Shitposting in real-life: Heckling the hecklers

Richard Spencer gave a speech at Texas A&M university yesterday, which I am sure many of you have heard about. I live within several hours of A&M so it was a good opportunity for me to both see Spencer and a Shitlib rally in real life. I invited Brett Stevens to join me as well, so I also got to meet another dark enlightenment writer in real life for the first time as well. We got together a bit early and had a bit of dinner while discussing everything we hate about the modern world. It was great. Of course, I also went to the after party to talk to all the crime-thinkers in attendance including Spencer himself. My phone had died at that point, unfortunately, so I only have some (shitty) pictures from earlier in the night. Mostly of the protests occurring outside. I figured I would share them. Here is the speech itself:

Martin Luther Kang, respected womanizer and pseudo-preacher

Some Indians with a dot, I would guess, holding up a Martin Luther King quote. It is a nonsense sentiment for several reasons of course. Nothing in the laws of nature say we have to get along with anyone, or tolerate their close proximity. Historically, the answer to diversity conflict has been one side exterminating the other. Without consciously led change in direction towards peaceful separation, it is obvious that this is the course we are heading for. It isn’t clear that our efforts will actually be able to prevent that in favor of voluntary, or at least non-violent, co-existence at a distance. This is primarily because it involves convincing leftists that forcing themselves and their retardation upon us isn’t good for their health. Without actually bloodying them up a bit, I don’t believe they will ever be able to grasp this, unfortunately. They are really, really dumb rabbits with not much in the way of ammunition or testosterone. And these safe space rabbits are very, very intent on forcing the sane portion of the population to fall in line. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

Lugenpresse

Lugenpresse

Here is a picture of the lugenpresse making up some bullshit (I would assume). Plenty of rioters are behind her for a back drop.

butt sniffing

Lugenpresse looking for a butt to sniff

I am not sure what she is doing, but I would assume she is looking for a butt to sniff.

Not yet.

Not yet.

Keep pissing off middle America with your bullshit, and you might end up regretting your mislabeling as they decide to just own it (agree and amplify 100X….). If they are all going to be called Nazi’s anyway, might as well get the perks of ethnic homogeneity that comes with the genuine article. At least, that is what a growing number of people are starting to think. Leftists, beware what you summon from the abyss!

no platform

Obviously that didn’t happen, but not for want of trying. Straight out of Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

Hostile ethnic alien

If you love Mexico so much, you should move back there.

Latino Jew?

I don’t even know what to make of that. Probably some jew didn’t get the memo and took their miscegenation pill on accident. This creates a problem for us though, because where should we deport him? Decisions, decisions. Also, no my mom didn’t know I was there. Not sure why that matters. Oh, right. Leftists are mostly children trapped in adult bodies. We will probably have a good laugh about it the next time we talk.

Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice

Hard to read, but the caption delivers the doublespeak clearly. This sage piece of cognitive dissonance also comes from our latino jew [the other side of his sign]. Actually, I think it is a bit more apt for our side than theirs. The time is over for tolerating leftist intolerance of us. They need to be removed by whatever means necessary.

Lolbertard

I saw this sign and flag dangling around each other and asked the guy in the foreground to pose for the picture.  Yep, flag carrying communists were out to protest Spencer. After the picture was taken, I talked with this guy a bit. I didn’t reveal my power level though since I was in the middle of a bunch of crazed communists looking for blood. He told me that he was actually a libertarian and didn’t support the communists. If you are a libertarian, why are you protesting a guy giving a speech? What exactly is libertarian about no-platforming? Even if you believed in unprincipled exceptions in this case, why would a libertarian stand side by side fucking communists to protest anything? Those fucks want a one-world centralized government which makes life miserable for as many people as feasibly possible. Not to mention if he actually read deeper into the philosophical basis of the alt-right and dark enlightenment, he would easily see we have much more to offer in terms of economic and social freedom broadly in line with the libertarian ideal (while not actually being that ideal, we are trying to be practical about it). The guy was very confused, obviously. And he seemed it in talking to me. He probably got swept up in the excitement swirling around campus and lost his principles. Stupid, but what do you expect from an 18 year old? I didn’t want to give his face away, though, so I employed my truly shitty paint skills to cover his face up. Do you like my rendition of a lolbertard?

Spencer on stage

I didn’t really get many great pictures in the event, but here is one to show I got in. Brett’s wife and I weren’t on the guest list so we almost didn’t make it in on account of capacity limits. Brett asked to be added in advance, which I didn’t think of doing. We had to wait in this line outside and were in the last group of ten people to be allowed in. Talk about cutting it close! Anyway, the main reason this was even a problem is because of all the prig-progs who were going in to be disruptive and shout out stupid shit. People who were legitimately interested in seeing Spencer were not allowed in because of these shitlibs. So that pissed me off, and I got even more pissed off when they started shouting out stupid shit and interrupting Spencer. These leftists were truly novice shit-posters and their interruptions weren’t even funny. Shouting “You’re a racist” is really unoriginal. I decided to join in on the party and heckle the hecklers myself. The difference between myself and them is I have been hard shitposting for years and can come up with some well-timed quips. (Ask Brett). Of course, I do this under alts and in places that either accept shitposting or deserve it (leftist forums). I think the most popular shout-out based on the reactions of shitlords around me where when blacks were claiming it was they who built America and the white man stole it all from them. I “agreed” with them by informing everyone that sky-scrapers were made out of cotton. If you are going to be disruptive, at least get a laugh. Also, if you can’t stop the leftists from causing obnoxious disruptions, the least you can do is embarrass them with superior right wing shitposting. I like to think that myself and the others who participated in this counter-disruption helped things by putting the leftists in their rhetorical place. And also let them know that if they actually started a riot they weren’t going to get out without getting banged up. Intimidation works both ways.

