Arsene

I kinda let myself go on this youtube comment, tell me what you think about it: youtube.com/watch?v=8KuFU0rWFfk&lc=z22zwnqblpntzn0he04t1aokgwqkcs01m3esy0pff1mbrk0h00410.1523981343809403 """ libertarian frank turner desperately wants to distinguish himself from the alt right. a open border libertarian is completely dogmatic though. This is the story of America: >high IQ liberty minded people come together and form a classical liberal nationstate and constitution >they don't protect the integrity of their nationstate and let dumb/socialist minded people in/don't take the oath of allegiance seriously >country becomes just another socialist shithole And than we have those who are open border because muh non aggression principle, they are the worse, letting socialists in your country because you would otherwise coerce them is like not fighting back against someone who shoots at you until the bullet has hit the molecules of your skin. So many libertarians seem to be lost and confused in their abstractions, they just can't handle it. Besides, democracy is not the killer nor the savior, you constantly hear libertarians bashing democracy. Before democracy any shift in political power happened through revolutions: party x demonstrates a threat to ruling political party, either the political party in power gave in immediately or fought it out. So yes, there were times where the political party with a monopoly on coercion did not represent the ideas & values of the majority to some extent (like in feudalism, as the minority upper class had more physical power). But as civilization kept evolving every single individual became more powerful to a point where any single individual can kill hundreds of people if he really wanted to (Timothy McVeigh), so conforming to equalizing everybody's power to 1 and polling it out (instead of fighting it out) is a natural adaption. So libertarians should shut up about their meritocracy and monarchy and should stop complaining about "muh tyranny of the majority"(there will always be a tyranny of the majority even without democracy) and "once there is a state it will keep on expanding" (it wont, peasants would always revolt against taxation in the past). Stop thinking you can trick a non libertarian public to live in a libertarian nation state. The way to liberty hasn't changed because of democracy, the way to liberty is still this: all libertarians from around the world politically migrate & cluster to one territory, and perhaps vote in a libertarian political party, and this time, we'll sustain it by not having open borders, liberty has to be enforced. This is also why the concept of "installing a western democracy in the middle east" is so retarded, only the people of the middle east should decide if they want a western democracy, if they would truly be ready for a western democracy, if the public would truly want it, they would overthrow any tyrant within a second. """

I see it a lot from the right, although i never go on it i know that /pol/ would be full of it. How come? I think it's the same phenomena as those blacks yelling 'supremacism' and 'institutional racism' towards whites.

“Children are wonderful. It don’t take plenty y’know. Just a nice girl who don’t take birth control. Sexual intercourse is a lovely thing” Bob Marley Having a child for a father is nothing more than having sexual intercourse? This was true for our ancestors more than 200.000 year ago back in Africa, is still true in chimp tribes & some african tribes, this behavior is also still shown by the global high percentages of black single mothers. Once upon a time all our ancestors lived in Primitive Communist tribes, where there was no paternal care, offspring brought up by mother, mother was provided by tribe for rather primitive resources (food & safety), paternal care wasn't needed until our environment became more complex, I wrote a thread expalining how we are evolving away from a alpha monogamous sexual structure to a bird like/Great Hornbill sexual structure of father-mother-children units: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45280-evolutionary-psychology-our-vestigial-sexual-behavior/ Northern people already underwent the evolutionary pressures that benefited a Great Hornbill like parenting, blacks not so much.

https://www.facebook.com/uniladmag/videos/2284453421577704/?pnref=story.unseen-section Here, another example of pure indoctrination. The child simply copied the rather hefty opinion of his parents on an issue he can't even conceptualize. This is dogmatism in it's purest form, he doesn't understand why "turning forests into roads" would hurt the planet. If there are still a lot of top tier geologists are arguing against this climate change alarmism (some great examples you should look up: 'Richard Lindzen' or former president of Greenpeace 'Patrick Moore'), than why the fuck should this kid be settled on the issue? Oh man what am I glad that my parents didn't impose any politics on me whatsoever (hence my first vote ever went to Vlaams Belang, the only Belgian party my parents have never voted for). This is why it's so hard to persuade people, because of their emotional & tribal attachment to a certain political party or ideology. Teach your kid how to think (how to reason, how to logic, stimulate him to philosophize), not what to think. EDIT: oh they only say "dogmatisation" in french, excuse me, im from belgium

