@Lepidus's banner p
BANNED USER: waging culture war repeatedly after multiple bans and warnings

Lepidus


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 10 07:47:02 UTC

				

User ID: 1547

Banned by: @Amadan

BANNED USER: waging culture war repeatedly after multiple bans and warnings

Lepidus


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 10 07:47:02 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1547

Banned by: @Amadan

HENRICH's MIRRORS, KENYANS and invincible ignorance

Joseph Henrich, the Harvard professor of evolutionary biology who coined the term WIERD to describe Westerners, and wrote the book on the cultural differences between us and them recently went on Hanania's podcast where he insisted that the Kenyan advantage in running records was... purely a matter of cultural psychology. Having introduced the bizzare lengths to which knowledgeable Academics will go to lie about the most obvious things; and knowing that these taboos have been the sacred in the West for so long, I'd like to propose the possibility that even committed HBDers have only scratched the surface of how far biological differences may go.

With that in mind, let's consider the matter of Kenyan children and mirrors. What matter you may ask? Well, one that might prompt the following, again from Heinrich, et al.

"It is possible but unlikely that these children, up to 72 months of age, did not recognize themselves in the mirror. Although the data presented here do not directly address the question of why they did not show signs of self-oriented behavior, we speculate that these are false negative responses..."

You read that right, standard self recognition testing does not detect self recognition in Kenyan children, a whole three years after it does so in European toddlers, and who knows how much longer.

https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Journal%20of%20Cross-Cultural%20Psychology-2010-Broesch-%20Cultural%20Variations%20in%20Children's%20Mirror%20Self-Recognition.pdf

Now, you'll have noticed that a 5 years of age, even dumb children can be asked questions. Yet for some reason, the study in question shows no sign that these children were ever asked anything about what they saw. In fact the study makers decided to go for another round elsewhere, and leave it at that. Thousands of psychologists are aware of this study, it was even published in Scientific American, and yet no one has publically tried to run it again. If there is even the slightest possibility that this means what It might mean, we are talking about the most important replication attempt in modern history, and it's not even close.

If put on tape, this is the final shot in the HBD wars, and one which even the normiest normie can understand. Any takers? My own prediction is 20% non-recognition, 30% fraud, 20% innate psychological differences in responding to mirrors, and 30% abusive parenting.

The DR isn’t really a thing though outside of the ideas it sneaks into the mainstream. Unless Moldbug has a special forces dimes square project that I’m unaware of, there’s not much else it can/is willing to do to have any real influence.

This isn’t exactly what winning looks like. But it’s at least not loosing.

Throwing selected facts while being vague is a left tactic of character assassination. Because if there is nothing concrete it is impossible to refute or disprove.

Well, I think I was pretty specific. Specific enough for Gdanning to take a sledgehammer to my work. I don't really understand the rationalist tendency to demand an explanation for a phenomenon before it's existence is acknowledged. It reminds me of the old joke that has a Frenchman saying: "It works in practice, but does it work in theory?" Identifying a group as being the key actor at the most critical points which brought about the destruction of your system seems valuable in and of itself. Ideally, only then should speculation as to motives emerge, otherwise a good story might paper over faulty facts.

Anyway my own position is that recruitment of a considerable percentage of Jews to the right is basically impossible, and risks repeating the NeoCon cycle by which they become gatekeepers within the right, and purge it of it's genuine members. Unlike some other commenters, I'm skeptical of the appropriateness of Anti-semitic discourse given that Jews who hate Western civilization are pretty open about it anyway and can be targeted for their actions instead of their identity and why would we alienate the 10 - 20% who are on our side?

At the same time I think not restricting Jewish permanent immigration earlier was a terrible mistake. For the record, so was turning back fleeing Jews. I don't understand why the only options ever presented are heartlesness or cultural suicide.

Is the phenomenon that you are trying to prove that American Jewish people are more left-wing than the general public even when you control for "elite" status?

Yes. And that this difference is enough to fundamentally alter the direction of a nation, towards what I consider terrible outcomes. There is one qualifier, which I'll get to later if I continue this series, and it's that labels can mean fundamentally different things under different people. Early Progressives may have shared the statism of modern progressives, but their vision of progress included 'sterilize the incompetent to improve our gene pool', 'let's resegregate the government' and 'we must preserve the white race' and 'self-determination but only for functional peoples, others need colonialism'.

