Racism

[Alexis Jacobi]

A very very short novel:

When Satyr awoke, Iambiguous was still there.

[promethean75]

Wiggle22 avoids the hard existential questions Biggs becuz he knows there can be no real practical application of his philosophy in a modern world that will certainly involve race mixing as a result of freedom of movement and the dependency of countries on one another for trade and investing.

It simply doesn't matter if u have a plot of land with one hundred million blonde white people with IQs of 100 or higher and then a bunch of ugly dummies from another race moved in. The good genes will selectively prevail regardless and however u mixed it up, you'd end up with an average that's pretty decent.

Most people with average IQs would be much more sophisticated if they were developed in a better environment (family, education, health care, livable wages, positive peer groups, etc.). So don't worry about an actual idiocracy ever evolving becuz it'll never get that bad. Most people have average IQs, they're just underdeveloped.

And keep in mind most loser low lifes from third world countries don't have the means to move to first world European countries. They're so hard up they can't even make the journey, much less be legally eligible for entry and/or citizenship.

[FlashDangerpants]

A very very short novel:

When Satyr awoke, Iambiguous was still there.

Which one was the big spoon?

[iambiguous]

A very very short novel:

When Satyr awoke, Iambiguous was still there.

Thanks for reminding me that Satyr forgot to remind me to remind you of this...

...if you do believe that "on average" your race is intellectually superior to and far, far less likely to commit crimes, steal or riot than other races and you were in a position of power in a community composed of different races, what would be permitted and what would not be permitted in regard to social, political and economic interactions? What behaviors would be encouraged/rewarded and what behaviors would be discouraged/punished? For example, would interracial marriages still be legal?

And how would you compare yourself [on race] to, say, those who practiced apartheid in South Africa and those who practiced extermination in Nazi Germany?

Grow a pair for us and actually walk your talk.



Note to Mr. Wiggle22:

Dare him to.

[promethean75]

"Which one was the big spoon?"

https://youtu.be/aHNCEJ4DtpA

[Gary Childress]

Interesting interview. I would certainly say he is not an evil man, however, populations and groups do tend to migrate.

Curious sentence. There is such a thing as migration -- and Camus is not an evil man. However, though not *evil* he may still be wrong. But let's hear some dime-store historiography and from that get our sense of how it should be settled ...

It's happened since the beginning of time. It's nothing new (though I understand the anxiety and worry about it). We like to surround ourselves with people we can relate to and when that changes we tend to not like feeling alien to our native surroundings. I can personally attest to how unpleasant social alienation is.

After the war France received tens of thousands of other Europeans, North Americans, and of course also North Africans, some Asians (Vietnam of course) and also Africans. The Europeans and North Americans, and even the Africans were all successfully, and beneficially, incorporated into French society and culture. There is a wide range of unusual and non-Gallic last names in France and these people made up and became the *France* that we know when we think of France.

The present wave of migration, about which a good percentage of France is concerned and which recently went on an extremely devastating rampage because a juvenile car thief was shot, is really a different ball of wax. It is more an issue of incompatibility of cultures. Perhaps because of the underpinning of Islam and other factors that create a social oil-and-water-don't-mix situation. Yet it is, as so many things are, labyrinthian and complex and cannot be assessed with superficial opinions. Some part of it could be compared to the gansta culture in the US which originates in Black society but also bleeds over into other cultural groups.

But it happened to the Mycenean Greeks when the Dorian Greeks moved in and then to the Dorians with the Macedonians came (or whatever, my history is admittedly rusty and incomplete but the fundamentals are there). The Romans, Persians, and most others have been through it. Humanity continues.

Blah blah blah. You are here spouting some opinions that you pretend have relevancy. But those truly evil people referred to indirectly will refuse to listen, or care, as they hold to their outmoded segregationist ideals. The merely bad might still be reached and perhaps they will consider the Mycenean Greeks and the Romans, Persians and whoever else. Yes, idiot, humanity does not cease (this was a brilliant observation) but if you could listen to what Camus is saying he notes, and with intelligent eloquence, that something important and valuable is being threatened. And what would that be Gary? Any idea at all?

Of course, rapid change is a concerning issue. Suddenly waking up to find your native town mostly inhabited by immigrants can be unsettling. I suppose the best answer to that is to pick up and move yourself to wherever most of your peers went to. Or you can hang around and slowly get to know the new kids on the block. They're humans too and humans have a tendency to rub off on each other.

First, immigration is a phenomenon that the State is capable of controlling and limiting. So proper and direct political actions are possibilities. And they are moral possibilities if one has the best interests of France as one's primary concern. There is a very strong political movement developing that will call for, and is calling for, reverse migration. It is political and it is also *democratic*. That is, it reflects a popular will growing stronger every day.

"Pick up and move yourself to wherever most of your peers went" would be, for anyone with even a mild sense of identity and patriotism, a form of sin. The new kids on the block may not want to be *known* -- not in the way you seem to mean. You fail I think to recognize that Camus is not merely a non-evil man but one with a distinct sense of what is good. Not only for himself but also for the future of his nation, the nation which he has a civil right to define as *his own*. What is motivating Camus died in you Gary a long time back. I do not so much mean in you as a person but in *your own people*.

Your largest issue, I am sure, is with that sense of genuine ownership. What the fuck could you say that you *own*? Like nothing. Therefore, I doubt that you could defend much. And it is that tone (weakness, vacillation) that is the primary note in your post.

