hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
I'd think that the example of the old lady refusing to rent to non-whites would be particularly pertinent given the modern dynamic where hotel owners rent out every room to the government so it can house migrants in them. And then these migrants rape women and children. Just search 'uk migrant hotel rape'. It's practically a sport at this point.
I think you are not paying the respect prejudice deserves. And that this is a cognitive and moral failing on your part. You are looking at the words, not the emotion.
I saw this a lot in the aftermath of the big purge of the Alt-Right from YouTube. Where lefty youtubers could claim, after the fact, that they ultimately won and that the alt-righters had always been kind of stupid. And to an extent that's not an inaccurate observation. There were a lot of 'vapid' and 'stupid' creators in that space. They didn't really understand HBD to any relevant extent, they didn't do well in debates and they certainly could not predict how bad things could get. But they did get an audience. How? Principally because their attention was on the same gut wrenching worry others felt. That the current state of affairs was bad. They could not necessarily articulate why. But they had a gut feeling and others could emotionally resonate with that.
To that extent, it should be a source of embarrassment, continuously, for every person that was more intelligent, erudite, or otherwise better equipped to handle reality, that they are continuously shown up by random racists when it comes to identifying threats. The trajectory of the western world has been so comically bad the past three decades that it's hard to imagine how it could have gone worse.
Turns out, almost every economist is a retard, actually. Along with every educated person that can read, write and reason yet fail to recognize that no, importing the third world will not be an economic benefit, colonialism didn't make Africa poor and 'poverty' doesn't make black people rape. The racist could not necessarily articulate why he knows what he knows or believes what he believes. But they had a gut feeling that has outshone every alternative. Sure, they continuously fumble the moment, make bad arguments and otherwise embarrass themselves, but ultimately they've not been the ones who've been wrong when it counts.
Farage has been saying things for a long time. So far he has only proven to be a populist voice with the very same 'moderate' anti-white policies of Labour and the Tories. Ready to play the respectability politics and then lose when push comes to shove and his party is faced with the same problems that have driven the majority of the west towards the now typical anti-white solutions.
Without a worldview that is a hardline fact based contradiction to the blank slate alternative and without the moral backbone to stand by a specific people, there will be no positive change. Reform has explicitly rejected all avenues that can logically lead to success. They can win elections, but what will they resort to when the left political machine re-asserts their claim on the moral mandate that Reform refuses to contest? When the sheer weight of demographic change starts impacting every aspect of political life? Will Reform really get a steady enough supply of ethnically motivated rape gangs, murders and other crime to challenge the moral narrative that every western media outlet is churning out to their captive audience 24/7?
Reform is not fighting a war. They're an informal surrender. Be prim and proper, don't rock the boat, keep a stiff upper lip and don't look at the endless horde of foreigners waiting on the horizon that are all motivated by an ethnic ideology that demonizes native Brits.
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
I'm all for accepting that people can change, but if it's a choice between a person who has shown they are capable of being a Nazi and a person who hasn't done that, well it's a pretty big disadvantage.
What's the functional difference between being a nazi and being a zionist? Or is this just a metric dependent on what is further outside the Overton Window?
Outside of that you're not offering anything concrete here that relates to the tattoo that rises above class sneering. To that extent you answer your own question. A peachy clean political candidate that looks like they were cooked up in a lab is the exact aesthetic someone like Platner counters.
The hysteria around this is entirely predictable. The 'upper classes', or the people pretending to be upper class, really do not like the lower classes. But they do often talk in favor of representation and class mobility in theory. Well, here you have that representation personified in Platner. But as we see in practice, that representation is low class coded, of course! So 'upper class' folks instinctively, balk and sneer. 'How could he? I would never!'
Lets just face the music. The German army was cool. The SS were cool. The uniforms, runes, equipment, it's all aesthetically cool. Especially to young men who have little or no reason to otherize Germans.
