Erwin

Not to mention, all 3 of those words mean different things depending on context. For example, all 3 of those words mean one thing in chemistry and something else in economics. But hey, what do we armchair theorists know? It's not like Stephen Hawking ever d--- Oh. Right.

So the reason why you won't address my 3 concrete examples, 1 argument, and 3 simple questions is because "you don't regard it as serious" ?

Argument from authority is not an argument. Also, your assumption that I get my science from magazines is not only unfounded (since you can't possibly know that), but I think you're smart enough to know that you're just saying that to attack my credibility instead of addressing my argument. Not that it matters, but I used to be in pre-med if it makes you feel that I am now good enough to speak to. As for you labeling me an opinionator, surely you can point out what my opinion is? Reflection much? I'm calling your vision of science to task with 3 solid examples, 1 argument, and 3 questions. If you're so sure you're right, surely you can point out where I'm wrong? I'd be happy to answer this, but one thing at a time. You made a claim, and I made a counter-argument which you have yet to address. Ball's in your court, not mine.

Well, off the top of my head: - the only whites who survived the plague are the ones who were smart enough to isolate themselves. They passed on their genes leading to an IQ increase in the average population. - the only bacteria who survive anti-biotics are those who are resistance. They pass on their genes leading to an increase in bacterial resistance. - women - when given the choice - prefer to mate with taller men. Taller men make more babies, leading to an increase in the average height of the population. 3 concrete examples. Entropy is a measure of randomness, and often used for predictive analysis (such as systems theory), not descriptive analysis (such as genetics). The reason that they don't take it seriously is because it is irrelevant to studying actual genetic makeup. There will always be a 100% chance that your genes are your genes, and are what they are, because you can map out the exact sequence. You are equating gene expression with computation. What is the basis for this? Why do you consider genes to be information? Why do you consider gene expression to be a technology?

I don't think it's a question of slaughter. Having a mental concept doesn't randomly make others follow the NAP. The NAP simply a principle that governs our own actions, regardless of who it is.

What is a negative right? Negative as opposed to what??

4: Degenerates normalize degeneracy and remove the social costs of degenerate behavior.

ohhh the problem with online tests is they are incomplete At best, it tests your spatial reasoning. But then there's working memory, reflex, and verbal ability. For a real test, check out the WIAT, but it's only sold to licensed psychologists.

If a low-IQ person takes your advice and attempts a high-IQ endeavour, then he will end up pissing away his life. Don't you think it's more humane to stay in your lane?

1 problem that high IQ presents is boredom (and thus, inattention). Everyone thought my little brother had ADHD. He took an IQ test, and it turns out he zones out from boredom since the course material is so dull. Teachers usually present a concept then beat it to death. That may be necessary for most people, but the problem with high IQ is you'll get the jist of what the teacher is saying quickly. Anything else becomes repetitive. which can lead to boredom. If you are bored in class, chances are you'll zone out. If the teacher presents new material, you might miss out on it.

Not sure I'd call leftist sentiment anxiety nor fear. Those words imply that their grievances are rational. What they are fearful of is climate change. That's phobia. What they are anxious of is racism (and you can't see racism just because it's "systemic", "internalized", and "institutional"). That's paranoia. When you look at how removed they are from reality, why not simply call it psychosis?

Because you are repeating the same thing as if I didn't make this point: ______________________________________________ By your logic: "Instead of raping someone, just find an ugly girl and have sex with her. The result is the same, an orgasm." You are equating a noble / charitable act like offering food and shelter to a needy person, with the act of capturing someone by force and terrorizing them into doing things you like done. You are a horrible person. You should be ashamed of yourself, you psychopath. CONVERSATION OVER

1 ) Irrelevant: Regardless of whether a robot lives, robots cannot choose 2) You are talking about people that do not chose. That's called slavery. Slaves cannot choose 3) My argument was that unless people are robots or slaves, they choose. I'll try again when you make an argument. Indentured servitude is either voluntary or slavery, but not both (by definition). No, you adjust your arguments. You're the one changing the definition, and immediately contradicting yourself. Or you join some other society. Voluntary society. (Hence, the word voluntary.) Irrelevant. You just admitted to the emergence of high IQ. So how can you claim that people have always been the same? ...waiting... Your claim is founded on a false dichotomy, that you have to necessarily choose between 1 rape and 30 rapes. How many times have you been raped?

