site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 329189 results for

domain:drmanhattan16.substack.com

Ukraine may have had single digits of people with the right expertise to dive 100m down in a strong current

I suspect that country at war may be quite motivated to locate or otherwise obtain experts on relevant topics - even if you have just few of them

or just train them

after all, how many experts were at start of war in Ukraine with expertise at thing like counter-drone drones, long range torpedoes (often called naval drones) or F-16 pilots?

also, someone claiming stuff with poetry/tall-tales like

The Americans have these small unmanned submarines that can solve any task

should not be overly trusted about their accuracy

there were some ships with switched-off radio

are these supposed ships visible on satellite images taken at that time? or is there at least curious stop in coverage at that time from USA-controlled suppliers or any other confirmation of that story, such as logs of rescue service going to ships with switched-off radios? BTW, how these ships with switched-off radio were supposed to be detected?

They could, however, be called "Egyptians" with no major disruption to that polity

They have been accepted into other Arab countries. I don't think it went with "no major disruption".

Yes, I’d say there are definitely people like this — though, as @IGI-111 points out, not in the symmetric way you pose; I’ve gotten that “you support monarchy/aristocracy/reaction only because you think you’d be king/a lord” bit before, and when I turn it back on them — is the only reason you hold your political views because you expect to personally benefit? — it does indeed seem to be projection/typical-minding.

And beyond endorsing both IGI-111 and @Stellula’s replies, I’ll note that I, as a reactionary, have repeatedly responded to the “you think you’ll be king” arguments with acknowledgement that, no, I’ll be dead. As I’ve said more than once, my ideal society would probably have me executed.

I’m well aware that the liberal modernity I oppose is the only thing keeping me alive at all, let alone giving me the lifestyle I currently have, and that come any serious reactionary victory, my life will most likely end (and become massively worse in the case it doesn’t)… and yet I still want that liberal modernity destroyed.

(Has anyone here seen the movie Serenity — the Firefly sequel/conclusion movie? If so, do any of you remember the speech by Chiwetel Ejiofor’s nameless “Operative” character — the “there's no place for me there” one?)

what's your job on the leftist commune?

How about what do you spend all of your time on after you have successfully amassed $10 million in capital and can live comfortably on the growth and dividends taking $400,000/year safe withdrawal rate? It's basically the same question, but without having to invent a bullshit job to justify that you're contributing something in exchange for taking communal resources.

MFW even my exploitative baron would still at least defend his castle from being invaded by foreigners. So it goes! I'm not a reactionary by any means, but Gregory Clark in The Son Also Rises has interesting analysis claiming similar degrees of social mobility during feudalism as the modern era, as well as stickiness in high-class surnames within the high-class pointing to real genetic differentiation between classes.

People keep welcoming White South Africans various places despite being anti-apartheid, though I guess it's been a few decades.

I was under the impression that it was never part of psychology, but was developed by two housewives for some popular magazine or something. Like 4bpp the claims of it being like a horoscope feel like cope. If psychology has a better test, fair enough, but I'm gonna need an RCT betwwen M&B and Big Five or whatever, before I actually believe it.

Someone reported this:

REDACTED: Creep post sexualising minors.

Really? Are the mods now expected to moderate the male gaze? "Late teens" presumably includes 18 and 19. It seems to me that half the porn industry runs off barely legal teens, which, I am told, are still legal.

I just took one of these online tests and got INTP. Not the first time I've taken it; I tend to oscillate between INTP (Ti-Ne-Si-Fe) and ISTP (Ti-Se-Ni-Fe), though a far larger amount of the time I score as the former. Even as a participant it's pretty apparent just how low the test-retest reliability of Myers-Briggs is. Introverted thinking as my dominant function and extraverted feeling as my inferior function seems to be a consistent characteristic though.

Do we really need a complex explanation of why a young woman appears attractive to an aging man?

The reactionary equivalent is "this is what they took from us", usually in the context of a picture of a hottie. In the defense of that meme, the pictures of beaches and cities in California where everyone is white look pretty nice and they did indeed take that from us.

Yes. Because mainstream psychology abandoned it ages ago in favor of the Big Five/OCEAN.

I think it is better than a horoscope or tarot, because it's based on the actual individual patterns of behavior, instead of something that has no relationship to the actual person. But of course attempting to reduce the infinite human diversity to a handful of broad classes would be very imprecise and frequently misleading. That said, there are people that can be described as "phlegmatic" or "sanguine", and that's not entirely wrong, even though nobody believes in the humoral theory anymore. It's clear that there are some patterns in people's behavior, and those can be to some measure classified. My type on MBTI comes out as INTJ and it's roughly matching my behavior and is probably useful to a certain measure - you wouldn't know everything about me, you won't probably know any of the important things about me as a person, but you would understand roughly how my thinking and approach to things works. I think that is useful, though one must always understand that this is very imprecise and not to put too much into it like "I know how you think now, you're totally transparent to me". No classification system is ever going to do that.

