Theme: Ethnoculture

  • He’s Asian(Mongolian), not Russian(Slav/Finn). From Chadan, near the Mongolian b

    He’s Asian(Mongolian), not Russian(Slav/Finn). From Chadan, near the Mongolian border. It’s his natural state of mind. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 19:09:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731924453278535684

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731528633228087296


    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/731528633228087296

  • RT @MartianHoplite: I’m pretty sure “white supremacy” just means you aren’t coll

    RT @MartianHoplite: I’m pretty sure “white supremacy” just means you aren’t collaborating in your own genocide.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 19:05:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731923411811848192

  • WOMEN IN UKRAINE: WEAK vs FREE? (cultural observations) Its sad. When you finall

    WOMEN IN UKRAINE: WEAK vs FREE?

    (cultural observations)

    Its sad. When you finally realize that all the women here are beautiful, feminine, lacking western women’s near universal feminism induced insanity, but almost universally ‘broken’. And broken so much so that the only thing that they can love with any certainty and safety is their children. They describe this feeling of loving as ‘weak’. That they want to ‘feel weak’. They want to be safe enough to feel ‘weak’. And I am kind of emotionally stupid so I didn’t understand it really. Why would you consider being emotionally available, and therefore emotionally vulnerable as ‘weak’, rather than ‘free’? Unless that is, you perceive yourself in a low trust world of constant risk and threat.

    It’s freaking sad.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 16:01:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Eli Harman (@MartianHoplite): I’m pretty sure “white supremacy” just m

    Retweeted Eli Harman (@MartianHoplite):

    I’m pretty sure “white supremacy” just means you aren’t collaborating in your own genocide.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 15:05:00 UTC

  • Is Human Rights A Cultural Thing That Simply Does Not Apply To Cultures That Do Not Support Them? Why Or Why Not?

    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.
    (trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)

    (a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.

    (b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).

    (c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.

    (d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.

    (e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.

    (f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.

    (g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).

    My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.

    But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not

  • Is Human Rights A Cultural Thing That Simply Does Not Apply To Cultures That Do Not Support Them? Why Or Why Not?

    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.
    (trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)

    (a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.

    (b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).

    (c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.

    (d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.

    (e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.

    (f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.

    (g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).

    My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.

    But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not

  • If you immigrate to conquer by majoritarianism, then why can’t we conquer and ru

    If you immigrate to conquer by majoritarianism, then why can’t we conquer and rule? Why can’t we separate and alienate? Why can’t we vote by tribe?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 05:14:00 UTC

  • Keeping others out and down (Jewish elitism) -vs- bringing others up and in (Ary

    Keeping others out and down (Jewish elitism) -vs- bringing others up and in (Aryan Elitism) #NewRight ie: Western Aristocratic Egaliarianism


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-12 08:03:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/730669632068169728

  • Keeping others out and down (Jewish/Persian elitism) -vs- bringing others up and

    Keeping others out and down (Jewish/Persian elitism) -vs- bringing others up and in (Aryan Elitism) #NewRight ie: Western Aristocratic Egaliarianism


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-12 04:03:00 UTC

  • ****All philosophical systems merely seek to justify the evolutionary strategy o

    ****All philosophical systems merely seek to justify the evolutionary strategy of the group. Ergo, the none are ‘correct’ other than voluntary exchange between groups, which facilitates the incremental, evolutionary calculation of the common good for mankind: eugenic evolution.****


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-10 04:20:00 UTC