ILovePhilosophy.com

Gloominary wrote:Anyway, I enjoyed my discussion with Serendipper.
I may get back to him, gib, Karpel and others later, but for now, I need a break.

I hear ya! Me too! It's been fun and there is no hurry; I'll reply even if you wait months from now.

Serendipper wrote:

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Oh I get your point now: she should be grateful to exist in this country and should take indignity with stride. That would be ok if someone were presented with that option at the border so they could have the choice to agree. "Hello Mr. Brownperson! Here's the deal: you can come in and enjoy the fruits, but you have to eat our shit too. Do you accept these terms?" I guess it's even worse if you're born here because then you don't get a choice; you're born into indignity and expected to be grateful. "I may be eating shit, but at least I'm eating high-quality american shit and I'm grateful for that!" All this because why?

We have to eat a lot of shit from minorities too.
We have to eat their racism.

I have never seen it. I used to work in crack neighborhoods and saw nothing but nice young men trying to sell me crack. No one ever called me names or tried to fight or steal or anything. Now I live with a Hispanic population and still see no racism, except from white folks complaining about the intrusion of brown people. I ask them why and they have no good reason. My friend says it's because they're riding his dime on welfare, but it's not true: hispanics are too hardworking to be riding welfare and most of them are whites, like his worthless sister.

My biggest problem is white trash and happily I'd trade them for more Hispanics. The guy who threw trash on my property was white. The guys racing up n down the road were white. The methheads are white. Round em up and send em back to Ireland or, lol, Australia lol! (prison colony joke) Seriously, I'd gladly trade some trailer trash for Hispanics... As hardworking as they are, they'd probably clean up the neighborhood. The worst thing about Hispanics is the large parties on holidays.

I have no clue what racism you're referring to.

Many of them are less educated, intelligent, more crime and terror prone.

Terror prone? What is that? The Irish have the shortest fuses and probably a good definition of a Tasmanian Devil is an Irish Apache mix lol. Hell, Notre Dame's logo is The Fighting Irish!

Some of them have strange, unusual and disturbing customs, like forcing their women to wear burkas, and treating them like big children, or property.

Why should I care? As long as they don't gather in the aisle at the store jabberjawing, I'm cool.

Some don't speak our language well, or at all.

That's their problem.

Some have no comprehension of our laws, history and customs.

They'll figure it out.

Many of them have five-ten kids per family, forcing us to overdevelop ourselves (I don't want more pollution and population density), putting a strain on our environment and resources.

Food is a function of the sun and I can't see overwhelming it. Like I said before, prosperous people do not reproduce, so make them prosperous and there is no problem... except for the idea of someone getting something they don't deserve.

The illegals especially take some of our jobs from us.
And don't say we won't do them, Europeans built and maintained their countries without (illegal) immigration.

This video was made to address that



They have a low center of gravity and tolerance for heat.

How do you know their plight is exaggerated?

She has more rights than I do, so how can she say she doesn't feel like a part of this country?
Because she's been subjected to a little racism now and then, likely mostly because she and her ilk can't stop blabbing about how much more she's entitled to from us because she's brown?
Because she's heard mulattos with a 'fuck da police' attitude wind up being shot dead?

I really don't know much about her situation. She has more rights because she's a woman and not because she's brown.

Her feelings are disproportionate to the facts.

We all do that.

And on college campuses, universities and philosophy forums, where facts and reason ought to count for more than fiction and feelings, she should be exposed for it.

Sure, I guess.

Spoiled by what measurement? Just existing in the US is being spoiled? When I think of spoiled, I think Trump who was born with a silver spoon up his butt; not some brown woman ranting on youtube.

I probably can't become a citizen of her country, and I probably wouldn't want to, because it's arguably inferior.
We have more to offer than them, and yet they still complain.

I think what she is complaining about is she is a citizen and should be treated as such instead of being a 2nd class citizen.

I agree they should learn our language and ways, but they shouldn't have to kiss our butts. There is a difference.

*Gasp* you fascist pig!
How dare you force them to learn our language and customs when we should be learning theirs!

I wouldn't force them to learn our language, but I also wouldn't cater to them by putting up signs in their language.

We need to focus on one issue rather than these vague generalities. The correlation of IQ to success is about 16%, which is not a correlation.

From my research, iQ is somewhat correlated with education and wealth.

The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades. Moderator analyses showed that the relationship between intelligence and success is dependent on the age of the sample but there is little evidence of any historical trend in the relationship. http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-cont ... search.pdf

It's a meta, so there are links to other studies in the meta at the bottom. I think the highest correlation was .37, which isn't a correlation. There are a lot of problems associated with being smart that preclude successful assimilation into society.

It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Jews are white. Many, if not most, have blue eyes!

Ashkenazi Jews appear to be as much or more white than west Asian.
I'll accept them as white, so long as they genuinely think of themselves as white, and fight for, or at least refrain from opposing our interests.
Jews who've been caught opposing us, need to be exposed, and have their power stripped from them.

Yeah I guess any conspiracy ought to be busted up.

I don't know why you're not more pissed at old white dudes then.

You seem to be pissed at whites in general, not just the white overclass.

I'm pissed at old whites and young white trailer trash.

Just don't come to Europe. Here its gone so far that muslim cops will allow crimes by other muslims even if there are witnesses and get non muslim people in trouble for complaining about that. Well to do muslims generally don't feel they need to abide by traffic rules either and they're often driving in cars apparently paid for by crime (20 year olds driving 200 k Benzes), so people aren't standing up to them, because of this thing with the police, the one sided justice. In London you even have a muslim mayor who has decriminalized the physical abuse of children as long as it is done by muslims as an islamic act, and has sent to prison people who were peacefully protesting this. You probably will find it hard to even believe this. All the more reason, do not leave your country.

barbarianhorde wrote:Just don't come to Europe. Here its gone so far that muslim cops will allow crimes by other muslims even if there are witnesses and get non muslim people in trouble for complaining about that. Well to do muslims generally don't feel they need to abide by traffic rules either and they're often driving in cars apparently paid for by crime (20 year olds driving 200 k Benzes), so people aren't standing up to them, because of this thing with the police, the one sided justice. In London you even have a muslim mayor who has decriminalized the physical abuse of children as long as it is done by muslims as an islamic act, and has sent to prison people who were peacefully protesting this. You probably will find it hard to even believe this. All the more reason, do not leave your country.

You're right, I couldn't live in Europe. That London mayor is a real goofball. How did he come to power? He's banning knives now? What's next; pointy sticks and pens? They're a bunch of control-freaks (ie women) wanting to lock themselves in padded rooms for their own protection, but what kind of life is one void of risk?

And I've quit buying my favorite scotch (laphroaig) because they threw the guy in jail who simply trained his dog to perform a nazi salute and posted the video. I'll buy something from Japan (even though they buy the peat from scotland). The Scots-Irish have sure done a lot to work their way onto my shit list lol

I'm sure I'll resonate more with Gloominary once minority women come to power here and start stripping our rights for the purpose of safety, but that seems so far off considering who is in power now and I guess I'll complain about it when it happens.

I don't understand the European government's affinity for muslims. I mean, I understand feeling sorry for someone, but to allow others to be raped and killed just because you feel sorry for the perp is way overboard. I don't think that would happen here and if nothing else, the people would probably take the law into their own hands by converting trees into muslim swingsets.

It seems half of the US wants that kind of thing though. Trump and his voters are the only thing standing in the way of converting America to the newest latest Mekka. There are already very many muslims wearing hijab in the US, many no doubt mutilated down there, thus often mentally insane.