There were several occasions where fat black “women” were being very mouthy and almost initiated fights. Another weird looking dude tried to rush Spencer on the stage, but he was stopped and I think arrested. I don’t know for sure but he looked like a black albino from behind. Cultural appropriation anyone? Anyway, there was lots of grandstanding. One chic went up and complained Spencer offended her by calling someone in the crowd an autist, then she ran away crying and another chic gave her a hug. Their moment of “bravery” and solidarity was thoroughly ruined, however, by me loudly mocking her as a special snowflake. That got some good laughs. Spencer handled it all without breaking a sweat. I know I couldn’t have done that with going off on those retards. He really has mastered the rule of cool.

pinopepe

Free helicopter rides

This artistic shitlord was holding up this sign during the speech and it was quite entertaining to the rest of us. After we got out, but before we went to the after-party, I asked him to pose for this picture. Again, I covered up his face so that he wouldn’t get doxxed. At least not from any picture that I upload. Please marvel at my wondrous ms paint skills. There isn’t too much to report about the after party except to say it was fun. One guy claimed /r/darkenlightenment was helpful in red-pilling him. Always glad to be of service.

Seeing all those leftists really brought it home to me that these people hate us. And by us, I don’t just mean reactionaries or alt-right shitlords. I mean every white person in this country. Especially those who have even the most modest amount of reservation about our demographic replacement or wealth transfers from working class whites to the ethnic underclass. They hate us and want us destroyed. They have no intention of listening to reasoning or respecting our right to exist and disagree with them. I really do not know how we will ever be able to shed ourselves of these parasites without the use of force, and probably massive force. At some level, I think the underclass and other leftists recognize that their existence is dependent on us. Where else would they be able to steal the money to pay for welfare? Whether that welfare be make-work “professorships” or the official thing. If we collectively decided we were not going to pay for any of their shit anymore and would rather watch them starve, they would starve. And they know it. They aren’t capable of taking care of themselves. To stop us from collectively recognizing that we don’t need these ingrates and would in fact be better off without them, they are resorting to these intimidation campaigns and gaslighting the white population. “You raped, murdered, pillaged this country from other races, especially blacks. This country was stolen by whites from the work of blacks.” They need this lie not only to prop up their fragile egos, but also to keep the white population complacent in its current abused position. They are desperate for the lie to be maintained because its loss is an existential threat. Unfortunately for them the cracks are widening and white guilt will be cast off like so many other lies. They themselves will be cast off shortly after.

As long as we stay committed, we will change this culture and we will take our country back. Stick to your guns folks.

 

[EDIT: This dailymail article has a lot more photos.]

Share Button

Star Trek: Voyager’s anti-false rape allegation episode. No really.

[Image source, no affiliation with atavisionary.com]

[There will be spoilers, I will note where they start]

Star Trek has long been known to be thinly concealed propaganda for the left. In almost every episode (and movie) there is a “moral” of the story which (almost) always coincides with some popular leftist cause at the time. This harkens back to the original series such as in episode “Let that be your last battlefield” where the people from an alien species had a black colored half and a white colored half with two different races. Each race was basically the mirror image of the other, where one had black on the right side and the other had white on the right side and vice versa for the left side. This was obvious commentary on the contemporary civil rights movement with the (verifiably false) “moral” that we are all the same and differences between races are only skin deep. In the subsequent series this pattern of leftist hugboxyness only became more pronounced.

However, there are the occasional and sometimes hard to fathom exceptions. For example, Klingons transformed from a vaguely hispanic and relatively reasonable race (though also treacherous and full of guile) to a black race full of directly confrontational and violent barbarians. Perhaps this was some thinly veiled semitic racism? Could it be a result of greater interaction between the entertainment community and black musicians during the 70s and 80s between the end of the first series and the beginning of the movie franchise? One can only guess…

Of all the series, Star Trek: Voyager is known to be one of the worst offenders with their not so subtle promotion of left-wing values. The captain is a woman, the first officer is a native American, the chief engineer is a miscegenated half Klingon-half Human (played by a Hispanic woman), an Asian science officer (actually, that one is pretty legit), and the security chief is black. Quite the diversity utopia. There were only two white male main roles, and one of which was an unresponsible man-boy (Tom Paris). You can imagine what the plot lines were like in general. Voyoger was also really bad at using nonsensical technobabble.

So when I say that there was actually an episode which came out AGAINST false rape accusations I can understand why you would be incredulous. That sort of thing is incredibly out of character for Star Trek. However, the 1998 episode “Retrospect” does just that. I was a bit too young to retain an understanding of the contemporaneous cultural atmosphere of the time, but something tells me that false rape accusations were happening. Also, feminists might not have quite achieved the cultural hegemony necessary to prevent something like this from going through. Either that, or it was the writers choice to replace “rape” with “unwanted examinations” which allowed it to slip by the admittedly low-iq feminist commissars at the unofficial ministry of culture. [Spoiler alert, watch the episode now if you don’t want to see the plot first]

So let me give you a run-down of the plot. Voyager is at a trading planet looking to purchase better weapons since despite their 100% peaceful and reasonable intentions they always seem to piss off everyone they come into contact with. There is clearly something wrong with every other alien species in the galaxy. They enter into a trade negotiation with a merchant named Kovin. During the negotiation, Seven of Nine goes to Kovin’s workshop to look through some of his merchandise. Seven of Nine was basically the hot chic used as fan service for all the fat, lonely star trek nerds. The choice of her in the role of “non-consensual, physical examinee” really emphasizes the episode as a false rape allegation allegory. Anyway, while she is looking at a rifle, something overloads and she is hit by a gratuitous discharge. This causes some damage, but otherwise she is ok. Or so we think.