INTP. You are aware that MB is a load of shit, so if you want horoscopes but actually rigorous (standing up to a factor analysis), then OCEAN is the one for you.

Best anime for anime watchers is Cromartie High. It is near perfect in pacing, absurdity and meta-jokes about anime as a medium to begin with. The english dub is actually better than the sub simply because the ridiculousness of the voiceover heightens the comedy, even when relatively subtle wordplay (rare) is involved. Konosuba achieves largely the same and is a good rip on the extremely tired Isekai power fantasy genre.

Otherwise for seriousness I found Gundam Witch From Mercury one of the best examples of longterm psychological manipulation presented in any medium, all while wrapped in an enjoyable high school drama with good action and decent worldbuilding. Last 2 episodes compressed a season into 2 episodes which is nuts but otherwise it was pretty excellent. A good lighthearted series is Dungeon Meishi which makes an attempt at internal consistency and logical subversion/adherence to fantasy tropes, so its a good time there.

No, not every state roots itself in biological instinct to the same degree. “Ranked choice voting” and “representatives based on population” are examples of procedures unrooted in biological instinct. These procedures require the use of intellect to conclude that the procedure is ultimately in our best interest; when instinct rears its head and says “I wish my leader continued longer than the term allows”, it is quelched by a sense of logic insisting that it’s for the greater good. Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler obtained power through force (or the threat thereof) without much interest in procedure. That’s biological: you could see that happen in humans 100k years ago, or in primate groups.

Epithumia and Logos are too broad as concepts to know in what sense you mean that they are “biological”. Logos, as a construct of wisdom, is surely non-biological.

I don’t believe that humans actually come with “individualistic self-interest”; they come with a self-interest mediated by social cooperation and tribal allegiance. Purely individualistic self-interest is… how old? Not very old at all. It’s like 20th century new. In any other period, someone who pursued ruthless self-interest at the expense of the collective would be (rightfully) purged, his genes being defective.

Garibaldi

Probably because of his heroic and glorious military career in pursuit of securing territory for a people, his subservience of selfish ambition to nationalist aspirations. Or because “he is not a man; he is a symbol, a form; he is the Italian soul”. His hero worship is precisely because he mirrors fascism. If he were simply a bureaucrat politician with some ideas, no one would worship him. And indeed, I don’t think anyone worships him for his view of democratic republicanism (he fought for the monarchists for the sake of unification). Fascism is about Garibaldimaxxing, to the fullest extent, so that men have a lot of passionate feelings about the nation, which can only occur through marrying it to biological instinct.

Extremely long Cummings substack piece: https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/a-talk-on-regime-change

If you had to read one part, read the speech he gave at Oxford, skip to: Text, Oxford, 19 June 2025

It's staggering. I'm one of the biggest Cummings-trusters and I thought he was overdoing it when it comes to the Civil Service on rotations. I check it and it's true. It's the most retarded idea I've heard for some time.

And the insane HR system means that everybody changes jobs every two years, roughly. So if you’re sitting in No. 10, you have a series of meetings with someone in charge of, for example, Chinese cyber operations. And you talk to them and you talk to them. You have meeting after meeting, and then suddenly this person vanishes completely and some new person arrives in No. 10 and you say: ‘Oh, hello, who are you?’. And they say: ‘Oh, I’m so-and-so’. And you say: ‘Oh, right. Okay. Um, so what are you doing?’. ‘Oh, I’ve been in charge of special educational needs for the last two years’. ‘Oh, right. Okay. You’re now in charge of Chinese cyber operations?’. ‘Yeah’.

So much from his anecdotes (always the best parts of Cummings, otherwise he just repeats his main themes) reads like it came out of Yes Minister. The power of the Cabinet Secretary and impotence of the PM, Ministers just reading out their briefs, cabinet decisions made in advance by the official who drafts the minutes, everyone desperately beholden to the media. There's that bit about a lack of individual accountability for projects, straight out of the 1980s: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-pQcNKFoIDE

Sir Arnold from the show: "We already move our officials around every two or three years to stop this personal responsibility nonsense, if this scheme passes we'll be reposting them once a fortnight!'

If they had genocided them in the 1960s, they would've probably gotten away with it.

INTP, reliably. I think the "horoscope" comparisons are nonsense propagated by an unholy alliance of IFLSciencers ("Don't you know THE SCIENCE says you are not supposed to use it?") and people who are vaguely aesthetically annoyed that its fans have some intersection with the horoscope crowd (people who just like labels). The questions the classification is based on ask about real and reasonably stable personality traits - why would the classification that results not capture personality? Is "people who said in a questionnaire in ten different ways that they are not perceptive of others' feelings will be seen as insensitive" comparable to "people born in October will be seen as insensitive"?

