Sexy Racist Statistics

BellCurve

Way back in The Virginity Fetish, Boxer made a few claims that relate to the recent series. His dislike of statistics notwithstanding, there are a number of points worth further consideration.

“If you take huge populations of people, there are bound to be differences. Those differences in character and attitude are notable only in aggregate.”

The first part of this statement is completely true, but feminism, bureaucracy, and gnu-atheist scientism[1] cannot abide the notion that there are visible group differences at the genetic level[2].

The second part is subtly incorrect.

In a normally distributed population, the average difference between random individuals is 2/√π, or ~1.13, standard deviations. For IQ, this is ~17 points. Even within families there is a high variability between siblings (~13 IQ points).[3a] Given this variability, does this mean we cannot make any individual predictions? No, it does not.

We all know this is true intuitively, but have been trained by feminist blank-slatists to deny this. For example, everyone knows that men have greater physical ability than women. We should not have been surprised when, in soccer, under-15 boys beat the U.S. Women’s National Team or when 15 year-old boys beat the Australian Women’s National Team[3b]:MaleFemaleStrength

Adult women simply cannot compete with 15 year-old boys at peak physicality.[4]

“Suppose I, as an anglophone Mormon, descended entirely from New England WASP types, meets one African bushman in the wild. What do the statistics tell me? The answer is, not a god damned thing. The best I can surmise is that I have a slight probability of being a little smarter than that fucker, but that is in no wise guaranteed.”

No, statistics tell you that if your IQ is at least average, you have a very high probability of having greater intelligence. This is why if Harvard didn’t discriminate against the best students, its demographic makeup might change dramatically[3c][3d][3e]:

harvard

When all of the seventy fastest marathoners of all time come from North and East African ancestry (2% of world population) and 97 out of 100 of the fastest sprinters of all time come from West African ancestry (5% of world population), you would be a fool to deny the predictive power of genetics.[3f] There should be no shame in pointing this out.

Even with the variability in a random sample, the genetic racial differences between Asians and Blacks (~20 points) is greater than the average difference between two random individuals (~17 points). This is why race[5] is highly predictive of factors strongly correlated with IQ, such as socioeconomic status, educational attainment, and likelihood of criminality.

Not everything is about genetics (“nature”) though:

“If I happen to meet him in Africa, then it’s in my interest to kiss his black behind in the hopes that he can teach me how to keep from becoming a lion’s dinner.”

You would be a fool to discount the importance of environment (“nurture”). No matter how intelligent your PhD-holding gender studies professor might be, she won’t help treat your cancer. This leads to the crux of the issue:

“Part of what I want to illustrate, with all this, is the absolute non-correlation between cognitive ability and wimminz’ well-established proclivity for whimsical self-destruction.”

The difficulty separating the genetic from the environmental makes it hard to evaluate this claim. It is highly complex. What the series endeavored to do was tease out feminism’s relationship to other factors, such as cognitive ability. While we can’t exactly determine the causal factors behind feminism, we can undoubtedly determine correlations.

So, we are not surprised to learn that valuing virginity is negatively correlated with destructive feminist-favored outcomes (e.g. divorce). We are also not surprised that, over time, general intelligence is negatively correlated with those same outcomes. Lastly, we are not surprised that, over time, devout religious observance is similarly negative correlated.

It is simply not true that “differences in character and attitude are notable only in aggregate.” Thus, if you select a random working-age man and woman from the population, you will be quite surprised if she beats him in arm wrestling. You will be even more shocked when he is overcome by emotion and bursts into tears. These defy your quite reasonable expectations.

Similarly, if you randomly select an Asian person and a Black person and the Asian person has higher intelligence and socioeconomic status or the Black person has a criminal record, these differences are largely predicted by genetic differences.[7] If instead you get an Asian with a criminal record and a Black Fellow of economics, this is the reason:

EM88LVvWkAAIm2S

The group differences are notable in the aggregate precisely because they represent real differences at the individual level. The existence of exceptions is both expected and irrelevant. More importantly, if you remove random selection, the individual differences often become even more notable.

Racist, white supremacist[6] Henry Harpending of the University of Utah caught fire for stating that educational gaps were not closing, despite decades of attempts to do so. This is because the heritability of IQ is 0.8 to 0.9.[3g] It is simply mathematically impossible for the gap to close through environmental intervention. Closing the gap could only be simulated by artificially lowering the opportunities and outcomes of the more successful groups, that is, enacting inequalities.[3h] This is the feminist agenda.

Be warned: by reading this stuff, commenting on it, or worse agreeing with it, you become a racist, white supremacist yourself (regardless of your actual race or ethnic group, of course). It’s much better to embrace feminism, where you will be nice, safe, always have good feelings, and get a trophy.

The feminist imperative is to conflate amoral facts with moral (in)equality. If you have the rational ability to differentiate between facts and morality, you are, by social definition, a white supremacist.[7]

Christianity has long taught that all persons are created in the image of God. No matter one’s race or socioeconomic status, all have value before God. At the same time, Christianity has never shied away from the notions that persons have differences and that certain ways of life (holy living) are superior to others (living in sin). Christianity balances amoral facts with human moral worth. Feminism cannot do this.


[1] Of the Richard Dawkins school.

[2] Group differences are okay, as long as they are caused by environmental factors that support identity politics.

[3] Twitter

[a] @Scientific_Bird (2019). (link)
[b] @Scientific_Bird (2019). (link)
[c] @a_centrism (2019). (link)
[d] @Steve_Sailer (2019). (link)
[e] @epidomgoly (2019). (link)
[f] @a_centrism (2019). (link)
[g] @KirkegaardEmil (2019). (link)
[h] @ThyRamMan (2019). (link)

[4] They have a good chance of losing to a team of physically average 15 year-old boys.

[5] Race here means genetically related groups, not specific traits like skin color. For example, African bushman, East Africans, and West Africans are all racially different each other in meaningful ways. Skin color is sometimes an okay approximation for race, but it’s not a perfect correlate: races have traits, traits do not have races.

[6] That is, a typical anthropologist that studies intelligence and group genetic differences.

[7] Pay no attention to the fact that average Asians and Jews have higher IQ and socioeconomic status than average Whites. Accusations of white supremacy don’t have to be logical or evidence-based. Feminism has no use for facts.

53 thoughts on “Sexy Racist Statistics”

  1. When this:

    Christianity has long taught that all persons are created in the image of God. No matter one’s race or socioeconomic status, all have value before God.