If all goes well, it's not a one-way street. It's a mutual exchange. Just don't bring guns with you everywhere unless you're looking to antagonize and keep things edgy and potentially hostile wherever you go. (My advice)

If a man's asshole could talk I think it would chatter like you have chattered here. You have no idea what you are talking about. You know that you have no idea what you are talking about. And what you say is what a man without any level of genuine or relevant understanding would say.

But here's the thing: many people would say what you have said. It is a disease of the mind, a disease of the moral self.

How curious it is that in your case you are a man simply waiting to die. I wonder at times if your illness is a symptom of a larger, insidious, social illness?

Just trying to coexist peacefully in the world your god created, mon ami. But do it your way if you must. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

How curious it is that in your case you are a man simply waiting to die.

You'd be surprised how liberating it can be for certain individuals under certain circumstances.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wiggle22 avoids the hard existential questions Biggs becuz he knows there can be no real practical application of his philosophy in a modern world that will certainly involve race mixing as a result of freedom of movement and the dependency of countries on one another for trade and investing.

First, Wizard is chary of arriving at an actionable position because in the US the cultural situation has (mostly in the coastal areas and in larger cities) become multi-ethnic. There is no way to change this. It is now social and cultural reality.

But a major issue is anti-whiteness and the undermining of identity in the former demographic that was a ‘super-majority’. In order to live in the new reality it is impossible to hold to that “former identity” and that is why (I think) “white supremacy” is made into a national enemy.

Therefore, European identity, so-called White identity, is now a moral sin. This is all complicated by Critical Theory — American Maoism essentially — that makes inroads at every level. The new “Americanism” is a State/National requisite. It must become established as a national ideology.

They do not seem to be able to state it directly but White or European identitarianism cannot be allowed to exist as a positive identity position. It can only be seem as Nazism or fascism. Yet all of this seems tied up with vast, national social engineering projects.

Can it work? Is it working? California seems a good research site; Blacks, Japanese/Chinese/Mesoamericans/Whites struggling mightily to *get along*. In a sense, in order to *win* everyone must *lose*. That is, no specific identity can subsist since identity is the upholder of difference and divisions.

In order for cultural success to occur, all divisions must be quashed.

Now it is true that America has set foot on this irreversible path. But is it all “good”? It is not good if, say, you are morally committed to an “identity”. But then such definitions become *problematic* when people struggle to maintain them.

Only in some parts of Europe could a “White identity” (European identity) be maintained without the shadow of moral problems. But on what would such an identity be constructed when, in truth, it has been so utterly vilified?

And yet in France, in Denmark, in Sweden, in Spain, in Poland and numerous other countries that are relatively homogeneous, there are political and social movements to avoid what has been engineered in America (which is seen not as the “strength” it is said to be but as a road to civil strife. And at the core of it? The rediscovery and re-empowerment of “identity”. Culturally of course but also in that somatic/genetic sense. But it’s a hard road given the extreme negativity (literally evilness) associated with maintaining an attacked, immoral White identity.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just trying to coexist peacefully in the world your god created, mon ami.

You need to go to war, idiot. Peace is killing you.

[Gary Childress]

Just trying to coexist peacefully in the world your god created, mon ami.

You need to go to war, idiot. Peace is killing you.

Is it no better to die in the name of peace than kill in the name of war? I would think Jesus wouldn't approve. Or is killing the way one "loves" an "enemy"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Grow a pair for us and actually walk your talk.

However, you know nothing about South Africa and likely less about Germany.

You misunderstand “growing a pair” and in that sense I sense you have an impeded masculinity. But then it’s all “fragmented & fractured” in your case, right?

For you “taking action” [walking the talk] is a) setting up internment camps, or b) establishing an apartheid state. Which option will it be?

But only a childish, half-deranged, neurotic, confused dolt would think in such brute terms.

And yet that is the wee hill upon which you desire to fight your epic (ultra large print) battles.

Grow a different sort of “pair”, looser.

[Gary Childress]

Grow a pair for us and actually walk your talk.

However, you know nothing about South Africa and likely less about Germany.

You misunderstand “growing a pair” and in that sense I sense you have an impeded masculinity. But then it’s all “fragmented & fractured” in your case, right?

For you “taking action” [walking the talk] is a) setting up internment camps, or b) establishing an apartheid state. Which option will it be?

But only a childish, half-deranged, neurotic, confused dolt would think in such brute terms.

And yet that is the wee hill upon which you desire to fight your epic (ultra large print) battles.

Grow a different sort of “pair”, looser.

Do 'real' men fight to create 'justice'?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Austin_and_Reality

Monsieur Metaphysician?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I would think Jesus wouldn't approve. Or is killing the way one "loves" an "enemy"?

You do not believe in Jesus, you moron. And I myself very certainly do not believe in any philosophy of “loving” an enemy.

I can’t think of anyone in the world who realistically practices such an absurd philosophy.

Efforts to understand enemies might be made. Strategic compromises maybe. But love?

There is no Christian who seriously practices this “love your enemy” business.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have very limited patience for your nonsense, Gary.

[Gary Childress]

I would think Jesus wouldn't approve. Or is killing the way one "loves" an "enemy"?

You do not believe in Jesus, you moron. And I myself very certainly do not believe in any philosophy of “loving” an enemy.

I can’t think of anyone in the world who realistically practices such an absurd philosophy.

Efforts to understand enemies might be made. Strategic compromises maybe. But love?

There is no Christian who seriously practices this “love your enemy” business.

It depends on what you mean by "believe in Jesus". Can you be a little more precise so that I can confirm or deny your assertion?