Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

(notes) 1) You (and jonathan) are correct that the internet has had the suggested effect, but incorrect that it has created a false impression. Instead, we all have a much more HONEST and UNFILTERED view of each group’s narrative and ambitions when absent curation by filters. The fact that you’re discounting this is rather odd, and I’ll expand this in a moment. 2) Pinker’s work misses (or artfully avoids the fact) that while violence has seemingly decreased, it has simply moved from physical attack on physical property to financialization and political parasitism that has redistributed middle and working class reproduction familial insurance, and retirement to the underclass and immigrants, and destroyed the nuclear family central to the USA’s groups strategy by malincentives in the name of virtues. 3) The principle problem in primary education is that the differences between racial groups is largely one of neotonic evolution in response to geographic demands. And that we mature at different rates, some faster and some slower, and that the rates of aggression and sensitivity to existential differences in irreversible sexual, social, economic, political, and market value come into play at different times, to different intensities. One cannot have any knowledge of the classroom and understand the violence that children are exposed to. Compare this to my current home in Ukraine where the homogeneity of the 1950’s is everywhere and conformity mandated everywhere, and civility still exists, despite being the only poor european country remaining. As far as I know the bottom has been repaired to wealth, health and nutrition and the Flynn effect is reversing. Why? It is more important to remove negative influences than try to create positive influences. We have lost vast portions of the always-troublesome white laboring and working classes to malincentives already. 4) The university isn’t as much a problem as pseudoscience: teach basic accounting, credit, micro and macro economic principles so that people undrestand the world we live in and why no alternative is possible. The university does not teach that the principle problem of differences in national income have to do with (a) degree of homogeneity, and (b) size of the underclass vs the middle class. Lastly is to cut the pseudosciences that women in particular create demand for, in exchange for vast student debt and no increase in calculative capacity. 5) The right does not see eugenic organization of society as oppression but domestication of humans just like all other animals and plants. Western civilization has been aggressively eugenic for all of its recorded history, with no myth of equality whatsoever. Limiting the damage of the bottom is seen as a necessary good. (The male reproductive strategy, versus the left’s female reproductive strategy.) 6) Neither of you take the position that just as the scandinavians naturally diverge in specialization under equality of choice and opportunity rather than converge, (despite being tiny homogenous 5-10m populations), that in larger groups it is in the intersets of groups of separate interests of separate strategies, to separate and produce norms, traditions, commons, and institutions, that are preferable for each group. 7) The Jewish question is driven almost entirely by (a) the jewish continuous advocacy for leftism and records of what they have done elsewhere, (b) activism in the process of undermining the constitution as a document of reciprocity (natural law) by selective advancement of cases before the court, and activism in suppression of western identitarianism (SPLC), (b) dominance in media and entertainment, and (c) demonstrated superiority at extemporaneous discourse in an era of high demand for extemporaneous speech in the media. It’s very easy to survey any publication for ant-white posts and determine the ethnicity of the authors, and this drives the perception. The use of argumentative techniques of poly-ethicalism, ir-reciprocity, relativism, combined with shaming, rallying, gossip, and reputation destruction, and of Pilpul(sophism) and Critique(straw manning extension of rallying shaming etc); 8) The right is terribly empirical AND hyperbolic in its interpretation of empirical evidence. The denial of HBD, the Negative consequences of diversity, the reality of IQ and the value of every single point of IQ in the standard of living of the people, the uniqueness of high trust in northern europeans, the general hostility against white people is endemic. (Moreover, you are mistaken about the percentage of the population that is aggressively advancing revolutionary activism. It’s just underground, and like all underground movements produces status signaling as a reward for participants. (The zero turnout in DC was by design.)) 9) There is no evidence that the mutli-culturalism in this country will succeed any more than hit has in any other region, particularly the middle east, south america, india, and africa – or europe for that matter. All data I know of says it INCREASES DEMAND FOR AUTHORITARIANISM, which, as I understand it, is, and has been, the left’s objective. 10) Peoples demonstrate kin selection except at the top, are more dependent on shared information and the discounts on kin vs non-kin cooperation at the bottom, differ in the distribution of the two traits most influential in social, economic, political, and technological development. Those of us in the high standard deviations from the mean are too insulated from the perceptions of common people – and the relative immutability of those perceptions as necessary for preservation of their will to continue to act in service of themselves and others. 11) Outside of china there is no evidence that the human capital reserves that existed prior to 1900, exist any longer, and the period by which a backward State could use pre-existing western technology and local resources to leverage a growth of the middle class has passed. (Note: I do not understand why chinese intelligence doesn’t pay the rural IQ cost like the rest of us, or if there is something in the collection of data or effect of literacy in character memorization that I don’t understand.). 12) The value of women added to the economy has been completely absorbed by increases in taxation. Ergo we have merely engaged in reproductive redistribution, and to the right wing white male, that just translates into genocide. Which is what is driving the right. “We were too kind, and let them win. With just that one law under johnson, they lied and we let them win.” My observation of both of you which is my observation of most people in the academy, is that understanding of economics in incentives, in behavior, in the micro economics that are perceptible to each of us, and macro economics that are not observable are counter to our intuitions, is as necessary a method of cognition as reading and mathematics, and that programming, being an operational and existential rather than sets and ideal is superior to mathematics. There is no commons possible to construct that is superior to upward redistribution of reproduction, and no harm that can be done to a polity other than it’s reversal. Lastly: We were wrong about south africa. The same is happening in southern brazil. And unless these are corrected the narrative will continue to accelerate.