A socialist party can't be liberal, they can be for civil liberties, but that's only one part of liberalism. It's principally incorrect to call those leftist democratic politicians of America liberals. Socialism strives to achieve equality-of-outcome economic egalitarianism, but when talent & intelligence differ, when individuals are factually not the same, the only way to reach that equality is to coerce against certain individuals, hence taking away their LIBERTY! The state is only there to take your freedom away, now classical liberals believe that the only freedom or liberty we do not deserve is to coerce others (because than one individual takes the freedom away of another), therefore we need a state, a small coercion which only function is to prevent other coercion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism#Social_egalitarianism ​

Pretty much how I want it: (I hope you americans are up with the correct denomination of the ideologies. In america they would call him a libertarian.) He got assassinated after the left created a dangerous climate by comparing him with hitler and whatnot, kinda what is happening to Trump.

"My esteemed libertarian colleague, Professor Leonard Liggio, who has always been out on the frontier of libertarian thought and practice, has of late been ruminating on Social Darwinism. There is no creed over the past century, in fact, with the possible exception of the Nazi movement, that has received as bad an intellectual "press" as Social Darwinism. It is high time that we subject this much reviled Social Darwinism to a re-evaluation. The Liberal stereotype of the Social Darwinist is of a sadistic monster, calling for the "extermination of the unfit." But in reality the true Social Darwinist is a benign and cheerful optimist, and he arrives at his optimism from a scientific inquiry into the processes of natural law and of cause and effect. For the Social Darwinist is above all a scientist, and as a scientist he sees that the natural law of what is best for man may be violated but never avoided. This means, that over the long run, the dysfunctional must come to a bad end, must cleanse itself and wipe itself out, while only the truly function and proper can remain and prosper. Any artificial interference in these beneficent natural processes can only delay and distort the results; hence, we have a powerful argument for non-interference in these natural workings. Take, for example, hippie culture and hippie values, with its hatred of reason, its emphasis on instant whim and mystical irrationality, its communalism and repudiation of the division of labor, its scorn of science, technology, work, private property, long-range thinking, and the production of material goods and services. There have been few creeds in human history that have been more dysfunctional than this. Now since men possess free will, since they are therefore free to adopt and act upon any creed they wish, it is possible for masses of men to become hippies; but it is not possible for them to remain long in this condition, because of the built-in "self-destruct" mechanism that the law of cause and effect imposes upon those who pursue this philosophy. Unfortunately, this dysfunctionally has not been as vivid as it could be, because foolish parents and taxpayer mulcted for welfare payments have been around to subsidize this anti-life credo and to maintain it indefinitely. Remove these subsidies, take away their indulgent check filled out by parent or welfare board, and the hippie phenomenon would have died a much deserved natural death long before now. Social cleansing brought about by the workings of natural law would have steered these misguided folk into the proper and functional path long ago. At a recent libertarian conference I ran across a man who put his libertarian position on drugs in starkly Social Darwinian terms. He said, in effect: "Let's legalize all drugs. Ten these drug-taking kids will kill themselves off, and the problem will be eliminated." Harshly and crudely put, perhaps, and of course there are other libertarian grounds for legalization. But again our friend had a keen point: take away the artificial props, allow premises and nature their head, and the law of cause and effect will correct the situation with dispatch. If, as I firmly believe, psychedelic drugs destroy mind and body, then the removal of artificial restrictions will reveal this fact starkly and clearly, and the drug-takers will either fall