If your analysis of Stalin and Beria vs. Gorbachev and Chernenko, misses the part where Stalin and Beria were Georgians ruling over Russians and Gorbachev and Chernenko were Russians ruling over mainly Russians, and confines itself to formal ideological labels, it's arguably worse than useless. Groups that understand the tenuous nature of their power are gonna pursue their goals with far greater brutality and indifference to suffering.

This is a fair and honest response. I'll make sure to address it when I get the time. Thank you.

So "95 year old grandma screaming in pain" became "persons who are not in danger of death" and then had to be rowed back to "but if you're only suffering from something like depression, we'll put a hold on that for a year or two" probably due to public pushback.

And I'm supposed to favour the alleged interests* of a infintesimal percentage of unproductive disordered strangers to have their decisions overriden over my own interest, and that of everyone I know and love to not end our lives in agony because???

How well do you think opiates control the pain of having fluid building up in your lungs so that you can't breath? What exactly do you think a "natural" death looks like?

Oh, he died in his sleep, you might say. But did he? Did the pain ripping through his chest shake him out of his final dream while he stared into the dark or did his brain merely confabulate a drowning, or burning within it?

Of course I don't expect these issues to matter much to you, just like a woke person's fetish for sacred diversity is entirely unaltered by the mass rape of girls in Rotterham. Both easily disgust the average person, and yet it seems we've been condemned to be ruled by zealots whose vision of morality is entirely unconnected to the reality of the human experience. In either case the Publics preferences are destined to loose most of the time.

I'll add Scott Alexander's poem, inspired by his own experience working in hospitals below:

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the gurney that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sack of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene with cancer, bitter with the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues

My friend, you would not so pontificate

To reasoners beset by moral strife

The old lie: we must try to cultivate

A culture of life.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/

Not op, but children mining cobalt are not an existential threat to the west. Concern for them is purely charitable, and while I’d have no objections to a plan to re-colonise Africa, sterilise a good chunk of the adult population and take the kids out of the mines and put them in glorious well fed summer camps; in the current world boycotting mining companies… is pointless.

"...fresh new wave of Twitter excitementspew". Don't worry it's only trivial figures like VAN JONES, at insignificant news outlets like CNN running this narrative.

I'm thinking of a meme along the lines of the virgin Scott Alexander (don't tell anyone I said this) vs the chad Bostrom (Blacks are stupider..!).

The 1964 civil rights act, or something else in the early 60s was the tipping point.

Here's murder:

https://cdn.mises.org/homicide.png

Here's violent crime generally:

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/violent-crime-rate.jpg

And the Ghetto riots start in 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto_riots_(1964%E2%80%931969)

I have no mouth, and I must scream:

"THEY BELIEVE IT PEOPLE!" THEY BELIEVE IT, SO THEY DO IT! They say what they believe, they then do what they believe, not to advance something they say they don't believe in, but to advance what they say they do believe in, because they do believe it. It's not electorally popular, it's not particularly enriching, It's not just some cynical conspiracy to get something else; they have appalling principles, this happens sometimes believe it or not.

Ok, that that's my perspective on American progressives, I'm not as sure about your Australian types given the pictures i've seen of perfectly white 'aboriginals' being celebrated for getting into college.

Hallelujah! His prior follower count was leaving me deeply pessimistic about the virality of good writing. Glad to see, he's finally getting a fraction of the audience he deserves.

I mean if I tell you, hey that pitbull is charging for your child - there's a gun in the car, I technically haven't made any policy prescriptions. Nonetheless, it's pretty obvious what basic widely shared moral intuitions demand that you do with those facts. This is why I bring up the emperor. In the real world, your emperor being deluded enough to fall for invisible clothes implies that him and/or his advisors need to be removed from power and there's no way around it.

The general atmosphere of seemingly paranoid fear among the blue tribe is totally legitimate. In this country, the kulaks never lost their guns and blue tribe subjected millions of their children and it's own (Columbia students ride the subway too) to disgusting conditions... for nothing. What is mind-boggling for me, having recently realized what this is in fact what we were doing and defected to the other side is finding that the dog-whistles we were worried about weren't dog whistles at all, and that there are only marginal elements in the red world interested in doing anything about it's subjection.

