproduction patterns.

** Furthrmore, a single trait, such as an average IQ score, which is more susceptible to selective pressures than other traits cannot be considered something that defines the white race.**

Again, this is just a personal taxonomic difference between you and me.

By changing the frequency of several genes that are highly suceptible to selective factors and affect traits that are highly influenced by the enivoronment is not tantamount to 50% foreign admixture.

That "50% foreign admixture" is not really that foreign since many of the allele frequencies found is Whites is also either identical or similar to the allele frequencies found in East Asians.

Regards,

Ares

Conservative

2003-07-23 04:03 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Roy Batty@Jul 22 2003, 21:49 *

Actually, brain size has a .3 correlation with intelligence

The estimate varies quite a bit. Rushton put the correlation at .44 according to MRI scans done by Turkish researchers, Gottfredson put the figure at .4, and the .5 comes from either Pinker or the new APA book "Behavioral Genetics in the Post Genomic Erra."

Regarding brain size, it's the brain size to body size ratio that matter, not absolute brain size. But I have heard some say that in Rushton's work, he took the ratio of East Asians, but not Whites, which would create faulty data. I don't know for sure about this.

Also, IQ is the result of many biological factors, so if one has a high IQ but a small brain, he may score higher on the other biological correlates of IQ to compensate for it. BUT, perhaps different biological correlates affect different types of "g." For example, crystalized intelligence versus fluid intelligence (I think this is what it is called). I need to do more readings on this aspect of "g." Anyone have any good articles?

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-23 04:28 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 22 2003, 21:53 * ** I am strictly referring to mental traits, not physical.ÃÂ There are no mental traits that are absolutely unique to Whites.ÃÂ **

That's irrelevant, since a race includes a combination of mental and physical traits. Furthrmore, your statement is false. A standard deviation of 15 is one mental trait that is unique to whites.

A race changes through changes in environment or changes in reproduction patterns.

My point still stands.

**Again, this is just a personal taxonomic difference between you and me. ** Not really. Average IQ no more defines a race than does eye-color or any other single trait.

**That "50% foreign admixture" is not really that foreign since many of the allele frequencies found is Whites is also either identical or similar to the allele frequencies found in East Asians.ÃÂ **

By the same token, chimpanzee-human hybrids (speaking hypothetically, of course) would still be human, since chimpanzees share 99% of their genes with humans :lol: East Asian admixture is indeed foreign admixture, since East Asians comprise a seperate race from Europids. To be fair, it is less foreign than Negroid admixture, but foreign nevertheless.

[color=red]Behind all your attempts at obfuscating the issue through muddling semantics, equivocation, numerous red herring and numerous instances of begging the question, one simple fact that even an idiot can understand remains; a Europid population selected for one or several traits that occur at a high frequency in its genepool is still a Europid population. A 50% Europid/50% Mongoloid population is [u]not [/u] a Europid population, but rather a clinical one. [/color]

Conservative

2003-07-23 05:14 | User Profile

That's irrelevant, since a race includes a combination of mental and physical traits.

Mental traits are more important to me than physical ones. My hybrid project is based on what will create a better brain, not a better body.

** Furthrmore, your statement is false.ÃÂ A standard deviation of 15 is one mental trait that is unique to whites.**

I was not discussing standard deviation; I meant that there was no unique brain allele found in Whites that are not found in any other race.

Average IQ no more defines a race than does eye-color or any other single trait.

Just your personal idiosyncrasy, though I am sure Blacks would be happy to know that you don't see IQ differences between Whites and Blacks as racially meaningful.

By the same token, chimpanzee-human hybrids (speaking hypothetically, of course) would still be human, since chimpanzees share 99% of their genes with humans

Well, it depends on how one defines a species. If the criteria is that for two population groups to be considered the same species, they must be able to produce fertile offspring, then humans would be a separate species from the hypothetical human/chimp hybrid.

On a different note, your example is invalid because I never said that an East Asian/White hybrid is the same as White since they share common gene frequencies; I said that this hybrid's genetic distance from the original Whites would not be so different from the genetic distance of a eugenically altered "White" cohort from the original Whites.

**a Europid population selected for one or several traits that occur at a high frequency in its genepool is still a Europid population. **

If you are selecting for an IQ of 105, then yes, the resulting gene pool can be considered quite similar to the original, but if you want to select for IQs around 130, then you would create a completely new race since IQs of 130 do not occur at high frequencies in Whites.

Here is some food for thought: Let's say we take a group of Whites with IQs at 60 and then breed them with each other to create a population of 10,000 with a median IQ of 60. Now let's say we do the same thing with Whites with IQs around 180. Are both groups still White?

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-23 05:26 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 22 2003, 23:14 * **

Mental traits are more important to me than physical ones. My hybrid project is based on what will create a better brain, not a better body.**

That's irrelevant, since you do not define what a race is. A race includes a combination of physical and mental attribtes. Whether or not mental or physical attributes are more important is irrelevant; what we are trying to establish here is the boundary of what's white and what isn't.

I was not discussing standard deviation; I meant that there was no unique brain allele found in Whites that are not found in any other race.

You should avoid ambiguity in your statements and define your premises more cleary.

**Just your personal idiosyncrasy, though I am sure Blacks would be happy to know that you don't see IQ differences between Whites and Blacks as racially meaningful. **

A misinterpretation of my position. I will concede that IQ differences are far, far more important than eye-color; however, average IQ is just a single trait out of a myriad of traits that define race.

By the same token, chimpanzee-human hybrids (speaking hypothetically, of course) would still be human, since chimpanzees share 99% of their genes with humans

On a different note, your example is invalid because I never said that an East Asian/White hybrid is the same as White since they share common gene frequencies; I said that this hybrid's genetic distance from the original Whites would not be so different from the genetic distance of a eugenically altered "White" cohort from the original Whites.

That's inaccurate, since a eugenically selected white (at least the kind I have in mind) would be selected for only a few traits, controlled by a small number of genes.

If you are selecting for an IQ of 105, then yes, the resulting gene pool can be considered quite similar to the original, but if you want to select for IQs around 130, then you would create a completely new race since IQs of 130 do not occur at high frequencies in Whites.

I am sure that even you can see the folly of genetically engineering human beings with an average Iq in the genius range right off the bat.

Here is some food for thought: Let's say we take a group of Whites with IQs at 60 and then breed them with each other to create a population of 10,000 with a median IQ of 60. Now let's say we do the same thing with Whites with IQs around 180. Are both groups still White?

No, but a Negroid population with an average IQ of 100 would not be white either.

Conservative

2003-07-23 05:35 | User Profile

I am sure that even you can see the folly of genetically engineering human beings with an average Iq in the genius range right off the bat.

You are right, I don't want a race with a measily median IQ of 180; as it states at [url=http://www.euvolution.com:]http://www.euvolution.com[/url]:

"We in the Eugenics movement are not interested in competing against Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx for some minuscule little 1,000 year Reich. We are interested in competing with Jesus Christ and Buddha for the destiny of man."

Destination: Singularity

No, but a Negroid population with an average IQ of 100 would not be white either.

Unless we alter the other gene frequencies as well to match them with Whites. A true Negroid dream come true!

