hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
It should feel disheartening to see this sort of brazen nihilism when it comes to error and wrong thinking. But where else can these people go? Most of them have locked themselves away from anything relevant, like the SSC comment described.
I think this sort of nihilism should be recognized for the ultimate cowardice that it is. These things, heredity, psychometrics and all the rest aren't meaningless. They are incredibly meaningful. And these people wallowing in nihilism aren't powerless, they are in fact quite powerful. But when they've already decided they wont do anything because the truth rests outside the Overton Window, the nihilism is entirely predictable and entirely self serving.
The article and the person who writes it are hiding. Cowering. Running away. Psychology's loss is the field itself and everything it impacts. The lives of tens of thousands of people who kill themselves every year after useless morons who are following 'the research' fail to help them. Millions of lives directly made worse due to policy based on fraudulent research.
It's not just that the author of the article is responsible; every social network of people who really should know better but pretend they don't due to whatever personal reasons they have are directly causing this to happen every single time they reinforce the status quo.
To see these people, the sorry state of the field and for them to shrug their shoulders as if this all just fell from the sky... What assholes. Take some responsibility. The fight for sanity has been ongoing for decades. There was nothing stopping these creatures from joining the losing side of truth to try and turn the tide. But they didn't. Instead they actively fight against it and then wonder why people laugh at them at parties when they say they're a psychologist.
No, you are not even remotely close to being a Rennaissance fair actor. They are a lot less embarrassing than you.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think there is an emergent strategy bubbling with dissidents who are not neck deep in grifting.
Ryan Faulk of the Alternative Hypothesis mused a lot on how to influence people into believing 'race realism' or HBD. One of the key points he raised was that it seemed like distrust of the mainstream was a prerequisite for belief in HBD. The important part here is that the 'mainstream' doesn't necessarily refer to academia, but news media. As soon as people associate the mainstream press with horseshit, you, as a dissident, have more inroads with them.
It looks like more people are finding their way towards this mechanism. It wouldn't be the first time the more respectable and socialized 'dissidents' find their way to the path trodden by white nationalists. Now we can wait for the respectable dissidents to utilize this mechanism and ride it victoriously to crush all the fake mainstream narratives, gain popular support and save the West!... Or maybe not.
A key element that keeps people from going all the way is right wing media. Ultimately their cause is based on the same environmentalist priors that fuel the 'left'. And it's guarded just as religiously. Not only that, there is an added weight of getting scolded by ones own side when going too far outside the bounds of the mainstream. On top of that there is a self congratulatory perception that you are proving your side to be good to the outgroup when you toss your own into the fire for any racist heresy. A sort of sacrificial lamb that you hope will quench the hate directed your way.
In any case, the gate that holds truth at bay isn't locked by what right wingers in general perceive to be the outgroup. If that were the case there is no way it could remain locked. The key to the gate is held firmly by a trusted member of the ingroup. And it will stay that way.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You need to explain what you mean by "disarmament". I don't understand what you mean.
They should just get off without any charges?
That's the opposite of what I am saying. My point is that if your legal framework can't work itself around an obvious criminal then the problem might be with the legal framework.
I'm not advocating for lawless vigilantism or witch burning. I'm pointing out that one party engaging in power politics doesn't necessarily disqualify their legitimate complaints.
And I'm saying there are two parties engaging in power politics and that makes it a fair game for both. I don't understand what you want here. I am very sure Rubiales thinks he has legitimate complaints as well.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You also can't point to some mild opportunism and say it delegitimizes all other complaints. That leads to pure who-whom, which sucks.
That's not what is being done. You can be a SJW or an anti-corruption advocate or whatever thing it is in the culture war that animates you, just say that's what you are. Don't pretend to be one to pursue the other or some variation thereof.
Your protest is like asking why the USG went after Al Capone for tax evasion instead of his actual crimes. The answer is obvious and it doesn't make him innocent.