    Is replaced by Marxism or some hydra of it…you get people living a life full of envy and victimhood. Nobody has value anymore (except what you can get from them).

    And when this:

    At the same time, Christianity has never shied away from the notions that persons have differences and that certain ways of life (holy living) are superior to others (living in sin).

    Is replaced with class, race, sex, or whatever SJW struggle…it keeps people away from what virtue really is about or what sin is really doing to you.

  2. Closing the gap could only be simulated by artificially lowering the opportunities and outcomes of the more successful groups, that is, enacting inequalities.[3h] This is the feminist ANTI-Anglo agenda.

    FIFY

    Also, only by GOVERNMENT FORCE VIOLENCE can such IN-equality be enacted and discharged.

    Christianity has long taught that all persons MEN (e.g. Adam) are created in the image of God. No matter one’s race or socioeconomic status, all have value before God.

    FIFY

    It does not say Eve was created in the image of God.

  3. It does not say Eve was created in the image of God.

    I guess at some point I should figure out if image and likeness of God is meant as male and female when it comes to humanity. Because Eve was tempted by the serpent to be ‘like God’…when in fact she was probably that already from this statement.

    ‘Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.’ Gen 1:26-28

  4. @honeycomb

    “It does not say Eve was created in the image of God.”

    I weighed in on this topic the last time this was discussed. See here. The argument that only males are in the image of God is a very poor one. As earl notes:

    “‘Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.’ Gen 1:26-27”

    It makes perfect sense that אָדָם (adam) is mankind or persons, but little sense as ‘man the sex’. I see no reason to take this argument seriously. It leads to absurdities like that it’s okay to kill a female (including abortion!), but not a male (Genesis 9:6). Or it is okay to curse women, but not men (James 3:9-10). Or, how can you love your wife as yourself if she is inherently inferior to you (Ephesians 5). Do you think that males are saved through faith in Christ, but females are only saved in childbirth (1 Tim 2:15), not by profession of faith?

    You’ve done as the feminists do: premised moral worth on whether or not men and women are equal and interchangeable. This take (non-interchangeability=unequal worth) is no better than their take (interchangeability=equal worth).

  5. All in all “God loves all, but he loves some a little bit more” (hence making people ‘dumb’ or ‘unattractive’ or people like my older brother…he did this because he loves us all…..but rewards the high IQ crowd with nice clothes and nice teeth “his best”

    thanx god

  6. “At the same time, Christianity has never shied away from the notions that persons have differences and that certain ways of life (holy living) are superior to others (living in sin).”

    Christianity has *always* had a superiority complex to its members or believers who are living in sin. Wicked behavior is not only rewarded in the church, but it is encouraged in its structure. 10-20% are “given” and “blessed” and the other 80 to 90 have to be told again, and again and again that”we’re all equal before god”

    You guys are running out of lies of people to believe

  7. @lastmod

    I don’t agree, but your stance…

    ““God loves all, but he loves some a little bit more””

    …is echoed by honeycomb (and Sharkly). This…

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

    …and that are both equivalent to the A.W.F. Edwards quote given here:

    “But it is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.”

    Whenever you conflate facts with morality, you get moral inequality. It’s wrong whether the person doing it is you, honeycomb, those 10-20% in the Christian church, or a bunch of feminists. As I stated in my final paragraph, neither Jesus nor the Bible supported this irrational nonsense.

    If you reject both God and his objective moral framework—instead embracing a nihilistic, materialist/naturalist view of morality—then conflating facts and morality is completely justified because morality is subjective illusion. If God doesn’t exist, why complain? Do you think that taking down Christianity will fix the moral inequalities?

  8. “Do you think that taking down Christianity will fix the moral inequalities?”

    No. But saying or implying Christianity will fix it? That’s not an accurate belief as well. You want to feel like an ass? Made to feel and believe you are dumb? Have all of your misfortunes amplified into what you’re not blessed with???? Reminded about *your* suffering? Told again that “heaven is gonna be great…but you know, accept your ugliness, your poor intelligence as a blessing from god. He’ll fix you AFTER your dead…..but you know, for ME and the ELECT…well, we get to have the best of both worlds…”

    Join a church, or hang out with Christians in the USA for the most part.

  9. @lastmod

    On that, I agree. Jesus promised a resolution to life’s ills after death upon receiving a resurrected body and the formation of his eternal kingdom. While Christian moral frameworks generally lead to a better life here on earth, this is my no means assured. Indeed, we are only promised suffering, not success. I can see why this is unappealing. I don’t fault you for it, nor will I lie to you and tell you any different.

  10. “we are only promised suffering, not success”

    Ha. You, and the Christian bloggers and the average pew warmer don’t believe that for a minute. God promises suffering for men like me. Most men in fact. For men like you and a few others, lots rewards and “blessings” and leadership, and children, and intelligence, and IQ, and a happy life……then you tell us ‘unwashed masses” that “christianity is suffering”to keep us in line. More and more of us know the truth. It’s a sham.

    Look, your whole thing on IQ, intellect, n= (insert math formula), big words, graphs, eugenics here goes over most peoples heads…….and it just affirms to folks like you (and the whole Red Pill christian man-o-sphere) of how right you are, and if only us beta, weak men just accepted this…..then you would have a crowd to yell at and lord over us on Sunday about what you have and what the rest don’t.

  11. “You don’t believe that for a minute.”

    Even if that were true—it is not—it changes nothing about what Jesus promised, so my word on it doesn’t make a difference either way.

    “you tell us ‘unwashed masses” that “christianity is suffering” to keep us in line.”

    If I didn’t know you were serious, I would think you were joking. This is absurd. I’m sorry you feel that way. The only people I have to try to keep in line are my children, which is my duty as a parent. According to those redpillers you mentioned, I don’t even keep my wife in line. So I really can’t give a meaningful retort, this is just so far off the mark. If you wish to dwell in the realm of make-believe, that is entirely on you. Don’t blame me for that. I won’t respond again to these kind of crazy assertions.

    “Look, your whole thing on IQ, intellect, n= (insert math formula), big words, graphs, eugenics here goes over most peoples heads”

    Well, that is fine. If you don’t find it useful, so be it. Disregard it. I’ve never been a fan of trying to please everyone.

    “…it just affirms to folks like you of how right you are, and if only us beta, weak men just accepted this”

    Do you really think that? I suppose you do. Again, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I’ve tried responding to these make-believe assertions of yours and I have nothing to add. So I’m not going to stop writing what’s on my mind just because you think I have some ulterior motive. Who knows, maybe I have some subconscious motive that I don’t even realize. Let’s at least agree that men can freely share these things and disagree with one another.