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-23 05:55 | User Profile

**

Destination: Singularity**

You're getting ahead of yourself here, Ares :) Let's recap this thread. You currently advocate miscegenating with East Asians in order to produce a more intelligent race. I advocate humanitarian selective eugenics within the white race in order to achieve the same goal. Neither of our methods will produce a population with an average IQ of 180 or even 130 anytime in the near future, furthermore, I, an individual with an IQ of only a measely IQ of ~140 am in no hurry to be made obsolete by beings far superior to me intellectually, and I am sure neither are you. The debate here is whether the product of the style of eugenics that you advocate would still qualify as white. Though it would come closer to a white than just about anything else, the answer is still an unequivocal no. Because the kind of eugenics I advocate would involve gradually increasing white IQ and perhaps a few other desirable traits over the course of many generations, it would still retain its quintessentially Europid character for a long time. What you advocate is, to put it bluntly, destruction of the white race through miscegenation. I advocate a gradual process of conscious evolution to keep pace with societal change and to preserve the white race for as long as possible.

P.S. I think that you are underestimating the importance of phenotype in racial identity. Trite as it may sound, I would feel far more affinity with grandchildren who have blonde hair, blue eyes and long faces than grandchildren with jet black hair, projecting cheekbones and epicanthic eyefolds. No matter which way you twist it, my method of eugenics would preserve the white race to the fullest extent possible. and desirable.

**Unless we alter the other gene frequencies as well to match them with Whites.ÃÂ A true Negroid dream come true! **

So you do have a sense of humor! :)

Conservative

2003-07-23 06:08 | User Profile

No matter which way you twist it, my method of eugenics would preserve the white race to the fullest extent possible and desirable.

Actually, your method would just create a slower rate of White destruction than my method, that is assuming that you don't have any limits on improvement: I am assuming that you support a slow, long term eugenics program in which IQ and other desirable personality traits are improved slightly each generation with no limits. But after centuries of this, the resulting population would be nothing at all like the original Whites; you would in fact have a completey new species, a far superior one.

I support radical change as fast as possible.

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-23 06:20 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 23 2003, 00:08 * **

Actually, your method would just create a slower rate of White destruction than my method,**

I would prefer not to call it destruction, but rather evolution. I would prefer to preserve the phenotypical and mental traits that define the white race for as long as possible. An improvement of perhaps 2-3 IQ points per generation sound reasonable enough to me.

** that is assuming that you don't have any limits on improvement: I am assuming that you support a slow, long term eugenics program in which IQ and other desirable personality traits are improved slightly each generation with no limits.**

Forgoing a Singularity, that is indeed what I support.

But after centuries of this, the resulting population would be nothing at all like the original Whites; you would in fact have a completey new species, a far superior one.

Indeed, but society, culture and technology would have changed so much that all I care about would be rendered moot. I would be 6 feet under by that time. What happens then does not concern me, because I can do nothing about it. What I am interested in right now is assuring the survival of my people for as long as I and my children can enjoy it. If they are destined to evolve into something different in several millenia from now on, there is nothing I can do about it, and nothing I will do about it.

I support radical change as fast as possible.

Change is not equivalent to progress. In the short term, miscegenation with East Asians and old-style eugenics could both provide simmilar IQ gains. Furthermore, my style of eugenics would preserve Europid phenotypes and genetic characteristics to a remarkable degree of fidelity, as well as the mental characteristics of Europids that I find desirable-inquistiveness, field-independent behavior, high SD, etc...

Conservative

2003-07-23 06:52 | User Profile

I would prefer not to call it destruction, but rather evolution

Though in my case, you call it destruction, even though in the long run, both methods will end up at the same point.

**I would prefer to preserve the phenotypical and mental traits that define the white race for as long as possible.ÃÂ An improvement of perhaps 2-3 IQ points per generation sound reasonable enough to me. **

So you would not touch personality, only IQ. But if you do touch personality, you are in fact changing the traits that define the White race. In fact, simply touching IQ is doing this, but this has already been established.

Change is not equivalent to progress.

I don't wish to just change radically, but to radically change in accordance with conscious evolution.

miscegenation with East Asians and old-style eugenics could both provide simmilar IQ gains.

But IQ is the least important of reasons I want this. The main reason is personality: Whites are pathologically altruistic and also have pathologically low levels of ethnocentrism. So East Asian alleles could help in this area. But as a positive side effect, the IQ and concientiousness of Whites would also increase.

Furthermore, my style of eugenics would preserve Europid phenotypes and genetic characteristics to a remarkable degree of fidelity, as well as the mental characteristics of Europids that I find desirable-inquistiveness, field-independent behavior, high SD, etc...

This depends on whether you are going to touch personality or just IQ. But, I think you can use some help in determining what traits need to be altered, so check out a review of Richard Lynn's "Eugenics: A Reassessment" at [url=http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/lynn.htm]http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/lynn.htm[/url]

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-23 08:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ares@Jul 23 2003, 00:08 * ** I support radical change as fast as possible.*

Indeed you have hit upon the crux of the matter; that which is the most marked difference between you and I. I joined OD because I was interested in intelligent conversation with fellow conservatives. I am a conservative in mind and heart-socially, culturally, economically and politically. I view the mantra of "radical change is equivalent to progress" which has long been used by the radical left with extreme skepticism and distaste. Radical change invariably produces suffering and social anomie , a fact which can easily be seen by taking a look at history. The Bolsheviks slaughtered and starved millions of whites all in the name of radical change, which they equated with progress. The kind of eugenics I advocate keeps pace with societal change without causing unnecessary suffering. Change is in and of itself inevitable, and as long as it happens, it might as well be positive change. I would not like to see my intellect rendered obsolete within my lifetime, which is something that could very well be a consequence of the radical change you advocate.

What I find most ironic, however, are your comments regarding ethnocentrism, of which you obviously have very little yourself. As a highly ethnocentric person myself, I have noticed one very obvious thing-East Asians are not my people. True, I respect them for their accomplishments and the fact that unlike certain minorities they are capable of acting civilly, but if I went to Japan, I would be treated as a gaijin, and outlander. Just as I am an outlander to East Asians, so they are outlanders to me. To put it very bluntly, I prefer the company of white people. I can blend in easily with Russians or Americans, and if I polish up on my Afrikaans, I could get accepted there as well. No matter how intelligent I am, and not matter how versed I am in their culture, I will never be accepted by East Asians, and quite frankly I have no desire to be accepted by them. I prefer my people, whatever their shortcomings.

Regarding your comment that "merely touching" IQ renders a population non-white, all I can say is that this is a ridiculous oversimplification and exaggeration. IQ is changes with and without human intervention, but human intEven in white populations there is a wide amount of variations in average IQ-does the fact that the Irish have an average IQ of 93 make them non-white/ What about the French with an average IQ of 98? True at some point an IQ increase is large enough to render a population "non-white" in terms of intelligence, but I am not interested in implementing such changes during my lifetime. Nationalists such as myself advocate policies aimed at gradually increasing IQ in order to counteract the effects of dysgenics and to keep our ethnic groups competetive in today's highly intellect-dependent world. Furthermore, though IQ is an important characteristic, something that fluctuates as erratically as it does, and since it varies so much even among white populations, it [u]cannot[/u] define a population. There seems to be a range of average IQs from 90 to 103 in white nations, but to say that the average IQ for whites in general is a certain number, and any fluctuation from this standard renders a population non-white is laughable. What's more laughable is how fervently you defend such a ridiculous position on order to make a logically flawed tu quoqe argument. Race is a whole congolomerate of psychological and phenotypic traits; thus a 2 point average IQ gain won't render white Americans non-white, but 50% Mongoloid genes, or genes from any other race for that matter, will.