The only potentially valid objections are that it doesn't categorise along principal components or "cleave reality at its joints".

Not to get all culture warry, but its really funny that younger girls see how being sexless blobs made their elder zoomer/milleniel sisters 'happy' and decided that being pretty actually might be more fun.

In any case, boo on you all for perving on 3D women. Superior 2D all the way. Mute by default, and now available in near realtime paperdoll.

*Borderline GF. Bipolar disorder != BPD

(If you stare long enough into the Abyss, it looks awfully like a pocket-pussy)

If you actually look at the ideas, the reactionary thesis is that most people do not desire to participate in politics and that the job of a respectable aristocracy is to fulfill this demand. Mass politics is a leftist import that only really features in syncretic forms of reaction like fascism.

This seems to have been the thesis statement of South Park republicanism until the showrunners began pouring most of their time into depicting Donald Trump being raped or otherwise humiliated. This may or may not have evolved into the modern day “radical centrism” popular with rdrama, where the only real terminal value seems to be not taking politics too seriously. See also people who are “grill pilled” and the like.

While I don’t blame Trump for this, his election has led to the politicization of damn near everything in society, presumably because he symbolizes a threat to the left that their capture of institutions is not as inevitable as they may have thought. We live in a world where Marvel comics have been written and drawn portraying Donald Trump as the villain MODOK, without a trace of irony. At least Genesis was self aware enough to use a Ronald Reagan puppet in their Land of Confusion music video.

It's a common criticism levied at reactionaries that they imagine themselves as aristocrats instead of the masses, but I don't think it connects because it's just not accurate.

I strongly agree, and the similar criticism that libertarians are “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” has long grated me as leftist projection. To the more extreme leftists, everything seems to be about power, often at the expense of principles. “No bad methods, only bad targets” and the like. It never once occurred to me, in my idealistic youth, that I should be voting “in my interest,” except in the esoteric sense that I supported constitutional republicanism and limited government involvement in people’s lives.

I certainly didn’t think of myself as a future millionaire. I mostly thought of myself as someone who wants to be left alone, by the government, by institutional powers, by everyone, and for others to have that same freedom. An old, forgotten soldier of the white capitalist patriarchy in a time when children my age were holding school assemblies to celebrate Barack Obama’s inauguration.

So to a certain kind of person, I suppose they can’t imagine why anyone who isn’t rich would support the freedom of rich people. They must be boot lickers or aspire to be rich themselves.

Could anyone tell who he was working for from the video, and did he said anything at all relating to their business?

Well

  1. We only have his side of the story for the claim so we don't even know if we was fired over the video to begin with

  2. Ok so you're an employer and you see an employee of yours on the internet in front of millions saying things that you view as disgusting and horrible and that you don't want in your business. Are you only allowed to fire them if they mention your company during it?

If you want to say "a company should be able to fire and hire whoever they want, for any reason" there's entire books of labour law that would need to be abolished to stop the government from being "authoritarian".

I never said that, but yes from the perspective of the business owner they do lose some rights from anti discrimination laws. That is just a fact.

Which ones we find as acceptable is a different discussion and if you believe that should extend to anything a person says outside of work (or maybe even things they do inside of work) then that's a coherent viewpoint, but we can acknowledge that this definitely takes away more rights from the business owner.

When I was a kid in that actual era, I listened to a ton of music from the 80’s and 90’s, as well as contemporary music. I think that’s extremely normal and doesn’t say much about the quality of current music.

(And here I thought I was a doomer)

This is a plausible scenario. It isn't necessarily the only way this could play out (did I ever mention we could all die?).

Most industrial societies today are willing to spend resources for the upkeep and care of the economically unproductive, or even those who are outright deadweights. The disabled, the very elderly, the mentally ill. We expect just about nothing back from them. (There are political concerns, but even so, the majority opinion is definitely not mandatory euthanasia, it certainly wouldn't poll well).

I have, in the past, explained at length that the expense of keeping every single human alive today in absolute luxury is negligible to a post-scarcity society like the ones full industrial automation and ASI can produce. A Kardashev 1 has about a thousand times our present energy budget, all 8 billion humans could live like kings.

If there is any altruistic impulse in those that hold the reins, then it really isn't a meaningful fraction of the light cone to keep at least us chumps happy. Doesn't mean they have to make us peers, or true equals, in the same manner the Saudi King doesn't hand out his own allowance to goat-herds. Such a life, well, I'd take it any day over what we have going right now, even if it's not optimal.

Maybe Bezos, Musk and Altman are bickering over galaxies or super-clusters. I'd be content enough with one of the hundred billion star systems in the Milky Way. I'd settle for a planet. That really isn't much.

Besides, a future of utter disempowerment or death isn't set in stone. We're literally building the machines today, it's not too late to make sure that they're programmed in a way that beats this very low bar.