Theme: Ethnoculture

  • WHY DOES CONFLICT EXIST? –“But very few humans, at least within a standard devi

    WHY DOES CONFLICT EXIST?
    –“But very few humans, at least within a standard deviation in IQ, really have a problem with one another. The problem is groups and proximity of groups, because groups express, and must express, cumulative needs of their demographic distribution of neoteny, aggression, sex bias, and intelligence.”–

    Why? Because we defend status more so than almost anything else of interest to us. Why? Self-Image(confidence(risk)) -> Status(Discount) -> Cooperation(Discount) > Opportunity(survival) -> Opportunity for Reproduction(persistence) And the only safe place for status for most is in groups where it’s possible to have some. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 21:13:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631402496332640258

  • IT’S JUST THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT THAT IS OUR ENEMY. (explaining differences that

    IT’S JUST THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT THAT IS OUR ENEMY.
    (explaining differences that cause conflicts)

    I would say that the Chinese GOVERNMENT is our enemy. But, the Chinese people are as much a victim of their government as are the Russian, Iranian, and North Korean people.

    WHITENESS is a technology (science) that is the optimum for human cooperation at the cost of higher stress because of the psychological and emotional costs of whiteness, in exchange for the high trust and vast rewards of high trust whiteness produces.

    And that all of these GOVERNMENTS are resisting modernity (WHITENESS) because they are low trust people, with despotic governments. And despotic governments emerge as diversity increases, and conflict increases. In the case of Russia and China, they are a low-trust people, and an empire over conquered people. In the case of Iran, they are a low trust and low IQ people in the world’s most diverse region. In the case of North Korea, they were influenced by Chinese authoritarianism, and authoritarianism because of a history of Chinese continuous colonization and conquest. And they cannot compete with the more advanced south Koreans.

    Likewise, because they are vehicles for the retention of tribalism (low trust ethics) at the cost of the commons(high trust ethics), where westerners have eliminated tribalism and clannishness to produce commons, I would say the Jewish and Muslim RELIGIONS are an enemy of western civilization.

    There is a problem of race differences in neoteny and therefore aggression. And there is a problem of race differences in class size, and therefore adaptation.

    And so there is a problem of cultural differences that accommodate and must accommodate race and class differences in culture.

    There is a problem of sex differences in cognitive and moral bias, within each race, class, and culture.

    But very few humans, at least within a standard deviation in IQ, really have a problem with one another. The problem is groups and proximity of groups, because groups express, and must express, cumulative needs of their demographic distribution of neoteny, aggression, sex bias, and intelligence.

    Cheers
    -Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 18:09:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631356165564030987

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631350354037346304

  • HOW CAN OTHERWISE INTELLIGENT COSMO ELITES BE SO NAIVE? (multiculturalism) Becau

    HOW CAN OTHERWISE INTELLIGENT COSMO ELITES BE SO NAIVE?
    (multiculturalism)
    Because the upper classes across groups have more in common with one another than with their middle and lower classes within the group – while dependence on the group’s cultural norms, traditions, values, prejudices presumptions, metaphysical assumptions, philosophies histories, myths, and religions increases as class decreases.
    Why? We tend each to consider ourselves, our beliefs, values, needs, wants, normal, despite our vast differences across the distributions. We’re all kinda dumb that way. And when we aren’t dumb, we’re virtue signaling, something that isn’t virtuous. It’s just signaling status.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 02:01:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631112336210526208

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631101503137107968

  • WHY IS INDIA THE MOST RACIST? BECAUSE OF MULTICULTURALISM. –“I believe many Ind

    WHY IS INDIA THE MOST RACIST? BECAUSE OF MULTICULTURALISM.
    –“I believe many Indians get opportunities to show overt racism because the country is the most multicultural on the planet. When you have 1.3 billion people of a dozen different cultures packed into a small space, what you get is more chances to show such attitudes.”–

    Just as an intellectual alone, I love India and India because the complexity is incomprehensible compared to every other civilization. And calls into question everything we presume about civilizational formation. But the truth is that they’ve been invaded but never truly conquered over and over again. While the gene pool is a gradient from NW to SE it covers so many different racial and ethnic groups, that gradient is a vast oversimplification. India and China are almost certain to be eternal if for no other reason than geography climate, scale, and population.

    Meanwhile, a tiny population of Europeans united the world, dragged it out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, disease, and suffering, and are being displaced from our homelands. By creating the multiculturalism that is the cause of racism and conflict, low social and political trust, corruption, stagnation, and absence of innovation, that ended the progress of the age of agriculture and caused a dark age of a thousand years.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 00:46:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631093546571685888

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631091566344302592


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    It’s not just 4k years or the cast system, but the complexity of the gene pool, number of invaders, and legacy of ‘white conquest’. Like most ‘brown’ people lighter skin is a higher status symbol internally. So people INSIDE the country are exposed to as much or more racism than people from OUTSIDE of india.

    I love that crazy country, culture, and people, because they’re the exception to every rule, and because of that they help us analyze ourselves and other cultures with greater depth, curiosity, and uncertainty.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1631091566344302592

  • It’s not just 4k years or the cast system, but the complexity of the gene pool,

    It’s not just 4k years or the cast system, but the complexity of the gene pool, number of invaders, and legacy of ‘white conquest’. Like most ‘brown’ people lighter skin is a higher status symbol internally. So people INSIDE the country are exposed to as much or more racism than people from OUTSIDE of india.