To that extent there's no reason for a marine grunt to not get a cool tattoo. Cool people don't care about the opinion of some hysteric jews that see another shoah in everything. Or maybe it's the opposite, and that's kind of what gives the aesthetic an edge. After all, Satanism wouldn't mean much if it wasn't for hysterical concerned Christian mothers.
That being said, the entire news cycle around this is just political propaganda. There is no reality to this, and no controversy. Just an emotional whirlpool kept going through mass media soundbites generated entirely to push a narrative through any means available. The safest bet would be that Platner is getting negative press from more than one angle due to his ongoing political campaign and pro-Palestinian rhetoric.
But lets hash this out. If the idea is that a secret nazi is running on a Dem ticket in Maine to launch another holocaust then we can say that. If that is not the case, what is the argument other than class sneering?
Even if Platner was a nazi, is the contention that he is one now? If not, is the contention that if anyone at any point was a nazi, they are invalid in the future?
If he wasn't a nazi but knowingly got a nazi tattoo, is that invalidating? If so, why?
It's silly theater. None of the questions are explored or answered. It's just a platform for interested parties to performatively huff and puff.
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
The little lefty media exposure I've had of this guy was generally positive. If a small /r/socialism thread offering lukewarm critiques is all one has in the pocket to demonstrate that the far left does not like him... eh, that's pretty weak sauce. Those folks are generally not fans of electoral politics anyway. Sneeringly holding out for the revolution.
That being said, why shouldn't the Democrats elect guys like Mamdani if that's what the voters want? I don't see the republicans offer any relevant or salient opposition to that development.
That's part of what irked me about the article. It didn't feel like a very traditional perspective, despite coming from an allegedly traditional Orthodox woman. As you point out, and I am generally ignorant of, there are a lot of elements of the faith and the history of the church that are left unexplored relating to the topic.
But at the same time, one could argue that people are flocking towards 'traditionalism' in general since it is being presented as a solution to their modern problems. I'm not sure executions or formalized acceptance of being an incel are what they are looking for. So whilst I lament that there was a rather modern woman presenting herself and her modern problems as being Orthodox, I can also sympathize with her woes. She was having a hard time finding or formulating solutions within Orthodoxy, along with other people. That's a legitimate concern to raise, despite the alleged faults of the messenger.
To that extent the article serves as a sideways critique of much of the generally male dominated Traditional online discourse, that oversells Traditionalism as a silver bullet to a lot of our modern woes when it's not so clear that it is.
I agree things can not go on like this if we want to survive, but I also don't see this piece of social technology of the past being all that useful.
It was not Christianity that did the heavy lifting back in the day. It was a useful tool that fit the needs of a specific people in a specific environment. But it was the environment that drove that need. Principally by how barren it was. Now the environment has changed, and our needs follow. And unless you want to commit to the bit and go full Amish or similar, then you're not going to get much mileage out of Christianity.
I mean, that's why you end up with stupid evangelical dance concerts. That's just how reduced the utility of Christianity is in modern society. You already have the broadest strokes of philosophy, law and culture existing independent and separate from it.
You need something concrete for those who lack the lifetime of regret that is seemingly required to understand just how damaging modernity can be. You can't afford to waste time on teaching people about theoretical burning bushes when the real danger is starting our progeny in the face in real time. Especially when we have seen just how little sway Christianity has today. I demand new technology.
Trouble in Paradise
A guilty hobby of mine is to follow up with the trad dating scene. Not so much the 'Real Housewives of Alaska' style, but in a more terminally online way where various trad talking heads air out their honest opinions on substack or X that then turn out to be dirty laundry to the opposite sex.
A part of the draw to this is the fact that outside of explicit gender warriors, a lot of the online right has ceded ground to the idea that traditionalism is the way to fight against the modern gender war. We need forgiveness and to look at the broader picture. 'The opposite sex can not be your adversary', 'we are in an age of strife and suffering' and so on.