by the wayside or correct their disastrous path. The great libertarian Social Darwinist William Graham Sumner put the matter very clearly: "Almost all legislative effort to prevent vice is really protective of vice, because all such legislation saves the vicious man from the penalty of his vice. Nature's remedies against vice are terrible. A drunkard in the gutter is where he ought to be, according to the fitnesses and tendency of things."" We shame behaviors that we think are disadvantageous for their survival & procreation. Like fat shaming, it really is altruistic punishment on overeating behavior. The same goes for drug shaming, altruistic punishment on bad lifestyle behavior. We are actually very nice to each other in this regard, probably because we all come from small tribes where we evolved to care for one another's survival because each individual, even if he had some inferior traits like low intelligence which causes you to make bad decisions, was important for your own survival & the survival of the whole tribe. It's because of that that we still have it in us to eliminate selective pressures & to protect people from their "vices" as how Social Darwinist William Graham Sumner calls it. (We want to eliminate them because "Selective/Evolutionary Pressures" leads to extinction when they are too strong, otherwise they lead to adaptation & evolution, if there are enough gene carriers & variety). So take for example a women with too narrow hips to bear children, she requires a c-section to give birth. Now that is an inferior trait, her gene set in her particular environment translated into an inferior trait (her hips) for the procreation in that environment. Now in small tribe it would indeed make sense to help that woman give birth to her child, as every individual is. And with humans, I don't want to say that there is over-population but we have enough variety and gene carriers to toughen up the selective pressures a bit, which will benefit humanity greatly over hundreds of generations. (My uncle who is a MD-PhD in Medicine thinks we are actually exterminating humanity in the long run because of this, because we rely to much on medical assistance (which took away a great deal of the natural evolutionary pressures), now those gene sets are still mixing their genes in the gene pool, and we are doing fine as long as the medical assistance is there (our new environment), but once our medical assistance falls a way & the natural evolutionary pressures abruptly comes back, we might have adapted to much to an environment. And on the other hand, we are actually doing eugenics on all kinds of bacteria & viruses with all our vaccines. I think we should make this a new law: unless we are sure that there is no variety in the gene pool of a certain bacteria, we are not allowed to use that vaccine. Because again, if the selective pressures (vaccines) aren't going to root out the whole virus or bacteria, we give them room for adaptation. Now anyway i'm getting to far off, back to politics.) Drug allowance is better for those who know how to deal with it, as they get to experiment with it safely without risk of bunk, uncertain dosages & penalty, and it would also be better for those who are not interested want to take drugs as enormous amount of resources from taxation is put into it. Prohibition only protects some low IQ people who do not make such a great decisions and are easily susceptible to addiction, from their own vices. (It's what meta-analysis show btw, overal those who try drugs have a moderately high IQ, but it's the lower end of that bell curve which fall into addiction.) Which is actually preventing (at least slowing down) the actual adaptation of our species to live in a environment where drugs exist, if you legalize it, yes there might be an incline in heroin addictions, but whatever, give people all their freedom in this world and let natural selection happen.

There are no physiological differences between obese people and non obese people. The reason of obesity is not because obese people absorb nutrients better or are more energy efficient in how they move. We all absorb nutrients optimally and move optimally. However, twin studies etc show that there is a strong genetic component to being obese. The difference must lie in (eating) behavior, every behavior is genetically influenced. Now being fat is obviously inferior in comparison to being thin. (much less healthy, dangerous for yourself, resource waisting, etc)