As I pointed out before, I am only interested in selecting for traits that are already common in the white genepool. I have no interest in creating a world where the average IQ is 200; at some point it will come to that, but this does not concern me in the least, since its beyond my "operational life" .

Regarding your argument that East-Asian/White hybrids will be more ethnocentric than whites: I could care less. Since East Asians have more dominant allelles than Europeans, Mongoloid-Europid hybrids will look and act more like Mongoloids than Europids (ever see Uighurs?). I will feel no kinship to them. As I said before, I want to live around people who look, act and think like I do. I do not want to have grandchildren with projecting cheekbones and epicanthic eyefolds-I want grandchildren in whom I'll see myself. It's quite laughable how many times I must repeat something as obvious as the fact that a 50% Mongoloid/50% Caucasoid population does not qualify as white and how vigorously you deny this fact. The difference between gradual eugenics like the one I advocate and your idea of eugenics is as large as the difference between dying of old age and suicide. At some point the white race will cease to exist as an entity, and hopefully evolve into something better. My hope however is to prolong the amount that my people (not East Asians or East Asian-Europid hybrids) exist as an entity, maintaining their distinctive cultural, phenotypic and mental character while remain intellectually competetive enough to retain political and economic influence in the world.

Regarding your argument that eugenics is intrinsically anti-nationalistic-perhaps if one adopts your zeal for "radical change" and foresakes his own race in favor of a fantasy hybrid race, then it is. However, I realize that conservatism is not tantamount to stagnation. In fact, since Western Civilization is currently declining and is in danger of extinction due in large part to dysgenics, nothing could be more nationalistic than advocating the kind of eugenics that I support.

The chief difference between our viewpoints is that I have the interest of my people, not East Asians or 250-IQ supermen of the future at heart. I realize that when I die, there will be nothing I can do either in the interests of my people or against them. But as long as I am alive, I want to be surrounded by my racial and cultural kin-East Asians simply don't fit this criterion. I work for the interests of my people, right now. Which is why I can honestly and confidently call myself a nationalist, a conservative and a eugenicist-I am all of these things because in some manner or other, conservatism, nationalism, and eugenics all help assure the brightest present and future possible for my kinfolk. What happens three centuries, 3 millenia, or three million years from now is none of my concern, since I won't be around to do anything about it. As long as I am alive however, I will pursue activism that benefits my people, and not East Asians or ubbermenschen of the future.

Conservative

2003-07-23 09:46 | User Profile

I joined OD because I was interested in intelligent conversation with fellow conservatives.

A true Conservative would be a transhumanist; the Marxists were the ones who were against mental/body augmentations. But this is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether it can be argued that transhumanism is good for Whites or not.

The Bolsheviks slaughtered and starved millions of whites all in the name of radical change, which they equated with progress.

An irrelevent fact. I don't wish to vote for politicians who will kill millions of Whites.

What I find most ironic, however, are your comments regarding ethnocentrism, of which you obviously have very little yourself.ÃÂ As a highly ethnocentric person myself

I don't need ethnocentrism because my actions are guided by reason, not emotion.

** I have noticed one very obvious thing-East Asians are not my people.ÃÂ True, I respect them for their accomplishments and the fact that unlike certain minorities they are capable of acting civilly, but if I went to Japan, I would be treated as a gaijin, and outlander. **

More irrelevent information.

To put it very bluntly, I prefer the company of white people.

No you don't, otherwise you would not be a eugenicist bent on changing the White race that you currently are displeased with.

**No matter how intelligent I am, and not matter how versed I am in their culture, I will never be accepted by East Asians, and quite frankly I have no desire to be accepted by them. **

Irrelevant information, our debates had nothing to do with "being accepted by Asians."

** There seems to be a range of average IQs from 90 to 103 in white nations, but to say that the average IQ for whites in general is a certain number, and any fluctuation from this standard renders a population non-white **

Correct, if by fluctuation, you mean something like a 20 point median gain.

Since East Asians have more dominant allelles than Europeans, Mongoloid-Europid hybrids will look and act more like Mongoloids than Europids

Given the fact that we have not identified the genes associated with intelligence and personality, how do you know if those traits with higher occurences in East Asians are dominant?

**It's quite laughable how many times I must repeat something as obvious as the fact that a 50% Mongoloid/50% Caucasoid population does not qualify as white **

I didn't say that; my comment was that a eugenically altered White cohort would no longer be White.

My hope however is to prolong the amount that my people (not East Asians or East Asian-Europid hybrids) exist as an entity, maintaining their distinctive cultural, phenotypic and mental character while remain intellectually competetive enough to retain political and economic influence in the world.

Your comments are antagonistic. First you say you want to preserve the gene pool of my White race, but then you say you actually want to alter my races genes via eugenics.

The chief difference between our viewpoints is that I have the interest of my people

As do I, which is why I want to improve my White race by adding East Asian alleles.

The rest of your post is sensationalism, not empiricism. But that is just fine, humans are a combination of logic and emotions, and what is the "right" decision for some is not just based on empiricism, but also what "feels" right, that is, the use of emotions to guide part of their behavior. You have this "religious" belief that the White race should be obliterated by changing gene frequencies through selective breeding of only Whites and at a slow rate, While I believe the White race should be obliterated by selective breeding with East Asians as well and at a much faster rate. My way is more efficient and productive. So, to each his own.

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-23 16:46 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 23 2003, 03:46 * **

A true Conservative would be a transhumanist;**

Logical fallacy: non sequitur

**] the Marxists were the ones who were against mental/body augmentations. **

Logical fallacy: anecdotal evidence, red herring.

** I don't need ethnocentrism because my actions are guided by reason, not emotion. **

If you're not ethnocentric in favor of whites, don't call youself a white nationalist. Furthrmore most of your arguments in favor of miscegenation were based on increasing ethnocentrism in "whites."

Nationalism is an emotional, not a reasonable state, since the goals of one's nation may be antagonistic to those of "reason". Thank you for admitting that you are not a nationalist.

** More irrelevent information.**

Au contraire, it's very relevant; someone such as yourself who prefers East Asians or a hybrid race to whites should not call himself a white nationalist.

** No you don't, otherwise you would not be a eugenicist bent on changing the White race that you currently are displeased with.**

Yes, I do. An 2 point IQ gain per generation won't render whites non-white within my lifetime.

Irrelevant information, our debates had nothing to do with "being accepted by Asians."

We are discussing the nature of nationalism. What makes me a nationalist is the fact that I am ethnocetric in favor of my own group and have no wish to be come a prt of another one. The same is not the case with you.

Given the fact that we have not identified the genes associated with intelligence and personality, how do you know if those traits with higher occurences in East Asians are dominant?

I said that most East Asian genes are dominant.

**I didn't say that; my comment was that a eugenically altered White cohort would no longer be White.ÃÂ **

Depends on what extent the alteration goes. I have no interest in alteration that renders it "unwhite" within the near future. Furthermore, you've committed the fallacy of begging the question. Unless you define in no equivocal terms where white ends and where it begins, you cannot speak certainly about what amount of modification will render something non-white. I can say with certainty that a 50% Mongoloid/50% Europid population is clinical, not Europid. A Europid population with an average IQ of 104 is, in contrast, still a Europid population.

Your comments are antagonistic.ÃÂ First you say you want to preserve the gene pool of my White race, but then you say you actually want to alter my races genes via eugenics.

Logical fallacy: strawman. Quit equating destruction with alteration; its asinine. I want to preserve the white race for as long as possible, not indefinitely (which is unrealistic).

