Form: Mini Essay

  • Collective Rituals Invoke the Pack Response

    If I teach you to stand at attention, put your hand over your heart, and speak the pledge of allegiance to our flag, or teach you to speak the lords prayer (a pledge of allegiance) while kneeling, hands clasped, and both actions, once habituated, fill us with ‘a sense of peace’ when performed as a group, what is the difference? The central issue is this: we need those collective rituals to invoke the pack response which generates intuitionistic trust among superpredators who do not necessarily trust one another, and who compete in all other walks of life OTHER than the ritual. Those oaths to a proxy of each other are useful to associate with that response.

  • Mass Media and The Explosion of Sophism

    –“Invention of mass media led to explosion of sophism. Add in social media so you can see what everybody is thinking, and it becomes clear – most people are just operating on instinct. Even most right-wingers. (What Haidt points out is readily observable. People cherry-pick data according to the narrative their instinct causes them to embrace.) It just so happens that the right-wing instinct builds civilization and the left instinct destroys it. Point is, this modern explosion of sophism (leftists overloading the discourse via mass media) hasn’t actually changed the underlying dynamic, which is the same as in the previous battles between the two instincts.”— —John Mark

  • Mass Media and The Explosion of Sophism

    –“Invention of mass media led to explosion of sophism. Add in social media so you can see what everybody is thinking, and it becomes clear – most people are just operating on instinct. Even most right-wingers. (What Haidt points out is readily observable. People cherry-pick data according to the narrative their instinct causes them to embrace.) It just so happens that the right-wing instinct builds civilization and the left instinct destroys it. Point is, this modern explosion of sophism (leftists overloading the discourse via mass media) hasn’t actually changed the underlying dynamic, which is the same as in the previous battles between the two instincts.”— —John Mark

  • THE REALITY OF RACES, SUBRACES, MINOR RACES Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Fami

    THE REALITY OF RACES, SUBRACES, MINOR RACES

    Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families and Classes can interbreed, but differences matter. The primary differences are the degree of neoteny (white and east asian) vs deeper maturity (semites, iranics, africans, and australoids), the more feminine or masculine structure of the brain (yes really), and the size of the underclass due largely to winter climates, manorial farming, and close cohabitation in winters while caring for animals. (Or in the european and chinese cases, aggressive use of criminal punishment – particularly european hanging of large portions of the underclasses every generation).

    Using size of class, degree of neoteny or maturity, and balance of masculine and feminine traits, each of the Races, Subraces, an sometimes Tribes, has evolved (adapted) for certain excellences that are geography, climate, means of production, and method of socialization dependent.

    Human domestication like animal domestication, uses neotonic selection to suppress sexual maturity and preserve the features and cooperative intuitions of youth. The goal for any polity is to increase intelligence, industriousness, and trust. Counter to our assumptions the San (the oldest continuous tribe) were more gentle, and humans appear to have become increasingly AGGRESSIVE in some regions and increasingly GENTLE in other regions, which is easily measurable by group testosterone distributions, rates and ages of maturity, and ‘hardiness’ of features (deeper maturity). By the upward redistribution of reproduction (china, europe, and jewish) you increase the distribution of neoteny in the public largely by the reduction of rates of reproduction of the underclasses. The simple fact is that many people are a harm to their fellows simply because they are a drag on norms, laws, traditions, values, and institutions, literacy, technology, and the work force capacity – perhaps most importantly making a sufficient middle class to produce a voluntary organization of possible impossible, and forcing the dependence upon familial corruption (india, south america, south europe, all of islam) despite access to trade routes.

    THE OPTIMUM POLITICAL ORDER

    The optimum political order is homogenous – diversity is always and everywhere bad for obvious and well documented reasons. It trades short term profits for long term costs that destroy the political order and reduce it to levantine, south american, and indian levels of poverty and corruption.

    The optimum political order is Small – The only value of scale military power to exploit others. The only value of federations is to produce defense of trade routes and prohibit rent seeking (corruption) on those trade routes.

    THE EUGENICISTS WERE RIGHT.