It's not but whatever. If we know the witch floats why bother throwing her in the water? Maybe, if you can't oust a corrupt president or prosecute a guilty criminal for his actual crimes, the issue is broader than those specific individuals and throwing them to the dogs won't do much to solve it. In either case I am not impressed by people who insinuate they are acting better than others when they are transparently not.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't think you realized how entrenched in corruption the various heads of FAs are and how widely they're despised by everyone.
Followed by
This is the perfect opportunity because his misdeeds are dragged into the limelight; nobody cares about Rubiales siphoning off millions for sex orgies or cocaine
It can't be both. Either everyone knows and cares enough to despise them, or they don't.
I can tell you don't follow football at all
Your comment sucks.
I know, from playing and watching plenty of football, that most people who watch don't care at all about corruption. They 'know' about it, sure, but they are not activists in any sense. Events like the Calciopoli corruption scandal in 2004 don't mean anything. People still show up to watch the next game and cheer for their side because it's a hobby. Every event is just more entertainment. And what else can you expect? Football is not a democratic thing.
You just don't have an argument. Which is why you need to leverage your culture warring with the appearance of being in the know, when all you are doing is projecting your own opinion into the world and trying to mold it around it.
But maybe that view of mine is wrong. To help me understand your position here: Do you not care about womens rights at all? Is this all just a shadow campaign to fight corruption?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I do that too but I don't use quotations, I either use italics or 'apostrophes'. It's not that I don't understand this practice, it's that I can't engage with a person without making it clear that what they are quoting isn't actually a quote.
It's doubly important when the person is using the quotation as a springboard to make an argument when that argument isn't relevant to anything I've actually said. But it sure does look that way when they are using quotes to start off their spiel.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If these are not my supposed to be quotes from me then I am at a loss as to what the relevance of the paragraphs is.
Doubling down on your annoying argument won't make it any stronger. How would Google Trends look if he had made a public apology? Don't know. All I can tell is that the media gave Rubiales another cycle and made it a big news story. People heard the news and googled Rubiales.
On that front what Rubiales did might make a bigger media splash than doing one of those pathetic apologies that never help the one who makes them. But how that is making things "worse" is still a mystery. People got more angry and that's bad because people being angry is bad? OK, but from the perspective of Rubiales who wants to keep his job, I don't think he made things worse for himself. That is unless you are assuming that people would just accept the apology. Which, in light of how much he was apparently disliked, I'm doubtful of. And considering how poorly apologizing has worked when the SJW mob comes knocking, I'm even more doubtful.
This isn't the result of an "SJW mob" out to fire him
Yes it is. None of the arguments you give following your statement in any way impact the truth value of it so I'm just not going to bother with more.
Why is he being applauded?? Actually why? This guy just brought an absolutely massive embarrassment on the entire organization singlehandedly, even if it was totally innocent, so how on earth is he somehow a hero?
How can he be an embarrassment if he is being applauded? Maybe SJW's think he is embarrassing, but their worldview is rather distorted as compared to some dude listening to the news. I know from listening to my colleagues that the more they hear about his antics and the more he sticks to his guns, the more they like him.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm not advocating for disarmament or lamenting the actions of Rubiales or the people who want him gone. I am lamenting the posturing of people here who are acting like they are just on the side of reason and common sense as opposed to the people 'waging a culture war' when in reality they are just waging a culture war from a different angle.
You can't call out the actions of Rubiales as being nefarious or less sympathetic, like was done by OP, because he is transparently playing out some power game when you then admit that the whole thing is a power play to begin with designed to get the guy fired.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This post and OP annoy me since they accuse others of looking for a culture war angle when they are doing the same thing.
I mean, I don't actually care about the Spanish womens national team. Like, at all. Never spared them a thought or wondered if their bureaucracy is efficient. It might as well not exist. But I am sure that if it were a mens team being retarded by some women in positions of power that I could muster up some ingroup bias to care. At least enough to add it as another mark against an outgroup. Hell, my carefree disposition of indifference towards this is all a product of my biases.