That sounds good on paper. What are things like in practice?
A Dating Crisis in the Orthodox Church? A Woman's Perspective. Archived link.
tl;dr: A Church going Orthodox woman voices a complaint as old as time: The men aren't good enough. They need to step up.
The following article is pulled in part from conversations with other Orthodox women looking for a husband, from the survey of 41 responses from Orthodox women- recently married or engaged, conversations with my Priest and older married men, and my own personal experience.
Let's see the results:
“The problems shift with age. Younger women (17–25) often deal with immaturity, hygiene issues, or lack of physical attraction, aggressiveness, ghosting after “love-bombing”, or pressure to be sexual, then ghost when her boundaries of chastity are put up.
Women in their 20s (26–29) struggle most with compatibility, “too online” rigid orthobro energy, emotional instability, and financial unreadiness (i.e., a stable job or career that they feel would support a growing family).
Older women face a shrinking pool of men who also seem to want someone much younger, despite the men already being in their 30s or 40s. Often these are widows are women whose husbands have left them and have children. The single dads often still do not want to court them either.
Now... This all feels awfully familiar. Hanging a cross over our problems didn't make any of them go away. People who flock to a place that promises solution to their issues, usually have issues to be solved! It's clear that Traditionalism does not neutralize ordinary mating-market dynamics.
The good news? Several women in the survey did marry or get engaged to kind, stable, normal men. I personally know many great men. They happen to all be married!
Yeah. But great men and women don't need a church to get together, though. That's kind of baked into what makes them great. They also meet and make families living as radical left/liberal/progressives, for example.
It feels as if the Traditionalist sphere did not have many solutions to any problems. The initial thrust of 'we must rally behind the cause!' similar to other slogans like 'workers of the world unite!' sound good to those who buy into the group pathology, who implicitly believe that we could solve every issue if everyone was but sufficiently devoted to the cause. But there's a seeming lack of realism to what the problems actually are and how one can solve them outside of a faith based cultural revolution, which the author of the article proposes:
We must stop pretending the problem doesn’t exist. Parishes need real community, not forced “single dances” that feel like Protestant youth group 2.0, but actual family-style fellowship where people of all ages eat, talk, serve, and get to know each other as brothers and sisters in Christ first. Priests and godparents can gently guide the catechumens toward a healthy understanding of vocation, marriage, or monasticism, without shame or pressure. I do think that marriage is too heavily emphasized in our post-protestant culture, where if you are unmarried, you are somehow second-class citizens. I think we as a church need to do a better job lifting all those who are still single and find a way to integrate our young people in a much broader vision of family life within the local parish. Married couples need single people and vice versa. Our monastics need our support, and we need them. We should be visiting them often.
The young men need older men to look up to and mentor them. I have seen this work very well at our parish. The babuskas need muscles to help around her house and hungry men to feed. We really do not need more awkward matchmaking and pressure to force things to happen, but rather organic opportunities for people to grow into healthy members of a big family, for friendships to blossom between men and women organically without all the weird red-pill approaches, and to acquire the skills and virtues of well-adjusted Orthodox Christians.
And we, as laypeople, have to be honest with ourselves: Are we praying for our future spouse like it actually matters? Are we forming ourselves into the kind of man or woman the Church needs, or are we waiting for the perfect trad spouse to drop out of the sky to then begin our life in Christ?
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!
The contradiction here seems clear enough. People who have their stuff together don't need any of this. Confident, socially adept well put together men with good jobs and a vision for the future, as desired by the author, are not going to spend their time wallowing around an Orthodox commune filled with incels being bossed around by babushkas. It's just ridiculous to expect successful well adjusted people to saddle themselves with such things in the modern world. Same goes for well put together women that know how to attract men. The real world operates on a 9-5.