  12. Dwelling ‘make believe’
    Ironic you should mention that. I dwell in reality, and believe me….after the alcohol, and cocaine slowly worked its way out of my soaked skull. I became full aware of what is real and what is not. As walked in my faith, did AA / NA. Read the bible many times, attended “mens prayer groups” (another circle jerk for the elect to tell me how wrong I was on everything), and in prayer. Hours. Daily….for hours. Years went by. Prayer. Fasting. Prayer……..lost twenty pounds over a year…….Oh? My prayers? Insignificant, unheard, unanswered and well……..probably “wrong”
    y
    There is nothing make-believe about the state of the modern church in the USA. This reality is of its own doing and look no further than the men leading it. Look no further than the educated “in crowd” who are so much more holy than any other men. So self-assured of their salvation because they know greek / bow to icons / worship mary / and can quote scripture quicker than others. Oh…..this is just those methodists, or the catholics in the city, or the orthodox who claim authority of saints over god himself……….

    No. All of them. Can’t accept its their own behavior that drove men away. You will say “well, they were lukewarm to begin with” and I can say……great, probably true….hence the jobs of the pastors, the priest, the studies, the podcasts, the books, the papers, the radio and TV shows have failed miserably…and their own arrogance of “who has the blood” and who is “greater” and “whose intellect by race or region” somehow” determines who this god loves more is eugenic, is racists, is hateful and is just plain un-moral.

    The above first comments on this post not surprisingly were made about “women not really being made in the image of god” it’s again like a race, or contest or something……anything to put themselves above someone, something, anything……this is exactly church culture in a nutshell, and its not the “feminist soy boy churches”

    its these supposed “real men” churches that profess a love so much for helping us live in ‘biblical roles’ and then immediatlely classifies people by intellect, race, gender, looks, IQ…………

    This is why people laugh and walk away. SOconcerned about “who is greater” than the actual message this faith was to purport, hence dullards like me see zero bolts of lightening striking anyone down. We see sin and cruelty, and classism promoted…rewarded. We see “animal farm” right from the pulpit to the pews.

    I don’t want to be a part of that, as most people with a lick of common sense. Perhaps if it was being indeed lived, and strived for…..people (even me) are good for living a lie or “make believe” for a peace. For a chance. For fellowship and for a journey where fellow men CAN rely and depend on each other.

    I don’t want christians banned or persecuted. If I owned property, and a church wanted to build next door, I would make zero fuss, and I would probably offer congregants to park in my driveway on Sunday just to be neighborly. Good manners (which many in the secular world have much more of than the christian one. this is a fact).

    But the make believe you claim of me is just wrong. I was in church for ten years, make believe happens there……outside the church doors is where reality lives. Something you would not understand.

  13. @lastmod

    “But the make believe you claim of me is just wrong.”

    Your unambiguous enrollment in make-believe fairyland started when you attributed to me personally a number of very false things. If you want to lump me in with everyone else you have a beef with, you could at least provide evidence rather than make silly libelous statements. Perhaps you could also demonstrate some of those “good manners” and “neighborly” behavior.

    “There is nothing make-believe about the state of the modern church in the USA. [..] No. All of them. “

    It is funny that you criticize my series even though one of the fundamental points is that practically all institutions—including churches and most persons—are converged. Just consider the way everyone just embraces bureaucracy as if it is good and proper: if there is some problem, we must first look to the group in charge to fix it. It’s a mystery why you don’t agree with me.

    I’ll repeat this because it is extremely important: my series is a mix of facts and opinions intended to explain some of society’s problems and how they may influence us personally. It is not about the moral worth of a person. Say what you will about relative IQs, I never said that the worth of a person is based on a number on standardized test. Indeed, I have consistently said the opposite and gotten lots of criticism for it, including from you (as you argued here).

    “The above first comments on this post not surprisingly were made about “women not really being made in the image of god” it’s again like a race, or contest or something……anything to put themselves above someone, something, anything…”

    Just as our institutions are converged, so too is it incredibly common that persons cannot rationally separate fact and morality. You have skipped right over this point, but you really should confront it because you’ve done the same thing. Perhaps without realizing it, you have embraced the very thing you criticize. I’m still waiting for you to give me an alternative—any alternative—to Christianity that resolves this.

  14. “I’m still waiting for you to give me an alternative—any alternative—to Christianity that resolves this.”

    I never said there was an alternative that resolves this…but christianity is far from resolving it, in fact it is widening the divide today. Especially in the West. If christians actually did what their jesus told them to do……perhaps the world would indeed just be that better place. Not gonna happen. Professing christians would have way too much to lose. They would actually have to help the poor. They would actually have to love people. Christians despise most people, are just as close minded as the far left and I was in church for ten years….and saw where the real ministry of jesus belonged…..out on the streets. I was there. None of you were. You had important things to do like lecture the lot of us about what the greek word “is” means or something as silly as that.

    “You have skipped right over this point, but you really should confront it because you’ve done the same thing. Perhaps without realizing it, you have embraced the very thing you criticize.”

    No. The first comment wasn’t about love, or peace, or fulfilling the great commission. It was about “god only making man in the image of god” as if we gotta be the biggest man-in-the-room to remind everyone that men are just better than women. Jesus called people foolish. Not just women. Feminism may have indeed wrecked the modern church and with that said……notta one of you “real men” have stopped it or have convinced anyone. You can’t because you don’t know how. You’re all too proud to claim how right you are or how “man is this or that” but your own solutions don’t even inspire men to even try to better themselves. You are all just about playing high school as adults.

    “Perhaps you could also demonstrate some of those “good manners” and “neighborly” behavior.”

    I have. I have not cussed you out. I have not called you stupid. I have not made fun of anything about your shortcoming (whatever they are…..oh wait, I can’t you’re a christian, and you guys have zero faults. you have all the answers, you are perfect…well, not really but you make yourselves out to be). I have not called in backup by other posters. I have not threatened you or your family. I have not shamed you. Much more than I can say for anything a christian has shown me over the decade. I can’t even really discuss anything with you Derek. I don’t know greek / didn’t publish / didn’t marry / didn’t adopt / not as smart as you / my hobbies are not as artful as yours / didn’t pursue and win an amazing woman / didn’t have the intellect and IQ to be a good a christian as 99% of you men

    The list goes on. I have been polite, and if I didn’t know you on the street, and needed help. Call it a hunch, I would be helping WAY before a fellow “bold” christian brother would. This is a fact.

