The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Woke Sexism: Women 2-3x More Likely to be "Targeted" for Crimethink
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Since the end of the Bush era, disinvitations and cancelation campaigns have become the near exclusive preserve of the Left, with the range of opinion warranting such attacks spreading beyond the traditionally taboo HBD/IQ nexus to encompass more and more areas, such as affirming the existence of physiological differences between the sexes. According to a recent report from FIRE, this reached a crescendo during the Trump years, with the number of “targeting incidents” rising from 24 in 2015 to 113 in 2020.

As Noah Carl points out, the Left is massively overrepresented in academia relative to the right, by a factor of at least 6 to 1. So the disparity in targeting attempts actually conceals what is in fact an almost entirely one-sided campaign. Each individual “right-winger” in academia is about 10x more likely to be “targeted” than a “left-winger”. Moreover, while Noah is perhaps too politic to point this out, I would add that even to the extent that the “Right” engages in “cancelation” campaigns, it is typically to defend Israel – the one culture war besides banning the abortion of Down’s syndrome fetuses that modern American conservatives seem to really care about.

Still, assuming you haven’t been living under a rock the past few years, there’s nothing particularly new or interesting about any of this. But what did strike me about the report is the following observation by Cory Clark:

Although only 30% of targeted scholars were women, when targeted, women were slightly more likely to be terminated than men (29% vs. 23%). And when women do piss people off, they REALLY piss people off. The four largest petitions were all against female scholars.

Now this one is a more novel and interesting observation. And it suggests a lot of internalized sexism. Going by those percentages, 35% of the “controversial” scholars terminated for political reasons, are women (30%*29%/(30%*29%+70*23%) = 35%). This doesn’t sound all that bad or unexpected, but only so long as you don’t ask the question of how underrepresented women in particular are in the at-risk group. What percentage of female academics can be classified as controversial in the first place, relative to men? Almost certainly way less than 35%.

This isn’t even a supposition. According to Heiner Rindermann’s 2020 survey, women accounted for 17% of the experts in intelligence research – the single most consistently replicated, but also the most controversial, area of psychology (whereas they constitute 50%+ of psychologists as a whole). To take a more concrete example: While highly multiracial, the Advisory Board of Mankind Quarterly is 10% female (2/20). This matches the general 10% seen across “Coffee Salon” type environments characterized by the combination of intellectuality and some degree of “discordance” from societal norms and mores. Reality is, women are much less likely to make “controversial” comments or observations, and when they do, they were generally couched in much “nicer” language. Moreover, that 10% rears its head even in the sex distribution of academics who are most committed to supporting free speech:

All this implies that female scholars are something like 2-3x as likely to face repercussions for saying anti-Woke things than are men (10-15% free speech/anti-Woke, 35% punished for it).

Incidentally, this also syncs with Douglas K. Murray’s recent observations that women opposed to transgender maximalism tend to get bullied more than he does:

After all, countless female authors have written articles expressing scepticism towards the transgender movement — many of them more moderate than my own. Yet almost every time, I have watched in horror as online and offline mobs are stirred up against them and not me. Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock, Selina Todd, JK Rowling, Abigail Shrier, Helen Joyce — some of these women have been subjected to physical assault; the rest threatened with it. …

Last year, for instance, [Owen] Jones was one of the more prominent figures in the witch-hunt against the then Guardian journalist Suzanne Moore. … There is now a pattern. This week, Jones targeted another exceptionally talented female writer, Sarah Ditum, for the same reason: she disagreed with him about trans issues.

But this time, people started to notice the trend. As the Left-wing journalist Helen Lewis — formerly of the New Statesmanobserved, it is becoming increasingly clear that Jones only seems to go for female journalists.

Now I suppose there is a kind of evolutionary logic to it. Women not only tend to be, but are socially expected to be more conformist/”conservative” than men (it’s less risky and men are more expendable). They also have thinner skins (both literally and metaphorically). Social pressure has more of an effect on them.

So it’s darkly amusing how even (especially?) SJWs intuitively know this and act on their “internalized sexism” as befits their status as modern-era witch-hunters.

Nonetheless, this does add an important caveat to the observations/complaints about female overrepresentation in SJWism that is often made in “anti-Woke” and especially “Alt Right” circles. On the one hand, since women are naturally much more conformist then men, there is nothing surprising about this – conformism is, by definition, loaded towards observing the norms and enforcing the mores of the dominant culture, so your opinions about it will naturally depend on your assessment of how “good” or “bad” said culture is (which happens to be Wokeism in the modern West). However, apart from that, there remains the highly “traditionalist” and, in this particular context, highly ironic social expectation that women in particular should not dare stray beyond the boundaries of Woke discourse. Even more curiously, this social expectation seems to be most assiduously policed by Woke men like Owen Jones. And as if that wasn’t enough, amongst the anti-Wokes, there are also some people who want women mostly or entirely removed from the public sphere. This is, of course, a highly marginal position amongst the many diffuse groups who constitute anti-Wokes as a whole, who range the gamut from classical liberals and rationalists to old school conservatives, Gamergaters, and the Alt Right. However, those who do hold such views, most notably the “groyper” wing of the Alt Right who have recently discovered their profound affinity with the Taliban, also tend to be its loudest elements (and journalists are most happy to exhibit them). Not the sort of people whom women who are otherwise inclined towards Woke-skepticism would generally want to associate with or enable, and understandably so.