Islam is one giant Stockholm Syndrome. I never get why someone like you would join the party that wants to open the borders to them. But at least Im relieved you have the balls to speak out against what is happening in Europe. Still the people you appear to have voted for are the same ones who installed the first muslim nation inside Europe. The Clintons broke up Yugoslavia to do that. Our schools told us to cheer when the bombs fell on Belgrado.

barbarianhorde wrote:It seems half of the US wants that kind of thing though. Trump and his voters are the only thing standing in the way of converting America to the newest latest Mekka. There are already very many muslims wearing hijab in the US, many no doubt mutilated down there, thus often mentally insane.

I'll have to take your word for it because I've not seen many muslims and if you offered bounty for each, it would take me forever to locate even one. The only muslim I have ever known was a guy I worked for from Turkey and he was one of the most empathetic and considerate persons I can remember knowing.

Islam is one giant Stockholm Syndrome.

All religion is.

I never get why someone like you would join the party that wants to open the borders to them.

I'm kinda wishy washy lol. I change my mind a lot and next year I could be angry about something totally different, but right now the most pressing problem affecting me via people I care about is poverty, education, and healthcare. Immigration is WAAAAAY off in the distance. Around here, Hispanics are the problem and I have no problem with them. Their religion is Catholicism (better than fundamentalism), they're family oriented, hard-working, and never cause me any trouble. I'd appreciate it if the white population would emulate them.

But at least Im relieved you have the balls to speak out against what is happening in Europe.

Yes it's nuts!

Just today I read: EU Court Upholds Prosecution Of Woman For Comparing Muhammad's Marriage To A Six-Year-Old Girl To Pedophilia https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10- ... r-old-girl

Why is the EU defending a barbaric religion against free speech? I can't even pin this on female leadership because it's a woman who was prosecuted for complaining about a 50 yr old man with a 6 yr old girl. I have no theories to explain this.

Still the people you appear to have voted for are the same ones who installed the first muslim nation inside Europe. The Clintons broke up Yugoslavia to do that. Our schools told us to cheer when the bombs fell on Belgrado.

I doubt I voted for any of them. I never voted for any Clinton and was against Bill in the 90s. I support Bernie and other progressives and I see centrists as the worst evil because it's boiling the frog slowly (acclimation to mediocrity). I'd rather have Trump, crash the economy, then get an FDR-type of progressive. A centrist will continue the crappy status quo and the issues most directly affecting me will never be resolved, but compromises will abound.

I firmly believe the way to fix all problems is to make people smarter and end their suffering, then they can see clearly to make good decisions. But most people want to make it harder on the poor and such evil inclination can only backfire. Everyone should be assured a quality education, healthcare, and some minimum standard of living. Beyond that, I'm all for competition and meritocracy. I don't support trophies for everyone. I just want to end suffering; not make everyone the same.

@ Gloom at al

Politico has Demographic Drivers showing which demographic characteristics politically favor Democrats or Republicans, for instance PA:



https://www.politico.com/election-resul ... nsylvania/

After going through each state I've concluded the republican party is predominately white, old, stupid, and often poor (in order of correlation, with old and stupid tied for 2nd place).

That backs data from Pew showing the same:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 48/2_6.png
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 52/2_8.png

It's clear as day what we're dealing with here: the 50ish 60ish Boomer with a GED and grey goatee arrogantly thinking he's king shit. That is who the left is angry with and you can thank/blame old white men for the extinction of the white man. If they weren't so arrogant, they could have embraced sensible policies that might have attracted intelligent people to their party, but old people cannot be reasoned with and stupid people cannot be reasoned with, like machines cannot be reasoned with.

Trump lost the election in 2020 because he lost PA, MI, and WI which means he lost the electoral college. There is no way he can win without those 3 states and all 3 went solidly for the dems. In the mean time more young people will turn voting age and more republicans will crash their harleys into guardrails or otherwise become an invalid taking up space in a nursing home unable to vote.

Science progresses funeral by funeral - Max Planck

When the dems finally take over, the constitution should be amended to prevent Toryism from ever returning. It's like a herpes virus that causes big bubbles that pop then it goes into hiding for a spell before returning to inflict more pain.

@Serendipper

white, old, stupid, and often poor

White Americans built the USA, so they know what's best for it.

Old folks are wiser than young, young people tend to do dumb things, like drive drunk, or spend money they don't have on things they don't need, and young people tend to emulate old folks as time goes on.

'Uneducated' (or unindoctrinated) doesn't necessarily mean stupid, I thought you and I just went over that a page or two ago.

The working class (not to be conflated with the underclass) votes for him because they know he speaks for them...at least more than democrats and mainline republicans do.

Serendipper wrote:@Gloominary

Does the @ symbol do anything here?

Anyway, you're an Alan Watts fan right?

He talked a great deal about this back in the late 60s:



Put it on double speed because it's slower than it should be. I usually do that anyway to save time.

He makes a lot of sense, especially the part at 4:21

Theobald points out that every individual should be assured of a minimum income. Now you see that absolutely horrifies most people. They say, "all these wastrels; these people who are out of a job because they are really lazy... umm give them money?!?!?" Yeah, because otherwise the machines can't work; they come to blockage.

This was the situation of the Great Depression when here we were still in a material sense a very rich country with plenty of fields and farms and mines and factories and everything going, but suddenly, because of a psychological hang-up, because of a mysterious mumbo-jumbo about the economy, about the banking, we were all miserable and poor; starving in the midst of plenty; just because of a psychological hang-up. And that hang-up is that money is real and that people ought to suffer in order to get it, but the whole point of the machine is to relieve you of that suffering. You see, we are psychologically back in the 17th century and technically in the 20th.

So, we just need the people who hold the philosophy that people must suffer for money to get out of the way and then the machines can work for the community instead of working for the individual who claims to own the machine.

Every job that was replaced by a machine is no longer taxed. The same job is being done, but the difference is the person is out of work and the government no longer collects taxes to redistribute. And thanks to Trump, the machines are taxed even less and the machines benefit the community that much less.

When Chomsky says the republican party is the most dangerous organization in the history of humanity, I think he's referring to global warming denial, but I'm not. They hold a dangerous philosophy substantiated by dogma that suffering causes prosperity. We've driven the Redcoats out once and we need to do it again.

I've been aware of this argument for over a decade, and I agree with it...to an extent.
I realize we don't have to work nearly as hard as we did, that there's more than enough resources to go around, thanks to oil, gasoline and the machines that run on them, that food and housing are vastly overpriced, thanks to practices such as corporatism, illegal immigration, offshoring, intellectual property, rent, usury and wage serfdom.
I'm not a capitalist, and I'm all for giving the working class much more ownership of the economy.
However, what I'm not in favor of, is giving people who can work, but won't, anything, nor should people who can't work be having kids.
I'm not so much an egalitarian (equality) as I am an equitarian (fairness (what you put in, you get out).

While there is less work to do, there is still work to do.

Btw, I find it interesting how on the one hand, you say you're a fan of Watts, but on the other, you ridicule republicans for championing common sense.
Alan Watts was very pro-folk wisdom, going with your gut, street smarts, he thought they were just as, if not more important than book smarts.
Alan Watts was all about uniting polarities, the yin and the yang, left and right, collaboration and competition, intuition and intellect, nature and artifice etcetera, whereas you're all about trying to fashion a one sided coin.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Gloominary wrote:Nigerian Americans not only outperform Mulatto Americans economically and educationally, but they outperform White Americans, and even East Asian Americans (Chinese, Koreans and Japanese).

Very likely because their families did not go through slavery, these particular Nigerians, and all that went with that in the damage to parenting, relationships, relation to the wider society and being treated by the wider society as afro-americans were, after slavery - sharecropper south on up. Further their presentation in media, what educators expected of them and let them know directly and indirectly. The Nigerians coming in no doubt know some of this history, but they will also view the US quite differently, and have a much better chance of having intact families going back in time. People seem to think this stuff gets worked out in a generation and tend to time from the end of the Civil War. Having worked with families of different races, including whites, who have gone through major systematic trauma, I know there is no quick reset button. It will get carried down through generations in all races and for very long periods of time, even if there are no outside extra problems on each new generation.