Socio-cultural freedom, laissez-faire capitalism, no welfare state, etc, naturally selects those genesets who peform badly in our modern urbanistic environment out of the genepool at a faster rate than what would be in a socialist conservative society. In a socialist environment even the opposit occurs, it's dysgenics. Letting people decide for themselves what they want to do, wether that is taking drugs, overeating, be a transgender, aslong as they don't initiate the use of force against another individual = increased selective pressures. ___ (I hope you understand how real individual to individual altruism is evolutionary possible, and the genetic similarity theory. Fat shame & drug shame & transgender shame, is altruistic punishment. We want to help & direct & steer others into (what we think) is the right direction. Besides, we all came from small tribes, and we needed everyone's labour, even if you were a bit genetically inferior and had mental deviations, low intelligence and whatnot, for our small tribe to survive. However, giving people freedom, letting them make their own decisions = better for the intelligent who make good decisions and worse for the unintelligent who make bad decisions. I don't wan't to say that there is overpopulation but we got more than enough gene carriers to survive some increases of evolutionary pressures. Hence im pro legalization of all drugs, pro euthanasia, pro abortion, fat acceptant, LGBT acceptant, etc.)

There is one fundamental difference in today's environment: food is quasi unlimited. Think about it, this has never been the case throughout all the million years of evolution, food always used to be scarce, you couldn't just go to a supermarket and afford to eat +10k calories a day. This fundamental difference changed in the last ±100 years. Before that, it wouldn't make much of a difference if you were someone who had the psychological nature to eat as much as you CAN or someone who eat as much as you NEED. In the environment where food was hard to get, the "as much as you can eaters" would end up the same as the "as much as you need" eaters, so in that environment people with the psychology to get obese in todays environment wouldn't turn out to be obese, and as obesity clearly isn't a benificial trait in terms of spreading out your genes, this is why they got this far. But a new environment -> new evolutionary pressures, obese people aren't perse genetically inferior in an environment where food is hard to get, they are genetically inferior in an environment where food isn't hard to get. (PS twin studies etcetera show that there is a genetical factor to obesity, obviously) This is why I am very much pro-fat acceptant, because than they will rid themselves out of the genepool at a faster rate. The thing with us humans is that we want to perserve everyones genes, we are actually very nice in this regard, probably because we all came out of small tribes and we needed everyone, even if they were a little bit more genetically inferior, to procreate. The proces of fat shaming, and any other shaming like drugs, is really to help those people, it's called altruistic punishment. If we wouldn't give each other remarks on their stupidity, than they would rid themselves out of the genepool because of their stupidity. We evolved to help each other & steer each other into living (what we think is) in the right direction. But now that we have plenty of human gene carriers (enough population), I think it's time to let people be free and let them rid themselves out of the gene pool. This is why I also am for the legalization of drugs. Since people with inferior high order cognition and smaller prefrontal cortex and lower IQ tend to fall into addiction. Just like people with low IQ, smaller prefrontal cortex ( according to this study: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/COEDO2014.pdf) fall into obesity.

(Excuse me for my poor sentence formulation, I'm tired, just liked to share some ideas before I'm going to bed.) Next to the differences in intelligence, I think that Aryan & north-east mongoloids have more cooperative personalities than Hamitic/Semitics/Negroids who have generally more authoritarian personalities. If you think about it, northern tribes where warmth & food was scarce, there was no time to conquer other tribes, rape other women, own slaves etc. Because of the though environments they evolved to be more cooperative, if they would go out and do that, rape women of other tribes & conquer & fight for authority, they would die out themselves. Think about it, if 2 tribes in a cold winter climate didn't cooperate with each other instead try to conquer each other, both tribes would die out (the genes that caused such behavior would die out). Take slaves for example, would slavery like in Egypt be possible in Sweden? No, your slaves would simply die in the winter, through the winter there was only meat to eat & you can't provide all your slaves with meat, through the winter you required good clothes and warm shelter, you also can't provide that for all your slaves. Now in the middle-east where food and warmth wasn't scarce, which behaviors/which genes would spread even more? Those who gained authority over other people, those who were able to claim the men of other tribes as slave & rape their women, because the environment was less though they had the room to compete with each other instead of working with each other to compete against nature. Pyramids symbolize authority & might, a product of slavery. The wheel, windmills & boats symbolize technology & science, the product of wanting to have food during the winter. Also, why is it so easy for white people to accept & understand & acknowledge that orientals are intellectually superior to them, but why is it so hard for blacks to acknowledge whites are intellectually superior than them? This is also why northern people (think about swedes lol) are so incredibly liberal, do you think blacks/Hamitic/Semitics would ever act as pro white & tolerant towards other races as whites are towards black? But I think this will also be the downfall of them, because warmth & food isn't scarce anymore, people who have evolved to live in southern climates now can come over and habituate in Sweden. But northern human gene set (where the biggest competition wasn't to conquer each instead work with each other to create great things like windmills & warm houses, who are generally more interested in science and how things work) wont protect themselves against those with a strong nature of authoritarian tribalism, they don't understand that not everyone is like them, they are being sane & liberal & tolerant against people who will just run over them. (Which is shown as Islam, which is shown as sympathy sucking and shaming on white men, which is shown as BLM, which is shown as affirmative action in south africa, etc). Luckily there is the variety we need in white people for white people to survive, some white people are rational enough to understand that not everyone is like them, and it's those aryan gene sets who aren't evolutionary dead end in this new environment of global urbanism.