    “I never said that the worth of a person is based on a number on standardized test. Indeed, I have consistently said the opposite and gotten lots of criticism for it, including from you”

    I don’t know how you linked my statement to what you are purporting. Makes no sense. Your whole series. Intelligence good. High IQ good. low level people having children, bad. Bringing down society. Low level people like bureacracy. High intelligent people do not (what a pack of lies). Eugenical talking and then saying “god loves all” and by your own writing, you are showing us that he doesn’t. Few are great, and the rest of us are not. The only thing that will save us is christianity………confusing as efff.

    This whole series should be called “why smart people can only understand christianity”

  15. The second part is subtly incorrect.

    No, it isn’t. You’re either constructing a straw-man or you didn’t understand my point.

    It is simply not true that “differences in character and attitude are notable only in aggregate.” Thus, if you select a random working-age man and woman from the population, you will be quite surprised if she beats him in arm wrestling.

    And, if we roll two (fair) six-sided dice, we’ll be quite surprised if snake-eyes comes up. That doesn’t mean snake-eyes won’t come up. There’s a non-zero probability that snake-eyes will come up, every time you throw them (p=1/36).

    Thus when I meet a wimminz, I don’t know for certain that she doesn’t outrank me in raw cognitive ability. I’ve met brainier females than I. I first need to let her open her mouth, and prove herself the typical brainless wimminz, before I rightly conclude she’s a moron.

    Boxer

  16. Derek sez:

    “I’m still waiting for you to give me an alternative—any alternative—to Christianity that resolves this.”

    Then Jason sez:

    I never said there was an alternative that resolves this.

    You don’t need to provide an alternative. Derek needs to support his own arguments. This basic logical concept:
    The burden of proof is on him who asserts
    appears in the 12 Tables of Roman Legal Philosophy, and thus is one of the timeless tenets of patriarchy.

    Boxer

  17. The problem with Christianity is that Christ was taken out when all these man made churches came into the landscape and replaced with idolatry…they replaced Christ and his church with declaring the book as the ONLY authority by which to live by (which is not stated anywhere said book), an or ethos like hedonism, Freemasonry, Marxism, social justice or liberation theology because once Christ leaves something has to fill the vacuum.

    That’s right the very accusation the Protestants use…(the Catholic church is a man made church)…is actually their church. Why can’t they ever answer the question as to who created their church?

  18. Well Earl, I’ve read the bible…..and in his instructions to the twelve. No where did it say “make sure you have pope, bishops, and speak latin. Make sure you have a cross with me on it, I would like stained glass windows, and make sure the saints have their festivals, and my mother should have a special place there too. Light candles and have prayers for this day and that day……..and have patron saints for areas, peoples and situations that are prayed to. make sure the palce of worship is made of marble, fine stone and has statues of my mother all over the place….”

  19. Boxer.

    Some of this is me just being a contrarian. Not out of being hateful…..it isn’t……..I made my choices concerning these matters. Church can be a good place to get a few things in your own personal life in order. I get it. It can help a person. I don’t have a problem with people in established faiths or holiness traditions. A person is not weak for this or less of a man for attending church. I don’t think there is any harm in any of this.

    What I have a problem with is the never ending sectarian debates within the christian faith. More time is wasted calling other christians “beta / cucks/ soyboys / losers / women evil nature, must have Game or you’re not a christian / sin is sin……except for my sin / a false sense of “just believe” and you are saved, then the ten thousand must do’s and don’t ever do’s / the contst of what jesus really meant / what god really said / bible and church history / and very little doing of what their jesus actually said to do.

    but they’re all going to heaven! they have the blood! they are set apart! they know it all………reality is they can’t even agree on which translation to use, and what words mean in context. They speak of love, peace and joy…..and tell anyone else “christianity is suffering” and the ones saying this have little or no suffering in their life. It’s way to shut up the masses.

    christians in the USA are more concerned with you accepting jesus than actually help you live it….and they can’t because none of them live it. It’s a club for the most part.

  20. Well Earl, I’ve read the bible…..and in his instructions to the twelve. No where did it say “make sure you have pope, bishops, and speak latin. Make sure you have a cross with me on it, I would like stained glass windows, and make sure the saints have their festivals, and my mother should have a special place there too. Light candles and have prayers for this day and that day……..and have patron saints for areas, peoples and situations that are prayed to. make sure the palce of worship is made of marble, fine stone and has statues of my mother all over the place….”

    But it does say He created a church.

  21. What???? He said “Call it the Holy Roman Catholic Church” Oh he didn’t???????? Did he say “Go to Athens and have them paint on wood pictures to pray to” Oh he didn’t? Then the orthodox has nothing anybody either.

  22. Female saints are honored because of their devotion to Christ….not so that you worship them.

    You want to worship women…that’s what sexual liberation is all about.

  23. Painted on wood, gold leaf, incense burning, reading liturgical prayers in a chant and bowing, and making sure they are placed on certain walls facing certain directions………hmmmmmmm

    Again, read the bible was a believer……….where does jesus, I mean paul instruct us to do this? Nowhere. not letting protestantism off the hook either. they claim solo scriptura and none of them follow it.

  24. As for this whole series Derek has written, and I *think* we’re at the end of it (I could be wrong) but I don’t see the connections he is trying to make….then again, I am of low-intellect / low IQ believe in bureaucratic thinking and have mutations in my family line (brother with Down Syndrome) thus I just have to *wish* I was like others, and just be in awe with how “god has blessed them” but wait! take heart……I can be just like them………………in the next life!!!!! Just believe and wait until you die, then I can be like them. Makes total sense!!!!

  25. Besides sola scriptura was only possible for Luther to ascertain because the printing press was invented and printing the Bible became much easier. I guess people for 1500 years had no clue what the Word was because the printing techniques were spotty.

    Not to mention he took out 7 books which disagreed with him.

  26. So Earl, Jesus told them to do this……I would imagine that if jesus wanted this, he would have said it, and one of the gospels would have made a mention of jesus wanted for his church. this is hooey. If a person finds comfort in it. Fine. A sense of purpose and community. Great. It helps them turn their life around or gets some focus. Okay.