No. The answer is No. If the government was overthrown by robots or slaves, it would still not be voluntary as robots and slaves cannot partake in any voluntary associations (by definition), and thus, could never live in a voluntary society. You can have slaves or a voluntary society, but not both. If I woke up to this, I would be presented with the option of partaking, in which case I would then make a decision. What about all the low-IQ R-Selected people who's survival depends on government funds? I don't see how cleansing our gene pool has no biological effect. What about changes in the characteristics of populations? The emergence or extinction of ethnicities and races? These are huge changes, and they have happened (and continue to happen) since forever. How could it be the least likely thing to change if it happens so often? I have seen history, and I can tell you that we have always lived under governments, and thus, we have never made such a choice. Given the lack of precedent, I don't get how you can just claim to know what people would choose.

Um... for no other reason than my amusement, I'll just deconstruct what's been said @_LiveFree_ But then it's not voluntary... Your statement is self-contradictory. That's like saying "you can't choose to have sex", cuz then it's rape... Why does one not choose? Was your hypothetical government overthrown by robots? Or slaves? How do you know? How do you know? if muh-guvment don't do it, golly gee who will?! It's not like there's people arou--- oh... right False dichotomy. How do you know? ---- @smarterthanone what a giant non-argument. Do you ever challenge your own assumptions? You keep saying "obviously" next to your claims, as if it validates them...

that and, you know... a ((( gene ))) test Amen lol Interesting, I didn't know that. I've been meaning to learn more about north east Asian cultures, do you know any videos or movies on the topic? I saw a (very tragic) movie on North Korea a month ago... very emotionally difficult watch but great movie. But I can't find anything on Japan or China... Regarding the art, I was comparing this: with this:

I think it is important to mention that there are very few Persians who remain white (like Jason Jorjani or Lionel Messi's persian twin). Most of them resemble either semites (Maz Jobrani) or Afghans / Indians (Reza Aslan). Imo, 99.99% of them should not be welcome to our movement whatsoever. Well, Aryan is a great candidate for North America. The consensus in our movement for Europe is either Europa or Imperium Europa. Unlike European countries who have a dominant ethnic majority, a North American ethnostate would be a non-dominant mix of multiple Aryan ethnicities. So... Aryanus? Imperium Aryanus? Aryanland? Yes, they had their versions but I was referring to our creativity, as what is genetically unique of the white man. The fact that we were meritocratic and had a pseudo-free-market in military command, meant that those with the highest creativity made the most money, and thus, the most babies. Hence, Aryan creativity genes. Consider this: despite the higher average IQ of mongoloids, they were completely incapable of producing artwork that wasn't stick-figure based. They were only capable of doing so using techniques invented - and introduced to them - by Europeans. Same goes for their whole economy, they are excellent copy-cats of white economies, but little to no innovations of their owns.

Yes, I do think that is the way to go about it. However, I haven't put enough time to think about that situation so I try to avoid that discussion, until I feel more qualified to talk about it. Actually, we used the word Aryan to distinguish from other Caucasians like semites. Iranians are only the eastern branch of Aryans, and research has unanimously concluded that pre-Muslim-rape Iranians were pure-blooded Europids (source), and early artwork portrays them with blonde hair, blue-eyes. See the Aryan migration gif on the bottom. Aryan is the racial word for Indo-European. Aryans originated in what is modern Ukraine (or around that area). The Iranians were the first to split out south to Pars (hence, Persian), half of whom formed Aryanus or Aryana-Shaher (City of Aryans or Aryan Imperium) and later the Persian empire, and the northern Iranians were collectively referred to as Scythians (the 3 Mejii that predicted the birth of Jesus were Scythian). Further East, they went to Asia where they miscegenated with the locals (which is why we don't care about them anymore, they're brown now). South west, they went to Greece and formed the Greek kingdoms. And eventually they split to the rest of continental Europe. The Aryan influence is still pervasive in Europe. The ancient greek word for Aryan is Aristos, which is the root of aristocracy (rule by Aryans), and Aristoteles (Artistotle). The celtic word for Aryan is Iren, Irenland meaning land of Aryans, and translated to English "Ireland". Our Aryan origins - common genes, and our meritocratic / free market-friendly nature is purely an Aryan invention - are what binds us as a people, and a huge contributor to the Aryan people's IQ. Otherwise, what would Saxons have in common with Slavs? Or Italics? Or Celts? You think it is a coincidence that all Aryans have all had a different version of the same religion (son of Jehovah / Mithra / Odin, born to the virgin Mary / Yalda / Yule) on the night of the winter solstice, and foreseen by 3 Mejii? Hmmm.....) You should look up a Richard Spencer interview with a genetics professor, called "The Origins of the White Man". The Aryans were the only ones at the time who could dispose of their military commander without violence, and replace the commander with whoever was most competent. Often, to jostle for power, the candidates would come up with military theory, and experiments to prove that their strategy and tactics were superior. It is not a surprise that the Greeks invented the phalanx, and the Romans invented the legion. It is a deeply genetic behavioral trait unique to Aryans.