Point here being that I'm not here pretending that I'm not on a side even if this thing isn't emotionally animating. And I think it would do a lot of 'rational' minded people a lot of good to recognize how their indifference is not indifference at all.
If Rubiales was incompetent he should be removed on those grounds. But that's not what's going on. Instead the public incident is being used as a weapon to oust him. On that front, how can you say, from a culture war neutral perspective, that Rubiales isn't just playing an optimal power game? If his detractors wanted him gone, why not go after the actual substantive stuff? Instead they hand him this publicity stunt to play around with. Now they can't remove him without perceptions being that it's because of a kiss.
I never called him a "victim" so I don't know who you are quoting. I would appreciate if you didn't construct your paragraphs around 'quotes' that I didn't write.
Regardless of that, reciting the timeline accurately does nothing to change the fact that your original point is not in any way affected by it since the conclusion you reach is close to antithetical to it. So how it is important is still a mystery. Unless, of course, my original assumption was just accurate. In which case I would like to ask you to be more plain with what you are advocating for, rather than trying to hide it under the guise that it's something other than SJW activism.
nor is actually in danger of losing his job, until he decides that angry confrontation is the way to go.
This is a really annoying argument. We only have the timeline of events as they transpired. That timeline is not proof that if he had done something differently that things would have gone better for him. Citing it as if it were is, again, annoying. There are plenty of examples of people who gave a heartfelt sincere apology to the beast and where then immediately eaten.
As far as I can tell Rubiales is just as emotionally intelligent and socially savvy as the people who want to get him. He is also just as hungry for power and cognizant of appearances. On that front he seems to be playing the game as well as you can. Asking such a person for a sincere apology is about as smart as expecting the SJW mob to forgive him.
After all, if he were really sorry, he would resign, right? ;)
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I appreciate the writeup, but I can't help thinking you are just 'reading the phonebook' and not supporting your point. You go from:
Another commenter below posted a take decrying it as a case of classic excessive modern SJW-type media cancel culture crusades gone too far. This is not just a wrong take, it's a flagrantly wrong take and a significant misunderstanding of the "read between the lines" of everyone's statements.
To:
Ladies and gentlemen, this statement demonstrates almost exactly what feminists have been saying for years.
It seems your actual argument is not that SJW's have gone too far, but that they clearly have not gone far enough.
To that end I don't think you are playing a game all that different to the likes of Rubiales. As feminists in general have managed to poison their own position and ideology quite heavily. I can only have so much sympathy for people decrying men and their 'old boys clubs' when their alternative is just the inverse of that and worse.
Recognizing the beast he is dealing with, Rubiales could choose to fight or get eaten. He chose to fight. Telling everyone how good he would taste doesn't change anything.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The constant news reports of the event in my local news media make the whole thing seem more comedic than serious. The reporting is definitely not supposed to make light of the 'heinous' event that took place. Yet with every new detail and development the story just gets more absurd and childish so one can't really help it.
I think most people intuitively recognize the absurdity of it. How male vs female ingroup bias is pushing each side further along a childish rollercoaster. But it's also very easy to just hop on, represent your side and have some fun.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Tourists coming into the space was always a thing. They would either get curious and lurk after getting told off or they would leave. That doesn't explain why old communities were culturally replaced.
It's not the normie who has the power to 'weigh' in on anything. Mod cliques do what they want to do. They enforced their rules from the top down. And it's not even that they catered to normies. They just enforced lib/progressive/leftist ideological orthodoxy because that's what the lolcows like in real life. The ultimate ideology that says you can't laugh at them anymore.
Take any regular reddit post that gets locked because too many users are noticing something about black people. You get the typical condescending reddit mod "I guess we just can't play nice today" or whatever. Normies just put up with it because they are normies, they have a real life to live and care about, after all. The mods see themselves as curators of comments that the normies can be allowed to see.
/v/ was a great example of how extremely top down things are. Moot bans discussion on GamerGate because of his real life social circle. This was so contrary to the wants of the userbase that it spawned an entire splinter site.
Same thing, to a lesser extent, with reddit and voat.