    But to make this divine and ‘holy’ is not true. it was invented by men for control…..men that myself see through

  27. So Earl, Jesus told them to do this……I would imagine that if jesus wanted this, he would have said it, and one of the gospels would have made a mention of jesus wanted for his church.

    So all commands from Christ about what He wanted for His church were completed the minute He assumed into Heaven? Guess that “He wouldn’t leave us as orphans” part is a lie.

    it was invented by men for control…..men that myself see through

    But cocaine was invented for what….so that men could have enlightenment? Easiest way to control a man is through his base passions.

  28. Well…..god created the cocoa plant, ask him. Yes, yes……I am sure my addiction was planned by god to “teach me a lesson” so if I indeed buy that (and I did for a little bit) now I have to serve him as a mindless drone, live forever in a community of believers “former addict” not husband or father material…..live in misery in this life, with guilt, with shame but take heart! When you die you will be dancing with jesus clean and whole……..and there is no marriage in heaven…so we’re all equal now!!!!

  29. Well earl….he has left us as orphans……..he left, men created a whole system around it, including a bureaucratic one and lightening hasn’t struck one man down for this.

  30. Well…..god created the cocoa plant

    As a guy who has drunk coca tea, I’ll attest to the power of the herb. If there is a God, he created the coca plant; but, human beings refined the active ingredient, and flooded the market for profit, exploiting a zillion escapists in the process.

    I’m not a libertarian, but I think there’s a definite difference between the plant and the drug. It’s sparking a butane lighter versus launching an ICBM.

  31. “I’m not a libertarian, but I think there’s a definite difference between the plant and the drug. It’s sparking a butane lighter versus launching an ICBM”

    Ponders this for a moment. Yeah, probably true there Boxer. In January it will be 16 years off that nonsense. I could have owned a home here in California with all of that gaak that I honked up between 1997-2004

  32. human beings refined the active ingredient, and flooded the market for profit, exploiting a zillion escapists in the process.

    I’m not a libertarian, but I think there’s a definite difference between the plant and the drug.

    Bingo.

    I won’t be the one who converts Jason…I’m merely pointing out how the system of control he claims the Catholic church is…is basically the society he and the majority of us have been subjected to. Liberate the base passions of a man from morality…you have that man under your control be it financial, political, or whatever blackmail they got. Porn, prostitutes, and drugs aren’t distrubted by the society to the addict out of the kindess of its heart.

  33. Well Earl, if you or I or Derek don’t pay our taxes we will be “subject” to the system of control…..though he is somehow immune to this because he doesn’t libe in a “bureaucratic society” while I do…and evidently I revel in this…..

  34. Earl…the system of control that is the catholic church really has little control today. Mexicans will climb all over each other to see the pope…..but count the out of wedlock births in this culture….but they are all “100% catholic” knew many “devout” catholic growing up who only by some miracle of mary have only “2.5 children” and when living in Fresno. The Phillipina prostitutes were tricking all night on the Fulton Mall, but were front row, center pew and waiting for “holy communion” on Sunday.

    So control as in what? Most catholics don’t believe a word of the bible, and just think because they took communion they are going to heaven. The fault lies in the fact priests for a long time now have not been telling them the truth about the faith to the flock….so will this jesus punish the priest who didn’t “teach” properly and damn the rest to purgatory or wherever catholic go…or forgive them and let them into heaven because they didn’t know better?

    Nothing will happen……its a tradition that humans invented. if there was a jesus and he said and did actually what the bible says…….well, that was lost the second he left by the modern church. all of them

  35. Derek says: Christianity has long taught that all persons are created in the image of God.
    LOL
    That only began in the fourth century AD when Constantine made Christianity, slightly syncretized to appease forcibly converted pagan goddess worshippers, into the state religion of Rome, and made the Roman Church into an earthly power run by a political body. Prior to that time all the writings of the patristic church fathers unanimously held women to not be the image of God when viewed by themselves, apart from a husband. Ephesians 5 is an example of this teaching where the husband images Christ(God) and the wife images the church(struggling sinners).

    I think the clearest delineation of this in the Bible is:
    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

    As some of you may know, I mention this frequently, and go into more detail about it at my blog. 🙂
    https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/worshipping-the-great-whore/
    https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/10/15/sharkly-heresiarch-or-church-reformer/
    And Etc.

  36. @lastmod

    “I never said there was an alternative that resolves this…but christianity is far from resolving it, in fact it is widening the divide today. Especially in the West.”

    It’s been round-about, but on this much we agree. My series has tried to explain why this divide has been widening. Is it impossible that Christians will once again do what Jesus told them to do? You say it won’t happen, but in my opinion, when things get bad enough (and we are not there yet), this will change.

    Me: “You have skipped right over this point” [..] You: No. “

    I’ll repeat this a third time: you skipped over how you are conflating facts with morality. And you do it again here:

    “Your whole series. Intelligence good. High IQ good. low level people having children, bad. Bringing down society. Low level people like bureacracy. High intelligent people do not (what a pack of lies). Eugenical talking and then saying “god loves all” and by your own writing, you are showing us that he doesn’t. Few are great, and the rest of us are not. The only thing that will save us is christianity………confusing as efff.”

    It is a fact that changes in populations are behind the problems that we are witnessing . It is a fact that feminism is fueled, in part, by declining intelligence, fertility changes, bureaucracy, etc. When I mention these things people (including you) jump to moral conclusions immediately. I have tried multiple times to warn against exactly this. In this comment thread alone I have now pointed this out three times. This has nothing to do with how intelligent I am or how intelligent you are, nor this:

    “This whole series should be called “why smart people can only understand christianity””

    Christian moral principles are really, really, really important. This is why I asked you (or anyone else) for an alternative—any alternative—to Christianity that firmly establishes objective moral grounding separate from scientific facts. If you don’t have this, then the conflation of morality with fact becomes almost inevitable. With that comes evil.

  37. @lastmod

    “As for this whole series Derek has written, and I *think* we’re at the end of it (I could be wrong)”

    While you accuse me of weird agendas, the truth is that I was able to write this entire series except for a conclusion. Why? Because while it is easy to see where we have come from, I struggle to figure out what it all means moving forward. You think I have all the answers? That’s insane.

    Except for a possible conclusion, the planned series has wrapped up. There is, of course, other things than could be said. Your feedback is what is driving any additional writing that I might do on this topic:

    “I don’t see the connections he is trying to make”

    This bothers me. I need to do a better job giving practical examples.

