Thursday, May 17, 2007
Pan Aryan Alliance allow debate of racialism/femininity concept
I saw a link to my concept appear there, then went to debate it.
http://www.panaryan.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1863
This is my first opportunity to present this concept to a racist forum in a year of trying. Previously it has been supressed almost everywhere. So i'll be taking my time to present the arguments properly. So far the concept has been supressed from Stormfront, majorityrights.com, fightdemback. The blog has also dropped completely out the google listings (not down the listings but deleted from them) on the very day i made a post stating the the jewish system fell under this theory. Google has anti-semitic rulings on blog content. This site is owned by google. It still has no appearance in google, despite being in the top four in msn search for almost six months under many major search terms such as "white pride"
This so far is the debate on Pan Aryan network. I presume they are allowing me to debate there because its splinter group where the racists are women. SO they would be interested to hear a concept such as this.
=============
[QUOTE Lieutenant]
"One, point I'd like to make, to you, which I have not done so over on the Phora. Perhaps just because I have no read into too much of it, but what you have to understand is, that where you come up with your terminology like female racism vs. male racism to describe the behavior differences you are going to be naturally greeting by confusion from the anti-racist types and indignation from the racists on the flip side. What your theory is, being a way of systematically describing a relationship if I understand it, implies a solution:"
[/QUOTE]
I need to redo that. The word racism for a start is too emotive. Women are'nt going to like being called racist by instinct. And Racists are'nt going to like to be called partly feminine. Ok i admit i was being a bit reactive to begin with, and enjoyed presenting the contraversy. That was due to the battle against supression. REally if the idea is strong, i can do without that kind of contraversy. Any better ideas for terms would be appreciated.
Just to re-iterate. I'm saying that the majority of men are tribal, and tribes are "overall" more amenable to conversion of others through domination, influence, persuasion. (this conversion process interestingly seems to be similiar to the way in which male gene sequences themselves operate in genomes) So this isnt racist. It doesnt eliminate foreign genes but allows them in, if they submit. Tribal instincts are manipulated often by the minority of racist men, but its not racist.
When i say females are racist, its not in the way that men are. It's not agressive, it doesnt set out to eliminate. It just selects a lot of similiar sets of qualities. You could only describe female elimination in terms of reproductive rejection, and that would be abstract. We could get into all the stuff about what females do in groups and networks, but to simplify..they converge and clone desirable examples and variants of success in the present context. Because their group is convergent, it's more likely this context is dictated by the previous. Females still allow in a small amount of foreign genes, if they offer significant improvements.
[QUOTE]
What your theory is, being a way of systematically describing a relationship if I understand it, implies a solution: Your solution. For my benefit and the benefit of others here, you should probably start by describing or "proving" why exactly is the racialism expressed today, not beneficial...or beneficial for that matter. For example, if you are going to argue in one case that Europe was founded on "masculine competition" and that this was a good thing, as it produced the European race as we know it today, and then simultaneously argue that globalization ensures a more race mixed future whether we like it or not, and then again argue that we should not practice eugenics, even while admitting the differences between the races, well, let's just say, I think your moral view on the subject contradicts itself.
[/QUOTE]
Its just the application of complexity theory to human groups. The relationships in these groups tend to occur between the feminine components, but less so the male ones. SO male racists will make strong rules about what genes should be eliminated, and there wont be any exceptions, because they dont have the capacity or ability to connect to anything else. If anything male racists need to control the breeding instincts of their own women, because their own women will look for some outside genetic material if its better than their own men.
So in a way the male racist is fighting for control over the natural instincts of his women. If there is a solution, its exactly what you say, and i was surprised someone understood what i said enough to produce a better description.
"Female racism, moderates male racism,."