I think it would be much fairer to say normies don't actually have opinions. They just read them. In a war of internet minorities, no-lifers lost to the lolcows.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's hard to give concrete examples. It's a feel you get from being in the feed or the bubble so to speak. Compared to games I used to spend a lot of time with CoD just feels dumber. The way people talk, how they type, how they reason.
But the easiest example would be the classic of developers inviting streamers to go play the game early, the streamers then rave about how amazing it is, then the game is released and it's crap. An apology is made by the streamers. Then you repeat the process for the next annual release after having complained along with your following that the previous game was actually bad even though you recommended everyone part with their money before it was even out. Despite the exact same thing happening last year.
This isn't an issue isolated to CoD, but the way it plays out in CoD is so extremely brazen and ridiculous it's just beyond any reason. The timescale is just so short. If you are not stupid you recognize the process and stop buying the game. The cycle of buying, complaining and then just a year later doing it all again is pathetic. But as far as I know it's the biggest gaming franchise in the world and it's been doing this for years.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The Internet was full of a bunch of socially awkward, socially shunned nerds, and the Internet offered them a venue not only to express themselves, but also vent their frustrations. Once Facebook arrived upon the scene, the Net was colonized by a bunch of privileged progressive whites who began imposing their cultural norms on geek culture - a form of colonization.
I disagree with this narrative a lot.
tl;dr: it's not the normies that fought the old internet and won. It's the lolcows.
Old internet places were normie-proof. The first and most simple reason for this was that normies have lives to live, no-life internet losers do not. So in any given area the internet culture was always dictated by the no-lifers since they are always there.
A secondary reason is emergent culture. When similar people engage with one another, you get a form of culture. These people were, back in the day, no life white dudes. The cultural expression was indirectly just young white men. Not being that sticks out like a sore thumb.
The third reason is that caring is weak. If you care about something you can be made fun of. If you value something it can be desecrated. So in order to be bulletproof you can't care about anything.
The thing that killed these places and led to the 'New Internet' we have today were a few things. Primarily it was different kinds of no-lifers mixed with grifters mixed with weak men with power. /v/ after GamerGate is a great example. Grifters create drama, no-lifers join in to point and laugh, weak men with power, i.e. mods and moot, side with grifters and /v/ is turned into a 'no fun allowed' zone since weak mods are enticed by grifters.
That wouldn't be enough to kill everything off though. The second nail in the coffin can be seen with reddit. Starting with places like SRS. It turns out super motivated no-lifers who obsessively care are much better than unmotivated no-lifers who have made it their entire thing to not care at all. Especially when the weak men with power are completely ready to abandon fun in favor of attention from women, since that happens to be a thing men care about a lot regardless of what they say on the internet.
The third nail in the coffin was the 'New Internet' realizing that having no-lifers on the internet laugh at you doesn't matter all that much. Sure it hurts, and the old no lifers can get under your skin and create better internet memes and whatever. But in real life they have no power. So what does it matter? Just ban, laugh, and lie. The old truth can never reach anyone that way.
The final nail is simply that you can out-no-life the old no-lifers. No one is 16-25 forever. Sooner or later real life rears its head and you stop being permanently online. And for a lot of white men that happens. But what if you are a professional no-lifer? What if you are way past thirty and your entire life revolves around modding the biggest social media sites? The ultimate NEET lifestyle so coveted by the old no-lifer. Living rent free in real life. But instead of the old idealism of just playing video games, going to the gym and buying the occasional hooker, you intend to enforce your will unto the internet with ideological fanaticism and fervor that defies reality and reaches depths of depravity so great that no shock documentaries of hoarders or maniacal weirdos even come close.
The new internet is the lolcow. And they make sure anyone who laughs gets the stick.