Now, that might definitely be to our overall detriment. A key issue with modernity is a lack of real world communities, of course. But a community of needy weaklings is largely what the church has become and it has not made it stronger. And more pertinently, real world communities fall apart in modernity for a variety of reasons. Saying that they would be good to have, which is most likely true, isn't doing much to solve that problem.
This entire thing feels like a giant knot of contradictions and conflicting interests. Much like... nay, exactly like the old gender war. There's a reason why the 'Based Pastors' are doling out "weird" repackaged Red Pill material to try and meet the needs of young men. There's a reason why this woman is regurgitating utopian communalism and anti-red pill platitudes in an attempt at finding men who meet modern standards. Both might very well be correct in their observations. But it's clear they are not seeing eye to eye.
Edit:
I said I was not into this topic for the 'Real Housewives of Alaska' dynamic, but I wanted to see why the article got deleted. Turns out our author deleted the article and much of her online presence after it was alleged that she was sending men nudes. Well... I guess she can now better focus on praying for a husband.
hanikrummihundursvin
22d ago
I generally don't like this argument.
If the 'plan' is to engineer society to carefully balance individual freedoms alongside a high enough bar of entry so that stupid psychos can't do maximal damage when the screws fall out then lets make that the plan and operationalize that. Rather than alluding to that being the plan but not dealing with the nitty gritty of it.
So far the gun toting looneys of the US have managed a sub par result compared to Islamists driving trucks of peace in the EU. The only one that even compares is the Las Vegas shooter, and that shooting is to this day an anomaly. A much easier solution before you ban trucks or high capacity magazine rifles would be to stop importing foreigners from populations that hate you.
But there's our problem. Some people really like importing foreigners. So they're not willing to give that up. Just like some people are not willing to give up their rifles. So when push comes to shove, those who allude to the 'plan' are generally not planning on sacrificing the liberties they hold dear themselves. People can generally smell that, so the 'plan' never goes anywhere.
I'm sure one can easily draw up a politically balanced 'plan' that makes everyone unhappy. I'm less certain for one that anyone actually likes.
hanikrummihundursvin
22d ago
And my point would be that it's not particularly hypocritical when those individuals are just playing the same game everyone else is. Including Israel, that is not really concerned with whatever amount of dead or raped Palestinians they leave in their wake. I mean, I don't think the worst part of that is the hypocrisy but whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
Ontological status: If you rape your enemies, they win.
You're not describing a double standard insofar as you can observe this exact same behavior from JIDF posters. Where mass rape on Oct.7 definitely happened and is super important, but these rapes did not, or don't really matter. It's just the standard.
So maybe we are looking at some motivated reasoning that can afflict us all. Rather than a specific trait of the woke left. And perhaps you're not dunking on a strawman, but what are you dunking on, and to what end? The motivated reasoning of one side irks you, but not the other?
So no, the woke left don't have to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization that committed acts of unspeakable cruelty on Oct.7 anymore than the JIDF has to acknowledge that Israel is a a genocidal nazi state that commits acts of unspeakable cruelty in their prisons. You hold no leverage to make that claim. You are just asserting a one sided rhetorical frame on woke leftists. They would be right to recognize what you are doing, call you a genocidal zionist and continue on inside their bubble where Israel is bad and Palestine is good.
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
Dunking on woke leftist strawmen might be a fun past time, but I'm not sure the NYT qualifies in this particular instance. From the opening paragraph of the article:
It’s a simple proposition: Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape.
Supporters of Israel made that point after the brutal sexual assaults against Israeli women during the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu and many U.S. senators, including Marco Rubio, condemned that sexual violence, and Netanyahu rightly called on “all civilized leaders” to “speak up.”
And yet in wrenching interviews, Palestinians have recounted to me a pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women and even children — by soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency and, above all, prison guards.
It seems the author was one step ahead of your critique.
Both sides claim rape is a horrible crime when committed against them. To reiterate the point: Should all parties not be against rape then? And to pontificate further, if we believe one side is not against the rape of their enemies, does that make it OK for us to rape them?