I never thought about that. Perhaps the women here could comment. So thats saying the reverse of what i just said about racist men seeking control of their women
"Female racism, moderates male racism, or rather is merely a more sophisticated extension of it, which has adapted to the modern situation
I would disagree with that extention, unless we had some view that females from africa were more right brain dominant..and so produced less convergent patterns of social behaviour than we have up north now where women are more mixed to left brain dominant. The limbic system instincts which produce female selective behavior come from lower species. Regardless of cortical brain dominance and the expression of complex cortical thinking, they still select. This is still on ongoing area for me. I'm studying a female i'm dating. Behaviour is right brain dominant, yet when i plot her hormone fluctuations on a chart in accordance with her cycle She still resorts to expressing very convergent feminine instincts. (shes into this stuff also so is quite into me doing this) My take on this dichotmy is that this is because limbic and cortical development occur at different stages.
Ok back to the point..the contradictions. These i should say are just the result of skipping into one area..getting a bit reactive..sometimes but jumping out..and not going back to rewrite and..say "Look i got a bit reactive there"..I will redraft the whole site and it will probably bear little resemblence in tone to its present form, and just discuss racial instincts in terms of biological systems and complexity. The stuff on southern europeans, was just a debate against stormfronts takeover bid on southern europe. Its not really that important.
Really i'm not looking to solve Europes racial problems. My prime project is trying to rebuild system theory, because thats what i'm suited to. I don't have any belief or group affilliation, because all thats apparent to me is figuring the overall human system. This just happens when you get into complexity research. Anyway in answer..I think female instincts will sort things out in Europe. They are after all why we are here having this debate. What i mean is sure..we have this one big factor that even no educated anti-racist can deny..the inclusion of lower intelligence.
White women in less IQ laden but more strength orientated working class populations do go for other races where raw strength is more important to them than intelligence. A moderate IQ, with a more functional adaption pattern and high strength is better at dealing with the kind of problems they face. Ok i'm reffering to the most extreme cities here, but it does go on, and those cities are the fastest breeding ones. So the point is there is still some female selection occuring from the groups male racists want to be totally rejected.
Back to your question. When female networks become disconnected in extreme type r population memetics, and paternal control dictates selection, such as islam, or in africa where the women seem to behave chaotically (perhaps because they are right brain dominant) then women face difficulties exerting selective control. In both these populations rape was hardly a crime by law till very recently. Thats not a problem in europe.
.
I saw a link to my concept appear there, then went to debate it.
http://www.panaryan.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1863
This is my first opportunity to present this concept to a racist forum in a year of trying. Previously it has been supressed almost everywhere. So i'll be taking my time to present the arguments properly. So far the concept has been supressed from Stormfront, majorityrights.com, fightdemback. The blog has also dropped completely out the google listings (not down the listings but deleted from them) on the very day i made a post stating the the jewish system fell under this theory. Google has anti-semitic rulings on blog content. This site is owned by google. It still has no appearance in google, despite being in the top four in msn search for almost six months under many major search terms such as "white pride"
This so far is the debate on Pan Aryan network. I presume they are allowing me to debate there because its splinter group where the racists are women. SO they would be interested to hear a concept such as this.
=============
[QUOTE Lieutenant]
"One, point I'd like to make, to you, which I have not done so over on the Phora. Perhaps just because I have no read into too much of it, but what you have to understand is, that where you come up with your terminology like female racism vs. male racism to describe the behavior differences you are going to be naturally greeting by confusion from the anti-racist types and indignation from the racists on the flip side. What your theory is, being a way of systematically describing a relationship if I understand it, implies a solution:"
[/QUOTE]
I need to redo that. The word racism for a start is too emotive. Women are'nt going to like being called racist by instinct. And Racists are'nt going to like to be called partly feminine. Ok i admit i was being a bit reactive to begin with, and enjoyed presenting the contraversy. That was due to the battle against supression. REally if the idea is strong, i can do without that kind of contraversy. Any better ideas for terms would be appreciated.
Just to re-iterate. I'm saying that the majority of men are tribal, and tribes are "overall" more amenable to conversion of others through domination, influence, persuasion. (this conversion process interestingly seems to be similiar to the way in which male gene sequences themselves operate in genomes) So this isnt racist. It doesnt eliminate foreign genes but allows them in, if they submit. Tribal instincts are manipulated often by the minority of racist men, but its not racist.