If you want a glimpse of the future, look at Call of Duty. A bunch of transparent grifters running around a multi billion dollar game franchise desperate to please the lolcow community managers so they can get more power, status and money to continue grifting off of the sub-100 IQ brown normie playerbase. The entire thing is so degenerate and disgusting I have no words to describe it. But it's the norm.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
In theory the president matters a lot. In practice it has managed to not matter all that much in recent years. You can blame Trump or you can blame the deep state or whatever, it's still irrelevant to the point that in practice it hasn't mattered. The big issues stay the same no matter who gets in there.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I feel the situation is more, as others have alluded to, a bit of a camera issue.
The Hunter Biden stuff and the J6 Trump stuff are wild from a lot of angles. But it seems like the cameras get turned off every time something wild breaks. Similar to European football games where the cameras are turned downward every time someone runs into the field naked or there is a fight in the stands.
Alternatively it's a bit like watching Eurovision the year after Russia invaded Ukraine. There was only going to be one winner and everyone knew it was Ukraine. American politics feel a bit like who is going to get 2nd kind of thing, since everyone knows the big issues aren't affected by the election. As Trump, the ultimate outsider underdog extraordinaire showed.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The 'definitely' here means: If you meet 'that girl whose date-me-doc or coffee-meets-bagel profile talks about how she is looking for a serious relationship' you should assume she is fucking randos on the side. Not: 'I counted and it's exactly 100% guys'.
If @do_something had looked at their posting history they would easily have seen that and the length to which @SecureSignals goes to follow the rules of the forum and to engage in constructive discourse.
But that's not what their comment is driven by. It's pure outgroup + cognitive dissonance. They see someone they don't like posting something they don't agree with and they lash out.
People who act like this and the want to get away from them and the degenerative effect they have on discourse are the reason for the motte to exist.
The lack of the usual antagonistic and sneering remarks in Amadans mod post is disappointing for the first time ever. And his validation of the otherization of @SecureSignals and the implication that there might be something 'suspicious' going on is beyond poor form.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I agree, but to that end I see no use for considering you or anyone else Libertarian. If everyone has to be on the same page ideologically you are not offering any more freedom than anyone else. Of course you feel free to do what you wish when you already believe in the just nature of established boundaries.
As a religion I don't like pie in the sky stuff. I much rather prefer something that's concrete like ethnicity and fixed real life borders to ground our religion in. As it's much more resistant to subversion.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Both 1 and 2 are a yes.
But on top of that, always supporting the ingroup is what everyone is doing. The argument that Africans will improve the Estonian economy is not there to say that your outgroup will benefit your ingroup. It's there to make you believe Africans are now a part of your ingroup.
If I believe Africans are of my ingroup the question of the factual economic realities of mass immigration from Africa are irrelevant. Insofar as one believes more people of ones ingroup will 'enrich' ones societies, which is definitionally what one would believe if they were a part of your ingroup, the rest follows naturally.
The act of 'telling a lie' in this context is just a protection of the truth from the outgroup. As an example: I might understand someone to be against mass immigration from Africa. But that's genuinely only because they are bigoted. Which is true. They might say that Africans are bad for the economy. I object to this on a basis that it's untrue in some sense. Because my greater truth, derived from the fact Africans are a part of my ingroup, trumps everything else.
I think this becomes apparent when lib/left/progressives go from supporting mass immigration because its good to implying that it's a punishment when challenged too much on the factual premise of the alleged benefits of mass immigration. They do believe mass immigration is good for them and their ingroup. And if it's bad for their outgroup then that's also good for them.
I find it hard to call this sort of thing a lie. More that, when it comes to the ingroup, we tell the truth, and when it comes to the outgroup, we protect ourselves.
(this turned into a bit of a ramble as I'm having trouble expressing this, hope its readable)
I think most of the modern western world is how it is today precisely because of the extreme amounts of information and truth suppression.
I can't argue against the fact that most people in the west genuinely believe every single ounce of propaganda that is poured into their heads. A lot of which isn't just some pie in the sky stuff about morals and ideas but things that are in direct conflict with everyday realities and basic common sense. Yet people either believe the propaganda or contextualize what their lying eyes are seeing to not go against the broad narrative of the propaganda.