It is good to see the Nigerians giving the lie to racism, however.

Or is it because Nigerian Americans (but not necessarily Nigerian, Nigerians) have bigger and more sophisticated brains and/or a culture more conducive to economic and educational achievement than mulatto and other Americans?

While Trump is far from perfect, he's trying to prevent illegal immigration and offshoring, two things that hurt the working class tremendously.

+ He's lowering taxes for the 'middle' (or upper lower) class, and while he's not increasing spending on the lower class, at least he's not reducing it much at all, right?

+ He's anti-mulatto and female supremacism.

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

white, old, stupid, and often poor

White Americans built the USA, so they know what's best for it.

Not the Boomers! They didn't build anything, except gargantuan debt, while letting the infrastructure their fathers built crumble apart. They were coddled by FDR's socialism so they can whine and complain incessantly about the very thing that bestowed upon them the comfy nest from which to bitch and moan.

You know how everyone complains about the Millennials, well the same was said about the Boomers; check google newspapers: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 26,1419977

Millennials can't drive a nail or turn a wrench, but at least they have an education.

Old folks are wiser than young,

That's just arrogance. Sure the old may know a thing or two that can be passed down, but once the youth is educated, it's time to step out of the way and let them blossom. Being old doesn't entitle one to be eternally smarter.

Mr. President:
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. https://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_finalspeech.html

If old people were so smart, they would say that ^

Instead, they say this:



The motto of conservatives is smart people are stupid and stupid people are smart.

young people tend to do dumb things, like drive drunk,

Risk-taking is not dumb. What's dumb is being unable to assess the risks. Intelligence is perception and lack of intelligence is blindness.

or spend money they don't have on things they don't need,

"someone with an IQ of 140 is about twice as likely to max out their credit card." http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015041 ... ing-clever

and young people tend to emulate old folks as time goes on.

It's called aging.

'Uneducated' (or unindoctrinated) doesn't necessarily mean stupid, I thought you and I just went over that a page or two ago.

That's true for the individual, but not on the macro. I would not characterize an uneducated population as being smarter than an educated population.

The working class (not to be conflated with the underclass) votes for him because they know he speaks for them...at least more than democrats and mainline republicans do.

What he does is drive smart people crazy which is what dumb people like to see.



This entire administration is like Revenge of the Idiots.

The enemy of the white race is the knuckleheaded boomer giving white people a bad rep and causing everyone else to hate all white people, including other white people.

Gloominary wrote:I realize we don't have to work nearly as hard as we did, that there's more than enough resources to go around, thanks to oil, gasoline and the machines that run on them, that food and housing are vastly overpriced, thanks to practices such as corporatism, illegal immigration, offshoring, intellectual property, rent, usury and wage serfdom.

You contradicted yourself:

However, what I'm not in favor of, is giving people who can work, but won't, anything, nor should people who can't work be having kids.

You just admitted there is not as much work needed as before, yet you insist people must work to survive even if working is not necessary in order to survive (because of the machines). So, you cannot stand the fact that someone might get something for nothing and you're willing to hold back society and hurt yourself just to hurt someone else more. THAT attitude will be the demise of the white race. Mark my words! It's an unreasonable position and too many Millennials see it.

I'm not so much an egalitarian (equality) as I am an equitarian (fairness (what you put in, you get out).

The poor do all the work while the rich get all the rewards. The one thing that NEVER happens is getting out what you put in.

While there is less work to do, there is still work to do.

And there are plenty of people willing to do the work without having to compel others with threats of starvation.

Btw, I find it interesting how on the one hand, you say you're a fan of Watts, but on the other, you ridicule republicans for championing common sense.

Common sense is not intuition.

Common sense is looking outside and concluding the earth is flat because look: it's common sense! Can't you see the earth is flat? Nasa has the stupid college educated people with no common sense!

Common sense is denying that humans came from monkeys because: why are there still monkeys? It's common sense! All those college people can't see what's obvious.

Common sense = opinions of common people.

Intuition is knowing people who appeal to common sense have no expertise in the field: I can't prove it, but I have a sneaking suspicion.

Alan Watts was very pro-folk wisdom, going with your gut, street smarts, he thought they were just as, if not more important than book smarts.

If you could pass along some evidence of him saying that, I'd appreciate it greatly. What I hear are constant referrals to experts: he speaks on the behalf of economists, he speaks on the behalf of the ancient Chinese or Indians, he speaks on the behalf of physicists, theologians, Jesus, but I can't recall him referring his audience to gut instincts. Alan's claim to fame is sucking up everything humanity has said, digesting it, then regurgitating it in an easy to understand and entertaining fashion.

Alan Watts was all about uniting polarities, the yin and the yang, left and right, collaboration and competition, intuition and intellect, nature and artifice etcetera, whereas you're all about trying to fashion a one sided coin.

I spent years trying to get republicans to embrace a decent minimum wage and social programs for the poor in order to unite the sides, but they viscerally hate the poor. I spent years trying to get them to defend free speech, but they're too determined to destroy themselves by dogmatically supporting their own censorship. There is no saving these people; they're far too bullheaded and hellbent on causing their own extinction.

I mean, I don't want the crazy dems to takeover either, which is why I'd rather the conservatives see reason and stop prohibition and provide for the sick and poor, but they're machines incapable of seeing past their dogma. And because of their bullheadedness, we're going to have to live with gun bans. Republicans shot themselves in the foot with their hate. Surely it must be the height of stupidity to cause your own extinction. What could be dumber?

Gloominary wrote:While Trump is far from perfect, he's trying to prevent illegal immigration and offshoring, two things that hurt the working class tremendously.

I don't agree. I think the production should be in the place where the people can do the work cheaply and efficiently. There is no sense in paying fat american wages for reduced quality and then having crappy products costing twice as much. This is one of the cases that I vote to let the free market dictate instead of protectionism. There is no sense in supporting grossly inefficient practices.

+ He's lowering taxes for the 'middle' (or upper lower) class, and while he's not increasing spending on the lower class, at least he's not reducing it much at all, right?

I know there was talk of reducing social programs, but I haven't followed up on it. But he's raised taxes on the poor via his tariffs while he's cut takes on the rich. Plus his SCOTUS pick, Gorsuch, broke the tie (5-4) in support of sales taxes on internet purchases, which is another tax on the poor.

+ He's anti-mulatto and female supremacism.

It's unnerving that so many women are coming to power, but that's what happens when people vote "anti-old-white-guy".

Look at the vote in GA:

Old white guy: 1,973,110
Black woman: 1,910,395

GA is about as backwoods hillbilly as it gets and she's almost governor. Can you believe it?

https://www.politico.com/election-results/2018/georgia/

If you want to save your race, you better figure something out quick because what you've been doing doesn't appear to be working. Preaching hatred of the poor, sick, and brownies isn't resonating well with the voters.

The RNC should immediately end all prohibition, advocate a minimum wage, offer some type of universal healthcare and education or it can bend over and kiss its ass goodbye.

@Serendipper

Progressives are not gunning for white people, but against disparity.

If you think Mestizos, Mulattos and Muslims are going to treat whites as kindly as whites treat them today, when we're the minority, and they have most of the wealth and power, you got another thing coming.
Mestizos and Mulattos will say, the only way we can achieve genuine parity, is for whites to be brought to the brink of extinction the way Native Americans were, or enslaved the way African Americans were, and many, or most Muslims will say, finally we can finish the Islamization of the west our ancestors began.
Mass immigration (especially illegal, but also legal, and multicultural rather than assimilatory) can easily undermine a nations integrity, a prime example being Rome.
Just as the Roman empire fell to German immigrants, who weren't assimilated, the US and EU may very well fall to Mexican and/or Muslim immigrants.