    And any group of size (the east asians) who succeed will leave the rest of the world behind. The europeans managed by the late middle ages to nearly eliminate their underclasses. This is why european intelligence is dropping (the flynn effect is reversing). Not because of individuals. But because of restoration of their underclasses. If Norway can lose IQ (they have) then any group can.

    Smarter people are more moral – simply because they can afford to be.

    “NO MORE LIES”


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 20:05:00 UTC

  • THE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC ATTACK ON CIVILIZATION. The curse of postmodern pseudoscie

    THE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC ATTACK ON CIVILIZATION.

    The curse of postmodern pseudoscience in most of the other answers. Postmodernism like Marxism was designed, like Abrahamic Religions, as an attack on European Peoples (civilization), to eradicate our civlization in the modern world just as Abrahamic religion was used to eradicate the five great civilizations of the ancient world: Roman New Europe), Byzantine (old europe), Anatolian, Persian (Iranic), Egyptian, and North African. All those civilizations were destroyed by the last attempt at cultural destruction.

    Why? Marxism/Postmodernism in the modern world, and Abrahamic Religion in the ancient world foster dysgenic rapid reproduction of the underclasses reversing genetic domestication under small farm mixed agrarianism, effectively weaponizing reproduction and ignorance and superstition against civilization.

    There are reasons that the Han, Koreans,Japanese and Europeans succeeded and other civilizations failed to maintain rates of innovation. The reason is that the Han, Koreans and Japanese remained insular and homogeneous, and whites succeed as long as they also remain homogeneous and practice eugenic reproduction through manorialism (meritocracy).

    The rest of the world did the opposite and the sizes of their underclasses pose such a burden that they cannot produce sufficient middle and upper classes to produce high trust commercially successful political orders.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 20:04:00 UTC

  • ON MANNERBUND I agree with the ‘sentiment’ of the Mannerbund narrative, but I ex

    ON MANNERBUND

    I agree with the ‘sentiment’ of the Mannerbund narrative, but I express it as ‘it all begins with the militia’, and the militia functions on the brotherhood of warriors. I disagree with the Social Matters / Mannerbund in that the fact that our civilization begins there, does not mean it is SUFFICIENT to defeat enemies, or that much can be made of that ‘feeling’ alone. What binds people are incentive to bind with one another.

    Many of you are seeking the sense of safety and power in the pack and the restoration of our institutions of brotherhood throughout society due to the intentional destruction of them by the deconstructionists in marxism, femininsm, postmodernism, who exploit a ready willingness in our female population to defect by sh-t testing us.

    But you are making the mistake of an intuitionistic bias that is VERY RARE, instead of providing MAJOR incentives (military, political, economic, personal wealth, agency, status, and a plan to get there you are searching in the dark for emotional support, rallying without resources to do so.

    Those institutions of brotherhood are the last good we will achieve, not the first. They are a premium achieved for having worked to obtain military, political, economic, wealth, status benefits.

    Men will REPORT affiliation for sentiments.

    Men will DEMONSTRATE conviction for material rewards.

    The feeling of safety of the pack comes only from the shared experience of working as a pack to produce an outcome which provides an alternative to the present, yet promises only chaos because of an ABSENCE OF VISION.

    I do not operate from your perspective but work backward to achieve that emotion through demonstrated action together by the use of incentives to achieve material success.

    The answer to our problem is to provide an actionable plan the end result is mannerbund.

    That actionable plan is a means of altering the status quo such that POSSIBLE demands are met.

    One does not defeat a fortress by direct attack, but by starving it. One does not threaten potential allies but pays them off. One does not create incentives for defenders of the fortress by promises of suffering, but promising them returns.

    Once the fortress is won, the holdouts must be flayed and salted and hung from the walls for their crimes.

    All revolutions are suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect.