What else beside printing money can cause long term inflation? And how? I was arguing with a friend, he said that wealth differences causes long term inflation, not sure how. Im not sure how cutting taxes can per se cause the worth of 1 dollar to decrease. If there would be no government who prints money, how can money loose it's wealth/inflation occur?

It's only you who perceive it as "so negative", I intended it humorously. Sorry I am Dutch we lack nuance. Yes this also counts for me, yes people can steal my resources, but than they should also expect me to give them a punch in the face, getting jailed or being ostracized from the tribe Im from (which is my protection). This is very normal, if one tribe has the chance to steal resources from another tribe, being 100% sure that NO negative consequences will follow, than yes every tribe would steal the resources. If can't protect your resources, than you simply can't protect your resources and natural selection will get rid of you.

lol just lol no but in all seriousness, life is a competition man. But besides that, africans didn't even obtain those resources, whites did, only in their habitat. If you are on vacation to China, just walking through a natural cave, but than you suddenly see a huge diamond embedded in the rocks & you chisel it out, will you keep that diamond and sell it, or donate it to the Chinese government?

The ONLY reason why your oil and your diamonds and your gold is worth something is because of the west. Also if Africa is too dumb and too weak to protect their resources, so be it. If white people and asian people didn't exist, if the only people on earth were africans, than they STILL would've been living in tribes with spears and thongs and huts. ______________________ Stephan Molyneux, as a historian, can you make a video about the history/truth of Africa? How did their civilization look like throughout history? It's independant cultural achievements.. How it evolved... How it was before the whites "colonized" africa... How it was before whites took slaves from america. Before "the whites ruined their civilization", had they cities, or were they living in thongs & huts with spears? How did their contact with white people change their civilization? If no other humans beside negroids exicted, would barack obama currently be running around in a thong chasing kudu's? etc...

Honestly, you just come up with some typical sentences (which have some truth) but don't hold any stake at all, you're kinda indoctrinated. "There are a variety of sexual/reproductive strategies in Nature, and none are objectively better or worse than others, they are all adapted to various niches and environments.". True [but in the end it actually isn't, I totally get what people mean when they say that. But the reason why some species die out is simply because they are less well adapted to their (new) environment than other species. So it's not incorrect to say that we were for example, objectively better evolved and adapted than other competing hominids who have died out in the past. It's fair to say that a nearly-extinct animal is genetically less well adapted than a least-corcern species. It's very fair to say that some mutated human being with an IQ of 40 is genetically inferior, because his probability to reproduce is very low, and even lower in a non-welfare state society.] Now anyway, what stake does that hold? Where do I say that chimps (and its reproduction strategy) are objectivly better or worse evolved than great hornbills? Do you think our evolution has halted? There are still alot of things in our new/industrialized environment that we are very obviously not well adapted to. And I am arguing that we have been switching from a more chimpanzee like reproducing strategy to a more bird-like reproducing strategy. Not everything that used to be optimal (couple of hundred thousand years ago when we were less intelligent and when we didn't have our own houses etc), is still optimal now. A complex society is the result of our increased intelligence, and in a complex society people tend to be more individualistic, hence why fatherhood is important, the way chimps procreate and care for a young obviously wouldn't work with humans, but I bet that once our ancestors did have a reproduction and raising strategy more like chimps, which I don't think is too controversial. " We can only apply standards of good and bad parenting to creatures who have free will." Sorry but I can not make sense out of that. And where in evolution did we suddenly gain freewill? What do you mean with free will and what does free will have to do with this conversation?