Propaganda works. Lying works. If I want mass immigration from the third world, what truth can aid me? Why rely on any truth? Why hope that the masses share my grand and noble vision for the EuroAfrican future when they are so short sighted and stupid? I can just lie to them and they will eat it up like children watching a toy commercial.
I don't believe this is an issue you overcome with ideals and values about truth. If you want society to function, you lubricate it with lies. This works. I want my society to function. I don't want mass immigration. Why contort myself to fit the truth into the heads of those who don't want to bear it? Just replace the lie already in their heads with another one.
I guess what I am trying to get at there is that I don't believe in human ontological moral innocence. I have no reason to believe that, if left alone, people will gravitate towards good. That if I remove one layer of lies there is a truth waiting under it. That under the skin of these ethno-masochist bobble heads there is a National Socialist waiting to be free.
I want European ethnicities to continue to express themselves, evolve, survive and thrive. I genuinely don't have a 'true' argument for why Estonia shouldn't be flooded with brown people.. Sure, I might believe it will be bad and that non-stop mass immigration will lead to the end of the native ethnic expression of themselves, both culturally and genetically, but... What even is that? My belief? Why do I care? Why should it be more important than the belief of EU bureaucrats on the goodness of EuroAfrica? I've never even met an Estonian. What if someone doesn't share my belief? What if they already believe the propaganda that diversity is our strength and that Estonia will be better after a few million third worlders?
To put it another way, it literally doesn't matter to me how truly statistically bad my ingroup is. So long as they are my ingroup I care about them. Anyone trying to get me to dislike my ingroup through statistics and crime rates is evil. And me not bowing down to their tricks is noble and good. As an example: It's bad for your economy. Ok, to borrow your own line of thinking, would it be good to ethnically replace Estonians if it was good for the economy? What if I just believed that being open to mass immigration was what made me a good person. Is that true? Would that belief offset the truth of mass immigration being bad for the economy? I mean, what good is an economy for if it's not bettering the lives of people.
To reach some conclusion from this ramble, truth just isn't a part of the game here. Even if you care about it. It's just your personal preference. It's not more inherently valuable than the 'delusions' of your outgroup. And more importantly, the mechanism by which you get people to believe in the truth is not necessarily based on any truth.
I might not like Eric Turkheimer and I might personally despise his brazen lies. But on a bigger picture level, where we drop our own ego and just look at the world as it is, guys like him and Lind are much closer to having their truth out there than any boorish HBD truth seeker ever will be, and they are more honest and self aware of their intention. They represent something good. World peace, the working class, human dignity, being kind. Your justifications, on the other hand, are what? Truth uber alles, because... It will out someday, probably? And it's good anyway even if it might be bad after all the lies we told about it?
My question to you and someone like Sailer would be this: Who will enforce the view that we shouldn't kill all the untermensch after the truth gets out? Why should someone believe that when the truth is that they are parasites making the lives of everyone else worse? Surely we should ensure, with propaganda, that people believe the 'correct' thing, right?
It seems rather straight forward to me that you would do this by doing the exact thing Turkheimer and friends have been doing for decades.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's a shame Lind carries all these low quality anti-HBD viewpoints and sneers into his article. A guy like him genuinely has inroads with "eugenicons" like the ones he mentions due to his well fought anti-immigration effort.
Even as a soft Marxist materialist he has salient arguments backing up his anti-immigration position that could easily be leveraged into a critique of 'blind' HBD promotion.
The most obvious point he could hammer home would be the fact that a lot of the anti-immigration rhetoric from the right in general revolves around it being bad for the working class. Well, can't we, for the sake of argument, assume that dropping HBD on the working class might also, potentially, be bad? That seems to be a belief of Lind's and I wish he would spend more time on expanding on it rather than fumbling the ball on HBD.
Michael Lind, Eugenicons and the Motte.
Recently, Michael Lind, a notable political commentator and anti-immigration activist, took a stab at what he termed the "eugenicons". The most prominent of which being men like Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, Bo Winegard and guys like Richard Hanania, whose face is prominently plastered over the article.