I don't see a double standard. I see two backwards third world populations making appeals to morals and standards that have nothing to do with them. They both play the shivering hurt animal and as soon as they think no one is looking the teeth and claws come out.
hanikrummihundursvin
27d ago
As far as I can tell from various third worldist twitter accounts who post about the conflict 24/7, the US has allegedly sent Iran a proposal to end the war, and Iran is yet to respond. I feel like I've read similar things 5 times in the past few weeks.
If someone has similar pro USA or pro Israel accounts, please link for comparison. I'm not engaged enough with the topic to see fact from cope anymore.
hanikrummihundursvin
27d ago
The word I would use is "culture" (although I don't think it's magical, and I don't object to other words).
Is Icelandic culture not the expression of the Icelandic people? Is it all in the moss? Did they decide to not commit crime against each other by chance when they started to prosper post WW2?
Your source shows massive swings over time (e.g. surging from 21% of prisoners in the US in the 1920s to 50% in the 1990s) that can't be explained by merely noting skin color or ancestry.
Didn't we just go over this? Giving low quality people more avenues to express themselves leads to more low quality expression. AA's have more avenues to express themselves in the 1990's compared to then. Not to mention that the way crime is reported now is different.
To make a long story short, putting a population in different environments will lead to different results. I'm not sure why you think that's a point against anything I'm saying. It doesn't change the fact that if that population has a lot of low quality people it will express more problematic behaviors than a population with less low quality people and more high quality. The point I was making is that the trend of high crime rate and violence is a universal fact nigh everywhere blacks are subject to western style policing. And sometimes even when they're not. There are outliers, but they generally come with big caveats, like Rwanda. I'm sure we could lower the crime rate if we police AA's similarly. But I would not want to be subject to such militarized scrutiny myself.
This is also the point of a cultural analysis. The cultural analysis focuses, however, on the choices that people make, whereas an HBD analysis focuses on their ancestry. My specific objection here is to focusing on HBD to the exclusion of other factors. As your own sources show, other factors are tremendously important.
Environmentalist explanations can't originate a cause for culture to begin with. Which is why you have a host of half baked attempts by the likes of Jarred Diamond that try to create magical history narratives strung together by a-ha! moments that feel coherent and plausible. HBD adds the cause. The good, the bad and the ugly. It's all genes expressed in an environment. The more control our genes have over the environment, the more they amplify their own expression and open avenues for otherwise suppressed tendencies. The more the environment constricts the genes, that much less can we observe expression. When two different gene expressions exist in the same environment the result might be similar, or it might not be.
Sure, we are ultimately a product of environmental selection pressures through natural selection, but those things happen over a broader timeframe.
We can live with AA's, but not in an open and free western style culture. So much is obvious as things stand. The point of contention here relates to how these groups behave within our specific western environment. If you want to argue in favor of a more radical solution that reshapes our environment in a different direction, go ahead! But as you stated, such things are not politically palatable to the two majorities, conservatives and lib/left/progressives. Hence my dissatisfaction with both.
Boomer conservatives generally don't mind desegregation but they do not necessarily support everything that Civil Rights ended up entailing.
Conservatives love desegregation and Civil Rights. Posting MLK quotes to own the libs whilst Civil Rights legislature redefines their sacred constitution to work against everything they otherwise hold dear. It's a giant blindspot that is generally only called out by dissident right figures. Maybe those voices have started to reach into the mainstream and I missed it. But I doubt it.
Interestingly in the United States penal servitude is legal.
Haha, yeah. Just don't call it slavery.
Perhaps, but what's your superior solution? "Keep welfare, return segregation" is not a palatable political solution.
I don't have anything one could campaign on. At best it would be a soft eugenics program shadow operation. Start by eliminating murderers, violent criminals and repeat offenders from the gene pool. Then map their family history and observe if the trends of violence continue/go back within families. Restrict those families reproductive rights.