    I love that crazy country, culture, and people, because they’re the exception to every rule, and because of that they help us analyze ourselves and other cultures with greater depth, curiosity, and uncertainty.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 00:38:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631091566344302592

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631089911754358786

  • AFAIK (a) It’s from interbreeding. (b) It wasn’t always rape. Sometimes it was r

    AFAIK
    (a) It’s from interbreeding.
    (b) It wasn’t always rape. Sometimes it was rape (assuming often), sometimes it was romantic, sometimes it was voluntary, sometimes it was ‘for something’, and sometimes it was prostitution, and sometimes prostitution was a business. And it was ‘taken for granted’ at the time. Which we find repulsive but historically was a norm. Example: The reason Muslim women wear veils originated in demonstrating they weren’t prostitutes, given that prostitution via slavery was a mainstay of the Islamic world. That demonstration became universal in the culture.
    (c) just for humor: for all. Intents and purposes the races are species: phenotypical adaptation to local environments. The requirement for speciation is a bias in selection – not reproduction. However, humans’ evolutionary niche is adaptation itself, and humans (at least human males) are hyper-adaptive (meaning will have sex with things, animals, people, or anything at all). So human species (races) intermixed more often than other species, producing more hybridization, both with peers (sapiens sapiens) and will ancestors (Neanderthals, Denisovans, and possibly others.).
    (d) While we know the single primary direction of human evolution (Neotenenic evolution, trading aggression and impulse, for extended childhood cooperation and self-regulation), contrary to postwar anti-Darwinian dogma, the differences between the races are substantial and meaningful, and we are only now learning of some of the goods and bads that come from hybridization. (See Reich’s lab’s research.)
    (e) The evidence I’m carefully watching as it rolls out, is how much of this difference, most of which is a very minor variation that results in cognitive differences, results in increases in neuroticism or other cognitive or emotional errors.
    (f) Yet it’s obvious that any intermixing between two races (neotenic generations of mankind, benefits the less neotenic class producing the results that are an admixture (average) of the two (somewhat).


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-01 20:05:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631022851733028865

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631018055001313280

  • And if we can’t alter a genetic or cultural bias we can only explain and demonst

    And if we can’t alter a genetic or cultural bias we can only explain and demonstrate why separation into many different polities gives us societies that don’t conflict but still cooperate by trade.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-01 19:07:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631008181231951875

    Reply addressees: @GregDelaney15 @radiofreenw @patriciamdavis @ScottAdamsSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631004120797642777

  • ETYMOLOGY OF RACE, RACIST, RACISM (“People of a common ancestor”) Simple version

    ETYMOLOGY OF RACE, RACIST, RACISM
    (“People of a common ancestor”)
    Simple version. The concept and origin is ancient. Aristotle uses it.

    The meaning of RACE developed via the sense of “tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock” to “an ethnical stock, one of the great divisions of mankind having in common certain physical peculiarities” by 1774.

    The Modern Usage originates in the Fascist-and-Counter-Fascist propaganda of the 30’s. But appears largely in the 1950s as it was popularized by the Race Marxists.

    OUR DEFINITION (BEHAVIORAL ECON)
    –“Racism consists in assessing the cost of a group stereotype attribute against an individual of that group AFTER that individual has paid the cost to demonstrate their personal positive deviation away from that specific group stereotype attribute to you.” –Luke Weinhagen

    RACE
    race (n.2)
    [people of common descent] 1560s, “people descended from a common ancestor, class of persons allied by common ancestry,” from French race, earlier razza “race, breed, lineage, family” (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, which is of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish raza, Portuguese raça). Etymologists say it has no connection with Latin radix “root,” though they admit this might have influenced the “tribe, nation” sense, and race was a 15c. form of radix in Middle English (via Old French räiz, räis). Klein suggests the words derive from Arabic ra’s “head, beginning, origin” (compare Hebrew rosh).

    Original senses in English included “wines with characteristic flavor” (1520), “group of people with common occupation” (c. 1500), and “generation” (1540s).

    RACISM
    racism (n.)
    by 1928, in common use from 1935, originally in a European context, “racial supremacy as a doctrine, the theory that human characteristics and abilities are determined by race;” see racist, and compare the various senses in race (n.2) and racialism. Applied to American social systems from late 1930s.

    RACIST
    racist (n.)
    1932 (as an adjective from 1938), from race (n.2) + -ist. Racism (q.v.) is in use by 1928, originally in the context of fascist theories, and common from 1936. These words replaced earlier racialism (1882) and racialist (1910), both often used early 20c. in a British or South African context. There are isolated uses of racism from c. 1900.

    Earlier, race hatred (1852 of the Balkans, 1858 of British India, 1861 of white and black in America), race prejudice (1867 of English in India, 1869 of white and black in America, 1870 of the English toward Irish) were used, and, especially in 19c. U.S. political contexts, negrophobia. Anglo-Saxonism as “belief in the superiority of the English race” had been used (disparagingly) from 1860. Anti-Negro (adj.) is attested in British and American English from 1819.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-01 16:27:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630968101515698176

  • THE CONFLICT CAUSED BY CROSS-GROUP ELITE INTEGRATION AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LOWER

    THE CONFLICT CAUSED BY CROSS-GROUP ELITE INTEGRATION AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LOWER CLASSES https://twitter.com/ContraFabianist/status/1630934122251300871

  • Least to Most Racist Countries. (note that racial inequality is different from r

    Least to Most Racist Countries. (note that racial inequality is different from r

    Least to Most Racist Countries.
    (note that racial inequality is different from racism) https://t.co/aec71QbV8o


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-01 05:49:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630807398515343360