Later, after agreeing to purchase a new weapon for the ship, Kovin and Seven of Nine are working at a console in engineering and get into a bit of an argument about technobabble configurations. Kovin is a passionate guy so he moderately pushes seven out of the way to get to the console. She gets pissed and clocks him right in the nose. This leads to an investigation and the Doctor scans Seven to see if anything is amiss in her female borg brain. Unsurprisingly there is. As he is trying to perform the scans she starts p.m.s.-ing (anxiety attack) about medical procedures and makes the doctor let her up. He ends up having to sedate her to do the scans. It turns out that she had a neurotransmitter imbalance or some other nonsense which might “be a result of suppressed memories.”

The Doctor decides to take it upon himself to become a psychologist and do some sort of hypnotic regression therapy to see what these suppressed memories are. With the Doctor’s “help” Seven “discovers” that the incident in Kovin’s lab wasn’t an accident at all, but that he had intentionally shot her so that he could do invasive medical procedures to recover borg technology from Seven’s body in the hopes of creating new weapons to sell.  It seems that even in the 24th century, humans will still have yet to accept the fact that suppressed memories “uncovered” during therapy sessions are almost certainly crap. This alleged non-consensual and physically invasive examination was the clear stand in for rape.

With the help of the local authorities the Voyager crew begins an investigation into the incident. Kovin is understandably quite distressed and angrily professes his innocence. He also distrusts the objectivity of the crew, and explains how according to his local government’s policy or maybe just culture that even an allegation proven to be false could ruin a man. He frantically worried about his own life and livelihood being over. How no one would ever trust him again. Of course, the Voyager investigator promises him a fair shake at things. Since this is fantasy fiction, we can believe this promise.

Meanwhile, the Doctor spends time with Seven and asks her how she feels about the whole thing. At first she has no feelings at all, but then the doctor gives the following impassioned speech:

Doctor: How are you feeling?
SEVEN: I am undamaged.
Doctor: But how do you feel? Seven, your physical scars have healed, but the psychological effects are still there. You’ll have to deal with them.
SEVEN: For what purpose?
Doctor: In order to heal. Kovin attacked you, violated your rights as an individual. It’s important that you recognise that, so you can understand any hostility or resentment you might be feeling.
SEVEN: Resentment is a human trait. It has no structure, no function. I want no part of it.
Doctor: You’re going to have to begin accepting the fact that your human feelings exist, and that suppressing them can damage you.
SEVEN: If I am not aware of these feelings, how can I express them?
Doctor: Let me ask you this. What would have happened if Kovin had tried to take Borg technology directly from the Collective?
SEVEN: He would have been assimilated.
Doctor: Precisely. Which is why he chose you. He could get what he wanted without running any risks.
SEVEN: It was my individuality which made me vulnerable.
Doctor: Exactly. He violated that individuality. What he did is an affront to everything you are, Borg and Human.
SEVEN: It was the act of a coward.
Doctor: Yes! Someone who was willing to use you in the cruellest way so that he could create new weapons and sell them.
SEVEN: I believe I’m beginning to experience anger. Anger toward Kovin.
Doctor: Good. That’s a perfectly healthy, normal response. And when Kovin gets what he deserves, you’re going to feel much better.

So the Doctor takes a non-emotional Seven and convinces her to become an angry, accusatory bitch. And this after he helped her “find” these examination memories through psychoanalytical hypnotic regression. Replace “Doctor” with feminism and “seven” with the average woman and you have our culture writ large. How the hell did the commissars miss this thought-crime?

The rest of the crew continues the investigation in Kovin’s laboratory and come up with only circumstantial evidence. The only thing remotely supporting Seven’s story (or is it the Doctor’s?) is some borg nanobots which were still active when they shouldn’t be. (That part is just technobabble they made up for plot convenience, don’t think too hard about it.) The doctor then tells Kovin he must have done it because of this “evidence” which causes him to go insane, grab a gun, and try to escape in his ship.

While pursuing the ship, they do an additional test on Seven to see if the active nanobots which should have been inactive could have unexpectedly become active from an accidental discharge of the weapon in question. If so, then they would have literally no evidence to support Seven’s story. The test confirms that an accidental discharge could have led to the spurious state of the nanobots. Everyone at this point except Seven, who was still under the influence of the Doctor’s incompetence, accepts that whatever Seven was remembering it wasn’t something that happened with Kovin. Probably it was something she experienced or witnessed while still part of the borg because they do that kind of stuff all the time.

Voyager catches up to Kovin and Captain Janeway tries to explain that they made a mistake and that they know he is innocent. He doesn’t have to run. Kovin replies and says he thinks it is a trick and that they just want to capture him to put him through the wringer. He lashes out and starts firing on voyager. Voyager doesn’t return fire and tries to beam him off his ship, but can’t for technobabble reasons. Something overloads on his ship and boom, no more Kovin.