** As do I, which is why I want to improve my White race by adding East Asian alleles.**

Which would change it sufficiently within a single generation into something that isn't white. It wouldn't be "your" race (unless you're an Uighur or some kind Siberian) anymore, simply be the virtue of the fact that 50% of its genes would be of foreign origin.

The rest of your post is sensationalism,

Logical fallacy: *argumentum ad hominem. *

not empiricism.'

Logical fallacy: red herring.

By the way, you obviously don't know what empiricsm is:

**emÃÂ·pirÃÂ·iÃÂ·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pÃÂ®r-szm) n. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

Employment of empirical methods, as in science. An empirical conclusion. **

There is no "empiricism" in your arguments either, to be fair, since you do not subject your methods and conclusions to rigorous testing. Please be certain of a word's definition and proper usage before using it in your arguments.

Furthermore, whether or not my post is "empirical" is irrelevant. Once again, your argument takes the logically flawed form of red herring.

** But that is just fine, humans are a combination of logic and emotions, and what is the "right" decision for some is not just based on empiricism, but also what "feels" right, that is, the use of emotions to guide part of their behavior.ÃÂ You have this "religious" belief**

There is nothing "religious" about it. Please quit introducing red herrings into the debate. Since nationalism is based on ethnocentrism, which is an emotion often antagonistic to reason, whether or not my arguments are guided more by "reason" or "emotion" is irrelevant (at least my arguments are cogent and not riddled with logical fallacies).

** that the White race should be obliterated by changing gene frequencies through selective breeding of only Whites and at a slow rate,**

I believe only in keeping pace with societal and scientific change, since the ultimate extinction of the white race at some point is certain. That's quite different from literally destroying it within the same generation. My method preserves my people for as long as possible (indefinite preservation being impossible) without stagnation or dysgenics, which is what differentiates it from yours.

To learn more about red herrings, strawmen, non-sequiturs and other logical fallacies which you are very fond of using, but which have no place in a debate, please see [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9343]this[/url] I don't see the point of replying to your threads if all I am doing is debunking the logical fallacies in your arguments.

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-23 19:20 | User Profile

I thhink we better give this thread a rest. I haven't slept for two days striahgt. My grnadfather is in the hospital with a stroke that the incompetent quacks who run the establishments said would kill him on the first day (I spent the first night by his bedside) and last night I simply couldn't sleep. I am having trouble concentrating on the debate, identifying logical fallacies in your arguments or even articulating my arguments properly (keep in mind that English isn't my first language). To put it succinctly, I am in condition to argue regarding a matter that is as important to me as this, not with the circumstances that I am currently in. We can resume the debate at a later date if you wish.

Regards.

Alka

2003-07-23 20:07 | User Profile

Prodigal Son, I'm sorry to learn of your grandfather's condition. My sincere hopes for the best for both of you.

Conservative

2003-07-23 21:36 | User Profile

If you're not ethnocentric in favor of whites, don't call youself a white nationalist.

I am in favor of improving Whites, and as such, I am a White Nationalist. But perhaps I am ethnocentric in that I believe in group collectivism/cooperation; I understand how Jews are party very successful because of their innate willingness to put the group ahead of the individual. So perhaps I am an intellectual ethnocentricist, as opposed to an emotional ethnocentricist.

FurthrmoreÃÂ most of your arguments in favor of miscegenation were based on increasing ethnocentrism in "whites."

Whites don't have the ability to even see people as races, but rather as simply individuals, so some genetic ethnocentrism would really help them.

Nationalism is an emotional, not a reasonable state, since the goals of one's nation may be antagonistic to those of "reason".

From [url=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary]http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary[/url]

Main Entry: naÃÂ·tionÃÂ·alÃÂ·ism Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m Function: noun Date: 1844 : loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

So, I am interested in promoting my nation and race above others.

someone such as yourself who prefers East Asians or a hybrid race to whites should not call himself a white nationalist.

ad nauseam

Again, you are falling into the same mindset that "it's either my way or the highway." In reality, there are many different types of White Nationalists. Some have religious beliefs, such as yourself, and other are more empirical, such as myself, who understands the concepts of gene frequencies and psychometrics. But, to each his own. You can't seem to believe in the words "to each his own."

Yes, I do.ÃÂ An 2 point IQ gain per generation won't render whites non-white within my lifetime.

But it will eventually, and you support the very process that will allow this to happen. As such, according to your own beliefs, you are no White Nationalist and are rather a self-hating ethnicity distroyer

Unless you define in no equivocal terms where white ends and where it begins, you cannot speak certainly about what amount of modification will render something non-white.

I agree, there is no consensus on what "White" is. People are free to define it as they choose. But, I choose to define White as having a certain satistical distribution of psychometric traits, certain physical features in common, and having a common geographical ancestry. When any of these characteristics are altered, you end up something different, but how much difference is allowed before rendering the new population "non-White?" Its a matter of personal desire. Many White Nationalists don't want to accept Italians, spanish, Portugese, and Greek as White because of their pigmentation. For me, what is most important are psychometric traits.

ÃÂ I can say with certainty that a 50% Mongoloid/50% Europid population is clinical, not Europid.ÃÂ AÃÂ Europid population with an average IQ of 104 is, in contrast, still a Europid population.

Straw Man. I never claimed otherwise.

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-24 00:28 | User Profile

I've gotten a good night's sleep, and can now respond to your criticisms. However, since I am growing weary of this debate, and no one except you and I is contributing anything, this will probably be my last post in this thread.

Originally posted by Ares@Jul 23 2003, 15:36 * > If you're not ethnocentric in favor of whites, don't call youself a white nationalist.*

I am in favor of improving Whites, and as such, I am a White Nationalist.**

However, your proposed improvements would quickly eliminate the white race, and create another one.

** But perhaps I am ethnocentric in that I believe in group collectivism/cooperation;ÃÂ I understand how Jews are party very successful because of their innate willingness to put the group ahead of the individual.ÃÂ So perhaps I am an intellectual ethnocentricist, as opposed to an emotional ethnocentricist.**

An ethnocetrist, by definition, prefers his ethnic group. I don't know what kind of group you are talking about when you speak of "group solidarity". Perhaps "IQ collectivism" would be a more appropriate label for what you are talking about.

Whites don't have the ability to even see people as races, but rather as simply individuals, so some genetic ethnocentrism would really help them.

Who would the members of a mixed White/East-Asian population be ethnocentric in favor of-whites, East-Asians or themselves? Speaking from my personal experience, the offspring of East Asian/White miscegenation are far more likely to identity as Asians, or Hapas than Whites.

**From [url=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary]http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary[/url]

So, I am interested in promoting my nation and race above others. **

I don't think that a simple dictionary definition really does justice to nationalism, which is a memetic construct of high complexity. However, even by the dictionary definition, you're no nationalist. Just as it is in the best interests of every individual to exist, so it is in the best interest of every ethnic group or race to exist. If whites are mixed with 50% East Asian genes, they will [u]cease to exist as a seperate race[/u]-eventually, as this mixture would stabilize, a whole new race, which is neither white nor East Asian would be created.

ad nauseam

No so. I've provided much evidence and convincing arguments for the above accusation which you have either ignored or answered with sophistry or logical fallacies.

Again, you are falling into the same mindset that "it's either my way or the highway."

I don't want you to feel like I am attacking you for your beliefs, because no matter how much I may disagree, whom you marry and have children with is you business. All I have an objection to on this forum is your usage of the term "white nationalist."

ÃÂ ÃÂ In reality, there are many different types of White Nationalists.