Putting all this together, it becomes rather less surprising that women tend to be so much more Woke in the US (specifically in the US). Both nature and the social environment push towards that outcome.

 

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Academia, Sexism, SJWs, The Great Awokening, Women 
Hide 140 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

    Commenting rules. Please note that anonymous comments are not allowed.

  2. So… Democrats are the real sexists

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • LOL: Yevardian
    • Replies: @Catdog
    @AltSerrice

    Unlike DRRR, DRRS could actually work without undercutting our goals at the same time.

    Who are the pornographers? Who is putting trannies in women's restrooms and sports? Who is preventing women from affordable, stable family formation?

  3. I find that the targeting of otherwise liberal women on the tranny stuff is incomprehensibly funny. Who doesn’t want to see a 250lb Aussie unit run for a try on ladies Rugby field? or have a tranny Exmarine bash in the face of a nimble female cage fighter after all? Are you not entertained Anatoly? The freak parade is comedy gold.

    • Agree: El Dato
    • Disagree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Wency
    @Wokechoke

    If only every political debate consisted of forcing the leftists to defend and lionize men who chop off their dicks in order to be able to beat the shit out of women in front of rolling cameras. It's the sort of thing that makes even the normiest of normies say "What's wrong with these people?"

    At some point, a man is going to kill a woman in the ring. And I have little doubt the left will double down on defending this person as a right and virtuous hero(ine). This seems like good ground over which to fight -- I'll take it.

    Propaganda on gender can only take you so far. There are certain images that will just never work, and normies can never swallow it. The image of a woman saving a man from physical danger and carrying him to safety, for example, just doesn't work, except as comedy. And likewise, a woman getting beaten just affects our hindbrains differently than does a man getting beaten. Radical ideologues can shut off their hindbrains here, but normies can't and won't.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Wokechoke

    I can't honestly say I really care (apart from being glad that this trans obsession hasn't taken root in Russia) but if I did, it would sooner make me sad than entertained.

    Eunuchs beating up women isn't fun. It's a sign of a decayed and degenerate culture.

    Also it's not even like they're beating up 250 lb Women's Studies freaks who would actually deserve it and be better off for it.

    Replies: @Philip Owen

  4. By one theory, men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare. That is why women are observedly cattier with each other. The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances.

    • Agree: Wokechoke
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @songbird

    "men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare"


    Man, a bear in most relations -
    worm and savage otherwise, -
    Man propounds negotiations,
    Man accepts the compromise.
    Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
    To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

    Fear, or foolishness, impels him,
    ere he lay the wicked low,
    To concede some form of trial even
    to his fiercest foe.
    Mirth obscene diverts his anger -
    Doubt and Pity oft perplex
    Him in dealing with an issue -
    to the scandal of The Sex!
     

    "The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances"

    She is wedded to convictions -
    in default of grosser ties;
    Her contentions are her children,
    Heaven help him who denies! -
    He will meet no suave discussion,
    but the instant, white-hot, wild,
    Wakened female of the species
    warring as for spouse and child.

    Unprovoked and awful charges -
    even so the she-bear fights,
    Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons -
    even so the cobra bites,
    Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
    And the victim writhes in anguish -
    like the Jesuit with the squaw!

    So it comes that Man, the coward,
    when he gathers to confer
    With his fellow-braves in council,
    dare not leave a place for her
    Where, at war with Life and Conscience,
    he uplifts his erring hands
    To some God of Abstract Justice -
    which no woman understands.
     

    , @Rosie
    @songbird


    By one theory, men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare. That is why women are observedly cattier with each other. The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances.
     
    More armchair hogwash from the usual suspects. There were no "households" in the evolutionary environment.

    https://youtu.be/qG12DqwABsg

    Replies: @songbird, @Anatoly Karlin, @joe862

  5. anti-Wokes as a whole, who range the gamut from classical liberals and rationalists to old school conservatives, Gamergaters, and the Alt Right.

    What happens to the anti-group when the object group changes or dissipates? Opposition is great, but some sort of positive propositional ideology is needed. How much success have anti-groups had when there was no positive proponent group or development arising therefrom?