It is at this point where Janeway, Seven, and the Doctor all start to feel remorse for what happened. Thanks to their actions, they end up destroying an innocent man’s life. Fictional leftists are far more self-aware and reflecting than their real-life counter-parts. At the end the doctor (AKA feminism) describes himself like so:

“I became a self-righteous advocate and didn’t stop to think for one second that I might be wrong.”

Captain Janeway consoles him somewhat in this way:

“We all rallied around seven, doctor, myself included. I wanted her to know she was part of this family. That we would support her, fight for her, no matter what. We let our good intentions blind us.”

I honestly can’t think of another instance off the top of my head where a Star Trek episode tries to give a cautionary moral lesson about the leftist tendency to engage in manic episodes of moral self-rightiousness. In fact it is difficult to think of any episodes which are tacitly non-leftist. And it was in Voyager of all things. Quite extraordinary. For all the problems with the utopianism in Star Trek, you have to give credit where it is due. This was an exceptionally well done exploration of false allegations and the potentially lethal negative consequences they might have. It might even be worthwhile to show this episode to someone who can’t seem to “get it” that there are false rape accusations and that they are the epitomy of injustice. Given the leftist tendency for purely emotional thinking, the fact that they get to know the characters as people might help them learn something new through their thick skulls.

Ultimately, the take away is that the Doctor is the main villain here. If he hadn’t been such a self-righteous busy body, Seven would have never come to believe that she had been assaulted when she hadn’t. She also wouldn’t have progressed from believing in the assault to a start of anger with a desire for revenge. If the doctor hadn’t jumped the gun on what some piece of “evidence” actually indicated, Kovin wouldn’t have felt the need to run. A situation was created that didn’t need to exist, and was escalated far beyond reason thanks to the involvement of an ideologically rigid and corrupt third party. This is essentially how feminism behaves with respect to family law as well as rape. Domestic violence, divorce, alimony, child custody as well as other areas are all things that could be handled far more reasonably than they are now and the only reason they are not is because of the political involvement of feminism.

The part where Kovin goes belligerent as a result of the injustice of a false accusation is reminiscent of the relatively frequent lashing out by fathers forced through the family court system. I know it isn’t exactly the same thing, but it results from a similar sort of court bias which leads to excessive credulity of society and the courts with respect to false allegations. And honestly, I don’t even know if you could find any data about how common violent revenge is as a response to a false allegation of rape. This may or may not fit a similar pattern. Though all parts of the current family regime is problematic, the part of it which is closest to a false allegation of rape is false allegations of domestic violence. False allegations of domestic violence are commonly used by women in divorce and/or child custody battles against their husbands as a tactic to get favorable rulings. They are almost always believed no matter how baseless the accusation.

As far as I am aware, there aren’t any well put together studies on violence committed by men forced through the family court system, but legal professionals (judges and lawyers) seem to be aware of it and have wrote or talked with the media about it. One family court judge, who was shot in the chest with a sniper rifle an inch above his heart but survived wrote about the issue.

Eight years ago, while I stood in my chambers at the Family Court building in Reno, Nevada, a sniper shot me just above the heart from the upper level of a parking garage about 200 yards away. The shooter was a husband no longer content with battling his wife about assets and child custody in a divorce action. [talk about the mother of all understatements] I wasn’t his first target that morning. Before driving to the courthouse, he stabbed his wife to death at his suburban home during an exchange of their nine-year-old daughter.

Perpetrators of courthouse violence cannot be limited to one or more demographic profiles. They are mostly men, but of all ages, levels of educational attainment, employment histories, criminal histories, and experiences with substance abuse. They can be identified, not by their characteristics, but by their motivations… Two-thirds are motivated by a desire to take revenge. More than half of perpetrators seeking revenge intend to kill.

One-half of all court-related violence is family law related. It occurs in conjunction with cases involving divorce, alimony, child custody, child support, or domestic violence restraining orders.

Few judicial attackers suffer from mental illness. Nothing in the literature states or implies that perpetrators of court-targeted violence act under the influence of a mental imbalance or an irresistible impulse. They have not lost their free will or their ability to control their emotions. They act purposefully.

Forty years of record keeping show that the perpetrator is the person most likely to be killed in courthouse violence. Law enforcement officers are injured almost as often as perpetrators but are much less likely to be killed. Ex-wives and family members of the perpetrators make up the largest group of unarmed victims of courthouse violence, followed by members of the general public. Judges are not the most frequent victims of attack but, when they are, they are twice as likely to be killed as wounded. Court staff and judges’ families have also been victims, but with lesser frequency than these other categories of persons.

Courthouse violence also has a psychological cost. On May 5, 1992, during a divorce proceeding at the Clayton Courthouse near St. Louis, Missouri, a husband went on a shooting rampage. In less than 10 minutes, he killed his wife; shot his own lawyer and his wife’s lawyer; shot at, but missed, the judge; and wounded three other people who happened to be in the vicinity of the courtroom. A three-year longitudinal study was conducted of the consequences of the violence for courthouse staff, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and others who were present during the attack. Two months after the incident, almost three-quarters were suffering a wide range of psychiatric symptoms including anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and substance abuse. Some continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder three years later. A study of the judges in my judicial district following my shooting found that my colleagues had responses that could potentially interfere with judicial functioning. Almost one-half expressed recognition that their fear of violence might affect their decision making. Courthouse violence causes continuing emotional effects and substance abuse. It can lower memory capacity, interrupt decision making, and increase stereotyping in decision makers.