Linds piece paints these "eugenicons" as being not just factually wrong and out of their element with regards to the science, but also politically ineffective. As Lind sees 'race realism' and the libertarian ethos it allegedly expresses itself through these men to be "utterly incompatible" with broadening the appeal of the modern Republican party to working class Americans of all races. Lind, being a bit of a ‘soft’ materialist in the old Marxist sense, has a preferred view of the public as being in a bit of an economic class struggle. Though his view is far more principled and sophisticated than what you generally find among big L Americans Leftists.
Lind’s article is worth a read, and so are the various responses. The two better ones being from Steve Sailer and Brian Chau
Charles Murray did not respond in length, but remarked after reading Linds article that
Given that Lind has proven in the past that he’s a well-read guy, it’s shockingly illiterate about genomics.
Sailer, like Murray, voiced his disappointment that the article by Lind was not composed of anti HBD arguments of higher quality. And took issue with the view Lind expresses with regards to the state of the scientific literature at this time. Maintaining that Lind is far behind the curve on just how heavily the evidence has been falling on the side of HBD in recent years and that he also mischaracterizes some of the HBD positions as strict determinism. Pointing out that social causes have a very clear effect, as he cites his new favorite chart of various fatalities rising in line with the 'happening' of George Floyd.
These are all familiar notes for HBD folks, but they focus on facts and details over the broad stroke narrative. Something Brian Chau points out and extrapolates on. And it’s a worthwhile endeavor, given that someone whose been in the game for as long as Lind is probably not going to have his broader political viewpoint or his fondness for the American working class dissuaded by, as he put it:
right-wing shock jocks poring over statistical tables and publishing their “research” in trade-press books and club newsletters written and edited by their fellow true believers.
It’s a fair position to hold, I suppose, so where does Lind get his ideas from?
As Chau sees it, Lind is working from a presupposition of political representation. That is, Lind sees himself representing the American working class. To that end it is no surprise he dislikes the HBD creed, given it is inherently divisive to the multiracial America. Something modern day classical Marxists have been pointing at for a long while, to little effect as they continue to support mass immigration, unlike Lind.
On that note Lind ties Libertarianism and HBD together, showing just how these two ideas are compatible. As Lind puts it:
The overlap between libertarianism and eugenic conservatism can be considerable. In public, libertarians usually defend their anti-statist creed in terms of individual rights or Benthamite utilitarianism, arguing that a minimal state would produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Yet eugenic conservatism and libertarianism have often complemented each other. For libertarians at a loss to explain why wealth and power are concentrated in market societies, eugenicons have an answer: Rich people and rich families are genetically superior. And for eugenicons in search of a political program short of radical “ethnostate” proposals, libertarianism provides a second-best solution. The danger that resources will be redistributed from the productive, eugenic rich to the parasitic, dysgenic masses can be minimized by shrinking the state and lowering taxation.
This is certainly an observation. I think it would be easy, like Chau does, to point out that of the 4 big “eugenicons” only Hanania is ostensibly libertarian and otherwise poke holes in it. But I think that draws us away from the truth value of the statement as it relates to Lind and his position as a representative of the working class American. In a broad class interest narrative, there is an obvious pathway where the notion of free market success correlates with ‘superiority’. At the very least, if we value success in modern society, and we place some stock in the notion of heritability of traits, we end up with an undeniable truth. The lower classes are inferior to the superior upper classes. But as it relates to the "eugenicons", again, it’s not necessarily a truth anyone of the 4 mentioned, Sailer, Murray, Winegard and Hanania, are guided by politically.
Lind goes too far then, or does he? You don’t have to to go full send Capitalist Darwinism or whatever. Most people have the self reflection to look at themselves as a less than perfect part of a greater whole. Or that would be my view. Except that is the minority view of a National Socialist. So I think, to the extent American politics exist as is represented in media, Lind might be more correct than not here. And if “eugenicons” are not viscerally racist in their soul, I’d argue they do have to contend with the old ghost of “Social Darwinism”. Merely pointing at The Bell Curve and HBD as a truth can’t qualify as just another feather of truth in the cap of HBD folks. In the words of Eric Turkheimer, this truth could rival the atom bomb.