  6. People think they have free will but are just the NPC while their hindbrain is playing.

    Moreover, while Noah is perhaps too politic to point this out, I while add that even to the extent that the “Right” engages in “cancelation” campaigns, it is typically to defend Israel – the one culture war besides banning the abortion of Down’s syndrome fetuses that modern American conservatives seem to really care about.

    US conservatives are the stuff left over after the 60+ year old frog has been hypnotized, gefilt with kosher mayonnaise and THEN boiled.

    • Replies: @Rich
    @El Dato

    Conservatives have, for the most part, been kicked out of main stream media. It started when the neocons took over National Review and then continued with their rampage through the republican party. Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan and others were pushed aside for more moderate figures like Rich Lowry and David French who aren't actually conservative. It's impossible to be a conservative if you support homosexual marriage, forced integration or abortion. Conservatives actually favor reducing the size of government and returning to following the Constitution.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

  7. >However, those who do hold such views, most notably the “groyper” wing of the Alt Right who have recently discovered their profound affinity with the Taliban, also tend to be its loudest elements (and journalists are most happy to exhibit them).

    This is something that frustrates me about the “alt-right”. We are doing poorly on the gender culture war because our men are apparently too stupid to understand that promoting traditional gender roles is not misogynistic. Women are happier when they’re married and staying home with their children. I want women to be happy.

    But for some reason, our side seems to subconsciously think that our real goal in advocating trad gender roles to is chain women up against their will because we’re all women-haters, right guys? In many dissident forums women are treated as inherently hostile and gratuitously insulted.

    The self-sabotage is ridiculous.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @Catdog

    Find a quote from a white conservative saying this stuff in context. Mostly it’s joking and some of it was done in the context of the retreat from Kabul to point out how much white girls have it easy.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Catdog

    "In many dissident forums women are treated as inherently hostile and gratuitously insulted."

    Given how many trolls there are in Unz, not a huge number but not zero either (5-10%?), taking a 'chain them to the sink and bed' position in chat or comments would be very effective trolling. Same with the few people who shoehorn Jews into any and every discussion even where it's not relevant, or accuse everyone they don't like of being secretly Jewish, from Stalin to Jeremy Paxman.

    , @Rosie
    @Catdog


    Women are happier when they’re married and staying home with their children.
     
    You have a lot to learn about dissident right men, I'm afraid.

    I am happy being a SAHM, for sure, but then, I actually have a husband who is nice to me and doesn't treat me like a servant. He treats me like an equal partner even though he is the sole breadwinner. Dissident right men don't want that kind of relationship. I'm not sure they want a relationship at all. What they want is "an off-the-shelf sex partner." Just Listen to the way they talk about us. These are sick individuals with sadistic as well as psychopathic tendencies. Of course, NADRMALT.

    https://youtu.be/PgXgyLMOyIY

    Edit: See comment 20 for a case in point. Whatever you do, don't make it a point to make your wife happy. Rather, be an a$$hole and refuse to apologize to keep the upper hand in the relationship.

  8. @AltSerrice
    So... Democrats are the real sexists

    Replies: @Catdog

    Unlike DRRR, DRRS could actually work without undercutting our goals at the same time.

    Who are the pornographers? Who is putting trannies in women’s restrooms and sports? Who is preventing women from affordable, stable family formation?

  9. @Catdog
    >However, those who do hold such views, most notably the “groyper” wing of the Alt Right who have recently discovered their profound affinity with the Taliban, also tend to be its loudest elements (and journalists are most happy to exhibit them).

    This is something that frustrates me about the "alt-right". We are doing poorly on the gender culture war because our men are apparently too stupid to understand that promoting traditional gender roles is not misogynistic. Women are happier when they're married and staying home with their children. I want women to be happy.

    But for some reason, our side seems to subconsciously think that our real goal in advocating trad gender roles to is chain women up against their will because we're all women-haters, right guys? In many dissident forums women are treated as inherently hostile and gratuitously insulted.

    The self-sabotage is ridiculous.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @YetAnotherAnon, @Rosie

    Find a quote from a white conservative saying this stuff in context. Mostly it’s joking and some of it was done in the context of the retreat from Kabul to point out how much white girls have it easy.

  10. @Wokechoke
    I find that the targeting of otherwise liberal women on the tranny stuff is incomprehensibly funny. Who doesn’t want to see a 250lb Aussie unit run for a try on ladies Rugby field? or have a tranny Exmarine bash in the face of a nimble female cage fighter after all? Are you not entertained Anatoly? The freak parade is comedy gold.

    Replies: @Wency, @Anatoly Karlin

    If only every political debate consisted of forcing the leftists to defend and lionize men who chop off their dicks in order to be able to beat the shit out of women in front of rolling cameras. It’s the sort of thing that makes even the normiest of normies say “What’s wrong with these people?”

    At some point, a man is going to kill a woman in the ring. And I have little doubt the left will double down on defending this person as a right and virtuous hero(ine). This seems like good ground over which to fight — I’ll take it.