Indeed. However, someone such as yourself cannot in my opinion, and the opinion of most on this forum be called "white nationalists" since you do not fit any conceivable definition of the term dictionary, or otherwise.

** Some have religious beliefs, such as yourself,**

Please refrain from warranted insults. Just because I have sentimental attachments and am ethnocentric in favor of my ethnic group, doesn't make me or my beliefs "religious."

But it will eventually, and you support the very process that will allow this to happen.ÃÂ As such, according to your own beliefs, you are no White Nationalist and are rather a self-hating ethnicity distroyer

That's sophistry. What you are saying is akin to saying that someone who committs suicide is identical to someone who dies a natural death. In other words-since the white race will become extinct in the future, why not get it over with now? I disagree. I want to preserve my people's distinctiveness for as long as possible, but at the same time counteract dysgenics and maintain an edge in intelligence that they need in order to stay competetive in this world. True, whites will at some point disappear-for that matter, so will every other species of life that we know of today. However, as long as I am alive I will adopt a conservative attitude towards the matter-presrving as much of the original as possible while making sure that whatever inevitable changes take place are positive.

I agree, there is no consensus on what "White" is.

Perhaps not in WN circles, but genetically and historically its a settled matter. The people of Europe are genetically extremely homgenous and simmilar to each other. In any case, when one says "white", the term usually refers to the European descended population of the United States, since most other people of European descent istead identity as Germans, Poles, Italians, Afrikaners, etc.. In the United States, every person of predominantly European descent who looks European and self-identifies as a White, is a White.

**People are free to define it as they choose. **

It is indeed a vague term, but who is not White is far clearer than who is. The Japanese for example, are not White by any definition.

** But, I choose to define White as having a certain satistical distribution of psychometric traits, certain physical features in common, and having a common geographical ancestry.**

I concur.

ÃÂ When any of these characteristics are altered, you end up something different, but how much difference is allowed before rendering the new population "non-White?"ÃÂ Its a matter of personal desire. For me, what is most important are psychometric traits.

Pyschometric traits are most important for me as well, but with crude methods that we have right now, they are the most susceptible to selection, and the most easily altered. I also do not underestimate the importance of phenotype, since whether someone self-identifies as a White and has pro-White sentiments depends most heavily on whether the person looks white. As I said before, it looks like people of mixed East-Asian/Europid ancestry are far more likely to identify as East Asians or "Hapas" than whites. I'll also like to reiterate again that I respect East Asians and their accomplishments, but I simply don't see them as my people.

**. Many White Nationalists don't want to accept Italians, spanish, Portugese, and Greek as White because of their pigmentation. **

For such people, the term "white nationalists" is a misnomer. Indeed, they usually describe themselves as "Nordicists" or "Nordish preservationists." I think virtually everyone here will agree with me when I say that the only technically sound definition of "white nationalist" is an American national of European extraction who harbors nationalistic sentiments in favor of his own ethnic group-American Whites-and is sympathetic culturally and racially to peoples of European extraction elsewhere.

Straw Man.ÃÂ I never claimed otherwise.

You did claim that it would be white, and I guess by your definition it would However, going by a strictly "empirical" genetic definition, it isn't.

I would like to remind you that this debate is not about the ethics of miscegenation, but rather about the definition of white nationalist; whom you want procreate with is your personal business. Personally, I am baffled at why you attach so much importance to the label "white nationalist" when so many other terms would be far more apt for your ideology, but I guess what you call yourself is also you own personal business. However, don't expect most of us here to agree with the label you pin on yourself.

Conservative

2003-07-24 01:50 | User Profile

However, someone such as yourself cannot in my opinion, and the opinion of most on this forum be called "white nationalists"

Argumentum ad numerum

I think virtually everyone here will agree with me when I say that the only technically sound definition of "white nationalist" is an American national of European extraction who harbors nationalistic sentiments in favor of his own ethnic group-American Whites-and is sympathetic culturally and racially to peoples of European extraction elsewhere.

Argumentum ad numerum

However, don't expect most of us here to agree with the label you pin on yourself.

Argumentum ad numerum

Regards,

Ares

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-24 01:58 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 23 2003, 19:50 * **

Argumentum ad numerum**

Not an argument, simply a statement of fact.

Argumentum ad numerum

Again, simply elaborating on the definition of White Nationalism that most white nationalists use. Not arguing; my argument is that existence under the best possible conditions for the longest time possible is in the best interests of Whites as a group.

Argumentum ad numerum

Statement of fact and a warning-all I am saying is that most WNs disagree, and rather strongly, with your beliefs, at least on the subject of miscegenation, and most won't "welcome you with open arms", so to speak.

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-24 02:02 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Alka@Jul 23 2003, 14:07 * ** Prodigal Son, I'm sorry to learn of your grandfather's condition. My sincere hopes for the best for both of you. **

Thank you very much for your kind words, Alka. I've posting rather prolifically on OD lately in order to distract myself from this, but I am glad to have found sympathy here as well.

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-24 03:34 | User Profile

By the way, I doubt that argumentum ad populum could be applied to this instance, even if I had been using it as an argument, since the memes that define what is within the sphere of an ideology and what is outiside it are determined by consensus.

triskelion

2003-07-24 03:36 | User Profile

I have enjoyed watching PS utterly lay waste to the faux satire that Ares has used to promote the destruction of Europa biologic in exchange to for a 2 to 3 point increase in IQ and the sacrifice of our identity in all senses of the term. He supports this with the dishonestly selective empiricism of the neo-eugenics website who don't call themselves White Nationalists and are not bonafide, peer reviewed, anthropologists, geneticists or psychometricians. Ares fills his posts with every logical fallacy conceivable combined with dishonest use of language befitting a charlatan like Lyotard or Roarty while totally rendering meaningless the phrase empiricism due to both his lack of a falsification criteria nor the use of controlled testing and scientific method. In short, Ares promotion of the destruction of European humanity is about as empirical and scientifically grounded as Marxist economics.

The best single comment within this thread was Alka's statement that "I'd agree with that, although in my opinion rban rises not much above buffoonery. Both do not seem to warrant much attention other than scorn and derisive laughter, and it is fortunate (for them) that they seem to masochistically feed upon this negative contact with others. Perversion of one's world view and particularly low intellect and self-esteem seem to have that effect on the beastly."

Rban and Ares spout equally destructive and contra factual blather with the chief difference that the inanities of Rban's are some what more honest and ironic. Both have nothing what so ever to do with any form of Eurocentrism and neither deserve any attention from that do care about the Occident as their intentions are equally transparent and ignored by those worth conversing with.

I will say that I do find it ironic that for his obsession with American style costumed fetish racists and the need for jew/Asian/transhuman miscegenation as "respectability" has, in my experience, driven those concerned with the preservation of European humanity into the ranks of white power a la Hollywood. The reason for such is simple in that the fatal flaws of crank outfits like the Aryan Nations at least realize that some one with substantial admixtures of Asian and Jewish ancestry is not a European and that being subsumed by other racial groups is in no way pro-white to anyone but the dishonest, confused and those that wish for our destruction.

As all of this is painfully obvious to anyone worth dealing with I see no reason to belabor the issue further although I would bet the ancestral home that Ares will write a perfectly redundant post as to have the last word as he always does with zero consideration given to intellectual honesty, common sense or empiricism which he has clearly not demonstrated an understanding of.