    It’s time to win.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 19:16:00 UTC

  • Religion just means ‘education’. The problem is we understand physical ed, intel

    Religion just means ‘education’. The problem is we understand physical ed, intellectual ed, and vocational ed, but only the stoics understood education of intuition in a disciplined fashion. The only ‘evil’ method of educating intuition that was invented was abrahamism.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 16:32:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035565881810513921

    Reply addressees: @rodnovermujahid

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035556699766239232


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035556699766239232

  • If I teach you to stand at attention, put your hand over your heart, and speak t

    If I teach you to stand at attention, put your hand over your heart, and speak the pledge of allegiance to our flag, or teach you to speak the lords prayer (a pledge of allegiance) while kneeling, hands clasped, and both actions, once habituated, fill us with ‘a sense of peace’ when performed as a group, what is the difference?

    The central issue is this: we need those collective rituals to invoke the pack response which generates intuitionistic trust among superpredators who do not necessarily trust one another, and who compete in all other walks of life OTHER than the ritual. Those oaths to a proxy of each other are useful to associate with that response.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:59:00 UTC

  • BRITISH VS AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEMS I think the open question is between the briti

    BRITISH VS AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEMS

    I think the open question is between the british model of professional litigators of the court, and professional advocates for the individual, and the american model without the intermediary position.

    It is much harder to ‘pull bullshit’ in court in the british model. It is much easier to ‘pull bullshit’ in legislation in the british model. I am not yet sure if the house of lords is superior to the supreme court or not, but there is good reason to think it might be. Or, that the lords AND a supreme court would be superior to either condition.

    American constitution is better given the fact that our founding documents (declaration, constitution, bill of rights) are written, and consistent, if not as consistent as we could make them today – and aside from the fact that one requires all three documents to make sense of the constitution or the bill of rights becuase the natural law of reciprocity is not stated, and instead states men are equal rather than must be equal for the law of reciprocity (natural law) to fulfill it’s purpose of harmony.

    Conversely, the american model is far more common law (meaning permissive – less regulation) than the british model (meaning impermissive – more regulation).

    So this means that while americans have a superior juridical presumption (optimistic leading to more innovation, but more court disputes to resolve) while the british have less litigation to resolve because of higher regulation. I think the impact on the cultures is vast and the regulation culture in the uk has led to the feminization of the british male in less than eighty years.

    The optimum is probably the mixture of the two systems, with near zero regulation in america, and adding the intermediary between the lawyer and the court so that less nonsense occurs in court.

    It can be embarrasing to listen to young lawyers speak for their clients in court, rather than tell them “there is no fking way this is goonna fly so I won’t take your money”.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 10:51:00 UTC

  • CAN SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS BY MATURING POST HASTE by Brandon Hayes [Stop making just

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYR0H3DzXgWE CAN SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS BY MATURING POST HASTE

    by Brandon Hayes

    [Stop making justificatory arguments about feelings]

    The convergence points of the brightest minds are obvious to anyone that is looking (an example below):

    —“It’s the women who are going to stand-up to the women who are just trying to destroy conversation; and I think that that is something where, Jordan has talked about it; none of the men want to make this argument, it would be better optically if it were women saying “Hey, some of us are out of line! this is too much and it’s too aggressive and you can’t say “mansplaining” about EVERYTHING.” — Eric Weinstein

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYR0H3DzXg

    ———–

    “WHY DO WOMEN ENGAGE IN NAXALT?”

    —“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”— A Friend

    It’s not complicated:

    Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success.

    Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism).

    Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”,

    -vs-

    Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth”

    Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefitting from the division of labor between the genders.

    The question is, now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism).

    To men, everything is a distribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.

    – Curt Doolittle

    —-

    We ought not destroy competing packs to benefit the herds. Herds can’t respond efficiently to rapidly changing environments; what you get instead of problem solving is panic.

    Panic among animals shortens their time horizons (they make quicker decisions less thought through) for shorter term gains. This mistake accumulates until the day of reckoning comes about. The day all of your “not planning for the future” comes back to haunt you.

    Strong feelings are not the equivalent to being correct. There isn’t a feel good substitute for truth; no matter how much we’d like there to be!

    https://www.facebook.com/brandon.hayes.5851/posts/10103416983160261Updated Aug 31, 2018, 9:56 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:56:00 UTC