    Propaganda on gender can only take you so far. There are certain images that will just never work, and normies can never swallow it. The image of a woman saving a man from physical danger and carrying him to safety, for example, just doesn’t work, except as comedy. And likewise, a woman getting beaten just affects our hindbrains differently than does a man getting beaten. Radical ideologues can shut off their hindbrains here, but normies can’t and won’t.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  11. @El Dato
    People think they have free will but are just the NPC while their hindbrain is playing.

    Moreover, while Noah is perhaps too politic to point this out, I while add that even to the extent that the “Right” engages in “cancelation” campaigns, it is typically to defend Israel – the one culture war besides banning the abortion of Down’s syndrome fetuses that modern American conservatives seem to really care about.
     
    US conservatives are the stuff left over after the 60+ year old frog has been hypnotized, gefilt with kosher mayonnaise and THEN boiled.

    Replies: @Rich

    Conservatives have, for the most part, been kicked out of main stream media. It started when the neocons took over National Review and then continued with their rampage through the republican party. Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan and others were pushed aside for more moderate figures like Rich Lowry and David French who aren’t actually conservative. It’s impossible to be a conservative if you support homosexual marriage, forced integration or abortion. Conservatives actually favor reducing the size of government and returning to following the Constitution.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    @Rich

    "Conservatives actually favor reducing the size of government and returning to following the Constitution."

    Delusional. Cut your losses before you are exterminated and work for a Velvet Divorce.

    A wolf will sacrifice it's life for the pack. Conservatives are about that smart.

    Replies: @Rich

  12. @songbird
    By one theory, men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare. That is why women are observedly cattier with each other. The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Rosie

    “men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare”

    Man, a bear in most relations –
    worm and savage otherwise, –
    Man propounds negotiations,
    Man accepts the compromise.
    Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
    To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

    Fear, or foolishness, impels him,
    ere he lay the wicked low,
    To concede some form of trial even
    to his fiercest foe.
    Mirth obscene diverts his anger –
    Doubt and Pity oft perplex
    Him in dealing with an issue –
    to the scandal of The Sex!

    “The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances”

    She is wedded to convictions –
    in default of grosser ties;
    Her contentions are her children,
    Heaven help him who denies! –
    He will meet no suave discussion,
    but the instant, white-hot, wild,
    Wakened female of the species
    warring as for spouse and child.

    Unprovoked and awful charges –
    even so the she-bear fights,
    Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons –
    even so the cobra bites,
    Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
    And the victim writhes in anguish –
    like the Jesuit with the squaw!

    So it comes that Man, the coward,
    when he gathers to confer
    With his fellow-braves in council,
    dare not leave a place for her
    Where, at war with Life and Conscience,
    he uplifts his erring hands
    To some God of Abstract Justice –
    which no woman understands.

    • Thanks: songbird
  13. @Catdog
    >However, those who do hold such views, most notably the “groyper” wing of the Alt Right who have recently discovered their profound affinity with the Taliban, also tend to be its loudest elements (and journalists are most happy to exhibit them).

    This is something that frustrates me about the "alt-right". We are doing poorly on the gender culture war because our men are apparently too stupid to understand that promoting traditional gender roles is not misogynistic. Women are happier when they're married and staying home with their children. I want women to be happy.

    But for some reason, our side seems to subconsciously think that our real goal in advocating trad gender roles to is chain women up against their will because we're all women-haters, right guys? In many dissident forums women are treated as inherently hostile and gratuitously insulted.

    The self-sabotage is ridiculous.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @YetAnotherAnon, @Rosie

    “In many dissident forums women are treated as inherently hostile and gratuitously insulted.”

    Given how many trolls there are in Unz, not a huge number but not zero either (5-10%?), taking a ‘chain them to the sink and bed’ position in chat or comments would be very effective trolling. Same with the few people who shoehorn Jews into any and every discussion even where it’s not relevant, or accuse everyone they don’t like of being secretly Jewish, from Stalin to Jeremy Paxman.

  14. Women do what men say. Almost everyone I know the man in the relationship dictates his woman’s ideology. Even if the woman is leaning another way they still follow what the man says. If someone has opposite experience I would love to discuss. What happened with modernity is that a large slice of woman population was taken out of relationship space and put in degenerate space. Women in both spaces are mutually exclusive.

    Groypers are too young for me to interact or understand but little interaction I had with them was hilarious. I think it’s mostly them that run Star Trek but Racist accounts.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Dreadilk

    Women also naturally move right when they become mothers. Especially mothers of sons. Women are naturally less ideological than men already, and once they have kids, the normal thing is to mostly ignore ideology and politics except where it directly affects the family. Even if her stated preferences are the opposite of her husband's, in practice, she's not going to pursue leftist politics in a way that goes against both her husband's wishes and the good of the family -- unless she's a sociopath or perhaps has a Cluster B personality disorder.