(notes) 1) You (and jonathan) are correct that the internet has had the suggested effect, but incorrect that it has created a false impression. Instead, we all have a much more HONEST and UNFILTERED view of each group’s narrative and ambitions when absent curation by filters. The fact that you’re discounting this is rather odd, and I’ll expand this in a moment. 2) Pinker’s work misses (or artfully avoids the fact) that while violence has seemingly decreased, it has simply moved from physical attack on physical property to financialization and political parasitism that has redistributed middle and working class reproduction familial insurance, and retirement to the underclass and immigrants, and destroyed the nuclear family central to the USA’s groups strategy by malincentives in the name of virtues. 3) The principle problem in primary education is that the differences between racial groups is largely one of neotonic evolution in response to geographic demands. And that we mature at different rates, some faster and some slower, and that the rates of aggression and sensitivity to existential differences in irreversible sexual, social, economic, political, and market value come into play at different times, to different intensities. One cannot have any knowledge of the classroom and understand the violence that children are exposed to. Compare this to my current home in Ukraine where the homogeneity of the 1950’s is everywhere and conformity mandated everywhere, and civility still exists, despite being the only poor european country remaining. As far as I know the bottom has been repaired to wealth, health and nutrition and the Flynn effect is reversing. Why? It is more important to remove negative influences than try to create positive influences. We have lost vast portions of the always-troublesome white laboring and working classes to malincentives already. 4) The university isn’t as much a problem as pseudoscience: teach basic accounting, credit, micro and macro economic principles so that people undrestand the world we live in and why no alternative is possible. The university does not teach that the principle problem of differences in national income have to do with (a) degree of homogeneity, and (b) size of the underclass vs the middle class. Lastly is to cut the pseudosciences that women in particular create demand for, in exchange for vast student debt and no increase in calculative capacity. 5) The right does not see eugenic organization of society as oppression but domestication of humans just like all other animals and plants. Western civilization has been aggressively eugenic for all of its recorded history, with no myth of equality whatsoever. Limiting the damage of the bottom is seen as a necessary good. (The male reproductive strategy, versus the left’s female reproductive strategy.) 6) Neither of you take the position that just as the scandinavians naturally diverge in specialization under equality of choice and opportunity rather than converge, (despite being tiny homogenous 5-10m populations), that in larger groups it is in the intersets of groups of separate interests of separate strategies, to separate and produce norms, traditions, commons, and institutions, that are preferable for each group. 7) The Jewish question is driven almost entirely by (a) the jewish continuous advocacy for leftism and records of what they have done elsewhere, (b) activism in the process of undermining the constitution as a document of reciprocity (natural law) by selective advancement of cases before the court, and activism in suppression of western identitarianism (SPLC), (b) dominance in media and entertainment, and (c) demonstrated superiority at extemporaneous discourse in an era of high demand for extemporaneous speech in the media. It’s very easy to survey any publication for ant-white posts and determine the ethnicity of the authors, and this drives the perception. The use of argumentative techniques of poly-ethicalism, ir-reciprocity, relativism, combined with shaming, rallying, gossip, and reputation destruction, and of Pilpul(sophism) and Critique(straw manning extension of rallying shaming etc); 8) The right is terribly empirical AND hyperbolic in its interpretation of empirical evidence. The denial of HBD, the Negative consequences of diversity, the reality of IQ and the value of every single point of IQ in the standard of living of the people, the uniqueness of high trust in northern europeans, the general hostility against white people is endemic. (Moreover, you are mistaken about the percentage of the population that is aggressively advancing revolutionary activism. It’s just underground, and like all underground movements produces status signaling as a reward for participants. (The zero turnout in DC was by design.)) 9) There is no evidence that the mutli-culturalism in this country will succeed any more than hit has in any other region, particularly the middle east, south america, india, and africa – or europe for that matter. All data I know of says it INCREASES DEMAND FOR AUTHORITARIANISM, which, as I understand it, is, and has been, the left’s objective. 10) Peoples demonstrate kin selection except at the top, are more dependent on shared information and the discounts on kin vs non-kin cooperation at the bottom, differ in the distribution of the two traits most influential in social, economic, political, and technological development. Those of us in the high standard deviations from the mean are too insulated from the perceptions of common people – and the relative immutability of those perceptions as necessary for preservation of their will to continue to act in service of themselves and others. 11) Outside of china there is no evidence that the human capital reserves that existed prior to 1900, exist any longer, and the period by which a backward State could use pre-existing western technology and local resources to leverage a growth of the middle class has passed. (Note: I do not understand why chinese intelligence doesn’t pay the rural IQ cost like the rest of us, or if there is something in the collection of data or effect of literacy in character memorization that I don’t understand.). 12) The value of women added to the economy has been completely absorbed by increases in taxation. Ergo we have merely engaged in reproductive redistribution, and to the right wing white male, that just translates into genocide. Which is what is driving the right. “We were too kind, and let them win. With just that one law under johnson, they lied and we let them win.” My observation of both of you which is my observation of most people in the academy, is that understanding of economics in incentives, in behavior, in the micro economics that are perceptible to each of us, and macro economics that are not observable are counter to our intuitions, is as necessary a method of cognition as reading and mathematics, and that programming, being an operational and existential rather than sets and ideal is superior to mathematics. There is no commons possible to construct that is superior to upward redistribution of reproduction, and no harm that can be done to a polity other than it’s reversal. Lastly: We were wrong about south africa. The same is happening in southern brazil. And unless these are corrected the narrative will continue to accelerate.