So, unlike every other form of violent crime, attacks against family courts transcend race, economic status, educational attainment, and substance abuse (according to this judge, who presumably has enough credentials to be trustworthy). Now that is equality we can believe in. The only non-equal part of it is that it is almost always men, but that might have something to do with the overwhelming gynocentric bias of the family court system. Its funny that every time you read a lawyer’s take on this cultural phenomena they almost never ask whether or not there is something wrong with the system itself. Their main concern is how to conduct business as usual while reducing risk; so they typically just advocate for increased security. Can’t let this legal cash cow get away. They do admit that immediate concern for their own personal safety might prompt them to be less likely to dick over fathers, so there is that I guess. Completely unconsidered and selfish though that sentiment is.

Another article has some interesting quotes:

“There’s a saying that in criminal court, you have bad people at their best,” said Texas Supreme Court Judge Debra Lehrmann, who spent more than 20 years as a family court judge. “In family law, you get good people at their worst. In criminal court, dangerous people are in handcuffs. In family court, you don’t have any idea who is dangerous…”

“It’s not uncommon [to be threatened],” said Linda Lea Viken, a family law practitioner in Rapid City, S.D., and the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “I’ve talked to women lawyers who have had guns pulled on them. I’ve talked to a lot of lawyers who were threatened. It seems like everyone has a story.” Viken has had her mailbox smashed and a golf ball sent through her office window; she suspects that both incidents were instigated by estranged husbands of clients. The only time she felt truly frightened for her safety, however, was when a man against whom she had obtained a protection order for a client followed her home from her office one night two years ago.


Todd Scott, vice president of risk management and member services for Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co., began looking in 2010 for safety advice that he could pass on to his attorney clients and was surprised to find few formal resources. “I would go to these attorney panels and seminars, and almost everywhere I spoke, there was a local story about someone getting attacked or killed, and family law is at the top of the list.”

England has similar problems. Though the mail goes out of its way to avoid mentioning that it is mostly fathers aggrieved by the injustice of the system doing most of this.

If you take responsible, reliable, law-abiding fathers and totally shit on them in family court by taking their children away, giving his children and most of his assets to a woman who hasn’t worked in 5 years, then force him to pay 50-70 or more percent of his income to her on a monthly basis, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if this once decent and economically productive man feels he has nothing left to live for and decides to take out every dirty S.O.B. who screwed him over.

Share Button

“You are not open-minded”

I have had this post on the back burner for some time (I have a number of those actually). A while ago a thread on reddit talked about an extremely flawed study which found that black and white children raised in Germany after world war 2 had the same IQ. Well, not really but that is what prig progs want it to show.

I got into a conversation with a leftoid who had so much cognitive dissonance that not only did he himself point out the flaws in the study and why it didn’t technically show this, he still held firm that it qualified as good evidence that black and white IQs are the same on average just so long as you adjust the environment. Unfortunately this user has since deleted his comments and I didn’t bother saving them all at the time so I just have what I happened to copy over then. Sorry. However, this post isn’t strictly about that one study so summarizing the exchange should be sufficient.

There were two major confounding influences which caused problems for the general application of the findings of this study (and this user pointed this out himself). He quoted the following from the study:

The mothers of the children studied were white German women, while their fathers were white and African-American members of the US occupation forces. In contrast to results obtained in many American studies, the average IQs of the children studied were roughly similar across racial groups

White and black G.I.’s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces

The equal IQs were from people who were only half black, and their fathers were unrepresentative because the army didn’t recruit people who failed IQ tests. The blacks who made it to Germany from America in WWII were highly unrepresentative and had been specifically filtered by IQ tests. All of the potential black fathers were above the 30th percentile of the black IQ distribution. In addition, as I will show in my soon to be released book, intelligence is to a large extent X linked which means that when there are big differences in IQ between parents, a child is much more likely to resemble the (white and German) mother than the father. In other words, these results are not surprising, but do not invalidate or even contradict the vast amount of research done over the last century which shows blacks to have about a standard deviation lower IQ than whites. It is a very specific set of circumstances which led to a superficially contradictory result. Further consideration reveals that these kids do not represent blacks in general to any great extent. The consensus from studying racial differences in intelligence are quite clear: 30 years of racial iq studies [pdf]

What is weird about all this is that the guy who I was talking to knew all this was problematic, pointed it out himself in his own comments even, yet still argued with people that these flaws were irrelevant and the study showed that it was all environment. When faced with some opposition from myself and a few others, he eventually resorted to a common leftist shaming tactic which I am sure most of us are familiar with. He had no good arguments with which to defend his position and thus resorted to insulting his opponents character rather than admitting that the flawed study is more or less useless for his position. Here is the excerpt of his comment which is relevant and my response:

“You didn’t read it with an open mind at all”

I love it when leftists pull the “you’re not open minded” card. It shows such a lack of self-awareness it is amazing. There is a difference between rejecting a clearly very flawed study, which in your own comments you showed it to be, and being closed minded. Closed minded is seeing that the preponderance of evidence does not support your preferred happy talk version of things and sticking to the happy talk anyway. Especially if the happy talk is easier as it is the politically “correct” opinion. Open-mindedness is accepting the truth, however difficult it may be and however much people may hate you for it.