"many people here do actually have an unarticulated, possibly subconscious, belief that this is the case." - There's nothing subconscious about it. I believe this is the case, and am willing to defend it explicitly.

Once again, some apparent white nationalist has noticed that lots of elite are left-wing and assumed that's because they're Jewish rather than because the elite are like that.

a) I'm actually not cold-hearted enough to be a white nationalist. I'm more of a non-central white supremacist.

b) If you know the elites were only mildly left-wing but Jews were always far-left, and you know that the elite are far more leftwing but Jews remain the most left-wing portion of the White elite, how the hell do you get to 'Jews are only left wing because they are elite?' Which way does time go again?

That's the thing though, it's not a given you disagree any more man, that sentence is couched in an entire paragraph of agreeing.** Do we have to become them to beat them?** Is there really no path to the future which leverages the flourishing of human thought instead of its suppression? If that's the only choice we get - whose jackboot is crushing whose throat? - then fuck the whole enterprise.

The defense of beauty and truth is in and of itself superior to the defense of depravity. Your ?enemies? want a world in which the normalized castration of children is celebrated as the highest virtue. They are not even content with waiting for 'trans' children to reveal themselves to a doctor, but actively work to fill every medium with messages telling subsceptible girls that they might actually be boys. You could crucify every single one of them above an iq cutoff of 115; and it would still not be morally comparable.

I really don't get how people seemingly on the other side can find themselves uncertain about these things. I'm left to conclude that they must be missing some seemingly basic human experiences, like color blind people vs the rest of us*, except for beauty. I look at red and green and see this infinite chasm; you look at it and see slightly different shades of gray (or whatever), while the woke say they are the same or invert them. You are honest so you can point out the tiny difference between shades and I imagine you must be like me; but we might as well be of different species.

  • I suppose the colour blind analogy might be off, in that I might be the outlier here, sure seems like it. Anyway, we all might aswell act in our natures and could never have done anything else. The one thing I can say for my side to a person like you is that, while both the woke and I are committed to mutual annihilation, i'm the only one who intends not to come after you when (or before) I'm done with them.

It's actually pretty simple. The early liberal position was that blacks could and would reach equality with whites after the removal of discrimination and imposition of temporary positive discrimination. While some screwups were made early on - In the 90s, the Clintons and Joe Biden joined black leaders in pushing mandatory minimums and heavy law enforcement in black neighbourhoods, under the theory that neglect, tolerance of criminality, and retrograde welfare policies were the form of the racism that was keeping blacks down. And yet, inequality while reduced, wasn't fixed.

Blacks born to families making 200K were getting SAT scores equal to whites in families making 20K. The children of rich blacks were still going to jail at rates comparable to poor whites. At this point liberals could either:

  1. Choose to tolerate a world in which the vast majority of blacks, being judged by their actual abilities, would be found unequal to whites.

  2. Upgrade positive discrimination into pure anti-white racial hatred, crushing the white kulaks, taking their resources and representation in elite institutions away and giving these to blacks. Meanwhile, tar every positive white trait and figure as inherently evil (objectivity is white supremacy), while praising their black counterparts.

I don't need to mention which one they chose.

Qualifier: While Blacks are near the top of the totem pole, they are often outcompeted by other members of the Democratic coalition, which it needs to guarantee it's permanent power. Nonetheless, the fractures aren't as severe as anticipated. Latinos don't exactly like blacks, but they can deal with them through extra-political means while allying with them to continue squeezing whites.

"...their primary loyalty (if one can call it that) is to politics."

If it was, they'd take up a Bill Clinton style Law and Order campaign and pare it with at least making noises about immigration while pursuing extreme wealth redistribution and of course taking their cut at every step of the way. But more intuitively, do you think Dems are pushing trans kids because they think it polls well?

How, as our resident Christian, is it so hard for you to understand that people might be genuinely and unselfishly committed to an evil vision, for it's own sake.

Maybe it’s just me but I think the right to exist should not be a trivial part of one’s political identity. Enoch Powell, an ultra-conservative politician famously said he’d fight for his country even if it were communist (politics come and go, people remain). If it’s become casual to bemoan your existence among your faction, maybe you should consider defecting?