    , @Rosie
    @Dreadilk


    Women do what men say.
     
    Is that so? Tell that to the folks who think we get to decide how many children we have, regardless of our partner's wishes. They seem to think we get to make the decisions.
    , @Barbarossa
    @Dreadilk


    Women do what men say
     
    Some women are also good letting men think that they are the boss when the women are actually pulling the strings.

    It's impossible to make generalizations though. Personally, I know more guys whose women keep their nuts in jar (not that most of those men would ever admit it!) than women who are domineered by their men. This even includes a fair sampling of "the man leads!" Evangelical Christians.

    I'm also dubious about the idea that women have their ideology dictated to them by men. Sometimes you'll find women who have enough actual things to do in life that they can spare few cares for political ideology (which I'm pretty sure is actually a fairly sane course for both men and women), but when they do get hooked...watch out!
    It seems that women tend more toward fervent religious belief, and this also translates to politics. My own observation has been that whether it is essential oils, meditation, Jesus, Covid (either side), or wokeness, women tend toward more extreme and fervent positions.

    In my own marriage, my wife has little interest in actively dissecting the news, since it mostly irritates her, and she has other things she would rather pay attention to. Since I keep up with things and discuss it all with her, our views end up very close. We've always been in pretty basic agreement on how the world works though, which has only converged more closely over time. I certainly wouldn't say I ever tell her what to think though, and we both provide a helpful check to the other.
  15. the one culture war besides banning the abortion of Down’s syndrome fetuses that modern American conservatives seem to really care about.

    Just a quick, friendly note to say that Down’s Syndrome abortions are such a tiny fraction of abortions that it rounds to zero, and that mass abortion is dysgenic.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    @Almost Missouri


    Just a quick, friendly note to say that Down’s Syndrome abortions are such a tiny fraction of abortions that it rounds to zero, and that mass abortion is dysgenic.
     
    Yes, I remember Steve Sailer discussing this a number of times.

    https://twitter.com/steve_sailer/status/1130441079025573888?s=21

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  16. @songbird
    By one theory, men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare. That is why women are observedly cattier with each other. The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Rosie

    By one theory, men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare. That is why women are observedly cattier with each other. The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances.

    More armchair hogwash from the usual suspects. There were no “households” in the evolutionary environment.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Rosie

    Huh, you think evolution stopped sometime before people got houses? Anyway, it would work for long houses too, or nomads.

    You realize, it was only in the 1970s that women began in active duty in Western armies? Tollense Valley battle field is from abou 1300-1200 BC, and an estimated 4000 men fought, and there is plenty before that.

    Not to mention, chimps are patrilocal for fighting effectiveness.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie

    I think it's obviously true that men are better at cooperating with each other and consequently getting things done. They accept hierarchies in a way that women don't.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Drapetomaniac

    , @joe862
    @Rosie

    Anyone who hasn't noticed that women tend to squabble more than men is severely intellectually disabled.

    Replies: @Rosie

  17. @Dreadilk
    Women do what men say. Almost everyone I know the man in the relationship dictates his woman's ideology. Even if the woman is leaning another way they still follow what the man says. If someone has opposite experience I would love to discuss. What happened with modernity is that a large slice of woman population was taken out of relationship space and put in degenerate space. Women in both spaces are mutually exclusive.

    Groypers are too young for me to interact or understand but little interaction I had with them was hilarious. I think it's mostly them that run Star Trek but Racist accounts.

    Replies: @Wency, @Rosie, @Barbarossa

    Women also naturally move right when they become mothers. Especially mothers of sons. Women are naturally less ideological than men already, and once they have kids, the normal thing is to mostly ignore ideology and politics except where it directly affects the family. Even if her stated preferences are the opposite of her husband’s, in practice, she’s not going to pursue leftist politics in a way that goes against both her husband’s wishes and the good of the family — unless she’s a sociopath or perhaps has a Cluster B personality disorder.

    • Agree: Drapetomaniac
  18. @Dreadilk
    Women do what men say. Almost everyone I know the man in the relationship dictates his woman's ideology. Even if the woman is leaning another way they still follow what the man says. If someone has opposite experience I would love to discuss. What happened with modernity is that a large slice of woman population was taken out of relationship space and put in degenerate space. Women in both spaces are mutually exclusive.

    Groypers are too young for me to interact or understand but little interaction I had with them was hilarious. I think it's mostly them that run Star Trek but Racist accounts.

    Replies: @Wency, @Rosie, @Barbarossa

    Women do what men say.

    Is that so? Tell that to the folks who think we get to decide how many children we have, regardless of our partner’s wishes. They seem to think we get to make the decisions.

  19. @Catdog
    >However, those who do hold such views, most notably the “groyper” wing of the Alt Right who have recently discovered their profound affinity with the Taliban, also tend to be its loudest elements (and journalists are most happy to exhibit them).