I originally planned to link to his comments directly so you could see everything he said, but unfortunately he deleted them. Probably because he realized he looked stupid. Anyway, I have found that some version of “You aren’t open-minded” is an extremely common leftist ploy when they can’t figure out any logical or rational way to defend their beliefs. (Though religious people use it too; stop doing that!) I have met many people in person who do the same thing and say the same damn phrase verbatim even. The problem isn’t that their idea is asinine and indefensible, the problem is that whoever just wont give the idea a chance or a try. They aren’t capable of being objective and thus their opinion should be dismissed. The problem is you as a person. This disingenuous way of shifting the focus of attention from their nonsense to your person is an unfortunately effective method of switching from defense to offense without having to do any rigorous intellectual work. They don’t even have to justify the claim about your person because being open or closed minded is such an ambiguous idea (and with connotations conveniently preset to leftist advantage) that most people immediately allow the topic to be changed and start defending their character when the accusation is in no way warranted. Don’t let leftists (or anyone else) get away with this tactic. Recognize it for what it is and immediately steer the conversation back to their asinine beliefs. Keep them on the defensive. You can point out what just happened explicitly and turn it back, or just ignore it like the shit test it is and make another criticism of their idea directly. Keep on point and keep focused.

I really hate the not open-minded “criticism” because it implies that you have very little knowledge of the subject under debate. It directly insults your integrity and is a very deep sign of disrespect that in better days would have led to an ass-kicking. When found together, ignorance and strong opinion do imply closed mindedness, but very often the ignorance ingredient isn’t actually present and there is little reason to think the “closed-minded” person is not knowledgeable about the subject matter. Often it is the accuser of closed-mindedness who has the smaller degree of knowledge and/or is manifestly losing the debate. Why else would they use this tactic rather than just pointedly defending their position? Even in circumstances where the accusation is true, it is no less of a logical fallacy and shouldn’t be engaged in. Don’t do it yourself, and don’t allow others to do it to you. With greater knowledge you would expect firmer stances on any given issue. If you know why something will or will not work, then you are much more likely not to be compromising about it and you shouldn’t compromise. If your mind is to be changed then it will result from honest, rational argumentation on part of the person trying to change your mind. Not from deceitful sophistry and changing the subject.

Edit: See more comments on this post here.

Share Button

Why are there no conservative comedians?

http://grrrgraphics.com/index.html

[Link to image creator, visit his site. Its great]

I found an interesting article from The Atlantic (ya, I know, but this one was alright). It wonders why there are no conservative comedians. As is typical, they don’t come anywhere close to understanding the problem of telling jokes from a conservative standpoint. Leftists truly do not appear to understand themselves and how they act.

In the dark enligtenment, we have analyzed this problem more broadly and the main reason is that leftists effectively engage in shaming tactics, mainly through the use of ad hominem. Rather than address a given topic in good faith, they silence ideological opponents through these tactics. “Racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” and all the rest of leftist ad hominems are used not because they are intrinsically true descriptions of the person, but because they can get the leftist a rhetorical “win” without actually having to justify themselves or understand that there may be negative consequences of their beliefs.

Leftist ideology has engaged in enough entryism in corporations and government that these shaming tactics can be further enforced through harming a person at their job and even prevent them from getting future jobs. Often people get fired.

Within this context, conservatives are understandably leery about joking about welfare queens, minorities, homosexuals or any of the other protected classes in society. Doing so can have drastic negative consequences for them. When leftists do things objectively far worse than making a comment, they usually face no negative consequences whatsoever. Often their outrageous demands are accommodated, and if not, then their social “justice” activism may at least be rewarded by increased status among other leftists.

The culture is asymmetrical and it does not favor the right. Even the article clearly shows why conservatives must opt for aggression and confrontational attitudes if they are going to say anything. When Rush Limbaugh made a joke about some slut, hordes of leftists came out of the woodwork to use shaming tactics (i.e., “You’re an evil misogynist!”) to silence him. If you want to engage in any sort of public dialogue, therefore, you must do it from a position of dominance and assertion. Jokes require the audience to assent to the topic. If the audience won’t let you make a joke, you can’t make a joke. Assertive and dominant dialogue requires equaling the challenge or silence; feminine displays of emotion are much less effective against this fundamentally masculine mode of discourse. The red pill talks about this dynamic all the time when discussing what it means to act alpha, and why it is so important to do so. The only option for conservatives is to engage their topics and audience from a position of alpha authority because there are so many leftists they can never hope to get much assent.

Share Button

The Missing Links

The Cathedral is a Christian sect that very cleverly adopted the camouflage of secularism so as to more easily infect (memefect?) non-Christians and non-religious institutions in addition to actual believers. This was a natural evolution of the theology given that the constitution of the United States originally sought to keep religious authorities out of government. I think it is instructive to compare some tenets of the protestant reformation to some of the ideas currently held by the progressive elite. The analogy of change in Christian culture to evolution is quite intentional. Natural selection can impose truly remarkable morphological changes to organisms. For example, consider this video detailing the evolution of whales from their land based ancestors. Culture should in theory be much more adaptable and otherwise susceptible to change than biologically physical features. If the process of natural selection can make something more or less like a deer into a whale, then it isn’t so hard to imagine that the process could morph Christianity into modern secular progressivism given the right environment.

In Nick Wade’sA troublesome inheritance he discusses how social institutions are fundamentally based on the aggregation of behaviors of the individuals that make up the population of societies. These behaviors ultimately have a significant biological component. Though in some sense the form of the cultural expression of a population’s behaviors can vary significantly over a short time, the underlying biological dispositions act as a brake slowing the overall change and limiting its manifestations. A lack of prerequisite biological dispositions can prevent effective institutions from being formed. The greater persistence of genes underlying dispositions also make it more likely that abandoned cultural norms could be resurrected. It should not be surprising that when one generation rejects or alters some cultural norm that it can re-emerge in a related, if modified, manifestation since the underlying biology is probably more or less the same. As such, the fact that ideas resembling Christian doctrines persist or re-emerge in secular culture should almost be expected. The following list contrasts older theological doctrines with modern secular progressive principles.