Conservative

2003-07-24 03:44 | User Profile

Hello Triskelion,

Your writing style is too wordy and redundant, you should try to consolidate them into basic data sentences. Also, most of your contributions is merely sensationalism, not empiricism, which is typical of modern day Neo-Nazis. But that is fine, you serve the requirements for those that follow your version of White Nationalism.

Regards,

Ares

triskelion

2003-07-24 04:38 | User Profile

A fully expected reply. My writing is wordy as it is for most of my lansmen and my English rough yet the ideas I raise are substantive and varied as most would agree and far less redundant then yours. You use terms like "neo-nazi" as much as those that are honest about their hatred of my race and are as dishonest about my views as the openly anti-European factions that attack me. Applying such a term to me is baseless as I have a rather extensive and varied ideological canon that I draw from that is not inspired by the NSDAP which I have no interest mimicking as I have often stated in detail.

Conservative

2003-07-24 05:02 | User Profile

my English rough

Your grammar and spelling is fine, I was referring to the content of your posts, not your grammar; your writings lack practical data, its just "empty talk" for lack of a better word. When I read something, I want to learn something new, not simply writings meant to arouse sentiment. This is why I have no interest in poetry and most fictional literature. But this is just me; your writings are "poetic" and are valuable to those who enjoy such writings.

Regards,

Ares

triskelion

2003-07-24 05:58 | User Profile

I write about serious ideological matters and practical activism. Neither have anything to do with emotionalism nor poetry which has little appeal for me. You are the first person that thinks my writting content free which simply shows you lack the ablity to read properly. Your posts are redundant, filled to the brim with logal failacies and dishonest language use which you confuse with scientific merit and empiricism. I certainly would be up for a poll by the forum members as to which of us has written more content heavy/meaningful posts of interest to racialists and conservatism.

madrussian

2003-07-24 15:54 | User Profile

I think there is a consensus on Ares here. Don't waste your time, triskelion.

Ruffin

2003-07-24 17:05 | User Profile

I think it's all just a cover for someone who recently stumbled upon the word empiricism.

Alka

2003-07-24 18:54 | User Profile

I share madrussian's view of Ares. I only wonder why anyone wastes time replying to this Asian Jew (other than perhaps to make evident the contradictory and convoluted nature of his perverted world view). It is obvious from his own statements (only uses hotmail, sees his spaming and trolling as "activism," disparages white nationalism at every opportunity, etc.) that the only thing this agent provocateur is worthy of, is derisive mockery.

Every village needs its idiots, I suppose, and OD has Ares/Rennick/LadyAmerica and rban, perhaps too much for a smaller forum like OD to tolerate, but such is life...

One may observe that a clear knowledge of what is wrong is necessary for one to understand truly what is right, and it is for this reason alone that their asininity is even somewhat tolerable.

Conservative

2003-07-26 21:48 | User Profile

Alka, who are you calling Village Idiot?

Technically, the person who lacks the intellect to refrain from phrases like "village idiot" is the "village idiot"; it shows that person does not have the phychological features required to be purely rational in debates.

Regards,

Ares

Drakmal

2003-07-26 23:27 | User Profile

Technically, the person who lacks the intellect to refrain from phrases like "village idiot" is the "village idiot" [...]

You just used the phrase to disparage someone else; does that make you a village idiot too?

Edit: Whoops, I did it as well D:

triskelion

2003-07-30 23:29 | User Profile

It's pretty odd that no one notes that to be a fan of Henry ford is not the same as being a fan of his grandson. I also agree that it is a waste of time bothering with Ares as his absurd, dishonest and logic free flummery has been pretty soundly trounced and we have other fish to fry.

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-07-31 12:01 | User Profile

Originally posted by rban@Jul 25 2003, 08:22 * *BTW Prodigal Son, looks like we have similar heroes. Your hero is Henry Ford, and one of mine is his great grandson, Alfred Ford. Alfred converted to Hinduism so it appears greatness runs in that family. Have a look:

....**

churban: are you absolutely sure that he didn't donate that money to keep the temple's votaries from starving to death :lol: :huh:

damian

2003-08-01 22:18 | User Profile

Prior to this thread I basically had a neutral opinion of Ares; he just struck me as a confused, mixed up person with some strange ideas. But he stepped over the line when he critisized triskelion - a man who just doesn't talk the talk, but walks the walk. I have the utmost respect for triskelion, a man who has devoted his life to advancing the interest of his white brethren. It is inconceivable to me how anybody who professes to sympathize with the goals of WN could attack this man, a man who is obviously not only devoted to the cause, but nearly paid for it with his very life. I would go as far as saying that ones views towards triskelion could essentially act as a litmus test as to what ones real agenda is. Well you failed this litmus test Ares, and I now view you as someone who has an anti-white agenda. As trolls go I infinitly favor rban over you, his buffoonery is at least ocassionally amusing and he is more honest and straightforward as to what his agenda is, unlike you who apparently has some sort of stealth agenda that is ultimately anti-white, whether by intention or design, it matters not.

Roy Batty

2003-08-03 01:40 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ares+Jul 22 2003, 20:03 -->
QUOTE (Ares @ Jul 22 2003, 20:03 )

QUOTE (Ares @ Jul 22 2003, 20:03 )
<!--QuoteBegin-Roy Batty@Jul 22 2003, 21:49 * * **

Actually, brain size has a .3 correlation with intelligence

The estimate varies quite a bit. Rushton put the correlation at .44 according to MRI scans done by Turkish researchers, Gottfredson put the figure at .4, and the .5 comes from either Pinker or the new APA book "Behavioral Genetics in the Post Genomic Erra."

Regarding brain size, it's the brain size to body size ratio that matter, not absolute brain size. But I have heard some say that in Rushton's work, he took the ratio of East Asians, but not Whites, which would create faulty data. I don't know for sure about this.

Also, IQ is the result of many biological factors, so if one has a high IQ but a small brain, he may score higher on the other biological correlates of IQ to compensate for it. BUT, perhaps different biological correlates affect different types of "g." For example, crystalized intelligence versus fluid intelligence (I think this is what it is called). I need to do more readings on this aspect of "g." Anyone have any good articles?

Regards,

Ares**

((Well Ares, I've been away for a bit. Work has intruded on my internet time, I'm afraid. So, it'll probably be about three months before I can get into (semi) daily discourse on OD. Gotta pay the bills though... Did get a PM from Polichinello, stating that he is definitely not Ares ... it's nice to know people pay attention))

As for brain size. Rushton has changed his tune if you have materials that list him stating the correlation with intelligence is .44. I have him (in his book from 98) stating that it's .3, as he did almost ten years earlier (http://www.amren.com/9212issue/9212issue.html). Same with Lynn's work - but it's only one factor, as I did mention in my original post.

Ares

** Regarding brain size, it's the brain size to body size ratio that matter, not absolute brain size. But I have heard some say that in Rushton's work, he took the ratio of East Asians, but not Whites, which would create faulty data. I don't know for sure about this.**

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, it's supposed to be the size to body ratio, and Rushton did indeed use the ratio of Asians, but not Whites in one paper and one of his books. He then crossed himself up by saying that usually Whites have more "absolute" size/capacity !!??!! ... in terms of ... what? As opposed to ....? I know what he meant, but he should be more careful in some ways, and more "gung ho" in others. I think it's a minor point, as things are what they are physically - it's the seige that Whites are under that we should be concerned about. White and Asian (and Mestizo and African and Jewish) accomplishments speak for themselves. In Rushton's case, I think he was trying hard to not look like any kind of "supremacist" - as a lot of scientists, even those pushing the truth, try to do. Again, size ... whatever. The differences between the purported sizes of East Asian and Caucasian brains aren't the main factor, too much crossover. Neural efficiency? They're working on that area, no definite answers yet, although there appears to be a slight difference in the way Asians and Caucasians process material (as even mentioned by Seligman years ago).