    Consider the California law SB 419 that just passed the state’s legislature. The law would prohibit public and charter schools from suspending students for willful defiance. Why? Because “school suspensions are used disproportionately against students of color.” This is a perfect illustration of what my series has been describing. Rather than punish black boys for what is largely a black boy problem, all kids will be punished. Despite California schools lagging national standards, this will certainly make things worse. All of this is because we can’t discuss group differences (THAT’S RACIST!!!!) without presuming moral judgments.

    How would you address the problem SB419 is trying to address? Do you think race and sex have nothing to do with it?

    “Well Earl, if you or I or Derek don’t pay our taxes we will be “subject” to the system of control…..though he is somehow immune to this because he doesn’t live in a “bureaucratic society” while I do…and evidently I revel in this…..”

    Ask yourself how many people will cheer SB419 for its progressive ‘anti-racist’ nature, even as it further depresses academic performance and creates moral inequality?

    Of course I am not immune to living in this ‘bureaucratic society’. At best I am aware of it and actively oppose it where I can, but ultimately you and I are powerless. We have no political power, and thus, we have no answers/solutions. Because such things infect society everywhere, we are limited in attempts to avoid it.

  38. @Sharkly

    I’ve seen your argument before, and I’ve even addressed it specifically. Your position is logically inconsistent and flawed in numerous ways (including these).

  39. If this indeed is a fact…….christian men should have their wives take an IQ test to determine that the “offspring” will be above average? Do the genetic swab to make sure there are no imperfections in her family line? How about give her an interview and make sure there is no alcoholism, bi-polar issues, and other stuff like Down Syndrome or things that could make the potential children “learning disabled”

    And of course, a potential suitor should go back to her hometown and interview / investigate her claims. And what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Should a christian man who wants to be a father have his DNA checked. Have his past gone over? Does the bible say any of this? No? The stop this selective breeding nonsense.

    And if your children don’t turn out as planned……blame her……blame the cucks, the soyboys, the schools, the feminized church……….??

    This is just another type of “this is what is wrong with the world and how I am immune to it, but you chumps are not” red-pilled man-o-sphere posting

  40. When society crashes or collapses…..be it with a full scale nuclear war / WW III type of thing……economic (more likely) or some other thing…….asteroid hitting the earth, aliens arriving and they are not too friendly, or just a slow decline down a drain of many factors (including moral)

    When that happens, when it finally is know “life here in the West is not ever going to return to what it was, and will not be the same again”

    No one is going to care if you are an atheist, the most holy of men, a leader in your church, how intelligent you are, what your job was, how many women you bedded, if you read Rollo and subscribed to Game or not.

    Everyone who is left is going to be in the same boat. Survival.

    It’s going to get very draconian and extreme Darwin for a awhile. No one is going to care if “we keep the sabbath on Sunday” or “I have high intellect, I should be the leader”

    It will come down to skills, the ability to work with people, and general health. No one is going to care if you served in the military. No one is going to care if you banged girls in Poland or whereever. No one is going to care about biblical manhood and chivalry. It will be about survival. Food. Shelter.

    Morality will only come again when there is a little bit of a surplus, and out will come the real men again saying how smart they are…..built on the work and sweat of the “low intellectual”

    god will care less if you children starve, or your wife gets a cut and gets ill, or dies in childbirth.

  41. Derek Ramsey,
    I had missed your, objections previously posted, but , now that I see them, it looks like you just threw some crap against the wall to see if any of it would stick. I’ll refute it though.

    Within Genesis 1:26-27 Adam or the “man” also translated as “him”, four times is called the image or likeness of God, but then “them” is only stated as being created by God. So we are being asked to assume that vast committees of the best Hebrew experts for centuries have intentionally twisted God’s word to leave Eve unassociated with the image of God, based upon your knowledge of Hebrew. We should remember that Hebrew didn’t have punctuation. Genesis 1:27 is considered to have been a three sentence Hebrew poem. Where twice it is made crystal clear, forward and then backwards, that Adam was created in the image of God,(reversed parallelism) and that then is contrasted to “them” whom we are told were only created by God,(a refining restatement) conspicuously leaving off any mention of God’s image.
    Perhaps the truth is clearer when translated from Greek:
    1 Cor. 11 verse 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

    Your claim that when God tells us not to kill men or curse men, because they are the image of God, that must mean that it is God-recommended that we kill and curse women, is just a nonsense argument. Your argument is pretty funny, I’ll give you that, but still not a valid argument. The prohibition of murder is even one of the ten commandments. As I once asked Bnonn, So, does this mean I have to stop killing women now? LOL Even if you could ignore your way past the huge logical fallacy, there is only a straw man argument left over. Presumably only mentally depraved death-row inmates actually kill women without conscience or remorse, if we are to foolishly harken to prosecuting attorneys on such inscrutable spiritual matters as other people’s consciences.
    On a separate note, I speculate that there was less murder of women, back when gentlemanly husbands were allowed to manhandle women who needed a little bit of extra handling to rule them properly. How many female murder victims would have been spared if somebody had knocked a bit of sense into them before they pushed some person past their breaking point?

    Derek asks: how can you love your wife as yourself if she is inherently inferior to you?
    I do it in the same way as I love my kids who are inherently inferior to me as an adult, and their parent. I take care of their flesh and bone as if it were bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. I feed them, cloth them, house them, train them, and regulate them as is good for them, like I do for myself also.

    As for the moral weight of men Vs. women, God set that. God created the man first, preeminent, in God’s own likeness. God breathed His own Spirit into the man, and commanded the wife to see to it that she reverence her husband. And to submit to him in everything as unto the Lord. God gave men dominion over all created things including women, and commanded the women to be in subjection to father’s and then Husband’s and never to usurp over men, who are the image of God. Otherwise, what would a little usurping or occasional role reversal hurt, if it didn’t have blasphemous implications? Do I even need to care if there are other reasons for a woman not to usurp? I’m the image of God, and any woman who usurps me does so to her own divine condemnation, because she was born with a conscience and inherently knows she is my inferior. Why would I have to spend all my live long day empowering and affirming the tiny headed females if they already naturally know they are my equal? They don’t know that naturally, because that is simply false. God the Father and the Son made men in their image and God imparted Adam with His Spirit. Afterward woman was made from a borrowed piece of flesh and bone from the man. We are never told that God breathed His Spirit into the woman or that she is any likeness of God. You know, “God” is a masculine word in itself. Female deities are called goddesses. A female could by definition only accurately be the likeness of a goddess anyhow.