I think the biggest potential propagating cause of AA's violence are strains of violence passed down by the mother.
Now, is that viable? No. And it's closer to science fiction than anything else. But there was a time in American history not too long ago where similar ideas were passed along by more serious men. If we could get over the post war consensus and get back on track with social technology that actually advances humanity in a dignified manner then we can mend this absurd state of affairs that has gone on for far too long, which has been causing suffering and harm to innocents to the benefit of feeble minded losers that are indifferent or unaware of the destruction they cause or sadistic animals that revel in their own violent expressions and the suffering they inflict on others.
hanikrummihundursvin
28d ago
Interesting. What's the name for the shared social environment created by a group of people?
I don't know. Is calling it the shared environment created by a group of people not sufficient? Or are you looking for a specific word for an a-ha! moment? Id prefer if you got to the point.
Then what's the point of HBD? If African-American violence is substantially different from people of similar ancestry, then why am I supposed to think that ancestry is important at all?
Is it substantially different? It seems to me like black criminality is a thing in every western culture where a sizeable enough bloc of blacks live.
The problem with making a comparison between countries that I was alluding to is that they can be too different. Like, they don't accurately record crime at the same rate. The only crime one could hazard a guess on for comparison would be homicides, and SS-Africa is a world leader in that department.
If you can't compare two groups of related people simply because they are in different environments then it sounds like the environment is doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
Who controls these environments at this point? The people. The difference between the environments at this stage in history is the clearest demonstration of population differences one can imagine. The point of HBD is to help us recognize that these trends in behavior originate from the people. That their environments are not coincidental but a product of their expressions.
You might object that your idea that "prosperity leads to crime" is mechanically different than "dependency via the welfare state leads to crime" theory our hypothetical pal would espouse, but you would also oppose giving them welfare, since that could increase their latitude of action.
I don't believe that prosperity or welfare leads to crime. Otherwise Iceland would have a lot of crime. Low quality people lead to crime. Giving low quality people more opportunities to express themselves will give you more low quality expressions. And yes, I would argue that there is a very relevant difference between recognizing what the causal factor is in the equation and not recognizing it.
There are proportionally more low quality people in the AA's population than the white one. I don't want to live with groups of low quality people. I don't want to work with them. I don't want them working near me. I don't mind having a welfare state. I don't mind giving a proportionally small amount of low quality people money or financing some sort of livable environment for them that's not a prison cell, provided they behave and don't cause ugliness or suffering. I do mind them mindlessly procreating and growing their share of the population. I don't want to harm them but I also don't want to harm future generations and subject them to endless cycles of subsidizing wealth confiscations and violence against themselves and continuously growing the share of low quality folks that perpetuate the process.
I don't agree with our boomer friend that it's just welfare policies that make the situation worse. Desegregation and Civil Rights made things worse as well. But our boomer friend loves those things. Along with a host of other conservative sacred cows. So he will advocate for policies expecting results that will not occur, because he does not understand things, and then the lefties will pick up the slack provided by these poorly thought out policies and run the country further into the ground. And the boomer, just like every conservative that came before him, will accept his lashes and 20 years down the line his own children will pretend that conservatism is actually about conserving the progressive gains made against the sins of their own father.
You're right though, The most meaningful conservative policy is being tougher on crime. Principally because killing violent people is the most surefire way to prevent them from procreating. And Trump has said he wants to expand the death penalty to other crimes, which would be good. But to exemplify the point made above, being tougher on crime that's not punishable by death would functionally just be a different form of welfare. Except we are locking more people up for longer in abhorrent conditions that facilitate further ugliness and suffering. Without ever addressing where these low quality people come from. It's a very good example of how the conservative lack of understanding fuels their opposition. They create poor conditions that are easily propagandized against them. Which is also what would happen if they somehow managed to end welfare.
hanikrummihundursvin
29d ago
For similar reasons AA's do, one could imagine. It's a practice that is more common among lower impulse lower IQ people in America. With the population size of the US you see the broad behavioral trends of lower quality people. But that's just us observing their behavior and expressions. Seeing they have bad outcomes and then erroneously assigning the blame to their actions is where we go wrong.