Let me indulge this theory, like a person with basic curiosity might except for German genetics:

Bordering on the Suiones are the nations of the Sitones. They resemble them in all respects but one - woman is the ruling sex. That is the measure of their decline, I will not say below freedom, but even below decent slavery. - Tacitus on a German Tribe

The dowry is brought by husband to wife, not by wife to husband. Parents and kinsmen attend and approve the gifts - not gifts chosen to please a woman's fancy or gaily deck a young bride, but oxen, a horse with its bridle, or a shield, spear, and sword. In consideration of such gifts a man gets his wife, and she in her turn brings a present of arms to her husband. This interchange of gifts typifies for them the most sacred bond of union, sanctified by mystic rites under the favour of the presiding deities of wedlock. The woman must not think that she is excluded from aspirations to manly virtues or exempt from the hazards of warfare. That is why she is reminded, in the very ceremonies which bless her marriage at its outset, that she enters her husband's home to be the partner of his toils and perils, that both in peace and in war she is to share his sufferings and adventures. That is the meaning of the team of oxen, the horse ready for its rider, and the gift of arms.

  • Tacitus on Germans generally

Wait, what? A society where men gift their brides swords?

But wait, there's more...

"The Naharvali proudly point out a grove associated with an ancient worship. The presiding priest dresses like a woman."

Ok, fastforward roughly 1900 years.

From Wikipedia:

[1908!] A transvestite pass (German: Transvestitenschein) was a doctor's note recognized by the governments of Imperial Germany and the Weimar Republic – under the support of sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld – identifying a person as a transvestite. Transvestite at this time referred to all individuals whose gender identity and preferred clothing was discordant to that associated with their assigned sex, and so included both crossdressing and transgender people.

Karl M. Baer (20 May 1885 – 26 June 1956) was a German-Israeli author, social worker, reformer, suffragist and Zionist. He came out as a trans man in 1904.[1] In December 1906, he became the first transgender person to undergo sex reassignment surgery.

1931 – In Berlin in 1931, Dora Richter became the first known transgender woman to undergo vaginoplasty.

I don't know I'm really starting to think there might be some genetic link here... Unfortunately, none of this explains the current problems of the anglosphere. It's not like we have any German DNA or anything [/sarc].

Hlynka is a true believer - East German Christian Democrat. He thinks the Socialist Unity Party has corrupted the pure communism found in the writing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Martin Luther King), and that if they only stopped being so corrupt, exaggerating the capitalist threat to mask it's own corruption, and shooting people; we would suddenly live in a happy classless society. That violent repression, and permanent revolutionary rhetoric is necessary to avoid the collapse of the inherently dysfunctional communist (colour-blind) regime, escapes him. He will go to his grave claiming that the rare capitalists he stumbles accross are actually Stasi.

They are and I don't entirely blame them. Liberalism contains most of the smart and capable people in the white race, while conservatism contains many of the dumbest. People are failing because they are being discriminated against by evil people/systems at least makes some sense. Conservatives' "blacks are natural conservatives, but are kept degenerate because liberals give them too much shit" borders on the most batshit take imaginable. It's hard to blame someone for choosing a consistent ideology that's blatantly wrong on the facts, when any moment that they look around to get the other side, they get insane ramblings and a reification of those blatantly wrong facts.

lol, you are right. Talk about a name mixup.

Might someone introduce a kind of pre-publication censorship feature? I'd appreciate the opportunity to submit a post to a mod for pre-approval rather than to risk getting permanently nuked from orbit.

Isn't this without the slant, the relationship between a walmart greeter / janitor and a well paid lawyer or software dev? The former are much poorer and less-well-regarded than the latter - much moreso than the difference between a 'median black' and 'median white' - but they 'accept' that, whether by skill or maybe social class, their place is lower. At least in the same sense a black student's is."

Black children in families making 200K have the same SAT scores as those born in families making 20K. A child born in the top 1% who is Black (a very rare thing), has the same criminality rate as a 40 percentile who is white. The bottom 50% of Blacks have the same criminality rate as the bottom 1% of Whites by income (again using global not intra-race percentiles). With this in mind let's address your following question.

How does it (accepting the existence of inequality) harm a poor black person much moreso than it does a poor white person?

In an entirely fair society, it is concievable that a poor white janitor or his children might one day have the potential to become something more. The same cannot be said for a black Janitor, and in fact his job might actually merit taking by a black secretary or nurse.