    As earl hinted at, how else could Satan so easily tempt eve to become like God? If Adam and Eve walked with God daily in the garden, they would both have surely known which of them was in the image of God. Eve was wanting to become equal, but God reminded her then, that by His divine order, she was to be ruled over by her superior.

  42. Dang WordPress! If my comment ever does show up, it will likely appear twice. Doh! Oh well, I think it is worth rereading. 😉

  43. “I don’t see the connections he is trying to make”

    Derek…..you will disagree, and others will too “just because”

    You started off about feminism, and we know its a destructive force, then you go into high intellect v low intellect…….who is having babies and who isn’t and how society is going downhill because people are having children with low intellect……..A mouse experiment that was done decades ago, you then throw Christianity into the mix, and then talk about bell curves and all kinds of things by stringing it all together that Christianity is moral.

    You are forgetting culture. You are forgetting that people are not just a science equation of “this type of stimuli equals this response” because that isn’t true. You mentioned Japan is dying……well, it isn’t a Christian society, so it should have died ages ago……since that faith corners the market on anything moral that has ever happened in the world.
    I even mentioned “Japan has clean streets, low crime, a homogenous culture” and you mentioned that was because its in decline.

    Look, no predicted the impact the Internet was going have on culture. We all knew it was important. Even in 1992 when I bought a new IBM desktop computer I was told “this is about as fast as they will ever get for home use” and that computer was obsolete by 1996. With Japan, robotics, a culture that will have to adapt to changes and will probably find new ways of doing things that we cannot comprehend now. Your assumptions “Aging population, the culture is gonna die” are a little alarmist and really cannot be proved. In the 1970’s we were going into an ice age…..science has proven it….massive food wars by the 1980’s. Ozone layer gone by 2005…….science has proven this! We’re all gonna have cancer and die! Ice caps are gonna be gone by 2103! We’re all gonna die, science has proven this! The world will be out of oil by the year 2000 or so………science has proven this! We’re all gonna die!

    I remember the dot.com boom of the 1990’s. I was working and living in ground zero in those times. You had guys starting companies and trying to get VC funding “Our studies show that our model is foolproof” and then two years later the company was gone. What metrics? What studies? Science today and for awhile is ABUSING the place it took CENTURIES to respect by “average men like me” and the “working class” by using now just big words, confusing math equations and “shutting down” a conversation if any prole DARES question the metrics, or doesn’t buy the hypothesis immediatley as truth.

  44. @lastmod

    Before I respond, I want to say that I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to answer that question. I’ll give it the response it deserves.

  45. @Boxer

    “No, it isn’t. You’re either constructing a straw-man or you didn’t understand my point.”

    Perhaps you meant that in a normally distributed population there are outliers. This is tautological. Perhaps you meant that you can’t apply a statistical claim absolutely. This also tautological. Perhaps you meant that individuals in a group differ from other members of the group in both clear and subtle ways. This is obvious and useless. Yet even so, differences measured at the group level are still notable at the individual level.

    Maybe I misunderstood it. Maybe you intended otherwise. Regardless, I only have your words to go on and they…

    “Those differences in character and attitude are notable only in aggregate.””

    …are plainly false as you’ve written them. As such, I can only deduce what is most likely. If that is a strawman, then so be it. As I’ve stated elsewhere, strawmen can still be useful.

    If we look at group differences—physical, mental, behavioral, etc.—these are certainly notable to individuals in the way that all statistical patterns are notable. For example, a normal person can, with ~95% accuracy, identify the sex of another person solely by looking at their face. Or a person properly trained in examining skulls can identify that the person was a black-skinned African by examining as little as two different features. On the behavioral front (re: California SB 419), one can predict who will be subject to suspensions and who will not. On the political front, we can predict that Democracy will not be successful in any country where a significant majority utilize cousin marriage. On the feminist front, we know that a feminist who takes a bike tour through random African countries is highly likely to be murdered. On the life front, given a person and their parents’ IQs, it is possible to predict educational attainment and income.

    Sure these things might be wrong once in a while (according to the statistics), but for certain characters and attitudes we can simply usually ignore the presence of outliers. To wit:

    AWALT, which gets a lot of support around these parts, necessarily includes the notion that differences in character and attitude are notable both in aggregate and individual. If the AWALT observation were merely a description of the group, it wouldn’t be notable at the individual level. But you insist that it is. The reason you reject NAWALT is not because there are no good women, but because there are so few of them that it is little practical difference than their being none.

  46. “Consider the California law SB 419 that just passed the state’s legislature. The law would prohibit public and charter schools from suspending students for willful defiance. Why? Because “school suspensions are used disproportionately against students of color.” This is a perfect illustration of what my series has been describing. Rather than punish black boys for what is largely a black boy problem, all kids will be punished. Despite California schools lagging national standards, this will certainly make things worse. All of this is because we can’t discuss group differences (THAT’S RACIST!!!!) without presuming moral judgments”

    Consider that California schools are already terrible, group punishment for a classroom is pretty ineffective, and it was even when I was in high school (and I went to an ‘all boys’ boarding, prep school where kids are 1 billion percent about behaving, learning and being good…….lol!) consider that countless county policies within districts in California already have laws, protocols and policies that were in place WAY WAY before this law was ever conceived in the state senate. Consider that school has pretty much nationwide since the 1970’s has become a baby-sitting service / day care service for many students. Consider that the value of having a HS diploma pretty much means nothing today…..jobs don’t even ask you if you finished HS today….that’s how bad the quality of a public HS diploma is today. Consider that this SB was probably pushed by teacher Unions, who for some reason cannot protect teachers, but CAN protect a failed system and their monthly dues and “payments” to politicians to “fight” for schools. Consider that in California in 2011 our State tax refunds were delayed because they had no money…….but had time to debate for weeks about money for the “strawberry board” of California. This is just plain virtue signaling Derek. I have lived most of my life out here. This law has little teeth, and has pretty much been policy on the local county level in this state since the late 1990’s.

  47. @lastmod

    “You started off about feminism, and we know its a destructive force”

    Boxer originally claimed that feminism is a symptom, not a cause. Being a Marxist, he suggested “end stage capitalism”, but that didn’t pass the smell test. So, I wanted to explore the causes of feminism to consider ways to counter its destructive force.

    “A mouse experiment that was done decades ago”

    So I discussed Mouse Utopia.