They're trying to equal the playing field between weak and strong independent of color. Color is irrelevant.

Color, like the millions of other ways the races differ from one another, from cranial capacity to what diseases they're susceptible to, is relevant.
Some colors are better for surviving in some, many, most or all environments than others.
While every race has its strengths and weaknesses, and what constitutes a strength or weakness is somewhat dynamic, some races are a little, or a lot stronger than others.
There's no such thing as absolute parity between the races, just as there's none between individuals.
It's not a case of if, but how much stronger is X race than Y.

Conservatism is all about disparity and it's a core premise. Disparity of race; disparity of wealth; disparity of privilege. That's what it's about. Progressivism is the opposite.

If that's the case, than both are equally irrational.
When disparity is earned, and/or when it benefits who, or what I care about most, than I'm in favor of it, and conversely when it's not earned, and/or when it detriments who, or what I care about most, than I'm opposed to it.

No I'm not saying anyone deserves to be bombed, but that whites are a bigger terroristic threat than browns.

Firstly, while white countries can easily dominate most non-white countries when they choose to exert themselves, for they're more wealthy and powerful, I'm not so sure whites start more wars, or kill more people in war than non-whites.
Secondly, by terrorism, I meant mass murder committed by civilians for political gain, not by militaries.

911 wouldn't have happened if not for our presence in the middle east,

Tell that to victims of Islamic terror living in India, and all over the third world.
No it wouldn't've happened if we had a Muslim ban.

but what's the motive of Paddock in Vegas and all the other white terrorists shooting innocent people?

Muslims have been trying to Islamize Europe, Subsaharan Africa and South Asia for over a thousand years.
You seem to be under the impression that only whites oppress others.
I've got news for you, not just a couple or a few, but millions of individuals within other races want to subjugate, or destroy whites, and others.
In a roundabout way, you're the white supremacist here, for you believe only whites have been, are, and will be able to oppress other races.
Reasonable whites have to take steps to prevent, and prepare for a time when they may be oppressed again, which, by the looks of it, may not be far off.

Perhaps Paddock's terrorism can in part be blamed on white genocide, third wave feminism, the breakdown of the family, and the overthrow of western civilization, maybe all that helped drive him to it.

If you want to talk temperament, look at the Irish. Arabs are just uneducated. What's excuse of the Irish?

The Irish aren't known for committing terror against anyone other than the British, because they were oppressed by Brits for centuries, Brits took Northern Ireland from them.
However nowadays, the Irish rarely terrorize Brits.

And uneducated?
You seem to think education is the answer to everything.
At one time, Arabs were (far) more educated than Subsaharan Africans, Europeans and South Asians, but that didn't stop the former one from trying to takeover the latter three, did it?
Like they took over North Africans, other West Asians and Central Asians.
And look what humans have done to nature, as we've gotten more educated about it.
Often we study things precisely because we want to learn how to more thoroughly dominate them.

Education can teach us there's limits to how much we can consume, but it doesn't necessarily stop us from consuming things to the limit, or beyond, hence modernity.

That recipe is guaranteed to backfire. Show me one instance where prosperity has not caused less reproduction. Show me one instance where adversity has not caused population explosions.

Less reproduction isn't good enough, they shouldn't reproduce at all, certainly not as much or more than people who work.

While the average person living in poverty may have 4 kids, and the middle class 2, the upper class may have 1.9, so there may be a cut off, where greater affluence increasingly doesn't impact birthrates.

Decline in birthrates may have more to do with greater access to contraception than affluence itself, which means we should be promoting contraception instead of affluence, as affluence harms the environment.

Greater affluence may still harm the environment more than reduced birthrates helps it.

People who'd rather not have kids when given the option will die off, while people who'd rather have them will remain, so the population may bounce back.

Some classes and races, for cultural or genetic reasons, may have more kids than others, so even if we were to lift them out of poverty, they're birthrate may still exceed their death rate, again, see how eastern Europeans, Russians and Chinese are poor, yet have a low birthrate, and yes, while the Chinese have come a ways, they still have a long, long way to go to catch up with the west and Japan, assuming they can that is, some (sub)races may not be able to, Chinese GDP per capita is still several times lower than the west and Japan, I mean China is still trailing Brazil, Mexico and Russia.

Poverty can reduce population if you're so poor your kids starve, which's not what I'm suggesting we do, just saying, I'd rather, relatively reduce their numbers humanely.

Just so you know, I edited the above post a little.

@Serendipper

We can't hurt nature. I appeal to George Carlin on this.

I'll appeal to the thousands of scientists who say we're on brink of mass extinction.

Being mean to them just makes more of them.

If a one child policy worked for China, it can probably work for our underclass.

Not according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... e_1950.svg

According to Canadian psychologist Philippe Rushton, whites and east Asians are more K selective (nurturing offspring over quantity of offspring) than other races.
I mean, is it any wonder only East Asians (Japanese and South Koreans) have been able to emulate the west's success?
They have the biggest brains and highest iQs.

Prosperity = more environmental laws for conservatives to complain about. It's illegal to cut down a hardwood greater than 8 inches at breast height without permission in many if not all municipalities. In MN, it's illegal to ride an atv through a bog on your own land.

And environmental laws prevent unnecessary prosperity, as they ought to, unnecessary prosperity is the enemy of the environment.
We shouldn't consume a hell of a lot more than we need to.

The evidence doesn't support that. Go on a dating site and see who has the most kids (whites). See if you can find any browns or yellows with kids.

It's a fact brown people have 2 or 3 times more kids than whites and East Asians.

Until the philosophy of disparity is ended.

Disparity isn't necessarily bad, the sustainably productive should be better off, and we should prioritize ourselves and our land over theirs, because we're us and they're them.

Yes and they've abandoned it now since the people are prosperous and not having enough kids.

Despite The End Of China's One-Child Policy, Births Are Still Lagging https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/62936187 ... ll-lagging

China is poorer than Mexico per capita, yet they're having less kids.
Races, and cultures aren't the same, it's folly to treat them as tho they were.

The japs landed on an asteroid not long ago. https://www.space.com/41912-japanese-ho ... eroid.html

One exception doesn't disprove the rule, whites gave us the modern world, some races haven't given us anything.

I don't see it outside of an asteroid impact or something.

Thousands of scientists beg to differ.

AI won't take over. They're too intelligent. Intelligence = peace.

Tell that to the thousands of species that've gone extinct, and the thousands of species that've been subjugated, thanks to man.

Jacque Fresco said it was possible in the 70s

They also told us we'd cure AIDS and cancer by now, and I'm still waiting for my flying car and my ray gun.

Nah we just need the old folks to get out of the way. Go fishing and stay out of the voting booth.

Young folks tend to get more conservative as they age.
There's a time to progress, and a time to conserve, in the 21st century, now more than ever, we need to find creative ways to conserve, not only the environment, but what remains of our race and, some of its customs, not progress.

Wealth disparity correlates with the decline in inventions.

Resources allow creative people to be more creative.
Creative people should have more resources than uncreative people, if we want to increase creativity.

I agree that a country without borders is not a country (for the same reason infinity doesn't exist), but this country was founded on immigration and hardly anyone is indigenous.

It was founded on legal, European immigration till 1965.
And indigenous is somewhat of a social construct (well, perhaps everything in science, and thought is, but perhaps this in particular).
How many millennia, or centuries does something have to be confined to a land, with no, or 'little' external influence before becoming indigenous?
Europeans have been settling the Americas at least since the Vikings over a millennium ago.
And so called 'Native Americans' are more European now than Native American after centuries of miscegenation with us, which's why I call them mestizos.

Not unless you're referring to the Amish. They are the only whites I can think of who have a decent work ethic. Everyone else is looking for a way out of work.