I have some articles somewhere on "fluid" vs. "crystalized" intelligence, and the most interesting aspect was that most people level off or drop in "fluid" intelligence after age 25 - because they stop "using" their brains - they don't keep learning new things, keep the brain really working. Fascinating. I'll try and dig 'em up ... if I can get a break from work. Big project in. <_<

Mixing the two populations? Nah. They are what they are. Whites do have a very high "creative" capacity that sets them apart from other "intelligent" peoples. E. Asians are very concrete thinkers. Let the groups co-exist and better themselves. The rest of the planet ... they are the ones in dire need of eugenics, and it isn't going to happen.

BTW - don't trash Triskelion. Uncalled for. He is one man who is actually out DOING THINGS instead of just talking/writing or waiting for the :dung: to hit the fan in earnest, like the rest of us do, whether we want to admit it or not.

Conservative

2003-08-04 07:20 | User Profile

No man is above criticism, everyone can be better; as such, my criticisms of Triskelion are valid. If one needs to be protected from criticism, then that shows that the person being protected does indeed have some flaws that need to be addressed.

Regards,

Ares

Roy Batty

2003-08-05 01:37 | User Profile

Ah, no one feels any person is above criticism. VALID criticism is fine. Petty jealousy, thinly disguised hatred, lies, disingenuousness, etc. are what we don't want more of at OD. We get enough of that from rban, congoidamerican ... I mean blackamerican (who no doubt isn't) etc.

Avalanche

2003-08-05 02:43 | User Profile

rban: BTW I know you like me. Why do you deny it? I like you rban! Remember that! :) :P :D

triskelion

2003-08-05 03:41 | User Profile

Hello all,

RB, thank you for your support. It is good to know that some are interested in the real issues of doing things in in the world rather rahter then the net. Of course Ares is right that no one is above criticism but as Ares has no constructive critisism I feel it safe to say that most of the better posters that often don't agree with me (mostly the paleo set) are beyond beyond the reach of Ares arguementation skills.

In any case, I don't take him to seriously in part because of Star Trek like futurism but more because of the fact that PS and many others have pretty easily trashed his shallow knowledge of genetics which underlay his notions. In the end, I view him no differantly then the fanatical jews/leftists/aliens/perverts that are pushing the destruction of our race because he simply couches the same hatred in sci-fi flumery, grossly dishonest language and often the same terms meant to inspire a pavlovian response. In the world of action my ideas are making things happen and his will never fool anyone worth having in service of our cause and are doomed as a result.

Conservative

2003-08-07 04:28 | User Profile

VALID criticism is fine.

And who decides what a valid criticism is? Well, each individual does. If one agrees with the criticism, he will consider it "valid." If one does not agree with it, then the criticism becomes "Petty jealousy, thinly disguised hatred," to put it in your own words.

Petty jealousy, thinly disguised hatred

ad hominem. Only consider my facts and reasoning, not what psychobiological sensations may be playing out in my brain.

Regards,

Ares

Conservative

2003-08-07 04:46 | User Profile

*Originally posted by triskelion@Aug 4 2003, 21:41 *

Hello Triskelion,

RB, thank you for your support.

Argumentum ad numerum

**It is good to know that some are interested in the real issues **

How do you separate "real issues" from "fake issues?" You are using bad debate techniques with all your subjectivity.

because of the fact that PS and many others have pretty easily trashed his shallow knowledge of genetics which underlay his notions.

Actually, I won the debates.

In the end, I view him no differantly then the fanatical jews/leftists/aliens/perverts that are pushing the destruction of our race because he simply couches the same hatred in sci-fi flumery, grossly dishonest language and often the same terms meant to inspire a pavlovian response. In the world of action my ideas are making things happen and his will never fool anyone worth having in service of our cause and are doomed as a result.

Argumentum ad hominem

Regards,

Ares

triskelion

2003-08-07 05:05 | User Profile

I see Ares learned a few new words from PS without using them properly. My thanking RB for his support had nothing to do with Argumentum ad numerum but simply a statement that I noted and was thankful for his statement of support. Next time you attempt to use a term learn what it means first so you can stop making a fool of yourself.

As to my referance to real issues I was refering to the matter of public activism on behalf of Eurocentrism rather simply debating on the net. If you bothered to read the full sentance you quoted you would have noted as much. You didn't do so because your dishonest in the way that you choose to debate which is why I have no respect for you. Simply declaring that you won a debate doesn't make it so and your failure to deal with the points raised by me or anyone else in numerous past threads in an honest fashion again demonstrates that your as detached from reality and as dishonest as Raina.

You end up simply repeating the term Argumentum ad numerum while ignoring that everying I said in the caption above is in fact a very true representation of your shallow, anti Occidental outlook without even attempting to state other wise. You have simply demonstrated again that you have nothing worth while to add here and that your in no way a white nationalist of any sort.

Conservative

2003-08-07 05:27 | User Profile

Hello Triskelion,

you can stopÃÂ making a fool of yourself.

Argumentum ad hominem

I have no respect for you.

Argumentum ad hominem

your in no way a white nationalist of any sort.

Yes, I am, but a different version than the one you support.

Regards,

Ares

triskelion

2003-08-07 05:50 | User Profile

Those that can't defend their position simple repeat phrases they don't know the meaning. They also tend to simply restate the failed arguement while ignoring what was said. In others words those with nothing to say troll like Ares does.

Conservative

2003-08-07 06:24 | User Profile

Those that can't defend their position simple repeat phrases they don't know the meaning

To consolidate your views in empirical terms, you believe that I lack in IQ, conscientiousness, objectivity, and education, which thus renders many of my arguments invalid. Okey, why not just state this? Why all the ad hominem attacks, which takes away from rational debate and the intellectual integrity of this forum?

Regards,

Ares

triskelion

2003-08-07 06:45 | User Profile

My summation of your posts is that they are illogical, filled with faux empiricism, shallow or flat out wrong when it comes to genetics and the societal implications that stem from human bio-diversity, lacking objectivity and exhibiting lousy debating practices. Those things are not what bothers me most however. Rather it is your dishonest labeling of yourself as a white racialist that enrages me. Adopt an honest label for yourself and IÃ¢â¬â¢ll view you as merely another promoter of the destruction of my race and the heritages that have sprung for from it. Also, your misuse of the term empirical drives me to distraction so learning to use that term properly would help things along quite a bit.

As to ad ad hominem attacks they are perfectly justified given the pattern of dishonesty you have exhibited, your continuous recourse to fallacious argument and patently inane threads such as Ã¢â¬Åwhy canÃ¢â¬â¢t Europeans be inorganicÃ¢â¬Â which make it impossible to take you seriously. However, I regret to say that you are correct that such attacks degrade the forum which is something that simply is a bad idea for all. As a result, I will commit myself to avoiding such attacks if you make the effort to be more honest in how you label yourself , stop misusing the term empirical and attempt to avoid stating that the more outlandish examples of pan-gloss futurism your prone to fancy as some how having a bearing on those of us interested in Eurocentrism.