I mean, there are bad behaviors that have bad outcomes. Like gambling with slot machines. Your intelligence wont save you after you put your money into the machine. But there's a clear mechanism there. The RTP is 97%. There's no such mechanism in having children out of wedlock.
To that extent I can't possibly imagine what would influence the shared social environment of Icelanders except the Icelanders themselves. The country is primarily a cold inhospitable mossy wasteland. The population is largely atheist, is extremely sexually promiscuous, drinks a lot, does a lot of drugs, gambles a lot, has a lot of obesity. But they have a high IQ along with other positive traits and somehow manage to make one of the most peaceful places on earth. None of the classic American conservative boogeymen work when trying to explain this. Just like lefty theories fail to explain how the poorest country in the world, and a former colony, managed to become one of the most prosperous places on earth in less than a century.
Aha, but there are plenty of black people who don't behave in anti-social ways, so the same logic holds there, right?
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, yeah, there are plenty of high impulse control high intelligence black people. Like Charles Murray infamously proposed, all the race gaps in America seem to vanish when you control for things like IQ.
They are, my understanding is that children in single-parent households do in fact suffer worse childhood outcomes, even in Iceland.
Yes, but what portion of the blame rests with low quality people being more likely to make poor decisions that lead to single parenthood, and what portion of the poor outcomes of the child are simply a result of the child having inherited their parents low quality. Sure, it would be better for the child in the short term to have a better home environment. But the research on home environment and IQ, for instance, shows that there are no IQ gains into adulthood. So if the kid finds themselves in the wrong circumstance in adulthood, their inherited low quality traits are liable to make themselves known. Adoption studies also show this very clearly as well with regards to criminality.
What gene controls freedom?
I don't understand this.
Even if you don't buy the Flynn effect, do you deny that African-Americans have a greater percentage of European ancestry than Africans? Do you deny that they perform better on IQ tests?
AA's have greater percent European ancestry and have higher IQ's on average, as far as I can gleam, than many sub-Saharan populations. What's the relevance of Africans?
Oh, interesting. In what sense is the United States in the 1960s and 1970s or the 2020s a more permissive environment than Africa today? Is the law enforcement here less competent? Or is it that the United States has more legal freedoms and the people who you say have an antisocial disposition are careful Constitutional scholars who have figured out how to game the system? Or what?
I'm not sure I understand this. Many sub-Saharan nations can't even qualify for a comparison.
In the same way poverty can prevent obesity, many less prosperous populations were guarded from their own self destructive tendencies. As an example, Pacific Islanders didn't have a problem with highly processed food products until they were presented with the option of buying them. Then it turns into an obesity epidemic. Aboriginal Australians didn't have a problem with huffing gas until they could, and so on. So the freedom to make a bad decision in a more prosperous society harms low quality people in a way that the constrictions of scarcity did not.
hanikrummihundursvin
29d ago
Random people who vote R don't make the conservative narrative. It's made and expressed in mainstream conservative media.
Yes, out of wedlock births are an anti-social behavior that correlates with bad childhood outcomes (at least in the US of A).
Yet the mechanism does not hold the same effect when looking at a different population. So it's not a cause but a consequence.
It's something like twice the rate among African-Americans - which, relevantly to my point, has risen since the 1960s. Why has this negative behavior among African Americans risen with their IQ score?
There are plenty of single mothers who successfully raise their children alone. So single parent homes are not a cause but a consequence. There are different reasons for why some people find themselves in the circumstance that correlates with negative outcomes. It's those reasons that matter, not the circumstance. A low intelligence low impulse control person was always going to have problems when given the freedom to express themselves, and their offspring would always face similar challenges if they carry those same traits.