I understand what you are saying but I don't think you made one good argument, the things that you are saying in your arguments sound true but they are completely off point. Could you please summarize what you think my standpoint/ or what you think that I am arguing in this topic? Just to make sure that that we are on the same page/ that you first get what I am arguing before starting a debate. You make it sound like I think that we will get rid of our sex drive You realize that birds are better fathers than primates and humans? There are for example NO single mother great hornbills (only widows, but if that's the case, than the chances of the offspring reaching maturity is dropped drasticly). Primates on the otherhand don't have a father-mother-offspring family like great hornbills. Bonobo or chimpanzee males are genetically programmed to fight for alphaness than have sex with all the females of the tribe. The bonobo/chimp offspring will be taken care of by the mother and the tribe. Great hornbill's don't live in tribes, so if a male great hornbil would be out to have sex with all the females they come across, their species would die out, because the mother can't raise offspring on their own and they don't live in tribes so they need a father. So this is why bonobos/chimps have the desire to have sex alot, and this is where our desire to have frequent sex also comes from. do Great hornbills males have sex frequently? No they don't, it makes perfect sense for them to only have sex just a couple times in their lifetime, just for the sake of reproducing. We humans have been evolving away from this alpha-beta male fatherhoodless singlemotherness (like primates) to a mother-father-offspring family (like great hornbills). Some humans are further down this evolution and are able to maintain a mother-father-offspring family (for ex. stefan molyneux), others are not (for ex. jamal & tyrone & all the other single mothers who are benefiting from the welfare state). For a male chimp and a male bonobo, the desire to have alot of sex is not obsolete, it makes perfect sense for them to have this desire. Great Hornbills; they don't have this desire at all, they only have sex once every so many years. We still have this desire but it has become obsolete. We only do it because we still have those genetics which causes brain structures which causes the desire to have alot of sex, we only do it to please that desire, but it has no function anymore. "Hunter-gatherers have at least three different kinds of strong bonds: male-male bonds, female-female bonds, and the family made up of mother, father, and offspring. Chimps and bonobos have the first two but they have no families. So far as we can tell, neither chimps nor bonobos have any idea who the father of an infant is." -http://benedante.blogspot.be/2012/09/bonobos-chimps-fatherhood-and-origins.html For the past thousand years we had alot of evolutionary pressure on single motherness, now unfortunately, with the welfare state, we are slowing this evolution down ALOT, now with the welfare state the offspring of single mothers actually make it to adulthood, which wouldn't be the case a thousand years ago, and even worse, they are outnumbering.

This is exactly why I explicitly said "If our environment would stay the same". The release of that technology will change something in our environment which will completely rid all the natural evolutionary pressures on such traits as homosexuality or narrow hips (we find women with wide hips and narrow waist beautiful because they have a superior morphology to pop out children). And that's why I actually don't want that technology to come, because if we would certain traits the ability to reproduce that in nature would otherwise not be able to reproduce, than we will dirten our genepool. It will make us adapt to that technology to the point that we wouldn't be able to live without, like dogs have adapted to be domesticated and now can't live without (take for example shih tzu). Anyway im getting too far off topic. ________________________________________ Here I found a video where Richard Dawkins say things which I consider to be in my favor.