    This is something that frustrates me about the "alt-right". We are doing poorly on the gender culture war because our men are apparently too stupid to understand that promoting traditional gender roles is not misogynistic. Women are happier when they're married and staying home with their children. I want women to be happy.

    But for some reason, our side seems to subconsciously think that our real goal in advocating trad gender roles to is chain women up against their will because we're all women-haters, right guys? In many dissident forums women are treated as inherently hostile and gratuitously insulted.

    The self-sabotage is ridiculous.

    Replies: @Wokechoke, @YetAnotherAnon, @Rosie

    Women are happier when they’re married and staying home with their children.

    You have a lot to learn about dissident right men, I’m afraid.

    I am happy being a SAHM, for sure, but then, I actually have a husband who is nice to me and doesn’t treat me like a servant. He treats me like an equal partner even though he is the sole breadwinner. Dissident right men don’t want that kind of relationship. I’m not sure they want a relationship at all. What they want is “an off-the-shelf sex partner.” Just Listen to the way they talk about us. These are sick individuals with sadistic as well as psychopathic tendencies. Of course, NADRMALT.

    Edit: See comment 20 for a case in point. Whatever you do, don’t make it a point to make your wife happy. Rather, be an a\$\$hole and refuse to apologize to keep the upper hand in the relationship.

  20. The 1949 Western “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon” has dialogue which says several times “never apologize… it’s a sign of weakness.” Of course, that was over seventy years ago. Back then, America had a cohesive, somewhat based culture.

    Now, the message is “cuck until they are satisfied.”

  21. @Wokechoke
    I find that the targeting of otherwise liberal women on the tranny stuff is incomprehensibly funny. Who doesn’t want to see a 250lb Aussie unit run for a try on ladies Rugby field? or have a tranny Exmarine bash in the face of a nimble female cage fighter after all? Are you not entertained Anatoly? The freak parade is comedy gold.

    Replies: @Wency, @Anatoly Karlin

    I can’t honestly say I really care (apart from being glad that this trans obsession hasn’t taken root in Russia) but if I did, it would sooner make me sad than entertained.

    Eunuchs beating up women isn’t fun. It’s a sign of a decayed and degenerate culture.

    Also it’s not even like they’re beating up 250 lb Women’s Studies freaks who would actually deserve it and be better off for it.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Moscow is the only place I have seen trans/crossdressing men on the street, well on the metro actually. Twice. Different ones.

    Replies: @(((They))) Live, @Anatoly Karlin, @Wency

  22. @Rosie
    @songbird


    By one theory, men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare. That is why women are observedly cattier with each other. The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances.
     
    More armchair hogwash from the usual suspects. There were no "households" in the evolutionary environment.

    https://youtu.be/qG12DqwABsg

    Replies: @songbird, @Anatoly Karlin, @joe862

    Huh, you think evolution stopped sometime before people got houses? Anyway, it would work for long houses too, or nomads.

    You realize, it was only in the 1970s that women began in active duty in Western armies? Tollense Valley battle field is from abou 1300-1200 BC, and an estimated 4000 men fought, and there is plenty before that.

    Not to mention, chimps are patrilocal for fighting effectiveness.

  23. @Rosie
    @songbird


    By one theory, men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare. That is why women are observedly cattier with each other. The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances.
     
    More armchair hogwash from the usual suspects. There were no "households" in the evolutionary environment.

    https://youtu.be/qG12DqwABsg

    Replies: @songbird, @Anatoly Karlin, @joe862

    I think it’s obviously true that men are better at cooperating with each other and consequently getting things done. They accept hierarchies in a way that women don’t.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    I think it’s obviously true that men are better at cooperating with each other and consequently getting things done. They accept hierarchies in a way that women don’t.
     
    "Obviously true" doesn't cut it. This is pre-Galilean armchair logic, very typical of dissident right thinking on the WQ, in contrast to its very data-driven approach to race differences.

    You have to actually go to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and drop some spherical objects to see how quickly they fall.

    Replies: @TelfoedJohn

    , @Drapetomaniac
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Tribal males went hunting in groups.

  24. This is too small a sample; also, it is about current woke issues which differ in intensity and supposed relevance.

    I don’t think there are female scientists or scholars who face the same level of ostracism as Charles Murray, James Watson, that IQ guy I forgot his name, Jason something, Nicholas Wade, ..or, when national question is in question, Thilo Sarrazin in Germany.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Kevin McDonald (Gentile man), say, is incomparably more radical than, Amy Wax (Jewish woman). Culture of Critique is the Bible of the US Alt Right.

    AFAIK, former was allowed to retire quietly and gracefully.

    Latter seems to be facing a never-ending storm of controversy.

    https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1434157086686937093

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  25. Huh, you think evolution stopped sometime before people got houses? Anyway, it would work for long houses too, or nomads.