@Tyler H really enjoying this btw. The quality of the debate...

There is no social support for many forms of coercion, and yet they still occur. So, social support cannot be sufficient. Why does the animacy of A invalidate the self-defense claim of C? Also, D-Z have already funded the laws lobbied by B through taxation, so they have already been affected. Reversing the law reverses the effect, by undoing the tax. How can you object to less taxation / coercion without rejection the NAP? No, we oppose the state as it is an initiator of force, and thus violates the NAP. The ethnostate is force in defense against the initial force initiated upon us, and self-defense is NAP-compliant. Actually, it is an argument against the welfare state. We would never have this demographic issue if it weren't for the ability of foreigners to get free money / government services, since most of them would never come here to begin with. In fact, the free-est societies in history have been over 95% of one race, either Aryan or Northern mongoloid (18th century England, 19th century U.S., early 20th century Hong Kong & Japan, etc). Not only would our genes not perish in a free society, it is all the other races that risk extinction or at least dramatic population reduction as the low-IQ people die off, which is the majority of people of all the other races. Can you imagine what would happen if Africa had a free society when the average IQ is 70? ... They are the ones who need the welfare state for survival, not Aryans.

Depends on who you're communicating with. Alt Righters rarely use the word genocide amongst themselves, because it is already understood that they want our extinction. White Genocide is more commonly used with normies, as it elicits rejection, then questioning. Judging by our conversation, it worked. It takes at minimum 2 babies per couple just to maintain the population. Every white country is below that. So.... unless we become immortal, we'll be dead. And it's not because they are coming to kill us, they have already imposed an environment that is not conducive for baby-making and then hiding behind the idea that "well hey, it's not our fault they won't breed". So coercion has already been - and continues to be - done to us, resulting in our de-population. Are we supposed to stand here and perish? There is no non-violent way to reverse coercion. You mixed up your variables. B is the interest group, and does not argue against the use of A. Also regarding C's self-defense claim, we have already established that undoing government laws reduces theft. And why does B have the right to self-defense? They have already initiated coercion. Lastly, you can recognize the evil of A & B, as the initiated force. C acted in self-defense, using A. To argue for the immorality of this is to argue for the immorality of most self-defense cases since they usually involve similar weaponry. For example, X attacks Y with fists, and Y defends himself with fists. What a hypocrite! Well of course not, because X was the initiator. Same case can be made with guns, knives, or... government.

1) Why is people's opinions relevant to the definition of the word? 2) I would push back on dysgenics, simply because although it is accurate, it leaves out the part where we die (kinda important ). In any case, why is mass homicide a greater threat than death through an imposed environment? Either way, the end result is our death... Is there some additional choice that we have now but wouldn't have under mass homicide? Well I was going off of what you said. Government is always the first initiator of force, correct? Therefore, A = government, B = interest group (migrants / Jews / globalists), C = taxpayers and those who must have the law imposed on them (whites)

I stand corrected, but my point is that there is more than one way to kill a race, besides direct mass homicide. Do we agree on this point? Well I thought it was self-explanatory. If C can defend himself against B, even though A was the initiator of coercion, then the right of defense cannot be contingent on who the initiator was, but only who is the immediate perpetrator. So then the use of government as a means of self-defense cannot be immoral, provided that it is used against an immediate perpetrator of coercion.

Etymologically, geno-cide literally means gene death. Mass homicide of a race or ethnicity is only one form of it. Altering the natural habitat of a race (in the case of whites, a K-selected environment to an R-selected environment) to the point where it is no longer conducive to reproduce at or above replacement levels, is another way of committing genocide. In my opinion, it is a particularly deceptive and manipulative form of genocide since the ((( perpetrators ))) can always say: "well hey, it's their choice to not reproduce!" Except that we never chose to have an R-selected environment imposed, and yet they pretend that it is so surprising that K-selected people aren't breeding in an R-selected environment... At our current reproduction levels, our genes will die, hence genocide.

That's only if you accept the ((( mainstream ))) narrative. Also, childhood experience may increase the likelihood of psychopathy but is not in itself a diagnostic criteria. LOL. This idea that race-conscious people separate themselves based on skin color is a purely ((( MSM ))) invention. We use skin color as a quick and dirty way to identify race. But race itself has very little to do with skin color by itself. Your race gives information about what environment you have been adapted for, and what genetic characteristics you have. Off the top of my head: - IQ - Ability to delay gratification - Aggression - Drive - Libido - Selection Strategy - Parental investment - Empathy - Creativity - Immune System - Inheritance rate - temperament - ability to recognize risk - ability to recognize cost - ability to discriminate