"Both of these claims, if adhered to, would bring the propagation of the human species to a halt overnight." What has sex were we conciously hinder insemination to do with the propagation of the human species? We are one of the only animals, who have sex while conciously hindering insemination. If we wouldn't need to spend 1 hour a day fucking/fapping to keep ourselves happy but instead be able to have a perfect happy life only having sex a few times in our lifetime when you decide to have children. Than we would be much better of, than we would be a much more functional organism, better adapted to our current environment. The fact that we can't function without having sex, that that would make us depressed, is not superior anymore, I understand how this sexual behavioral nature/drive would be functional and eventually lead to more offspring back when we more like chimps, were the alpha chimp can procreate with every female of its tribe. Than you needed a FREQUENT sexual drive, having this drive would drive you to become the alpha of the tribe so you could fuck all them bitches. And the offspring would've been taken care of by the whole tribe. So it was possible back than. Now we conciously know that how chimpanzee's are procreating wouldn't work for us anymore, because indeed raising children requires enormous investment from both your mother AND YOUR FATHER, but we still share some genetics that shape our brains.

"STer" sent me a message for the term to describe this thing i'm talking about: maladaptation. "A maladaptation (/ˌmælædæpˈteɪʃən/) is a trait that is (or has become) more harmful than helpful, in contrast with an adaptation, which is more helpful than harmful." Our sexual behavior used to be helpful but now has become more harmful than helpful. Hence why we are now evolving away from this trait, and hence why I think a couple thousand generations later we might only have sex when we want to procreate.

Ok please let's leave the atheists/agnostic shit out of the discussion. There isn't really a difference, atheism/theism is about what you believe, agnostic/Gnostic is about what you know. Most atheists would admit to being a agnostic atheist if you explain to them the what agnosticism/Gnosticism is. I also call myself atheist for the ease of it, but of course am I factually an Agnostic Atheist. Because even though I believe that there is no god, I also admit that I do not know if there is no god. Just leave that out. It's fkn boring. Oxymoron? Stop copying the words you hear Stefan use, you are not making sense out of it. "Experience very real spiritual hallucinations." Ofcourse do I not imply that it's physically happening, otherwise you wouldn't find the word HALLUCINATION behind it. There is nothing wrong with saying that someones spiritual hallucinations are very real, it's implying that his experiencing hallucinations very vividly. Just like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn-sXUNyooQ

There are two studies from before the 50s. The hunter study asked people with an IQ above 135 if they were religious, only 15% were so. Terman study asked people with an IQ above 140 if they were religious, only 13% were so. And at this time +95% of America used to be religious. Remind yourself that less than 1% of the population has an IQ above 140. From these studies I conclude that the very few people who are able to solve very hard puzzles were you need to have a very logical brain for, tend to recognize the irrationality of religion. So I suspect that the average atheist during medieval times who had to shut their mouth about it, where on averagely very significantly more intelligent than the average, because back than there was nothing conforming about being atheists, if you were atheists, it was so because of your own realizations by your own cognition. I can tell that most of you atheists would be theistic if you were born in medieval times. Regarding the fact that several studies show how schizophrenic experience very real spiritual hallucinations. I'd like to make this categorization: -Conforming/environmental theists/atheists (Huge majority, 95%) -Theists by own cognition (schizophrenics) -Atheists by own cognition (very rational people) I don't think you can explain the increase of atheism the last 50 years by telling that we all suddenly have a more rational brain. Well for a fact that is true, you have the Flynn effect that tells you how the newer generations score better on IQ tests than the old generations, so I suspect that the "Atheists by own cognition" group increased. But the biggest factor that caused the atheists increase is due the fact that it's now conforming to be atheist in some environments (like my sister who was theistic all her life and now suddenly claims she doesn't believe in god since she has a strong atheistic boyfriend). And now because of the increase of rational brains we are with more to inspire brains who would be theistic 80 years ago, to be atheistic. (Btw, yes being religious is completely irrational and being atheists is rational.) This also explains the religiosity % of countries and their IQ. North-East Asian countries: Average IQ 106: About50% irreligion. Western Countries: Average IQ 100. About 20-30% irreligion. Middle East: Average IQ 85. >5% irreligion. African countries: IQ 60-80. >1% irreligion (Numbers are a bit out of my head.)