Whites tend to work hard, and they don't cause too much trouble...at least within their borders, that's why we're prosperous, and others are poor.

I don't know... china is building cities for no reason.

East Asians are more comparable to whites in many ways than many other races.

Animals or machines do it. Or the work is not hard.

The point is whites can do it, we don't need illegals.

Gloominary wrote:Just so you know, I edited the above post a little.

That's cool. I'm waiting for you to get caught up before I dig in. In the mean time I have to work on a giant reply to Iambiguous. I shouldn't put it like that because this is fun; not work

@Serendipper

I don't entirely disagree with you as it does seem a waste for one guy to tie-up resources, but I think you're presupposing that "development" is better than undeveloped unless by "developed" you mean managed (like a state park which is undeveloped but managed).

I have mixed feelings about this and would probably have to judge on a case by case basis. If a guy is hoarding land with no real plan for it and isn't managing the land, but letting invasive species take over, then maybe there is a case to be made that he should be compelled to justify his continued ownership if the land could be put under better stewardship by someone else.

I also feel this way about money in that if someone is hoarding money with no productive use for it then maybe the community by virtue of numbers should gangup and take it back. An example is Bezos using his fortune to explore space rather than feed people on earth or some other more pressing need that could be addressed with that money rather than doing what NASA does anyway. One man shouldn't have control of that many of society's resources. I'm not against private property, but that is too much.

If someone doesn't develop their land soon, say within a year, even if they're paying taxes on it, it should be returned to the commons.
From there, either government can develop, or designate it a national park/nature reserve, or another private entity can develop it, or it can be left undeveloped until someone does.

I don't disagree, but that is a slippery slope that gives me pause. When we say that ownership is contingent upon obscure notions like "productive use", then ownership is determined by one's ability to perpetually defend their position in court against an onslaught of people who claim they could be more productive with it. I could assume ownership of this site merely by claiming I could serve society better than Carleas, so anything would be up for grabs based on pipe dreams.

I just meant that someone has to, umm, unambiguously, if you will, develop land, in order to own it, not that it should belong to whoever claims they can develop it most.

Morality went out the window when we said might makes right. Anyway, society, by virtue of numbers, determines what morality is, so morality is just an intermediate step bridging the gap between might and right which fools us into believing that morality isn't still might making right.

Might is to right what apples are to oranges.
Might is about what you can do, right is about what you, or others think you, or others ought to do.
Not everyone with might does the same thing with it, psychopaths have different considerations than men and women of compassion and conscience (which's not to say men and women of compassion and conscience can't also be selfish, or that compassion and conscience are necessarily incompatible with selfishness, or that compassion and conscience can't manifest differently in different people or circumstances).
You're talking about what you think is right all over the place, irrespective of what the bourgeoise, bureaucrats (qualitative might) and proletariat (quantitative might) think, I don't know why you won't talk about it here.

Trump would have beat any republican because he was the not-politician candidate which appeals to republicans,

If that were true, non-politician republicans would win every term.
And if republicans didn't value education, every republican politician would be uneducated.
While republicans may not value formal political education quite as much as democrats, because more republicans are rural, and weary of leftist state education (whereas more democrats are urban, and weary of the rightist church), they still value it, it's a wild exaggeration to say they don't.
And what Trump lacks in formal political education, he makes up for in worldliness.

Trump lost the popular vote

People vote differently because of the electoral college, for example, a lot of republicans in California and New York didn't even bother voting, for they knew their vote wouldn't count in all probability.

Hillary had a lot of baggage

So did Trump, accusations of racism and sexism, Russian collusion, tax evasion, etcetera.

woman

I think a lot of people wanted a woman for a change, they were just too worried about illegals, Muslims and offshoring to take a chance on one this election.

Anyone without all those issues would have wiped the floor with Trump.

She beat the other democratic candidates, who didn't have all those issues, and Trump beat her, so he probably would've beat them too.

He doesn't even represent his fans because he's not pro-gun, he raised their taxes (tariffs, online sales tax, proposed a gas tax), filled the white house with jewish bankers, and he supports perpetual 0% interest rates. His only redeeming attribute is he's unimaginably stupid which is what resonates with his fans while he's screwing them.

That tells you republicans were less concerned about guns and so on, and more about illegals, Muslims and offshoring.

If his IQ is triple digits. I'll eat my hat.

He's smarter than that plodding, mumbling, stuttering Obama.

It's not a mischaracterization, but it is gross. Check your local paper and see who is committing the most crime.

Here are some examples:

Mestizos, Mulattos and others commit more crime than whites, per capita.

I can't imagine how we will not be a global society one day. How are we to transition from a class zero society to a class 1 or 2 with power to move stars and intergalactic travel if we're still bickering about race?

Firstly, at this point in time, a class 1 or 2 society is science fiction.

Secondly, I don't want to put all my eggs into one basket, having one culture, nation and race makes us vulnerable, because if they fail, we won't've anything to fall back on + we can't as effectively specialize.

Thirdly, a multiplanetary species may diverge from itself, perhaps all the more so than a monoplanetary one.
If humans colonize other planets, overtime, some of these planets may become isolated from each other.
After millions, or thousands of years, they may become so different biologically, and culturally, inviting nonindigenous humans to live among them wouldn't make any sense, because nonindigenous humans wouldn't be as adapted to the environmental, and societal conditions as the natives, or they may not want them for other reasons: lack of jobs, space to accommodate them, because they're inferior, or just unattractive...

Nativism is inevitable, perhaps all the more so in outer space.
Splitting off from one another isn't necessarily a bad thing, there's trade-offs.
And if you think it'll be beneficial, you can still trade with others, while keeping them at bay.

There are trade-offs to virtually every course of collective, and individual action you can take.
You need context, in order to effectively determine what is right and good.

My point was the worker's rights. A society is only as rich as the poorest members and the Europeans take care of their poor.

Worker's rights?
The poorest people in society don't work at all.

I say a society is only as rich as the sustainably productive are sustainably prosperous.
And both the unproductive (the underclass, and the overclass), and the unsustainably productive (them who mainly needlessly produce/consume) should be less prosperous than the sustainably productive (them who mainly needfully produce/consume).
What I'm proposing here is a little bit different than the traditional left/right paradigm.

The US has been trending the opposite direction and we have the weak growth to show for it.

I thought you said disparity/exploitation = growth?

Immigration is irrelevant to growth except to the extent they can be made into slaves.

economic growth isn't necessarily a zero sum game, at least for humans, individuals and groups can work together to more effectively exploit nature than they could alone for the benefit of all, or exclusively, or predominantly for the benefit of the (most) (sustainably) productive.

Race doesn't seem relevant to pollution.

Immigration is now negative, even if it's European, in terms of crowding and polluting North American lands.

Well even if we open the flood gates and let the world pour in, you'd still have your white community of like-minded people right?

My community is now majority brown.

This seems more like instead of preserving your heritage, you're eliminating other heritages.

I'm not eliminating them, I'm preserving them (mine and theirs), mass immigration eliminates heritages.

What's the difference? If your neighbor is brown, you say hello and go about your business. What difference does it make? Maybe I can see a point if they are cooking your food, but vocal interaction shouldn't be a problem.

I want to be surrounded mostly by people who reason and look like me.
The races differ, not just on the outside, but on the inside, their personalities, differ, the way they think, differs.
And to that you can add cultural differences.

So the analogy is planting one type of grass (monostand) as opposed to many types; they don't interbreed, but coexist on the same plot. The monostand looks nicer, but is much harder to maintain without having large bald spots that fill with weeds.

Some people will interbreed resulting in new breeds in addition to the ones who choose to preserve their heritage. Keeping them separate results in bald spots.

Most whites will choose to breed with whites and most browns will choose to breed with browns and some will intermix giving us 3 lines of defense against extinction rather than 2. Add the yellows and we have 3 purebreds, white/yellow, white/brown, brown/yellow, and white/brown/yellow for 7 lines of defense plus the white/brown/yellow breeding with brown/yellow or white/yellow or white/brown and the complexity explodes.