When i say females are racist, its not in the way that men are. It's not agressive, it doesnt set out to eliminate. It just selects a lot of similiar sets of qualities. You could only describe female elimination in terms of reproductive rejection, and that would be abstract. We could get into all the stuff about what females do in groups and networks, but to simplify..they converge and clone desirable examples and variants of success in the present context. Because their group is convergent, it's more likely this context is dictated by the previous. Females still allow in a small amount of foreign genes, if they offer significant improvements.
[QUOTE]
What your theory is, being a way of systematically describing a relationship if I understand it, implies a solution: Your solution. For my benefit and the benefit of others here, you should probably start by describing or "proving" why exactly is the racialism expressed today, not beneficial...or beneficial for that matter. For example, if you are going to argue in one case that Europe was founded on "masculine competition" and that this was a good thing, as it produced the European race as we know it today, and then simultaneously argue that globalization ensures a more race mixed future whether we like it or not, and then again argue that we should not practice eugenics, even while admitting the differences between the races, well, let's just say, I think your moral view on the subject contradicts itself.
[/QUOTE]
Its just the application of complexity theory to human groups. The relationships in these groups tend to occur between the feminine components, but less so the male ones. SO male racists will make strong rules about what genes should be eliminated, and there wont be any exceptions, because they dont have the capacity or ability to connect to anything else. If anything male racists need to control the breeding instincts of their own women, because their own women will look for some outside genetic material if its better than their own men.
So in a way the male racist is fighting for control over the natural instincts of his women. If there is a solution, its exactly what you say, and i was surprised someone understood what i said enough to produce a better description.
"Female racism, moderates male racism,."
I never thought about that. Perhaps the women here could comment. So thats saying the reverse of what i just said about racist men seeking control of their women
"Female racism, moderates male racism, or rather is merely a more sophisticated extension of it, which has adapted to the modern situation
I would disagree with that extention, unless we had some view that females from africa were more right brain dominant..and so produced less convergent patterns of social behaviour than we have up north now where women are more mixed to left brain dominant. The limbic system instincts which produce female selective behavior come from lower species. Regardless of cortical brain dominance and the expression of complex cortical thinking, they still select. This is still on ongoing area for me. I'm studying a female i'm dating. Behaviour is right brain dominant, yet when i plot her hormone fluctuations on a chart in accordance with her cycle She still resorts to expressing very convergent feminine instincts. (shes into this stuff also so is quite into me doing this) My take on this dichotmy is that this is because limbic and cortical development occur at different stages.
Ok back to the point..the contradictions. These i should say are just the result of skipping into one area..getting a bit reactive..sometimes but jumping out..and not going back to rewrite and..say "Look i got a bit reactive there"..I will redraft the whole site and it will probably bear little resemblence in tone to its present form, and just discuss racial instincts in terms of biological systems and complexity. The stuff on southern europeans, was just a debate against stormfronts takeover bid on southern europe. Its not really that important.
Really i'm not looking to solve Europes racial problems. My prime project is trying to rebuild system theory, because thats what i'm suited to. I don't have any belief or group affilliation, because all thats apparent to me is figuring the overall human system. This just happens when you get into complexity research. Anyway in answer..I think female instincts will sort things out in Europe. They are after all why we are here having this debate. What i mean is sure..we have this one big factor that even no educated anti-racist can deny..the inclusion of lower intelligence.
White women in less IQ laden but more strength orientated working class populations do go for other races where raw strength is more important to them than intelligence. A moderate IQ, with a more functional adaption pattern and high strength is better at dealing with the kind of problems they face. Ok i'm reffering to the most extreme cities here, but it does go on, and those cities are the fastest breeding ones. So the point is there is still some female selection occuring from the groups male racists want to be totally rejected.
Back to your question. When female networks become disconnected in extreme type r population memetics, and paternal control dictates selection, such as islam, or in africa where the women seem to behave chaotically (perhaps because they are right brain dominant) then women face difficulties exerting selective control. In both these populations rape was hardly a crime by law till very recently. Thats not a problem in europe.
.
posted by sprinklehopper at 9:47 PM
0 comments