  • The ancestor of egalitarianism is probably Martin Luther’s justification by faith alone. Before that, European and every other culture believed in hierarchies and the idea of priests being the intermediary between god and the average peon. After the reformation, it became believed that anyone could interact with god through faith and through reading the bible. It is this concept that mandated that bibles should be written in all common languages so everyone could read it and become closer to god. At the time that this was first proposed it must have been an extraordinarily radical and new idea. I have nothing against the idea of equality before the law and an equality of opportunity. For example, for everyone to read the bible you would need mass literacy, which is undoubtedly good for society. However, you can see how this concept has gotten more and more extreme ever since to the point that now people are denying that differences exist between races and gender. If you bother to disagree with them they will condemn you with nothing less than righteous indignation. This certainly suggests a religious quality to the belief in egalitarianism. [edit] I recently had a conversation with a churchian who expressed that no sin is of greater magnitude than any other sin. It is all just sin. In other words, a slut with ten partners is no more sinful than an otherwise true Christian who had an impure thought about an attractive woman. A murderer is no worse than someone who tells a white lie in polite company. Clearly the belief that all sin is created equal supports the Christian origin of egalitarianism.
  • Manifest destiny and creating god’s kingdom on earth was originally a very religious idea. In essence, the New England puritans believed that they and the United States were predestined or elected by god to spread certain religious ideals as well as expand in influence. To the puritans and their descendants at least, the creation of the United States was thus part of god’s divine providence and his plan to spread his desired human organization as far as possible. This tradition continued in Progressive Christianity, which gave birth to the Wilsonian progressives who thought up the idea of the league of nations, and eventually FDR with the united nations and other world bodies with an explicit mission to spread progressive ideals worldwide. In essence, this is the idea that history and culture march in a linear fashion to an inevitable Utopian state and requires the work of true believers to be accomplished. Before it was god’s kingdom on Earth, but now God’s kingdom has been replaced by the divine mysteries of democracy, liberalism, freedom, equality, pacifism and other contradictory beliefs. Most other religions in the world believe in a cyclical nature of time and culture. The idea that history moves on a linear trajectory, an arch of progress, is fairly unique to western Christianity and that uniqueness has been inherited by modern secular progressivism. Again, this is not all bad. Technological progress is real and desirable. Neoreactionaries also believe a better civilization is desirable. The problem comes when this is combined with egalitarianism above. That some people don’t seem to fit this narrative of history progressing towards a better society causes a lot of consternation to progressives. To jump-start the progress toward Utopia that has been stalled by the failures of various demographics, crypto-calvinists implement doomed policies that have a philosophical foundation in egalitarianism. Since egalitarianism is untrue, these policies are ill-conceived and ironically usually make things worse.
  • The seeds and concepts of socialism and Marxism existed years before Karl Marx was ever born and were certainly within the reach of the Puritan imagination. Mark 10:25 is a classic example of the Christian attitude towards wealth. Jesus states:

    “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Christianity contains the premises that give rise to the belief that wealth is a hindrance to salvation. The legacy of which is an amorphous feeling that all those who are wealthy must be be reprobates. In addition, in John Winthrop’s sermonA Model of Christian Charity he specifically advocates for acts of charity by the rich to the poor. He gave this sermon on the Mayflower during the voyage to America and outlines what we would call wealth redistribution today. This sort of attitude led to the very first experiment with Socialism in America. The initial laws of the puritan colony mandated that all produced goods be collected into a common stock and distributed equally among its members. Colonists had no incentive to work harder because there was no benefit to doing so. The results of greater productivity would be redistributed to others. Unsurprisingly, they worked as little as possible. In William Bradford’sOf Plymouth Plantationhe described the attitude of young able bodied men:

    For the young unmarried men that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.

    As true today as it was in the 1600s, young men did not like being coerced into being cuckolded beta providers for women and children who were not their own. An extreme revulsion at being made cuckolded providers is one of the most fundamentally natural and just aspects of the masculine condition. Men accrue resources in excess of their needs for one reason and one reason only: to gain an opportunity to mate and guarantee the fitness of their biological children. The nature of man will eternally frustrate attempts to impose socialism since it breaks the link between wealth creation and evolutionary fitness. Socialist Plymouth was accordingly frustrated by repeated famines for years until they changed to a more capitalist system that guaranteed men would reap the benefits of their work. Once people were able to directly enjoy the benefits of their labor, food and goods were produced in excess of need and the colony prospered. Capitalism took such a strong hold early on in America not because the founders were inherently predisposed to free enterprise; quite the opposite. Rather capitalism became preferred because their initial attempt at a communal order, which they correctly perceived to be consistent with Christian doctrine, was such an abysmal failure and left such a strong impression that all pretense of socialism was firmly abolished. So great was the change that the new economic system induced in the colony, the holiday of Thanksgiving was invented to celebrate the abolition of socialism and the beginning of more prosperous, happier times. In a fashion contradictory with the previous interpretation of the faith, it became accepted that bounty accrued as a result of hard productive labor could be interpreted as a sign of election.