Conservative

2003-08-07 07:02 | User Profile

**Rather it is your dishonest labeling of yourself as a white racialist that enrages me. **

I too used to be a raged filled debator; I would flame my opponents instead of just staying quite when all rational approaches had been used up. But now I have finally achieved total control over the emotion of anger. In fact, this gives me a great edge over the Zionists: while they are reduced to angry ramblings, I completely keep my cool - makes me really look better in the debates to all the observers.

**Adopt an honest label for yourself and IÃ¢â¬â¢ll view you as merely another promoter of the destruction of my race and the heritages that have sprung for from it. **

This is just a difference in opinion of what characteristics a White Nationalist should have. I have certain opinions, you have others. But, I am a very rational and open minded person, perhaps you can change my mind with logical arguments.

why canÃ¢â¬â¢t Europeans be inorganic

Again, a difference in ideologies. Perhaps you support freezing White civilization exactly as it was some time in the past, both biologically and culturally. I on the other hand take new ideas and integrate them into White Nationalism. Again, this is just a difference in world views.

attempt to avoid the more outlandish examples of pan-gloss futurism as some how having a bearing on those of us interested in Eurocentrism.

There is room for both of our views, why be so absolutist? Each of us can politely and rationally state our unique views, and let the rest decide which ones they want to follow.

Regards,

Ares

triskelion

2003-08-07 15:26 | User Profile

The fact that your dispassionate about your dishonesty does not make it any more objective or less shallow. Nor does your lack of objectivity or lack of knowledge about genetics improve by pretending that your in any fashion empirical. As you persist in mislabeling your self in an attempt to destroy the core meaning of those that care (yes, that is an emotion) about the preservation of my race and the fact that you have debate skills and a sense of honesty only marginally better then Raina (who is as much a WN as you are) I see no reason to treat with anything other then contempt. Of course, the reality is that I don't perceive your Star Trek notions as worth my time as they have zero potential for rivaling any form of Eurocentrism so I won't bother to attempt to confront you as you troll along here by enlarge. Instead, IÃ¢â¬â¢ll engage those that actually can debate and have something to say as such are the sort of people worthy to advance ideas of merit.

Roy Batty

2003-08-08 02:18 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ares@Aug 6 2003, 20:28 * ** > VALID criticism is fine.*

And who decides what a valid criticism is? Well, each individual does. If one agrees with the criticism, he will consider it "valid." If one does not agree with it, then the criticism becomes "Petty jealousy, thinly disguised hatred," to put it in your own words.

Petty jealousy, thinly disguised hatred

ad hominem. Only consider my facts and reasoning, not what psychobiological sensations may be playing out in my brain.

Regards,

Ares **

Ad hominem? Perhaps you need to re-read your post reflecting your views on Triskelion's "writing" (which also comes off as a thinly veiled attempt to avoid the central thrust of Triskelion's statements - you know, pick at the "style" or "structure" while avoiding much of the "meat").

Or maybe just pick up a dictionary and look up the term, to better grasp its real meaning. Leave the personal attacks to mental midgets like rban or Raina.

Conservative

2003-08-08 03:22 | User Profile

shallow

Descriptions as "shallow" are subjective and have no place in empirical debates.

the preservation of my race

I can turn this around and say that you are trying to hold back my White race while I stuggle to improve it.

** I see no reason to treat with anything other then contempt. **

It is irrelevant to me if you want to privately hate me, but please keep your flammings off the OD board, or just go to Stormfront instead, since you lack the ability to control your emotions.

Of course, the reality is that I don't perceive your Star Trek notions as worth my time

And I respect that, futurism is not for everyone, Whites have different world views. But actually, these technologies have real potential. Who ever thought a few decades ago that cloning would be possible, or that we would have been able to reduce the size of computers from one that takes up a large room to one that fits on a desk? But, again, we are different - it is my understanding that you want to bring back culture to some time in the past and then freeze it; I am the opposite.

so I won't bother to attempt to confront you as you troll along here by enlarge.ÃÂ Instead, IÃ¢â¬â¢ll engage those that actually can debate and have something to say as such are the sort of people worthy to advance ideas of merit.

You have already stated this several times before, yet you keep on responding to me.

Regards,

Ares

triskelion

2003-08-08 04:15 | User Profile

My how Ares loves the word empirical. Now, if some one could only find a way for him to stop misusing it might lead to him posting something worth reading. The comment about you improving my race by it making more jew and more Asian is a perfect example why no one sees Ares anything other then a wastrel wishing he were Spock. As for my flames, you have proven your self incompetent at debate and grossly dishonest so I see zero reason to treat you a way other then what you deserve.

Note that Ares see once again confuses his futurist burbles with his favorite word. I also note that he demonstrates yet another reason why it is fruitless to attempt to stoop to his level for debate when he reveals his inability to comprehend what I have written. Specifically, I refer to the inane notion that I want to bring back some Halcion era gone by while ignoring that I have written often on the fallacies of nostalgia, that Tradition is evolving and that simple reaction is futile and mindless as is Ares push to destroy my race and the civilizing impulse that resides with it. It is also a fairly comical reflection on Ares lack of reading comprehension and/or inattention that he thinks I should post on Storm Front. Those that do read what I have said will not that I have a rather dim view of Storm Front and the American scene in general so I doubt very much that I would be tolerated there. Of course Ares thinks that those who dismiss his anti Occidental hatred as the faux empiricism it is are a detriment to this forum and that I should continue to pretend that a dialog is possible with one that can't/won't debate and is glaringly dishonest and uninformed. I decline to debase myself in such a manner and suggest that Ares go to his chum Tom Rennick's forum where he can bemoan those subjective types that value their own existence and think that Europeans are by definition neither a jew/Asian hybrid nor an inorganic mechanism he would like to see entered into mass production.

Why do I respond to a mindless like Ares? I suppose I derive a perverse pleasure from the his of verbal gymnastics casting a thin vale over his mental and moral disabilities. Having long exhausted his selection of phrases he doesn't understand he acts exactly like Raina, who also promotes the destruction of my folk, and simply re-posts his earlier flummery while totally ignoring what was said in response the first time.

Conservative

2003-08-08 06:08 | User Profile

Hello Triskelion,

I thought you were not going to respond to me any more.

So, you are saying that you are going to keep on engaging in name-calling, even though Texas Dissident surely would not appreciate his forum being used for such things.

I am assuming you are hoping that name-calling is going to "hurt my feelings" and thus cause me to publically renounce my views or leave this forum. But, I have completely blocked out the emotion of "hurt"; name-calling/insulting has no emotional affect on me. So, it would be a waste of your time and energy for you to keep this up.

By the way, you said that I want a White/Jewish/East Asian hybrid. This is not true, I just want a White/East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) hybrid, not including Jews.

Regards,

Ares

triskelion

2003-08-08 07:24 | User Profile

In point of fact I said I would stop attacking you if you reverted to honesty and showed some capacity for debate. You have not so I will not pretend that your inane pablum deserves to be treated as something it is not. I will however continue to label you exactly as you deserve. As to the hybird matter, simply lieing about what you said in the past will not change the fact that you have spoken favourable about Occidental/jew hybrids, that you have also spoke in glowing terms about Isreal and that you have been very open in your support of the jedeocentric faux racialism of AR. In short, your fraud is transperant. As to your chosing to stay here I expect as much because you're a troll. Several memebers here have totally trashed your positions with no one but yourself disputing that reality without you changes your stances one iota or even admiting as much. As a result, your trolling here is moderately bothersome but not something I am very concerned with in emotional terms as your arguements have failed time after time. I see no reason however to simply let your lies and shoddy thinking stand with out comment and I will remark on it from time to time.