The notion that civility and success needs to be drilled and beaten into every child through a mother and father isn't true. It's true for some of them, and I do personally believe two parents households are better. But the high quality children generally just make success and civility happen because it's not that much effort for them. Sitting still, figuring out the solution to the problem and getting a reward for their good behavior comes naturally and effortlessly. You can sabotage them, sure. And some otherwise high quality kids might have specific peculiar needs that will hamper them if not met, but the point is that there's a difference between what a sufficient environment is for a 'high quality' kid populations and 'low quality' ones.
As for AA's IQ gains, they seem largely driven by test score inflation. Or are, at the least, not indicative of an improvement in intelligence. Look for the 'Hollow Gains' chapter.
what's the HBD explanation for why African-American crime rose massively in the 1960s even as they grew more prosperous (in the 1940s, when African-Americans were poorer, crime was much lower)?
Why would more freedom and prosperity being handed to a population that has a lot of low impulse control low IQ people make them less criminal?
A more constrictive environment prevented the expression of bad behaviors. A more permissive environment allowed for it.
To contrast this with the point made earlier, a more permissive environment in Iceland allowed for more expressions of good behaviors. Because the population there had more good behaviors to express. The controlling factor is the population.
hanikrummihundursvin
29d ago
In the conservative narrative you are trying to identify (not necessarily my narrative), the Freeman's Bureau would just be the start of a much more persistent and long-running government-led effort specifically designed to target black Americans (and other minority groups) with various types of benefits.
Yeah, that's generally how those narratives go. A string of just so stories and a-ha! moments that don't hold water when we have to explain the same pattern existing elsewhere.
If you hung out around conservative Americans long enough you would hear some of them say something along these lines, perhaps with fewer five dollar words.
Paleo-cons got kicked out of the mainstream a long time ago. Peter Brimelow did a nice interview on the topic on Tucker Carlson's show recently. Which was a nice, albeit a bit late, surprise.
In the United States, African-American out-of-wedlock births have increased dramatically since World War Two. This is despite the fact that measured African-American IQ scores have also increased over the same period of time. Why?
Why indeed. Are either of these things relevant or related? Out of wedlock births in Iceland are the norm and happen at almost the exact same rate as out of wedlock births for AA's. Yet they have none of their problems. You are going to have to clarify what the point is here.
I don't disagree. My point was that the state of affairs Farage represents is what got us to this point in the first place. And as your post implicitly reiterates, Farage does pose any threat to that state of affairs. Instead he is riding the wave of suffering and strife it creates, without any logical recourse to end it.
If the British public is not ready to assert their claim as the rightful and sole owners of their lands, then that's a problem that needs to be realized and solved. But as I said, Farage does not represent any move towards that direction. The realization I'm trying to convey is that the best case scenario for a Farage government would be a more skillfully managed decline of the British nations. It's better in the short term, but the long term result is the same. The end of the British people.
This is an established paradigm in modern right wing politics. Historically there are two camps that believe in some form of solution to this existential crisis of the west. The Secretly Based Camp and the Accelerationist Camp. The SBC believes that there are secretly based politicians that are playing electoral politics, hiding their power level just enough to get elected so they can save the country. The Accelerationist camp believes that the accelerated deterioration of the native populations QoL is a mechanism that can wake them up to act in a more radical way in their own self interest.
To summarize, Farage represents the worst option. He's neither secretly based nor trying to upset the status quo. Instead he is cashing out on all the pent up pressure that the negative effects of the status quo create without representing any chance to correct the course.
Now, maybe Farage represents something different and new that exists outside this paradigm. One can only hope. But I don't see why one would think that considering we now have an established history of SBC candidates failing to live up to the hopes that were tied to them. Farage seems to fit neatly into the established paradigm as what's commonly referred to as a Release Valve. I don't think that's an unfair description until proven otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link