I get what you're saying, there's more genetic diversity in bringing races together, because of the hybrids they'll beget, than keeping them apart, but still there's pros and cons to diversity.
A homogeneous population will produce fewer kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring fewer cures/treatments, whereas a heterogenous population will produce more kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring more cures/treatments.
A heterogenous population will have more body types, with heterogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (convoluted, difficult), whereas a homogenous population will have fewer body types, with homogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (simple, easy).
It'll also be harder to get your diverse population to agree on anything, from what temperature a mall should be, to morals, values, politics and law.

Today's 10 million Ashkenazi Jews descend from a population of only 350 individuals who lived about 600–800 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews

I doubt the Japs can claim the same.

The most dominant native ethnic group is the Yamato people; primary minority groups include the indigenous Ainu[243] and Ryukyuan peoples, as well as social minority groups like the burakumin.[244] There are persons of mixed ancestry incorporated among the Yamato, such as those from Ogasawara Archipelago.[245] In 2014, foreign-born non-naturalized workers made up only 1.5% of the total population.[246] Japan is widely regarded as ethnically homogeneous, and does not compile ethnicity or race statistics for Japanese nationals; sources varies regarding such claim, with at least one analysis describing Japan as a multiethnic society[247] while another analysis put the number of Japanese nationals of recent foreign descent to be minimal.[237] Most Japanese continue to see Japan as a monocultural society. Former Japanese Prime Minister and current Finance Minister Tarō Asō described Japan as being a nation of "one race, one civilization, one language and one culture", which drew criticism from representatives of ethnic minorities such as the Ainu.[248] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Demographics

"one race, one civilization, one language and one culture" and it's going extinct.

Homogeneous Japs and Jews are still very successful, in spite of their shortcomings.

And birthrates wax and wane, living in an overcrowded land probably makes you less psychologically inclined to have kids, as it should.
As Japan's population shrinks, they may become more inclined to have kids again.
Japan's population needs to gracefully shrink to 10% of what it is today anyway, which'll take a few centuries, and if it doesn't correct itself on its own, external measures can be taken by government, without adding foreigners.
+ as I said a little earlier, advanced contraceptive techniques and sexual liberation are new things, when given the opportunity, some genetic lines will choose to self-destruct, but others will reproduce, and they will exclusively produce reproducers, so the pop will probably bounce back, evolution finds a way.

@Serendipper

This is not true and, like I said previously, even in the US there is only the midwest with good soil.

North America is blessed with a disproportionate share of the world's best agricultural soil. It is no coincidence that the U.S. is one of the few countries that’s a net exporter of food – North America has 17% of the world's arable land, but less than 7% of the world's population.

https://www.cornandsoybeandigest.com/issues/soil-wealth-why-north-america-feeds-world

Soil is a function of rainfall and igneous rock. Generally speaking, grasslands have good soil and forest lands do not, so a quick look at google maps would reveal where good soil lie.

Plenty of places had grasslands.

And you're forgetting the animals from which the Europeans got milk and fat. Dr. Price traveled the globe looking for healthy teeth and finding them in Europe where they existed off cheese and seafood with no crops to speak of. Same deal in Africa and Americas. He attributed dental health to animal fat, so animals were paramount in our evolution (as evidenced by the fact that we can't convert beta carotene to vitamin A very well nor K1 to K2 nor synthesize B12 on our own - this proves we were reliant on animal fat for much of our evolution). Where domesticated animals are, there will intelligent people be. Everyone else had to chase down wild critters and didn't have a selection mechanism for intelligence nor the nutrition in the abundance required that domestication could provide.

The Aztecs, Incas, and especially the Egyptians, west, south and east Asians had plenty of domesticated animals, and plenty of other places probably could've had domesticated animals as well.

That's the thing about white folks; they're proud

Whites are so proud of themselves and their ways they're committing biological and cultural self-genocide.

and the meek shall inherit the earth according to the white jesus.

The fit shall inherit the earth, according to Darwin.

Sometimes it's beneficial to open your borders, and minds to foreigners, sometimes it's detrimental, foreigners bring good and bad, again it depends on the context, and your preferences.

North Africa is not always a desert. Every 20k years or so due to the axial precession the land turns green. The earth changes its tilt.

North Africa was a desert when Egyptian Civilization sprung.

Interesting how civilization arose in the harshest place in Africa, where Caucasians lived.

How do they drive down wages? Oh by being willing to work for cheap because the SOL is such a step up even at low wages? Doesn't that mean Americans have a sense of entitlement then? (They're too good to work for cheap.)

We're citizens, and we pay taxes, they're illegal, and they do not.

We, are entitled to this country, and so are legal Hispanics for that matter, illegals are not.

So if immigrants go away, the whites will move in with mom and dad in protest of wages and force wages higher. I can see that. Or we could throw Trump out, put Bernie in and he'll mandate higher wages.

Or we could do what both Trump and, some of what Bernie proposed we do to raise wages.

Altho perhaps it's best each state mandates its own minimum wage, like each Canadian province mandates theirs.

I don't like this idea. Trump is nostalgic for a time passed. American workers are inefficient and expensive and it's best to avoid them in favor of Chinese who pay more attention to detail, respect their jobs, and are willing to do it for cheap. I go out of my way to avoid anything made in America and every Briggs engine I've seen is a pile of junk. They can't even stamp the model number on right so I can find a manual without sending pics to Briggs for identification. American products cost twice as much and are half as good.

everyone knows made in China or Mexico stands for cheap, low quality, potentially hazardous, toxic products.

And if you go out of your way to buy from China or Mexico, you support child slave labor.

Oh you don't have to deal with roadblocks where you are? The republicans haven't made it that far then. You can get a dui here for drinking a beer and mowing your own lawn.

Democrats want to turn the US into the world's largest safe space, free from all accountability, free from all social and political dissent.

We'll need lawyers present during copulation.

You spelled "rich" wrong. He hasn't done one thing to help the poor and everything he's done has been specifically tailored to hurt the poor. Sales tax for online purchases, tariffs, pissing off partners, filling his cabinet with jewish bankers and then giving them huge tax cuts to further stifle the poor, put the country $1 trillion farther in debt which the poor will have to pay, screwed up the health insurance situation, and backed other candidates who are against minimum wages, medicare and pro-cash bail which criminalizes being poor and prohibition. I can't think of anyone who has been harder on the poor than Trump; not even Reagan.

Again, cutting taxes for the middle class.
Fairer trade.
Helping to prevent further illegal immigration and offshoring.
Forcing other countries to fend for themselves, instead of relying on the US for financial and military aid.

And while I'm mostly in favor of universal healthcare, Obamacare was unanimously pegged as a disaster, it needed to be dismantled.
The US is always going further into debt, and it'll keep going further until the federal reserve is abolished.
Trump has at times talked favorably of raising the minimum wage, and he knows most Americans, including his base, are in favor of raising it, I highly doubt he'll reduce it.

I'm uncomfortable with Jewish bankers, but overall, I think he's been okay for the poor, unemployment is down, wages and working conditions are up, even the democrats admit the economy is his strongpoint.

Something still has to work; not someone.

If no one did any work, we'd all starve.

You can try to force your ideals on nature, but it doesn't work that way. The more you hate the poor, the more they will reproduce and overwhelm you.

You're talking about running everything on machines, terraforming planets and economic and social re-engineering, and I'm the one trying to force my ideals on nature?

Oh yes because the threat of punishment always deters crime which is why we never have crime anymore, right. You're a prohibitionist. All you'll accomplish is having lots of kids in state care which will cause more poor to exist and cause more kids to be in state care until you eventually resort to throwing them in ovens.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, a one child policy worked for China.