    First, this showed that in the absence of hardship, harmful mutations can build up in a population quickly (in only a small number of generations). This can lead to fertility decline and population collapse. These things appear to be mirrored in some human populations (e.g. Japan). This is speculatively suggests that feminism may have a genetic component.

    Second, a minority with genetic mutations can have disproportionate negative effect on a population. In combination with genetic mutational load, this speculatively suggests that feminism is spread by a relatively small number of problem key figures that, if removed, could undo the damage.

    “then you go into high intellect v low intellect…….who is having babies and who isn’t and how society is going downhill because people are having children with low intellect”

    While the previous articles were speculative and introductory, this was the central article of the series. It noted that over 150 years, general intelligence has fallen while IQ has risen. A lot stems from this, but perhaps most importantly, general intelligence (not IQ) corresponds with low mutational load. This suggests that feminism is at least partially caused by mutational load brought on by changes in fertility. This implies that feminism is self-sustaining.

    “You are forgetting culture.”

    While I was convinced that genetics and falling intelligence played a role in feminism, I was not convinced that this was causal or complete. The main reason was because feminism made its changes too quickly to be accounted for by genetics alone. There must have been cultural influences. I suggested the following: anti-Christianity, anti-patriarchy, rejection of excellence, and bureaucracy. This is not an exhaustive list, but I believe it covers the causes behind the biggest evils in society (including feminism). The most surprising bit is that those things are all influenced by intelligence levels. This means that the rise of feminism and other ill effects are all intertwined with both genetics and cultural changes.

    “you then throw Christianity into the mix, and then talk about bell curves and all kinds of things by stringing it all together that Christianity is moral.”

    Christianity is just one factor, but it is an important one. What’s interesting about Christianity is that it is more environmental. For all my talk about bell curves, the Christian moral framework is a normalizing force: it acts as a behavioral buffer. For example, Christianity masked the negative decline in intelligence, but it was replaced by feminism (e.g. anti-patriarchy) and leftism (e.g. bureaucracy).

    Christianity is moral. Our notion of society is based on Christian moral principles. As we shed those principles, we shed the things that allow our society to continue on its previous path of prosperity (absent some alternative).

    “You are forgetting that people are not just a science equation of “this type of stimuli equals this response” because that isn’t true.”

    I’m not sure why you think this. I don’t believe I ever stated this.

    “You mentioned Japan is dying……well, it isn’t a Christian society, so it should have died ages ago……since that faith corners the market on anything moral that has ever happened in the world.”

    First, the demographic crisis in Japan is slow moving. These things take generations to play out. That’s fast from the perspective of human civilization, but quite slow compared to cultural changes. It is literally dying… slowly.

    Second, faith is just one cultural control. I mentioned this in “Analyzing the Sexual Revolution” in the context of mate guarding. There are many different forms that this takes place, but the Christian ones are IMO superior to alternatives. Japan has its own alternative, but as noted, it is unique to them.

    “I even mentioned “Japan has clean streets, low crime, a homogenous culture” and you mentioned that was because its in decline.”

    I don’t believe I said that, but if I did I want to walk it back. Japan is losing population and will face an inverted population pyramid. This will cause huge economic stress. Unless Japanese dramatically lower their standards of living (or have their eldery die in large numbers) and/or have more children, nothing can stop the population from dwindling. Clean streets and low crime won’t save them. Indeed, as Mouse Utopia showed, the lack of hardship may be their undoing.

    “Look, no predicted the impact the Internet was going have on culture.”

    This is a very important point. Culture can change quickly. This is why predicting the future is impossible. It is possible that feminism will be rejected, possible that we will get into a war that kills a large percentage of the population, possible that Christianity makes a comeback, etc. In my last post in the series, I evaluated the possibilty of eugenic solutions, religious changes, and changes to the way we harness innovations. I suggested that none of them will save us. But I could be wrong. Or something else could come along that I don’t forsee. I freely admit this. But this doesn’t mean that we should just ignore all of this as if it doesn’t matter.

    “Your assumptions “Aging population, the culture is gonna die” are a little alarmist and really cannot be proved. “

    Demographic changes brought on by genetics are easier. To a certain extent it is just math and a set of partially unknown variables. The most important point is that populations can only produce children so quickly. We can see what will happen because aging can’t be stopped. The population pyramid will invert and then it’s just a numbers game: too many eldery and too few workers. How this is resolved is the big unknown, but that it will occur is beyond question. I’m happy to speculate on the former, but not the latter.

    “In the 1970’s we were going into an ice age…..science has proven it”

    There is a certain extent that my series is relying on cutting edge genetic research. Like all science, it could be falsified. I’m ok with that. If new evidence comes to light, I’ll reexamine the conclusions. Rational skepticism of my claims is reasonable to a certain extent.

    Another unknown you didn’t mention, but that I mentioned in my series, is the innovation rates and the economic inertia. Humanity can, at least partially, continue living off its metaphorical pension for quite some time even in the face of decline. This is one of the big unknowns. This could play out in any number of ways.

    This is a large comment, but I feel like I missed some details. Let me know if this failed to connect the dots for you. I’ll respond to your other comments when I have more time.

  48. @lastmod

    Before I go off to bed and leave for a busy weekend, I wanted to add one more practical example to illustrate why this stuff I’m talking about is relevant:

    China is making predatory loans into Africa and Chinese are emigrating there. In the case of Ethiopia, China literally remade the capital city in its image. China is using its high intellect to colonize over the native population of low intellect. In 50-100 years, Africa may be Chinese in one way or another: economically, demographically, culturally, politically, etc. Chinese don’t even have to breed, they just need to export their own population. This will help alleviate the risk of a population pyramid inversion as well.

  49. Derek. You just said everything again that you stated in your articles for the reply, didn’t make clear and then brought China up on how its moving its population through loans and high intellect……to muddle the whole thing some more.

    China is a heavily much more bureaucratic society and regimented than ours is……and they are not Christian or “moral” and somehow they have figured out the population inversion pyramid but they have high intellect. What a crock.

    No. China is a country that right now can BARELY feed itself and is surviving by its wits.

    And you still arrogantly defended you position and then throw in “well, science can be falsified, I’m okay with that”

    Lost. Done with commenting on this. When you wonder why “the working class” don’t like college folks. When you wonder why they vote in many cases against some of their interests, when they really view you with contempt, and finally….this is how you talk talk to them in your church, your bible studies, your answers to everything….this is why they don’t come to church, to faith, to any understanding.

    You despise them in reality, and they know you do

    Think about this article, series of articles.

Shout!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.