Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Under 120s gone: better or worse?

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
April 24, 2012, 12:56:47 PM
The serfs are still there, but now they're black and Mexican. The former serfs are "elites." Still act like serfs though.
but i'm not sure if i can tinkle in front of a crowd.

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
April 24, 2012, 05:35:05 PM
Give the sub-120's and their leftist advocates their own state(s)/cities (ie. LA, NY, Detroit, Las Vegas) while simultaneously allocating other states to the >120's. Whichever experiment comes out on top is the clear winner.

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
April 25, 2012, 01:21:24 PM
The question is clearly rhetorical, it doesn't propose a method. If you're asking whether society is better off without idiots, of course it is. This should not be controversial. Send the idiots to the moon, crush them into fertilizer, or segregate them to California I don't care. The point is that society needs fewer idiots. I don't understand why anyone would oppose this.
but i'm not sure if i can tinkle in front of a crowd.

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
April 25, 2012, 01:31:59 PM
I don't know why anyone would answer "worse" for this question. "Better" is the correct answer of course.

How to do it; don't know. The question must be rhetorical but still a interesting one.

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
April 25, 2012, 07:24:49 PM

The current TOO video is a compelling account of how thousands of North African Jews died  as a result of a bizarre treatment for ringworm during the 1950s (see also here). The ideology underlying this treatment was the racial inferiority of these Jews. The video notes, as also discussed in my review of John Glad’s book on Jewish eugenics, that attitudes of racial superiority and eugenics in the sense of racial purification were common among the Ashkenazim who created Israel.

A correspondent who watched the video informed me that Hannah Arendt, the well-known Jewish intellectual and author of Eichmann in Jerusalem, had similar views on Middle Eastern Jews as well as an attitude of superiority toward Eastern European Jews. Such attitudes were common among German Jews, especially in the early decades of the 20th century. For example, it is well known that the German Jewish establishment in America centered around the American Jewish Committee looked down on the Eastern European Jews immigrating to the US.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/ashkenazi-eugenics-and-attitudes-of-racial-superiority/

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
April 26, 2012, 01:58:42 AM
I don't know why anyone would answer "worse" for this question. "Better" is the correct answer of course.

Some people are weak in their souls and are afraid to defy taboo.

They want to convince us that we are wrong and impractical, and therefore, we should abandon truth for convenience.

That's cowardice and no nihilist should respect it.

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
April 26, 2012, 01:03:56 PM
There's only like two people who actually oppose this here, and they do most of the talking. If they'd just shut the fuck up for a few days we might be able to get past this.
but i'm not sure if i can tinkle in front of a crowd.

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
May 04, 2012, 03:39:37 AM
Planet Earth A sits back and allows 21000 innocent people to be variously murdered, forcibly raped, violently robbed or criminally assaulted each day.
Planet Earth B recruits regional cadres of its best profilers to review the inhabitants for the 21000 worst people to send these on their way each day.

Which is the more promising planet?
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

NHA

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
May 05, 2012, 10:07:28 AM
Why doesn't ANUS cull the under 120s on this site? Seems like an interesting social experiment.

Online IQ tests have a bad reputation but if you have one administered by a psychologist in person the sections can consist of:

- Being asked to verbally define common words
- Solve "word problem" style math questions
- Being asked general knowledge questions like "who painted the cistine chapel"
- Multiple choice pattern recognition tests
- Being asked to reassemble a complex shape (that has been "shattered") using shifts, flips, and rotations.

Really the only sections of the IQ test that can't be effectively tested using a machine are the open ended verbal ones. The 120 cutoff is just an easier way of saying you want the top 10% of the population anyway. Select some semi reliable test and filter the top 10%.

So would ANUS.com be better without the under 120s? Does the level of improvement justify the effort needed to set up the infrastructure?

My assumption is that no real gains will be made. The conversations and conflicts will continue along the same path with only a slight increase in people's ability to articulate their stupid ideas.

Seems like a waste of time.
 


Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
May 05, 2012, 03:40:05 PM
So would ANUS.com be better without the under 120s? Does the level of improvement justify the effort needed to set up the infrastructure?

My assumption is that no real gains will be made. The conversations and conflicts will continue along the same path with only a slight increase in people's ability to articulate their stupid ideas.

Seems like a waste of time.

I agree.  I don't think the under-120's contribute enough meat to improve or decrease the charisma of the forum.

Although I excel in selected activities and tasks, my capability and function is extremely regimented, and therefore I think I would be fall under 120 myself.
"I hung there on a cross as you are hanging, and I lived, thanks to circumstances and a stamina peculiar to barbarians. But you civilised men are soft; your lives are not nailed to your spines as are ours. Your fortitude consists mainly in inflicting torment, not in enduring it. You will be dead before sundown." - REH

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
May 05, 2012, 04:55:04 PM
I am amazed at how old you people are.
I am only 60. How do you manage to live to over 120?
Squawk!

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
May 06, 2012, 12:46:33 AM
Worse because this site and forum would cease being active.

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
May 06, 2012, 02:11:44 AM
Apparently this forum is full of retards and few think their IQ is even a standard deviation above average (which either means they're being humble or are off the mark). If it is full of retards, then we're obviously oblivious to superior reasoning and should probably stop attempting to get a grasp on any semi-academic topic given the crippling symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect in our inability to know when we're using faulty logic. If this is the case, I suggest most of us cease all discussion since it's futile and reserve the real talk for the big boys.

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
May 06, 2012, 02:55:35 AM
The original concept is rooted in the overpopulation and ecocide issue. Various professors and scientists over the years have come up with somewhere in the range of under a billion people for an ecologically sustainable Earth. This 120 IQ standard is a possible dividing point for bisecting the entire population into those who would go and those who would remain. Executing a nano scale trial run on the Metal Hall forum fails to indicate whether the qualified depopulation goal results in 1) a better sustainable world 2) an improved human society, one which is not of the acutely limited to a virtual discussion space type.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Under 120s gone: better or worse?
May 06, 2012, 04:45:45 AM
This is cultural/civilization problem. Not a biological one.

The average IQ in ancient Greece was probably about 100-110ish. Yet we still revere the great works they produced. They had a civilization that was complimentary to genius. People had roles. This is exactly what our civilization needs.


Then again, their population didn't grow at massive, exponential rates.  I'm sure 1300 BC - 300 BC had population spikes and craters, but the population as a whole was fairly stable in Greece during that time.  Also, since survival wasn't trivial back then,a greater amount of those left standing were probably above many of the masses today.  If there is one thing modernity exceeds at, it is the ability to keep more and more people alive which really only benefits those who couldn't do so otherwise.