    No, it wouldn’t. Nomadic women would have had to cooperate for survival and defense while men were hunting large game.

    There is no reason whatsoever to believe that women are less “cooperative” then men in any respect whatsoever. Nor is there any reason to believe that women did not have evolutionary pressure to cooperate. Even now, a social network is highly useful for women. I have given away thousands of dollars of stuff to younger parents that they would otherwise have had to buy themselves. We run your kids’ sports teams, Sunday school programs, scout troops, etc. Do you think all that shit just happens with no work and cooperation on our part?

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3182429

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Rosie

    "Nomadic women would have had to cooperate for survival and defense while men were hunting large game."

    Defense? You think women successfully defended themselves against raiding men? Amazons are fictional. We are talking about intergroup competition here.

    Look at a haplotype map of Europe. You can very clearly see R1b and R1a cluster - very powerful evidence for men cooperating. But none on the level of mitochondria.

    Replies: @Rosie

  26. @Bardon Kaldian
    This is too small a sample; also, it is about current woke issues which differ in intensity and supposed relevance.

    I don't think there are female scientists or scholars who face the same level of ostracism as Charles Murray, James Watson, that IQ guy I forgot his name, Jason something, Nicholas Wade, ..or, when national question is in question, Thilo Sarrazin in Germany.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Kevin McDonald (Gentile man), say, is incomparably more radical than, Amy Wax (Jewish woman). Culture of Critique is the Bible of the US Alt Right.

    AFAIK, former was allowed to retire quietly and gracefully.

    Latter seems to be facing a never-ending storm of controversy.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Anatoly Karlin

    He is, of course, more radical- but he's essentially nuts. I've said I don't know how many times that he is right ca. 30%, while the rest is bad philosophy of history & delusional pseudo-scholarship (Freud, Marx etc.). Then, he doesn't care about Arabs & he's not a holo-denier.

    I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Jews are highly irritated by two things: holo-denial & Israel-Palestinians conflict. That's why they were after Norman Finkelstein, but basically indifferent to MacDonald.

    Also, I don't know much about Amy Wax. I've read what Derbyshire and some others wrote, and she seems to me more "dangerous" to the woke crowd because she's been telling, more or less, a common sense truth. And that makes her an easier target for the woke bunch, because MacDonald with his "group evolutionary strategies" and thick books is nebulous.

  27. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie

    I think it's obviously true that men are better at cooperating with each other and consequently getting things done. They accept hierarchies in a way that women don't.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Drapetomaniac

    I think it’s obviously true that men are better at cooperating with each other and consequently getting things done. They accept hierarchies in a way that women don’t.

    “Obviously true” doesn’t cut it. This is pre-Galilean armchair logic, very typical of dissident right thinking on the WQ, in contrast to its very data-driven approach to race differences.

    You have to actually go to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and drop some spherical objects to see how quickly they fall.

    • Replies: @TelfoedJohn
    @Rosie

    https://m.imgur.com/gallery/juT94JC

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

  28. As the Left-wing journalist Helen Lewis — formerly of the New Statesman — observed, it is becoming increasingly clear that Jones only seems to go for female journalists.

    Douglas Murray and Owen Jones are both gay.

    Left-wing gays get enraged about ‘traditional’ women, and any defence of traditional roles. They remind them of what they are not, and view them as threatening their hollow promiscuous lifestyle. Perhaps there is a subliminal competition for men.

    Right-wing gays often defend traditional roles, but there is an unreal abstract quality to what they view these roles are.

  29. @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    I think it’s obviously true that men are better at cooperating with each other and consequently getting things done. They accept hierarchies in a way that women don’t.
     
    "Obviously true" doesn't cut it. This is pre-Galilean armchair logic, very typical of dissident right thinking on the WQ, in contrast to its very data-driven approach to race differences.

    You have to actually go to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and drop some spherical objects to see how quickly they fall.

    Replies: @TelfoedJohn

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @TelfoedJohn

    This actually happened to be the example I was thinking.

    Replies: @Rosie, @TelfoedJohn

  30. @Rosie

    Huh, you think evolution stopped sometime before people got houses? Anyway, it would work for long houses too, or nomads.
     
    No, it wouldn't. Nomadic women would have had to cooperate for survival and defense while men were hunting large game.

    There is no reason whatsoever to believe that women are less "cooperative" then men in any respect whatsoever. Nor is there any reason to believe that women did not have evolutionary pressure to cooperate. Even now, a social network is highly useful for women. I have given away thousands of dollars of stuff to younger parents that they would otherwise have had to buy themselves. We run your kids' sports teams, Sunday school programs, scout troops, etc. Do you think all that shit just happens with no work and cooperation on our part?

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3182429

    Replies: @songbird

    “Nomadic women would have had to cooperate for survival and defense while men were hunting large game.”