    It was great for America that the early colonists experienced such a harsh lesson about the dangers of socialism and that it was thereafter successfully suppressed for many years. However, America was still a Christian country and Christian doctrines still carried the dormant seeds that could spontaneously germinate into new strains of progressivism at any time once the initial failure of common property faded from the cultural memory. And, of course, it did as the modern world can attest.
  • Total depravity is the ancestor of modern ethnomasochism among people of European descent. This is more commonly called white guilt, but I feel ethnomasochism better connotes how self-destructive and foolish the attitude, behaviors and policies that result from it are. Total depravity is the idea that man is fundamentally sinful as a result of original sin. Humanity is so inclined to sin that it is physically and mentally incapable of not sinning. As such, man must repent of his innate evil and be thankful for being saved by Jesus Christ because in no scenario would he have been able to save himself from his own fundamental wickedness. Undoubtedly, experiencing guilt is an important part of repenting and of minimizing sin. In secular progressivism, the direct attribution of original sin to every person has been replaced by a direct attribution of responsibility to whites, and especially white males, for the fact that other human groups (i.e., minorities and women) are not able to achieve and thus signal high status at the same frequency as white males. Of course, white males have very little to do with the failings of other groups, but the experience of guilt for sin seems to be a natural part of the biological psychology of Europeans. Opportunistic groups find it convenient to appeal to that tendency to gain political advantages in western society.
  • The book of revelation is an important part of the bible. Therefore apocalyptic imagery has long been popular (for lack of a better word) in Christian thinking. There is supposed to be an end of the world filled with great disaster and at that time Jesus will come for a second time, repel the devil, and establish god’s kingdom on earth. Unlike some of the other doctrines listed here, most cultures and religions make some references to an end of the world that is accompanied by disasters of Biblical proportions. A fear of the end of the world is probably a universal human trait rather than specific to Christians or Europeans. What evolutionary benefit such beliefs could possibly have I honestly can’t fathom. But the universal presence of such beliefs suggest they offer some benefit or are a side effect of genes that cause some other useful phenotype. In a secular society, however, the justification for an end times belief is much harder to come by without recourse to the supernatural. Since people are still compelled, for whatever reason, to hold apocalyptic beliefs something “rational” had to be substituted. Of course that something is human induced climate change. I am not as skeptical about climate change as some. For example, humanity is releasing a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it would surprise me if that didn’t have SOME effect. Where I differ with the cathedral is in its insistence that carbon dioxide is going to cause some sort of apocalypse that destroys all life and especially human life. Carbon dioxide is a natural component of the atmosphere and plants require it for carbon fixation. If plants have more carbon dioxide available, they will simply grow more easily and likely get larger. Increased carbon concentrations will probably end up being good for agriculture. Plants better able to use the carbon would evolve and sequester carbon at a greater rate, creating a negative feedback to human emissions. In addition, warm periods in earth’s history seem to be better, not worse, for biological diversity. Of course, given that the previous link is from the cathedral, the cognitive dissonance created by this contradictory finding is rationalized so they can maintain their apocalyptic beliefs. They simply assume that climate change is much more rapid this time around and their beliefs are validated. For the most part, climate scientists are underestimating the rapid pace at which evolution can take place. Species seem stable not because evolution is slow, but because environments are relatively stable and species very rapidly reach a stable form that is at equilibrium within their environment. Species can be drastically modified in surprisingly few generations if the selection pressures drastically change. Enough digression; the point of this is that though the cathedral may be right that humans are causing some amount of climate change, it is a non sequitur that this change is going to cause an apocalypse. The evidence they have doesn’t support such a drastic conclusion. If anything, there is reason to believe extra carbon dioxide will ultimately be beneficial. Belief in an apocalypse scenario caused by climate change thus seems more of a religious sentiment than a reasonable conclusion drawn from the data.
  • (Edit:) The American conservative advanced the point the missionary work common to mainline protestants is still alive and well in the form of foreign volunteerism of progressives at the individual level, and so-called “benevolent” foreign policy at the level of government. Rather than repeating the argument, I recommend you read through the article in the previous link.
I am not saying all of the results or desires of Protestantism are bad. World peace, eliminating poverty and hunger, having more wealth equality and strong work ethic* are all reasonable goals. Unfortunately for progressives, you can only achieve your goals when you have an accurate understanding of how reality actually works. In the case of social engineering, that means understanding the biological instincts of man and working with what they are, not what we would like them to be. Benevolent intentions are not good if they result in bad outcomes. Benevolent intentions and bad outcomes are just as evil as malevolent intentions and bad outcomes. Judging by the real world impact, there is no difference. To continue doing things that cause bad outcomes despite evidence that it doesn’t work can only occur as a result of mystical thinking. However benevolent the intention, this makes progressive policies both religious and prone to creating evil in the world.
*Not to be biased towards cultural explanations of behaviors, it may be better to describe it as Germanic work ethic rather than protestant work ethic.

 

Share Button

What is a leftoid?

According to urban dictionary a Leftoid is:

This is a derogatory term for left leaning people who have naive, unrealistic, and overly optimistic views about how the world works based on what they would like to be true rather than what is actually true in reality. How the leftoid would like the world to work is usually based on dogmatic ideologies like feminism.

There is an emphasis on them being biology, genetics, and evolution deniers. Leftoids don’t explicitly deny evolution in all of its forms like the religious right. They only deny evolution and biology in special cases where facts conflict with their ideologically motivated beliefs. Especially with regards to gender and race politics.
Realistic Cynic: “Men and women are different because of biology.
Leftoid: “Gender is a social construct and has no basis in biology!”
Share Button