I thought a rightist would describe someone who is pro-capitalism, anti- welfare state, etc. I am anti-welfare state.... This is exactly what I suspected. You give a religious 100IQer heroin and Einstein heroin, who is more likely to fall into addiction? I'm pretty sure that the religious 100IQer will more likely fall into addiction. But on the otherhand are more intelligent people less conforming to the guidance for the mediocre, and much more experimental instead. Not trying to boast myself or anything, I'm just using myself as an example. I score a 162 on the Raven's Progressive Matrices, I experimented with Amphetamines when I was 14, ketamine at the age of 16, Cocaine at the age of 17, heroin at the age of 18. The only risk there was for me is the acute demage of taking drugs, falling into addiction wasn't something I worried about whatsoever. I knew this before hand, because I would hang out daily with people who smoked, so I also started smoking, this for a couple of months, but when I stopped hanging around with those people, I just quit smoking like I've never smoked before. I never had to battle addictions whatsoever, never had to fight my tendencies, never went over my limits, never took drugs more than once within a 3 month span. So that's how I trusted myself, my friends would warn me before taking my first heroin trip but I was 100% sure that I would not fall into addiction. Meanwhile did I not take drugs in the past 1.5 years, the last drug I took was heroin, which was also my first time. Now I would not want my friends to experiment the same way I did, because I don't believe that they are intelligent enough not to fall into addiction. Most of my friends even fell for cigarettes, the most worthless and stupid thing there is, eventhough I smoked tabak on a daily basis for a month or two, and still smoke it occasionally, I can not imagine how someone would fall into addiction to tabacco, I can't comprehend it, my friends are retards lol.

I suspect that if our environment would stay the same that homosexuality would rarely occur in 2000 years or more. It's evident that there is a strong evolutionary pressure on homosexuals, since the trait of having love chemistry for the same sex instead of the other sex will most likely cause you to not reproduce, in other words, homosexuals are actually very genetically inferior, just only because of that one trait. You have more chances of reproducing being 4foot tall with IQ of 55 than being homosexual. And yes there a genetic component to being homosexual, which a twin study strongly suggest. I guess that the reason why homosexuality didn't rid itself already is because of a new factor in our environment that causes genes to out itself in homosexual behavior, whereas those genes 2000 years ago, when the environment was different, wouldn't have caused homosexuality. (Now I didn't really need a twin study to know that there is a genetical component to being homosexual because in my philosophy, genetics have to do with everything. In my words are you are the results of your genetics reacting with your environment. Even Rabies caused by the Lyssavirus is genetically determined, we don't think about it this way only because there are yet no humans/no genes in the human genepool who ARE immume to rabies caused by the Lyssavirus. But if you would have the genes of a whale than you are indeed immuum to the Lyssavirus. So yes, rabies is genetically determined and enviromentally determined. The Enviromental factor of aids: You ofcourse need the Lyssavirus to have rabies. Genetically: Not every organism will get rabies when confronted with the lyssavirus. If you have the genetics of a whale (than you will be a whale), than the virus won't onset rabies. If you have the genetics of a human (so you are a human). Than the virus WILL onset rabies. The same logic should be applied to everything. Everything about your behavior is both genetically and enviromentally determined. So nurture or nature? Everything is both.) It's just natural selection really. Anyway, I am pro-LGBT movement, I'm very much for gay acceptance, because if you give the people their freedom, and let them behave how they want to instead of having this social pressure causing gay people to oppress their natural behavior and follow the norms, than the darwinistic process of homosexuality getting out of the genepool will only slow down. Just like the father in the movie American Dream, who because of social norms oppressed his nature/tendencies, did have a wife and reproduced. If that father would've been born a generation later, than he would most probably be a happy gay man but also wouldn't have reproduced because of it. cheers