Chau's criticism of Lind is that Lind is not seeking truth but instead seeking to represent a class of people. To that end, if there is a truth that can harm them it’s not his duty to have that truth guide him but to shield the people from it. They are stronger together, class solidarity and all that. And through that lens Chau contextualizes some of Lind’s more extravagant misrepresentations of HBD ‘truths’. It’s simply not Lind's job to represent this truth. Lind is representing a class of people. Protecting both its class interest as well as its dignity, at the very least.
Beyond this you will have to read Chau’s article as he takes broader issue with the worldview Lind expresses.
On the whole I find Lind’s position to be stronger than I had suspected after seeing the "eugenicons" pile on him for the various errors and factual misrepresentations made. So long as Lind is accurately representing the people he feels with, his position will remain strong. Particularly since it is dealing with immediate problems that are likely to result from the HBD 'atom bomb' being released on the public. I had always assumed that biological truths would lead people towards something like ethno-nationalist 'democratic' socialism. But I’m now more willing to believe that America could surprise me if the bomb was dropped on them.
On that note it is not clear to me if Lind’s representing of the multiracial American working class is for its protection or ours.
The baseline assumption for belief, for people who don't know a lot about Holocaust history, is that there is a coherent narrative that makes sense, the historians have consistently agreed on, and the historical evidence has consistently supported.
The problems with this mode of thinking are multiple, but the relevant one here arises when people are asked to evaluate specific parts of the narrative. It becomes a self reinforcing circle. Looking something like: Given that X happened it seems very likely that Y also happened.
Take 3 big Holocaust events that definitely happened. 1, 2, 3. Take one Holocaust event that definitely didn't happen. 4. Say that events 2 and 4 are equally evidenced. Except in the case of 4 there was, by chance, completely exculpatory evidence discovered. Can you still take event 2 as undeniably true?
Both events were equally evidenced. Eyewitness testimony by the hundreds. Both camps were liberated mostly intact. Memoirs written of the horrifying events that unfolded when hundreds of people were crammed into a small chamber to be executed. Infant children trampled under the panicking mass of soon to be slaughtered jews as their mothers wailed in absolute horror. Clawing at the walls, begging for mercy... Except in one case we know for 100% fact that it was all lies conjured up by some guy. Literally just made it all up. Not just that, hundreds of eye witnesses testified jews were being gassed to American investigators. Every single one of them lying.
I have a problem with this. For me, 2 now seems a lot less likely to be true. If 4 was false, but is otherwise exactly the same, the entire catalog of evidence for 2 should now be under serious scrutiny. Eyewitness testimony is no longer enough. You need hard physical evidence because it has been discovered that the bar for evidence that has been set can be met with nothing but lies.
But for people who believe in the narrative, not evidence, they can't do that. 1 happened, 3 happened... What are the odds 2 didn't happen? All the historians agree. All the mainstream. Not even Alex Jones would deny the Holocaust... 2 obviously happened or the Holocaust historians wouldn't say it happened.
I don't know how to better express it. As soon as you find 2 to be within the scope of scrutiny due to the similarity to the standard of evidence used to prove 4, you are a denier. It's no longer 6 million, which it never was. It's no longer 5.2-5.8 million. It's now around 4 million. Congrats. You are a denier. Have fun reasoning with people who, through a reality defying congruence of evidence manage to piece together that every single data point relating to jews from 1900's onwards reinforces the fact that German Nazis killed 6 million of them for ideological reasons between 1939-1945.
It's honestly not worth the effort. You start seeing things. Becoming crazy. Arguing about nothing with people who never looked at any evidence in the first place. The notion never entered their mind. To them it's just a feeling. A self reinforcing circle of things that had to happen.
More options
Context Copy link