I mean are you saying prohibiting theft, rape and murder doesn't work, are you an anarchist then?

If so, then why're you pro-Bernie, shouldn't we instead let the system get so bad it'll implode, so we can build our anarchist utopia in its ashes?

I think we should spay republicans and all problems go away.

Democrats are no better.

We tried that before. Where do you think Hitler got the idea? lol

Hitler had a lot of bad ideas, along with some good ones.

I disagree. There is no benefit to making people suffer; you only hurt yourself.

Because allowing criminals and drug addicts to have and raise kids doesn't cause suffering?

I'm not advocating we prohibit anyone from doing anything, I'm just saying society shouldn't just hand people money, without expecting anything in return, it shouldn't be completely unconditional.

If you want something form us, we have the right to expect some things from you in exchange.

It's not in the region, but the region connects the hemispheres so they can talk to each other.

I don't associate interregional brains with creativity anymore than intraregional brains.

Creation of something such that's it's not understood how it was created and can't be mimicked or mechanized.

That sounds more like intuition to me than creativity.

Creativity is intelligently making a new discovery, or making something new and useful or interesting.

This can be done intuitively, holistically, and haphazardly by synthesizing a ton of data simultaneously, without being able to show your work, how you got there, or it can be done reasonably, reductively, and methodically by analyzing a ton of data in a linear, sequential, step by step fashion, or some combination of the two.

It should be obvious from merely looking at a gay and straight person who is more creative because their attire will be different.

Gays are more feminine, and so they're more sensual, fashionable, and perhaps more creative at some artistic things than straight men.

But probably worse at philosophy, science and engineering.

If you look at most philosophers, scientists and inventors, they're unkempt, and their attire is pretty plain, drab.

Gays are probably good at pop art, but poor at the sort of art Beethoven, and Goethe are known for.

That's true. Probably why engineers tend to be straight, righthanded men. I'm contemplative rather than creative. I can dive deep down with extreme focus, but I can't multitask very well. I'm good at science and math, but suck at the literary and artsy. If I were gay, I'd be the opposite.

Kim Peek was born without a corpus callosum and consequently he can read a page with his left eye and a page with his right. He's famous for memorizing every book in the library, including the phone book. I think he's the guy rainman was based on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek

I think I'm pretty well rounded.

Well, I'm not sure, but I don't see it outside of a cataclysmic event. Civilizations collapsed before and yet here we are, smarter than ever. I don't see humans as self-limiting. I believe (as a matter of personal opinion) that whatever caused this universe wants to be more complex, so even if we go extinct, we'll be back. I think the humanoid is the optimal design (thumbs, binocular vision, air-breathing, yellow star, bipedal, etc)

We don't know that, life may not get another chance, but even if does, it may not resemble us at all, and it'll probably always be behind where we could've been had we not destroyed ourselves.

It's not, but we want to know what we are, so onward we press to higher levels of complexity.

If our exploration of ourselves, life and existence is putting us in grave danger, than it's best we refrain, until we figure out how to proceed safely.

There's no rush, we may not ready for certain kinds of knowledge.

Sure it can and the consequence of free energy is free stuff.

When someone invents a replicator, than I'll concede, we don't have to work, but until then, we do.

I see what you're saying, but my point is we lost a skill necessary to survival outside of dependence upon technology and we're becoming more and more dependent upon tech to survive while we lose more and more skills. Just like hunting, working is being antiquated and becoming unnecessary.

I see what you're saying, but while we probably shouldn't have to work as much as we do, everyone who can work, should have to do some work, until there's no work left to do, which'll be somewhere between thousands and millions of years from now, if not impossible.

I think you're acting more entitled than her. For instance you think your race is entitled to special considerations and I think it should have less for that very reason. As Alan Watts said, "we're not better because we want to be." Arrogance. Thinking you're special is proof you're not.

She wants special considerations on account of her race, religion and sex, in a majority white, Christian country, it's absurd.

@Serendipper

Not the Boomers! They didn't build anything, except gargantuan debt, while letting the infrastructure their fathers built crumble apart.

This's an exaggeration.

While perhaps the Boomers didn't grow the economy or make as many scientific or technological breakthroughs as their forefathers did (which, btw, is an indication we've picked much or most of the low hanging fruit, economically and so on), the economy, science and technology continued to progress under the Boomers reign.
Boomers by and large managed to maintain, and expand on their forbearers accomplishments.

Here's a list of Boomer inventors:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS182429596720101222

For better or worse, perhaps Boomers were more socially and artistically revolutionary than the generations that directly preceded them.
On the other hand, perhaps the beatniks, existentialists, Dadaists, jazz, flappers and the nuclear family get overlooked for just how revolutionary they were for their time.

I'm neither especially anti, nor pro-boomer, or any generation for that mater.

They were coddled by FDR's socialism so they can whine and complain incessantly about the very thing that bestowed upon them the comfy nest from which to bitch and moan.

On the one hand, middle class boomers tend not to want socialism for their kids, on the other hand, I guess they tend to give their kids more of a helping hand than the generation before them on a private, individual level.

And while I'm in favor of more socialism, it's not all good.
If we're not careful, reallocation of money and property can become corrupt.
Taxes can be raised more on the lower classes than the upper, and spending more on bailing out megabanks and corporations than individuals.
State corporations can become just as competitive, cutthroat, ruthless and rapacious as private ones, charging too much for their goods and services, and paying their workers too little.

You know how everyone complains about the Millennials, well the same was said about the Boomers; check google newspapers: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 26,1419977

Millennials can't drive a nail or turn a wrench, but at least they have an education.

each generation is always a little less mechanically inclined, and a little more academically inclined than the previous, at least that has been the overriding, prevailing trend for the last couple of centuries.
One generation isn't really superior, there's trade-offs.
For the most part, each is a product of the times they came of age in, rising to the challenges of the age in which they live.

That's just arrogance. Sure the old may know a thing or two that can be passed down, but once the youth is educated, it's time to step out of the way and let them blossom. Being old doesn't entitle one to be eternally smarter.

While the young tend to be a bit more publicly educated than the old for better or worse, the old tend to be a lot more experienced.
It's not as if higher education wasn't available to the boomers.
It'll take decades before the young become as experienced, and by then, the young will be the new old, and the old will be some combination of senile, and dead.
I'm not saying old people are necessarily wiser than young, but they tend to be, and all other considerations being equal (like intelligence, which's of course something different than knowledge and experience), they are.
I'll say there were things that were true yesterday, that're no longer true, or as true today, so the older generation do have to step out of the way some.

Mr. President:
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. https://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_finalspeech.html

If old people were so smart, they would say that ^

This is a half truth, the older are wiser in that they're both more aware of how much they don't know, and in that they know more than the young.

Instead, they say this:

The motto of conservatives is smart people are stupid and stupid people are smart.

I don't think it's so much that old conservatives have no respect for public education, as they realize there's a hell of a lot more to learn about life than what's taught in school.

Risk-taking is not dumb. What's dumb is being unable to assess the risks. Intelligence is perception and lack of intelligence is blindness.

Foolhardiness is, and the young are eternally earning their reputation for it.

It's called aging.

Or does experience, and the wisdom gleaned from it inclineth one to conservatism?

That's true for the individual, but not on the macro. I would not characterize an uneducated population as being smarter than an educated population.

Nor would I, but still there's a lot of bollocks taught in public education e.g. gender studies.

The enemy of the white race is the knuckleheaded boomer giving white people a bad rep and causing everyone else to hate all white people, including other white people.

I think the republicans were better than the dems this term, normally I can't see much, if any difference between them.

If you think democrats aren't also in cahoots with the megabanks, military industrial complex and multinational corporations, think again.

I don't identify as right wing, there are things I'm far left, center and far right on, I prefer to be flexible.