    Defense? You think women successfully defended themselves against raiding men? Amazons are fictional. We are talking about intergroup competition here.

    Look at a haplotype map of Europe. You can very clearly see R1b and R1a cluster – very powerful evidence for men cooperating. But none on the level of mitochondria.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @songbird


    Defense? You think women successfully defended themselves against raiding men?
     
    I don't know. I wasn't there, but the idea isn't nearly as risible as the idea of the Taliban defeating the United States military, is it? Yet, here we are, and it’s not the first time. I can't imagine men left their women without weapons, dogs, or, at minimum, a place to hide and an evacuation plan with a chain of command. Never underestimate the power of home court advantage.

    Look at a haplotype map of Europe. You can very clearly see R1b and R1a cluster – very powerful evidence for men cooperating. But none on the level of mitochondria.
     
    Lol my achin' sides.

    DR men: Men are more cooperative than women.

    Rosie: Evidence?

    DR men: Our prodigious history of mass slaughter, and an episode of a reality TV show.

    Seriously, just GFY already. Intelligent people shouldn't be subjected to this kind of nonsense.

    Replies: @songbird

  31. So it comes that Man, the coward,
    when he gathers to confer
    With his fellow-braves in council,
    dare not leave a place for her
    Where, at war with Life and Conscience,
    he uplifts his erring hands
    To some God of Abstract Justice –
    which no woman understands.

    And how is that working out for y’all? As we reflect on the Afghanistan debacle, it bears remembering whose bright idea this was to begin with:

    https://www.e-ir.info/2012/01/19/men-and-womens-support-for-war-accounting-for-the-gender-gap-in-public-opinion/

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    Men decided that women were not beasts of burden (some anyway).

    Men decided that women should have political equality.

    Men decided that women like Rosie should be allowed to express her opinion, and further, men decided that women some women had opinions that should be considered.

    Replies: @Rosie

  32. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Kevin McDonald (Gentile man), say, is incomparably more radical than, Amy Wax (Jewish woman). Culture of Critique is the Bible of the US Alt Right.

    AFAIK, former was allowed to retire quietly and gracefully.

    Latter seems to be facing a never-ending storm of controversy.

    https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1434157086686937093

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    He is, of course, more radical- but he’s essentially nuts. I’ve said I don’t know how many times that he is right ca. 30%, while the rest is bad philosophy of history & delusional pseudo-scholarship (Freud, Marx etc.). Then, he doesn’t care about Arabs & he’s not a holo-denier.

    I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Jews are highly irritated by two things: holo-denial & Israel-Palestinians conflict. That’s why they were after Norman Finkelstein, but basically indifferent to MacDonald.

    Also, I don’t know much about Amy Wax. I’ve read what Derbyshire and some others wrote, and she seems to me more “dangerous” to the woke crowd because she’s been telling, more or less, a common sense truth. And that makes her an easier target for the woke bunch, because MacDonald with his “group evolutionary strategies” and thick books is nebulous.

  33. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Wokechoke

    I can't honestly say I really care (apart from being glad that this trans obsession hasn't taken root in Russia) but if I did, it would sooner make me sad than entertained.

    Eunuchs beating up women isn't fun. It's a sign of a decayed and degenerate culture.

    Also it's not even like they're beating up 250 lb Women's Studies freaks who would actually deserve it and be better off for it.

    Replies: @Philip Owen

    Moscow is the only place I have seen trans/crossdressing men on the street, well on the metro actually. Twice. Different ones.

    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
    @Philip Owen

    I've seen one or two in Dublin and a few more in London

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Philip Owen

    The difference is that they are regarded as freaks by society, though urbane Russians are too civilized to say that to their faces. (Why make fun of the mentally ill).

    In the West, you are forced to participate in the charade.

    , @Wency
    @Philip Owen

    Honestly, living in the States, I suppose I've never seen one that I can recall. I've personally been acquainted with two FtMs.

    What I see a lot more in the States (especially when I venture to the coasts, which I haven't done since Covid) are Zoomers that I imagine must identify as some sort of nonbinary/genderqueer. The weirdest one I recall was from last time I was in Boston. I stopped at a coffee shop and the skinny 20-year-old guy who took my order had long pigtails and a Jefferson Davis beard, all dyed bright green, wore eyeliner, and spoke in an affected feminine voice. I'll be honest, it took all my concentration to keep a straight face, place my order, and get out of there.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Dmitry

  34. @Philip Owen
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Moscow is the only place I have seen trans/crossdressing men on the street, well on the metro actually. Twice. Different ones.

    Replies: @(((They))) Live, @Anatoly Karlin, @Wency

    I’ve seen one or two in Dublin and a few more in London

  35. @songbird
    @Rosie

    "Nomadic women would have had to cooperate for survival and defense while men were hunting large game."

    Defense? You think women successfully defended themselves against raiding men? