I disagree. A hierarchy is an inference drawn from a data set. If you add a value judgement to the inference, it becomes a metaphysical proposition.

“who else comes on this site?”

If it matters, I’m a working-class male (“white” for my country) atheist Market Socialist, and I think *actually* opposing sexism and racism (as opposed to practicing them “in reverse”) is right. I’m here because I think the Left doesn’t need to be as dumb/venal as it is now.

I haven’t read it yet (but have heard the author interviewed), but it might be good to start before that with The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise.

The PC establishment is still persecuting Galileo’s while refusing to look thru the telescope. They have learned nothing.

The Establishment is always persecuting Galileo because he is perceived as a threat to the Establishment. PC is the Establishment in action, improving the world by doing good deeds. It makes them feel so gooood about themselves.

APEX is still in its infancy. Just wait…

It’s Ulster. He’s more likely to be one of yours (a ‘Proddy’ from the Scottish Lowlands) than a genuine Irishman.

There are other strains of Irish nationalism and it’s not too late to bring them back.

You musn’t confuse the thuggish crypto-Marxism of Sinn Féin with the racialist, integralist ideals upon which Fine Gael was founded.

It’s true that you can’t debate basic values, but you can articulate them and clarify your position and contrast it with others.

You seem to be a believer in reason, and thus progress, and think material conditions affect happiness most.

I see a far more limited role for all three.

Yes, those things are good, up to a point, and balanced with other things.

My larger point, poorly made perhaps, is that while certainly true that from an evolutionary vantage, we (those of alive today) have no idea what “wins”. It may well be crapping in ones’ own water supply and eating ones’ neighbors. They certainly have the highest TFR and threaten to subsume us. Or they may have immunity to an impending plague while we do not.

But my basis for everything is using reason to overcome all I listed and more. If we cannot agree that is objectively better, then a debate is pointless. If we accidentally cause a singularity as is at least theoretically possible (whether in its physics meaning or its tech meaning) then its game over for our species, but so far so good unless we live (as some posit) in a simulation already..

Just as language is useless unless we can agree on meaning, debate is pointless unless we can agree on fundamental principles (what you’ve called biases I believe).

“As science is about facts, it cannot establish hierarchies, just differences.”

If the mean IQ score of East-Asians is 110 and the mean IQ score of Europeans is 100, it’s a difference that establishes a hierarchy, because a hierarchy is an arrangement of items in which the items are represented as being “above”, “below”, or “at the same level as” one another.

The PC establishment is still persecuting Galileo’s while refusing to look thru the telescope. They have learned nothing.

McStravock and his allies are ignorant barbarians who cynically exploit the “feelz” of many other simple minded students and faculty….His ilk was enabled and enboldened by unscrupulous politicians and by Enlightenment “philosophers, who posited human egalitarianism on no basis whatsoever.

Ah, I see we have a true believer in progress

Yes, those things are good, up to a point, and balanced with other things.

If we kept our goals so modest and stopped seeking redemption through science we might be ok.

And nihilism is not the recognition that the truth is larger and more mysterious than our minds can grasp – nihilism is the idea that we need to be rescued from the fact that all our thought constructions are at best provisional.

We can choose to rejoice in the fact that the puny human mind is not the last word. Such a universe would be stultifying.

If we cannot agree that improving survival rate of children, improving survivability of childbirth, eliminating disease, eliminating birth defects, improving life span, all are inherently superior to crapping in our water supply, spitting out as many sprogs as possible hoping some survive to reproduce, and eating/being eaten by our fellows, then there’s no point in discussing anything. These “there are no objective truths” in social science arguments are great if you enjoy drinking urine and feces water. Otherwise, there ARE objective truths and we can certainly measure the intelligence necessary to strive toward them if not fully attain them.

Nihilistic word salad is fun perhaps in a first year philosophy class, but not so much in the real world where we attempt to improve human life outcome, accurately predict and prevent existential catastrophe, develop into an interplanetary species, and more.

Hundreds of words to say, “but nihilism”.

people who can meet the standard are not only irrelevant, but we experience a perverse joy in lynching them. We hate them out of envy, and the answer is to destroy them.

Nicely done, you distilled Marxism into just 32 words.

i am not sure that is the argument here. The argument by Dr. Sanai, is most likely:

whether IQ is purely genetically based.
whether IQ is a marker for some superior status in relation to color or at all.
whether those on the side of Dr. Lynn have not tainted their views and methods by way of the null hypothesis — that whites are not by nature superior or hold a unique place holder of the same by IQ scores.

Her challenge is whether said proverbial truth is objective or manipulated manufactured by virtue of other biases, faulty models, narrow models that prove the conclusion by very strict design. Note: in order to prove a truth, one does by intent narrow the conditional parameters in which said truth exists.

Research parameters regarding “all things being similar” or “equal” is a very tough standard. I think the tough space that IQ researchers usually grant out is the space to environment is a very tough measure, because environment encompasses so many uncontrollable factors. It’s hard enough to locate genetic markers for behavior, much less intangibles that invade genetic artifacts.

Again, I am not in support of silencing research about IQ because of its intent or even possible conclusions that people of a certain pigment have higher IQs more than others and said might be hurtful.

What is “offensive” about the provable truth ?

Actually,

that is not entirely accurate. Postmodern research is not devoid of metrics. It’s veracity is dependent on the mechanisms used, the objectives sought, It’s the accuracy of the measurements, their generalize-ability and most important their predictably to very well defined artifacts of similar condition, if not exact condition.

Phenomenology, which is coming to take a larger stage than what is termed “objective” statistical data sets has introduced a lot of careless research conclusions, despite the use of statistical methods.

And despite the rhetoric, white women and women in general have been the most adamnt users of this methodology.

As noted I am not a advocate for shutting down research merely because it’s offensive.

hmmm no,

The article does not address the specific objections. It doesn’t matter whether said objectives are on point of the research or the research or the cause for the research or the field itself. Your repeating the author’s generalized introductions don’t get to the specific objections either.

First there’s a review of Dr. Lynn’s background, expertise, references to his work and it’s impact. He then introduces to Dr. Saini. But before doing so there’s press about researchers with extreme view about race. In this article those that challenge the idea of color and genetic linked, I say genetics because the scientific reality is that the humans beings are one species and the idea that race is denoted by a color has has long ago left the scene. Before introducing Dr. Saini, the author precedes and follow his introduction with editorial about the intent, and even qualification by way of lack. But aside from the reference to an article and her forth coming bool, there are no references to her academic expertise, skills or areas of research, just a press, that those challenging Dr. Lynn’s ideas lack the perquisite skills to do so.

And it is there I hesitated. while a statistician, or psychiatric researchers might have the prerequisites to challenge data sets and methodology, it’s not required to critically think through the veracity of research. As related by the author, Dr. Saini, claims that IQ and color research could be tainted by their own agendas of color bias. That the desire to defends a color superiority could pollute IQ research. It is the reverse claim made by the author. Who asserts, that it is emotion and ethnocentrism and the color bias of the challengers. well ok — tit for tat. I would like to know what the specific challengers are — that is not presented save in very general terms. because as layed out by the author both sides seem to agree that color and ethnocentric bias can be a factor in research.

And his one example of her advance is based on an analysis that in short says, Great Britain’s conquest of India changed India’s future in the area(s) of science or even pre-eminence. A prima facie, it’s a rather obvious – of course conquest would impact any societies future standing, depending on the nature of the conquest. Have europeans allowed their desire to superior influenced how they conducted their activities — also rather obvious. I would have appreciated that discussion. And foregone the asides about color haters and ethnocentric competitions about who is better.

I am not inclined to accept that challenging IQ and color dynamics is in itself a reflection of color hatreds. I don’t see any evidence that Dr. Saini is demanding that Dr. Lynn shut up or even hates anyone. Her response is to challenge the methods, standards or conclusion of IQ and color being statically linked.

No. I think I understood the point of the article quite well. And I remain where I came in. If the student body wants to contend that the very idea of IQ and color lends credence to genetic superiority is biased and in effectual a racist act, I would like to know what their specific objections are. And I think this author could have introduced more of what that is comprised of.

I did realize that the bringing evolution into the argument might be a bit distracting. The point of science (vs. Engineering) being rife with ‘hand waving’ is not too much of a stretch even without that example.

This ‘hand waving’, when viewed from a historical philosophical standpoint, I argue is nothing more than neo-Platonic mysticism.

Yes, the question of ‘something rather than nothing’ is one for which the scientific atheists have no answer. It is the creation argument. It also applies to the problem of life, “how do we get order and structure from chaos”?

For the Hindus, a proposed solution for the problem is saying ‘its turtles all the way down’. But that doesn’t really solve anything, because there still needs to be something below even if the number of turtles is infinite.

For scientists, the mystical notion of the ‘big bang’ begs the question ‘what was there before?’ Something cannot come from nothing. By making the universe really small, nothing is solved, because there is still something. It is just a magic trick, a psychological distraction. And that something contains all the mystical and amazing notions of life, and the beauty of someone like Jennifer Conley. Smallness is like the turtles all the way down argument.

One thing to do is train the ears and hear the language of scientists when they switch into mystical mode. It starts to become quite striking. When reading about Natural selection, listen to the words used to describe its action. In my many decades believing the theory, I always thought this language was bizarre. The notion is not only anthropomorphized, it is deified.

If you decide to explore the problems with neo-Darwinism from a science view, the book ‘Signature in the cell’ by Stephen Meyers explores the statistical problems with the notion of ‘creation’ of new features within the supposed paradigm of natural selection. It all comes down to vanishingly small probabilities for the required leaps.

Scientific empiricism for sure does not know everything, but what it does know is perhaps the most confident knowledge that we as human beings do have.

I certainly agree that Scientific empiricism brings us a great advantage in understanding some of the material phenomena of our world. When it stays within the bounds where it does best (testable, buildable), it brings good. When it strays beyond it creates a new religion. When it tries to answer questions beyond its narrow material focus, it fails completely.

I think some of what you are saying is interesting and worth exploring.

I do not think there is a great deal of controversy in evolutionary biology that even small changes at the molecular genetic level within living organisms cannot, under the influence of selection pressures, provide the raw material that will lead to the development of novel biological features over time in living beings.

I could be wrong about that but I guess I would want to explore these arguments based on a scientific methodology and not philosophical abstraction. All too often the “experts” who tackle these issues do so from the perspective of philosophical abstraction-reductio ad absurdum-and not a rigorous scientific methodology. In short, a lot of hand waving that does little to advance our understanding of nature.

What I am most puzzled by and would agree with you that science has no real answers is why such a process in the first place? As the ancient Hindu mystics would say: Why is there something rather than nothing?

And perhaps more importantly the aspect of teleology? Why such a process? And to what end?

This is the area for philosophical speculation and the haunts of the theologians. I do not disparage these realms of thought and have a high level of respect for genuine mystics and intellectually serious and honest theologians. But I remain troubled by these questions if for no other reason than the amount of evil in our world. And not just human evil. The indifference of nature to suffering is terrifying to me and suggests that whatever is responsible for the creation, if at any level sentient, may be evil by our definition of evil.

Scientific empiricism for sure does not know everything, but what it does know is perhaps the most confident knowledge that we as human beings do have.

Well, do you really think the absurd non-secular nonsense non-Christians have to deal with all the time doesn’t contain pro-Christian biases and ideological baggage that make them ill in its repulsiveness from the virtue signaling and shaming? Non-Christians deal with reading things they know are ridiculous all the time. As a matter of fact, they have to weave out a life in a society permeated with and saturated in falsehoods.

Right back at you.

“One little paper with an ideological hurdle for you is too much? Please, that is not a valid excuse.”

I had pointed out legitimate criticisms. Is that too much an ideological hurdle for you?

Agree; so weird that Jews don’t go after Tatu (or descendants)…maybe because he died in 2015?

Well, do you really think the absurd secular nonsense we Christian have to deal with all the time doesn’t contain anti-Christian biases and ideological baggage thst makes us ill in its repulsiveness? We deal with reading things we know are ridiculous all the time. As a matter of fact, we have to weave out a life in a society permeated with and saturated in falsehoods.
One little paper with an ideological hurdle for you is too much? Please, that is not a valid excuse.

The article doesn’t really get to what the issues are regarding the challenge to the Dr. Lynn’s work or advocacy

You’ve rather missed the point here. The article doesn’t specify any objective “issues” concerning research problems, data errors, reporting inaccuracies, incorrect hypotheses derived from research evidence, or any other reasons whatever to reject Dr. Lynn’s work – for the simple reason that the shockingly-arrogant, untrained, unqualified , non-specialist and cretinously closed-minded Angela Saini has not herself raised or provided any such thing. For an ethnically-rooted, Official Victim-class social justice warrior seething with anti-White racist hatred, it is quite sufficient to point-and-splutter incoherently and without a shred of objective justification at anyone – especially a highly-educated, hugely-intelligent, principled, rational White man – who raises the spectre of Truth concerning the prohibited, thought-crime realities of race-based IQ differences.

Thus, in fact, there are no “challenges” whatever, in any rational form. There is only the self-righteous, self-obsessed, utterly immoral, pig-headed determination to SHUT UP those whose statements and publications – backed by hard research evidence – are contrary to the permitted Jewish-framed anti-White cultural-marxist narrative.

That environmental constraints on living organisms will lead–over time–to genetic changes in animal populations is well grounded science with support from diverse fields of biology such as genetics.

Yes, that is the assertion.
However, as the works of Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyers, and many Neo-Darwinist’s agree, the basic mechanisms are in severe crisis.
Natural selection cannot act until something exists and gives an advantage.
It provides no mechanism for creation.
Creation requires huge leaps in parameter space, the simultaneous mutation of impossibly numerous genes in just the perfect way all at once. And the waiting times for even very short mutations are impossibly long.

Mount improbable is actually a canyon ridden mountain with unscalable crevasses and false summits all over the place.

In fact, Darwin had severe daddy issues and wanted to get rid of God.
So he hid him in the mystical notion of ‘natural selection’.

But, there are plenty of other examples of scientific mysticism, like the absurd use of computer models (which cannot maintain accuracy for more that a few weeks) to claim something about climate (average weather) decades in the future.

Don’t even get me started on psychology or sociology.

Nutrition, shall we?

All these hand waving experiments fall under the dogma of science and are pushed in the mainstream (scientist’s skepticism and caution is ignored or ridiculed) as absolute fact, with the full authority of the actual engineering type successes.

Despite its sometimes useful conclusions, in general, Science is a religion based on the pantheistic developments of Spinoza, the occultic mysticism of Newton and his ‘mechanical earth’, with Darwin as the highest of all Priests.

Engineering is certainly empiricism, combined with testing of hypothesis through actually building things.

Engineering is derivative of scientific theories–primarily from physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Without these scientific theories, there is very little engineering.

Science, however, is a small dose of empiricism with an added huge does of wild extrapolation. Much of what calls itself science is neither tested nor testable. For instance, speculation on the far past (evolution), and speculation on the future (climate science).

There is also a huge amount of neo-Platonic mysticism in ‘science’. The lassie-fair ‘invisible hand’, the ‘consumer confidence’, ‘natural selection’, etc, etc.. The all magical mystical and unexplainable force that enters into almost every paper.

Few natural scientists consider economic theories to be grounded on the same level of support as scientific theories that come from the natural sciences. Laissez-faire does not have the same level of empirical support as does natural selection.

That environmental constraints on living organisms will lead–over time–to genetic changes in animal populations is well grounded science with support from diverse fields of biology such as genetics.

There is nothing mystical about natural selection.

What is mystical is how this selection process was put into place and to what end. Here is where hand waving argumentation and philosophical abstraction can find a natural home–not in disputing the empirical truth of natural selection and its influence on life.

If, that is, we hadn’t grown all too familiar with the modern establishment cringe before political correctness.

This cringe before political correctness is all too common among members of the academic elite–the very group that one would expect to be most immune from such debasement. That they are not immune from such debasement but instead defenders of those who assault the truth suggest a high level of cowardice among the intelligentsia of the modern academy.

Well, if “all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status based on their ability to record and label their direct observations and experiences,” then those humans who lack that ability (whether entirely or in part) cannot, under this definition, by truly equal to us. I’m thinking of certain physical disabilities (e.g., blindness) that limit a person’s ability to sense certain things, as well as certain mental disabilities, such as retardation, which limit a person’s ability to record and label things. That’s what I meant.

General observation on Locke would be; anyone who’d say the following…

“The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure”

…is hardly capable of any pretense at authentic empiricism, rather is a product of the political correctness of his time, or worse, Locke telling his ‘benefactor’ what he expects to hear. To know this, one only need check out the butt-kissing introduction to Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” .. if you actually can read through the entire thing and go on to enjoy Locke’s tortured rationalizations, looking past the rank political fellatio in the foreword to Locke’s treatise, you may award yourself a sadomasochist of philosophy medal.

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/04/06/perverts-of-western-philosophy/

If you enjoy the contorted torture James Joyce puts a reader through, Locke is the philosopher for you.

“The “empirical truths” that Rawls admitted were not his own.”

I understand, but the point is that he acknowledged their existence and legitimacy.

“I sincerely hope you’re mischaracterizing Locke’s opinion here, because otherwise, that means that people with certain physical or mental disabilities couldn’t possibly be equal to us under his definition.”

Please explain. I do not want to put words in your mouth.

I would modify this ‘science is empiricism’ a slight bit.

Engineering is certainly empiricism, combined with testing of hypothesis through actually building things.

Science, however, is a small dose of empiricism with an added huge does of wild extrapolation. Much of what calls itself science is neither tested nor testable. For instance, speculation on the far past (evolution), and speculation on the future (climate science).
These consist of problems containing far more degrees of freedom that constraints, and, inevitably, choices have to be made to arrive at a solution. More often than not those choices reflect the interests of the institutions funding the research.

There is also a huge amount of neo-Platonic mysticism in ‘science’. The lassie-fair ‘invisible hand’, the ‘consumer confidence’, ‘natural selection’, etc, etc.. The all magical mystical and unexplainable force that enters into almost every paper.

Glad you are interesting in the Seraphim Nihilism book, it is incredibly insightful.

I’m being reasonable. I’m against the absolutist claims of others.

I discussed the way motivation has been tested for on an Anatoly Karlin thread – basically, the tests simply reproduce the problem, showing bad faith or simple stupidity. It’s an insoluble problem, but they don’t want to admit for emotional reasons.

I’m not against figuring out “what works” – that’s all we can ever do. Science, through Darwinism, has shown its unscientific to believe our minds have been shaped to know truth,or be objective. It’s unscientific to believe our minds can ever be free of biological impetatives.

I’m performing an internal criticism here – those who ccept science can’t believe in truth or objectivity, they can only believe in “what works” for the time being – and may not have work in the past and may not in the future – not can they believe that humans can – or even should – be objective or free of our biological imperatives.

This notion of a neutral and objective science is a religious myth. Let me put to you this way, and I think is the crux of of the argument that will demonstrate once we got all that science is far from an example of rising above our biological imperatives.

It’s true that scientists can discipline themselves into “objectivity” in reference to “what works” – i.e they can put wishes aside and be honest about whether their formulas actually produced the expected result.

Why can they do this? Simply, because doing so serves biological needs of survival (power over nature). The discipline of objectivity is itself in service to biological imperatives – and thus will break down if it no longer serves biological imperatives, or clashes with other biological imperatives . In fact, science is very selective in what it will “consider” because it is not after truth, but in service to biology.

Scientific “objevtivity” is merely suppressing some biological needs in order to better satisfy others. The idea of a “disintefested” search for the truth is an impossibility – If you believe Darwin.

We are mere animals.

Now, romanticism of “truth loving” Westerners who will sacrifice their self interest aside, we can see that Western science advanced for a time the self-intetested biological needs of Western man, however, the myth of disinterested inquiry has of late become a liability and threatens the biological destruction of Western man.

Of course, no change of course will be made until catastrophe.

“We believe in the pursuit of truth, wherever that pursuit may lead. Those who do not believe this are not welcome here.”

That seems like exactly the kind of thing one would expect someone in Haier’s position to say to someone trying to persuade him to punish a scientist for publishing scientific results they don’t like.

If, that is, we hadn’t grown all too familiar with the modern establishment cringe before political correctness.

Cultural Gramscism… or just Gramcism.

Empiricism according to Ronald:

David Hume’s impossible postulation…

“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason”

…is summed up in Western ethics as ‘Hume’s guillotine’ or the ‘ought-is problem.’ Now, forgive my naiveté when faced with this immutable Western dilemma of philosophy where the ‘ought-is problem‘ is posed…

“how, exactly can an “ought” be derived from an “is”? The question, prompted by Hume’s small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory”

…as it occurs in my small universe if my ass IS dirty I had OUGHT to wash it. Correct? Or, if it is in the natural order of things one were to have a dirty ass as a matter of fact, expectation and normalcy, and those hairy-assed little shit-balls, quaintly known as ‘dingle-berries’ in the vulgar tongue, must endure .. would it be a violation of IS to pull them out? Had one OUGHT *NOT* do that? What I’m getting at is, there was this time during my progressing baldness I had my head waxed to remove what amounted to an annoying residual fuzz. Now, it’d never occurred to me (previous to faced with Hume’s ‘ought-is problem’) hairy people OUGHT to have an ass-wax-job, but now this seems a logical progression from dirty ass as a result of hairy ass-crack, or that is an IS to an OUGHT.

@ https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/04/06/perverts-of-western-philosophy/

^

There is no such thing as cultural Marxism. It is what those who are scared of Marxism message are tryi g to achieve. Marx simply analyzed and developed systematic approach to what capitalism is and where it is going. It was not about identity, gender or race.

This challenge to Rawls’ idea of the primacy of justice is fueled by Rawls’ admission of certain empirical truths that must be true if the kind of cooperative ventures necessary to justice are to be “possible and necessary” (Rawls, p. 109).

The “empirical truths” that Rawls admitted were not his own. The author is almost surely referring here to concepts such as the Pareto Optimum, to which Rawls deferred when devising his own utopia. But these concepts, whether empirical or not, weren’t Rawls’ own; the Pareto Optimum, for example, was first devised by Wilfredo Pareto–and I’m not even sure that was empirical either. The concept of ‘optimum,’ after all, is inherently subjective and doesn’t exist in nature. It’s just a value judgment.

John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume were the champions of empiricism. They writings countered the philosophy of Rationalism as espoused by Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza.

No doubt they were champions of empiricism. But the fact remains that they themselves were not engaging in it when they wrote their best-known works. Instead, they were engaging in abstract speculation on the subject of empiricism. What you don’t seem to understand is that there’s a difference between science and philosophy of science. By way of analogy, if I told you that I were a huge fan of Manu Ginobili, and that I just love analyzing his moves on the court, that wouldn’t automatically make me a professional basketball player myself. I would still just be a fan, not a pro ball-player.

Fourth, according to John Locke, all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status based on their ability to record and label their direct observations and experiences. [Emphasis mine]

I sincerely hope you’re mischaracterizing Locke’s opinion here, because otherwise, that means that people with certain physical or mental disabilities couldn’t possibly be equal to us under his definition.

I didn’t realize Marx himself had acknowledged that. But Locke is widely credited with inventing the labor theory of value: the idea that land ownership first arises once a man ‘mixes’ his labor with the soil (i.e., agriculture).

Indeed, I seriously doubt if Ronald Thomas West would say such things in person.

One of the weird things in this world is that books that have much influence are hardly ever read by anyone.
The books are Das Kapital, the bible, the Quran, and Mein Kampf.
I did read the bible, from beginning to end, Mein Kampf, in the english translation, a very boring book, I have a partial Quran translation.
The bible, the old testament, the first five books the same as the Torah, not much more than murder, genocide, ethnic cleaning, adultery, and homo hate.
The new testament, very inconsistent.
Mein Kampf, I am an economist, but stopped at page twenty or so.
As far as I know nobody read much futher, complete nonsense, incomprehensible.
That it is nonsense has been proved by historical developments, Marx’ predictions did not come true.

The woods are 100% libertarian wherever I go.

Haier responded: “I consulted several people about this. I decided that it’s better to deal with these things with sunlight and by inclusion.…The area of the relationship between intelligence and group differences is probably the most incendiary area in the whole of psychology. And some of the people who work in that area have said incendiary things. … I have read some quotes, indirect quotes, that disturb me, but throwing people off an editorial board for expressing an opinion really kind of puts us in a dicey area. I prefer to let the papers and the data speak for themselves.”

Pretty mealy-mouthed, compared to the ringing refusal to suppress scientific research for political reasons that ought to have come from a man in such a position faced with such a demand, but in the end the action itself is more important.

I agree with you completely. It would be nice sometime to see some real conviction displayed by these academic poseurs. Something as simple as this: We believe in the pursuit of truth, wherever that pursuit may lead. Those who do not believe this are not welcome here.

” tell her to use a second price schedule for Indian patients.”

Is that legal in the US? Can a business have a separate price schedule depending on the nationality of a customer? In Chicago, the museums can charge different prices depending if you are a resident versus non-resident.

“Rousseau explained in his work that politics can be treated as a science (political science), but it must always seek data that can be confirmed by our senses (empirical evidence).”

I will have to retract my statement.

“Rawls was a pretty clever guy, all in all, but his methodology was definitely not empirical in any way, shape or form. His “original position” was based, not on field research or laboratory experimentation, but rather on Kantian moral intuition. Rawls himself pointed this out in his famous book ‘A Theory of Justice’ several times.”

“Justice,” John Rawls writes, “is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought,” in his A Theory of Justice (p. 2). Truth and justice, he claims, are “the first virtues of human activities,” and thus “are uncompromising” (p. 4). The principles of justice are determined from an Archimedean point, a point from which to assess the basic structure of society, known as the “original position” to Rawls. “The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical situation of equal liberty, assuming for the present that this choice problem has a solution, determines the principles of justice” (p. 11). By contrast, Michael Sandel, in his Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, illustrates that on an empiricist interpretation of the original position, “justice is the first virtue of social institutions not absolutely, as truth is to theories, but only conditionally, as physical courage is to a war zone” (Sandel, p. 31). This challenge to Rawls’ idea of the primacy of justice is fueled by Rawls’ admission of certain empirical truths that must be true if the kind of cooperative ventures necessary to justice are to be “possible and necessary” (Rawls, p. 109).

http://politics.ryanrenn.com/rawls_empiricist_objections.htm

“As far as Locke is concerned, if he actually believed that his social/political theories were empirical…”

John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume were the champions of empiricism. They writings countered the philosophy of Rationalism as espoused by Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza.

Notably, Marx believed that he was a child of the Enlightenment and that his principles descended more or less from Locke, particularly the bit about the relationship between labor and property.

You refer to objectivity in such an absolutist way that, of course, it becomes impossible to achieve.

Don’t set up an absolute standard. Be reasonable. There are researchers practicing objective science every day. Of course, we don’t prove everything with absolute certainty. We merely fail to falsify certain propositions, and we stand by, ready to modify our views if contrary evidence arises.

And of course, IQ researchers have often discussed the possible impact of motivation on test results. Duckworth is a prominent case in point, but no one has found evidence sufficient to justify waiving away stark group differences in average scores. For example, average decision-making times differ across racial groups, but the major racial group that has the slowest decision-making times (on average) exhibits the fastest hand movements (on average) when called upon to register its decisions on a console; the test-takers are generally quite well-motivated. Conversely, the major racial group with the fastest decision-making times has the poorest motor skills for registering its decisions. Fortunately, the technology is able to separate out the decision-making times from the movement times rather well.

Richard Lynn deserves credit for blazing a trail that no one else had dared to travel. He does make mistakes, and his statistical skills are not especially good, but other researchers have improved upon his work. Social science research can be very difficult, but progress has been made.

My philosophy 101 professor told me the two essential questions are what am I and what is all that stuff that is not me. I suggest that both exist in an all encompassing consciousness.

Congratulations, WorkingClass: you’re a Hegelian!

As far as I can tell, you both exist in my all-encompassing consciousness: I’m a solipsist!

Alex, I’ll take Things You’d Never Say to People in Person for $2,000!

“A.) Empiricism is a methodology, not a dogma.”

Not necessarily.

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

“Father Seraphim Rose laid out for us the course of events to expect, which follow from the deadly elixir of the Enlightenment…”


Which is other than surprising, considering he is an Orthodox Christian, so he filters Modern Nihilism through his faith. Thus, there is a distinct confirmation bias here. Remember, he is defines his version of truth based on his conviction, and predicates his entire argument on it. Therefore, anyone who challenges these four stages intellectually are automatically labeled as hostile to truth. In the end, modern man and woman have a foundation based on freethinking, the search for truth, and the application of conscious. Certainly, their religious beliefs may play a fundamental role in their pursuit of knowledge and how they go about handling the complexities of life.

Kevin McStravock has admirable physical traits. Soon membership will become mandatory for “Aryans”. Students who don’t join the club will be assigned essays, as casual observation suggests this boosts the IQ.

said:
“It’s cute that you have your own white supremacist scientists.”

Like who exactly?

And where exactly is this ‘white supremacy’ reflected in their work?

You, being black, are desperate for anything to distract from the fact that blacks are easily the least intelligent of people on this planet. Your denial of that fact changes nothing.

I bet you have watched Black Panther numerous times.

You were asked to ‘show empirical evidence’.

You have not.

Why?

“Egalitarianism is based on “empirical evidence”?? Show “empirical evidence”, please.”

First, I never made this statement. Strawman much?

So let’s be clear, Corvinus: is it empiricism you disbelieve in? Or egalitarianism? Because the latter can never be derived from the former.

Rousseau explained in his work that politics can be treated as a science (political science), but it must always seek data that can be confirmed by our senses (empirical evidence).

Yes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: that learned, empirical scientist who became an expert on North American “noble savages” by conducting years and years of extensive field research in North America–all without ever leaving Europe! Astral projection does wonders for a man’s field research capabilities …

Third, political philosopher John Rawls hypothetically asked his readers to imagine themselves ignorant of their intelligence, skills, and personality. From this particular state, they could construct rules for society, since being ignorant of one’s humanity would lead one to adopt a more egalitarian perspective.

Rawls was a pretty clever guy, all in all, but his methodology was definitely not empirical in any way, shape or form. His “original position” was based, not on field research or laboratory experimentation, but rather on Kantian moral intuition. Rawls himself pointed this out in his famous book ‘A Theory of Justice’ several times.

As far as Locke is concerned, if he actually believed that his social/political theories were empirical, then I’m afraid he had a poor grasp of the term. After all, “natural” rights cannot be observed in nature–not even with a microscope! Now, I’m sure pretty much everyone wants life, liberty and property; but just because you want something doesn’t prove you have a right to it. I want a Lambourghini with Selma Hayek in the passenger’s seat … but, sadly, that doesn’t mean I have a right to them.

White tra$$hes evolution and co/the rest of human-unkind has been based on quantitative levels AND not qualitative ones… Humans are super intelligent if they are compared with all other animals BUT they barely know how to use it in very ideal way AND also because astute types are considerably brighters at practical way than the rest, included those who are cognitively smarter [higher IQ without sociopathic personality].

Almost human cultures has been the victory of two types: astute/sociopathic types [greedy for power] and proto-psychotic types [creators of most ''religious'' cultures]. Useless/self-useful motherfuckers and useful ”idiots’…

My philosophy 101 professor told me the two essential questions are what am I and what is all that stuff that is not me. I suggest that both exist in an all encompassing consciousness.

Congratulations, WorkingClass: you’re a Hegelian!

Thanks for the links, nickels. They look interesting. I’m going to go take a look at them later on.

… the best description of science would be it is a faith-based religion or cult of ‘objectivity’ with a dogma called ‘empiricism’, all utter fallacy …

A.) Empiricism is a methodology, not a dogma.

B.) As a methodology, it may not be perfect. But it’s surely better than voodoo.

B.) It was that very empirical methodology which led, at length, to theories such as quantum physics. Or do you maintain that d’Espagnat arrived at his knowledge of the universe by meditating under the Boddhi tree?

Opps…! I think a new book must be written on Jewish intelligence and Nobel Prizes and how Jews came to be intelligent

List of all Nobel Prize Winners in every category since 1901

http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/0403/13-0186-mahongbao-ns.pdf

Where were the Jews ?…it appears their brilliance is a fairly recent phenomena.

It’s cute that you have your own white supremacist scientists.

It’s cute that you have your own SJW reality.

http://www.rense.com/general29/raceandIQ.htm

The article doesn’t really get to what the issues are regarding the challenge to the Dr. Lynn’s work or advocacy.

I would agree with the article’s contend that hurtful ideas should not be rejected merely because they are hurtful.

Farther back, actually, but don’t frighten the SJW shill. They like to think that humanity began with Emma Lazarus.

“Egalitarianism is based on “empirical evidence”?? Show “empirical evidence”, please.”

First, I never made this statement. Strawman much?

Second, Rousseau explained in his work that politics can be treated as a science (political science), but it must always seek data that can be confirmed by our senses (empirical evidence).

Third, political philosopher John Rawls hypothetically asked his readers to imagine themselves ignorant of their intelligence, skills, and personality. From this particular state, they could construct rules for society, since being ignorant of one’s humanity would lead one to adopt a more egalitarian perspective.

Fourth, according to John Locke, all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status based on their ability to record and label their direct observations and experiences.

“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment” -Bernard d’Espagnat, Theoretical Physicist

Take out the word human and we’re getting somewhere. My philosophy 101 professor told me the two essential questions are what am I and what is all that stuff that is not me. I suggest that both exist in an all encompassing consciousness. This does not negate the utility of empiricism to humans. Only the claim of some empiricists to capital “T” Truth.

Father Seraphim Rose laid out for us the course of events to expect, which follow from the deadly elixir of the Enlightenment:

stage 1) LIBERALISM:
The first and mildest stage of Nihilism is Liberalism. The Liberal does not believe in truth, higher truth, absolute truth, or Christian truth. Yet he retains “the name of truth, and the names of those truths men once regarded as absolute.”

stage 2) REALISM:
The Realist aggressively denies all higher truth, he says that only the material, the physical, the lower, the purely deterministic, is true.

stage 3) VITALISM:
In the Vitalist stage of society, people deliver themselves over to an unending search for sensation and excitement, for the exotic and the experimental, for ever-greater freedom and satisfaction of desires, for the “riches of diversity,” for the transforming “energy” that is produced by a society in constant change and motion—and with all these things being seen as, even explicitly promoted as, a substitute for any inherent truth and goodness in existence.

stage 4) DESTRUCTION:
“a rage against creation and against civilization that will not be appeased until it has reduced them to absolute nothingness.”

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001940.html

http://www.oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

In reality, we see in America today different groups of people straddling all phases of this spectrum. I’d say the general populace is somewhere between the vitalism and destruction phases.

Belief in objectivity – that truth is accessible to the human mind – is a religious belief.

You cannot know that objectively.

In reality, the Enlightenment ended with the rejection of Descartes’s God and Hume’s rejection of all knowledge.

The only ration view without God is Solipsism.

All this is just fumes, dying gasps.

The guy studied in anachronistic Britain.
Arguments therefore invalid.
Welcome to the future.
Socialism is life.

The article is like a mammoth ivory tower aiming its cannon at a mastodon ivory tower. It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to get this:

“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment” -Bernard d’Espagnat, Theoretical Physicist

In other words, Plato was wrong and the people on all sides of this article’s argument are full of s**t.

Meanwhile, the best description of science would be it is a faith-based religion or cult of ‘objectivity’ with a dogma called ‘empiricism’, all utter fallacy, and that’s not going to change until scientists wake up to the fact d’Espagnat’s small paragraph points to the western civilization’s state of inquiry took a wrong turn some 2,500 years ago. That’s a lot of miles to backtrack and start over. You’ll never make it.

In any case, if you’d like a good laugh, there’s this highly relevant ‘once upon a time’ story…

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/02/24/the-time-i-fondled-a-dogs-nuts/

^

” In technology we can test what works – planes fall out of the sky if our formulas don’t work. That does not mean our formulas are true, merely that they work.

In social science our formulas cannot be tested in such a way, but are merely grafted onto facts to form a narrative, which are inevitably shaped by our biological needs. ”

First sentence, more or less correct, science consists of hypotheses that have not yet been proven false.

Second sentence, such a social science is not science, is journalism.

Of course, but who chooses the sort criterium ?

Those of us who believe in a truly objective pursuit of science

Perhaps that’s your problem….to believe such a thing is possible is itself heavily unobjective and irrational, itself a tactic in a social battle as well as a consoling religious beliefs.

Darwinism gives us no reason to believe our minds are designed for anything other than survival, and thus we are ineradicably prone to self-deception – our science cannot, according to Darwinism, be objective, but must reflect our biological imperatives for survival.

Nothing is more irrational and unobjective than to believe science can be objective. It’s an activity carried out by biological organisms under the imperatives of survival and reproduction.

Belief in objectivity – that truth is accessible to the human mind – is a religious belief.

In technology we can test what works – planes fall out of the sky if our formulas don’t work. That does not mean our formulas are true, merely that they work.

In social science our formulas cannot be tested in such a way, but are merely grafted onto facts to form a narrative, which are inevitably shaped by our biological needs.

This can be seen most clearly in the science of IQ – in this science, the idea that motivation may differ between groups and heavily affect IQ is refused consideration because it clashes with the emotional imperatives of those doing the research.

Of course, such self-awareness is denied those who seek to transcend their human condition by styling themselves “objective” – a DarwinIan impossibility – and the contradictions they involve themselves in are visible only to those outside their mythical framework.

Yes. It all started with Darwin.

Andrew Joyce deserves high praise for a spot-on, well written piece. Kudos to Ron Unz for republishing it here.
Ever growing ‘Holocaust’ Revisionism is at the epicenter of this attack on science and free speech.
Science & free speech activism is simply crushing the impossible ’6M Jew, 5M others, & gas chambers’ propaganda that has metastasized into a fanatical & dangerous religion.
Only lies require censorship.

Cheers.
http://www.codoh.com

It is tautological that when we decide everyone should have a college degree that we lower the standard, thereby eliminating the higher intelligence the degree is supposed to reflect.

Everyone should have a degree. Not necessarily an education. The idea has been if you have a degree you don’t have to compete with third world immigrants for rent and groceries.

If you wanted to corrupt academia and create a generation of brain washed debt slaves you would invent student loans for everybody.

I’m in East Texas. Deplorables as far as the eye can see. How’s things in the woods?

The Guardian isn’t left or a source of anything more than mild promulgation unless you’re writing some of your own propaganda. This piece has good propaganda value but is a bit short on sciency-facts.

Egalitarianism is based on “empirical evidence”??

Show “empirical evidence”, please.

Historically, there were actually two separate Enlightenments: a scientific one, and a social/political one. The former was based on empirical evidence and reasoning. The latter, however, was based on wishful thinking and moralistic speculation. It was, in effect, an attempt to keep alive–or even expand–a Christian view of humanity, even as the scientific Enlightenment was completely demolishing the Christian cosmology. Philosophers such as Nietzsche saw what a fool’s errand this was.

That’s true. Indeed, almost all of modern intellectual thought is derived in some way from original Christian philosophy without the magical mystery stuff. Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Democracy, are all sourced in the concept of equality of humans. This is derived from the teachings of Jesus. The fact that the two Enlightenments are in conflict with each other reflects the conflict between Christianity and its source religious philosophy, Judaism. Indeed, Judaism is all about the superiority of one group over all others. Not exactly equality.

The fact that a concept can become anchored to the essence of a University is not hard to understand when you think about those who advocate for the philosophy and their economic dependence on that philosophy and its success.

This is evolution in action. Universities want to grow. They want to include everyone, no matter their qualifications. Probably the reason they’re called Universities. A universal education for everyone so that all can agree, and think alike. That’s what we’re seeing. Again, follow the money.

I agree he should have been more forceful in defending Lynn, but this is the best we can hope for in the current neo-leftist Zeitgeist.

“Haier responded: “I consulted several people about this. I decided that it’s better to deal with these things with sunlight and by inclusion.…The area of the relationship between intelligence and group differences is probably the most incendiary area in the whole of psychology. And some of the people who work in that area have said incendiary things. … I have read some quotes, indirect quotes, that disturb me, but throwing people off an editorial board for expressing an opinion really kind of puts us in a dicey area. I prefer to let the papers and the data speak for themselves.””

The actual proper response to people asking that employees or associates be fired for stating facts is as follows:

Fuck off.

It’s cute that you’re far stupider than you pretend to be whilst reading the Unz Review and pretending to be well-informed.

Actually, both the scientific and social/political one was based on empirical evidence and reasoning. Please reread Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire and get back to us.

Hmm, I thought those points were kinda perspicacious.

Rubbish. Any properly-validated dataset – including a dataset of differences in anything – becomes a Hierarchy as soon as you Sort it to highlight a specific value priority.

“So what did people expect? They rejected the foundation of Western Civilization which was Christianity and fell head of heels in love with Charles Darwin because he gave them an excuse to get away from the conservative sexual mores of sex only acknowledged as legitimate–heterosexual marriage–so they could get “they fuck on” with someone/something who tickles their fancy.”

Clearly you are oversimplifying matters here. First, there are several building blocks to Western Civilization, including Christianity. Second, within Christianity there have been differences of doctrinal opinion regarding the purpose and use of science. Third, undoubtedly some Christians used Darwin’s theories to justify their sexual deviancies, but in the end they comprehended they would be judged by God for their conduct. Fourth, before Christianity, there were several societies, white and non-white, who had thriving civilizations. Fifth, the concept of Western Civilization is foreign to the majority of Americans. Do you command them to become woke in this regard? Sixth, people have the liberty to decide for themselves how to lead their own lives.

“Science has supplanted Christ and that was the essential ingredient to controlling the niggers and other savages. This is YOUR fault.’”

Please show me the specific Bible passages justifying God’s desire to “control niggers and savages” and offer the requisite explanation as evidence.

“And since Materialism says all that matters is what is physical then why wouldn’t a little white girl not want to be fucked like an animal with a horse hung nigger and not your tiny dick? Why should a white man not go balls deep in some dark chocolate honey regardless of the outcome?”

No, materialism does not make this exclusive claim. Perhaps you are projecting here?

“You won’t be able to resolve this without Christ. This Leviathan will only stop after the society has completely fallen into the grave, then another segment of humanity will pick up where Western Civ left off and history will march on to His return.”

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this matter.

Always imteresting articles, Dr. Joyce.

I had not come across Prof. Lynn’s work before, want to find more about it.

In my time at a western university, the suppressive attitude was in its infancy, there were complaints about a lecturer I very much liked because he said that Sir Cyril Burt was probably correct in the controversy where he was defamed by Kamin.

Also, (successful) action to prevent David Irving speaking. I thought that disgusting, as much as people try to make him shut up, he was a brilliant researcher of original sources, his opponents seemingly don’t even read German.

My point here is a little off-topic, my degree was mainly maths, physics, elec. eng, and comp. sci., but I was taking electives outside that where I had time.

Therefore, I know enough about the low mental capacity of students in bullshit degrees, and their hatred of and ineptitude in maths and science.

To me, ‘climate change’ epitomizes the false consciousness and falsity of graduates from bullshit courses. They spent their time in ‘studies’ despising maths, science and tech., and those versed in any of those fields.

When I see reports of such ignoramuses, haters of science and tech. (except the parts of it in their iPhonies) ranting about ‘settled science’, an inner irony klaxon screams to me.

I am a climate change agnostic, recall reading about the new ice age when I was about ten, have read more on it since (a few interesting points), but burning all of the readily available fossil fuel in the world is plain stupid, as a waste, and *may* lead to warming.

‘Renewables’? There is no appropriate storage tech., the closest is the fuel cell, which can supply a small site. In Japan, one can be hundreds of kilometres from Tokyo, and see hydro-electric projects with the badge of one of the subway conglomerates on them. That is the only situation where storage of ‘renewables’ works: mountainous terrain, lots of rain, and dams to store the mass of water as potential energy. Which also screws up salmon and other mixed fresh/saltwater species, of course, riparian species, too. I only know of one river on Honshu where salmon can still spawn (I am pretty sure it is not the only one, but if there are others, they are very few, that is why we have the obscenity of salmon from trout). You will probably see it if you check the ingredients on the label.

Another very effective ‘renewable’ is plant matter.

Compare the earliest good colour photos of the Earth from space (late ’60s to mid-’70s), with those of now.

The arc from South Africa to SW Asia is much less green, the deserts greatly expanded. Not the only places to show change, but the worst.

Population, and in particular the explosion of semi-moron populations whose only talents are violence and making pathetic puppy-dog eyes at cameras, is *the* problem.

Of course, grads of bullsit degrees are stupid, so will ignore it ad infinitum, until it all falls down (at least where they live) and they wind up in mixed grills served from hot plates.

I repeat, overpopulation is *the* problem.

Amusing. The press report cited comes from the Irish News, a Belfast paper, not the Irish Times, a Dublin paper. I can find no biographical information on “Andrew Joyce Ph.D.”, as he always styles himself. He is described in one place as a “young British historian” but does not appear to hold any academic position nor, indeed, any position of any kind for that matter. It’s perfectly possible that he doesn’t really exist and that the name is just a pseudonym for someone else. He doesn’t appear to have published anything other than in the Occidental Observer, where this article came from. He appears to be a rabid Brexiteer, which would be par for the course at the Occidental Observer. That publication seems to be little more than an anti-EU propaganda scam, preaching American white nationalism, which postulates that “Whites” are a single ethnic group, but then denying the right of white Europeans (and we are, after all, the “original” whites!) to come together to form the European Union, which postulates that “Whites” are not a single ethnic group! People whose thinking process is so chaotic are hard to take seriously.

Science became the new Christianity and scientists the new priests. The only difference between the two priests is that science tells people that you can fuck whoever you want and there will be no consequences for your life after you die.

One other difference: science actually works.

Science has supplanted Christ and that was the essential ingredient to controlling the niggers and other savages.

Real IQ fest you guys have here.

It’s cute that you have your own white supremacist scientists.

Pseudo controversy? There’s hardly any fight at all.

Intelligence doesn’t prevent stupidity.

From the elites. The butt of jokes.

https://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2018/02/feminist-butt-shaming.html

Jewish activism in the social sciences and the arts is particularly instructive (e.g. academic discussion of ‘anti-Semitism’ is entirely dominated by Jews).

Actually, the discussion of almost

anything

Jewish in the West is totally dominated by Jews. It’s like Gilad Atzmon says: Jewish power consists in the ability to determine whether or not you’re allowed to discuss (among other things) Jewish power.

Sadly, you’re mostly right. Because of the historic discrimination against them at the hands of the Brit establishment, many Celts–the Irish especially–started to identify with the blacks, making modern Irish ‘nationalism’ a very misguided force which actually cheers on the demographic undoing of its own nation! (Not that Irish Unionism is any better; it has its own problems galore.)

Historically, there were actually two separate Enlightenments: a scientific one, and a social/political one. The former was based on empirical evidence and reasoning. The latter, however, was based on wishful thinking and moralistic speculation. It was, in effect, an attempt to keep alive–or even expand–a Christian view of humanity, even as the scientific Enlightenment was completely demolishing the Christian cosmology. Philosophers such as Nietzsche saw what a fool’s errand this was.

Yawn. Boring. Moral Relativism. Postmodernism.

Science became the new Christianity and scientists the new priests. The only difference between the two priests is that science tells people that you can fuck whoever you want and there will be no consequences for your life after you die.

So what did people expect? They rejected the foundation of Western Civilization which was Christianity and fell head of heels in love with Charles Darwin because he gave them an excuse to get away from the conservative sexual mores of sex only acknowledged as legitimate–heterosexual marriage–so they could get “they fuck on” with someone/something who tickles their fancy. Fuck Christ! He’s an asshole who throws people into Hell for rejecting His deity. Christianity may have given us modern cultures but it stopped our ancestors from having the most amazing orgasms ever! CUM CUM CUM! That’s what we want! Transhumanism, that will let us live forever in a state of orgasmic bliss! All that matters is what’s between our legs! Raise a family? Fuck that! Raising kids only retards my opportunities to CUUUUUUMMMM!

And since Materialism says all that matters is what is physical then why wouldn’t a little white girl not want to be fucked like an animal with a horse hung nigger and not your tiny dick? Why should a white man not go balls deep in some dark chocolate honey regardless of the outcome? All that matters is what their physical urges compel them to do.

Aren’t all evolutionists like Richard Dawkins who has no problem with “I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.” This is YOUR fault.

Science has supplanted Christ and that was the essential ingredient to controlling the niggers and other savages. This is YOUR fault. You God haters simply are wrestling with the fallout of your religion, you essentially have Buyer’s Remorse.

I understand it and it was prophesied that this would happen. You won’t be able to resolve this without Christ. This Leviathan will only stop after the society has completely fallen into the grave, then another segment of humanity will pick up where Western Civ left off and history will march on to His return.

This is YOUR fault.

“The Enlightenment itself is responsible for the widespread denial of human nature and the origin of (post)modernist delusions.”

In reality, the Enlightenment enabled Western Civilization to flourish, as it led people to use reason to solve problems, to develop technology, and to think for themselves. This is the essence of human nature.

Try again.