And if you seriously hate white people, you need to go back to your country of origin.

Minorities hate people because they envy them.

@Serendipper

You just admitted there is not as much work needed as before, yet you insist people must work to survive even if working is not necessary in order to survive (because of the machines). So, you cannot stand the fact that someone might get something for nothing and you're willing to hold back society and hurt yourself just to hurt someone else more. THAT attitude will be the demise of the white race. Mark my words! It's an unreasonable position and too many Millennials see it.

Again, with or without machines, if no one works, no one eats.
The machines aren't going to build, repair and fuel themselves, they're not going to farm your food, bring it to your home and cook it for you, they merely assist us in these activities.

The poor do all the work while the rich get all the rewards. The one thing that NEVER happens is getting out what you put in.

We need more fairness, not to exchange one class of parasites for another.

And there are plenty of people willing to do the work without having to compel others with threats of starvation.

If you force them at gunpoint, probably, but you shouldn't.
And how long can that go on for?
The quality and quantity of essential goods and services will plummet if individuals don't have to earn them.
Hitherto parasites lived in destitution and squalor.
If they're given the good life, and the opportunity to have as many kids as they like, you'll debilitate and dumb down the population, and you'll wind up with a society say resembling the one depicted in the film idiocracy.

Common sense is not intuition.

But they are both examples of non-academic thinking.

Common sense is looking outside and concluding the earth is flat because look: it's common sense! Can't you see the earth is flat? Nasa has the stupid college educated people with no common sense!

Common sense no longer tells us the earth is flat.
It is the collective wisdom of common people, and it evolves as people become more, or differently experienced, as people (re)interpret their experience, as people reinforce their (re)interpretation of their experience by talking to each other, and as people are publicly, privately and self-educated.
Rather than thinking of it as necessarily in opposition to mainstream academia (yes, I said mainstream academia, there's alt academia, just as there's alt media and alt everything), it can be thought of as complementary, and supplementary (altho there's nothing necessarily wrong with being in opposition to mainstream academia, as it can be mistaken, or corrupt).
And academia evolves, not only on its own, but by interacting with, and learning from common sense.
I'm an epistemological pluralist, I don't look to one (sort of) institution for insight, or one method, I employ a variety.

Intuition is knowing people who appeal to common sense have no expertise in the field: I can't prove it, but I have a sneaking suspicion.

Intuititon is what we do everyday, millions of times a days, because we can't think through every decision we have to make linearly, sequentially, because we can't consult a book or a professor all the time, for they have limits, and life itself has none.

If you could pass along some evidence of him saying that, I'd appreciate it greatly. What I hear are constant referrals to experts: he speaks on the behalf of economists, he speaks on the behalf of the ancient Chinese or Indians, he speaks on the behalf of physicists, theologians, Jesus, but I can't recall him referring his audience to gut instincts. Alan's claim to fame is sucking up everything humanity has said, digesting it, then regurgitating it in an easy to understand and entertaining fashion.

Just about his whole shtick is about mushin, wu wei, Zen, hands-on, go with the flow, play it by ear, swim with the current, think on your feet, not sure how you missed it.

I'll try to dig something up for you.

I spent years trying to get republicans to embrace a decent minimum wage and social programs for the poor in order to unite the sides, but they viscerally hate the poor.

I'm in favor of a decent minimum wage and, sustainable social programs for the poor.

I spent years trying to get them to defend free speech, but they're too determined to destroy themselves by dogmatically supporting their own censorship.

Nowadays at least, republicans are more libertarian than they are Christian fundamentalist or fascist when it comes to free speech, it's democrats who've become authoritarian, merely criticizing, hell, insufficiently praising minorities, women or something loosely associated with them is an intolerable act of terrorism to them.

I mean, I don't want the crazy dems to takeover either, which is why I'd rather the conservatives see reason and stop prohibition and provide for the sick and poor, but they're machines incapable of seeing past their dogma.

I'm surprised to hear you say that, you've done nothing but praise dems and rebuke and ridicule republicans.

we're going to have to live with gun bans

I see, so you're in favor of guns, and presumably not a (liberal) feminist?

@Serendipper

I don't agree. I think the production should be in the place where the people can do the work cheaply and efficiently. There is no sense in paying fat american wages for reduced quality and then having crappy products costing twice as much. This is one of the cases that I vote to let the free market dictate instead of protectionism. There is no sense in supporting grossly inefficient practices.

If you support child slave labor, lower wages and higher unemployment, and shoddy, toxic products, go with free trade, if not, go with fair.

More localism = less distribution costs, less pollution and less squandering of resources.

Again, capitalists don't necessarily use the extra profits they make off hiring cheap domestic (illegals) and foreign (offshoring) labor to make their products cheaper, they're not going to lower their prices unless they have to, and through cartels, they're usually don't.

The more dependent you are on China for goods (especially essential ones), the less bargaining power you have, they can charge you an arm and leg, and you can't protest because you need them more than they need you.

+ Bernie thinks protectionism is a good idea.

I know there was talk of reducing social programs, but I haven't followed up on it. But he's raised taxes on the poor via his tariffs while he's cut takes on the rich. Plus his SCOTUS pick, Gorsuch, broke the tie (5-4) in support of sales taxes on internet purchases, which is another tax on the poor.

That'll encourage jobs to come back and stay.

It's unnerving that so many women are coming to power, but that's what happens when people vote "anti-old-white-guy".

While I think men tend to make better leaders, I also think there's plenty of exceptions.

I've voted for female politicians several times.

So long as they're not anti-white male, and we don't have to lower the benchmark, I think we could use more female politicians and perspectives.

Preaching hatred of the poor,

I don't hate the poor, I am poor, and in favor of more, sustainable socialism.

sick,

I don't hate the sick, if someone is physically or legitimately mentally disabled, they should get help.

and brownies

White on black/brown racism is almost nonexistent in the US.
Nigerian Americans and many other minorities (the smart ones who work hard) are more prosperous than white Americans.

And racism goes both ways.
I wouldn't be surprised if whites are the least racist race, after centuries of progressivist indoctrination.
What other race welcomes perpetual mass illegal immigration with open arms?
Hell our race invented SJWs.

To combat a little private white on black/brown racism, you're spending billions of dollars promoting a ton of state black/brown on white racism.
This isn't about combating racism, it's not even so much about hating us as it is about robbing us blind.
It's a war being waged against white men, women and children, masquerading as justice.

The RNC should immediately end all prohibition,

Prohibition?

I'm in favor of legalizing drugs, I mean many pharmaceutical drugs are just as bad or worse than illicit.

advocate a minimum wage, offer some type of universal healthcare and education

I'm in favor of all that.

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

white, old, stupid, and often poor

White Americans built the USA, so they know what's best for it.

Old folks are wiser than young, young people tend to do dumb things, like drive drunk, or spend money they don't have on things they don't need, and young people tend to emulate old folks as time goes on.

'Uneducated' (or unindoctrinated) doesn't necessarily mean stupid, I thought you and I just went over that a page or two ago.

The working class (not to be conflated with the underclass) votes for him because they know he speaks for them...at least more than democrats and mainline republicans do.

I think you're just making a lot of this up.

Gloominary wrote:Old folks are wiser than young...

Wiser doesn't mean honest. Often, it means the reverse.

Forcing your employees to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week in hazardous, perilous conditions for a bowl of rice a day in a country with grossly substandard quality control, certainly doesn't increase the quality of products being manufactured, it decreases it, it merely increases the quantity, not to mention, it's inhumane.

Healthy and happy workers (like the ones in say Germany, who work less than Americans and Brits but're more productive) manufacture high quality products, not sickly, suicidal ones.

The only people benefitting from domestic and foreign cheap labor, is the wealthy internationalists, not 1st world consumers, nor 3rd world producers.

We should be boycotting China, and corporations who hire illegals at home.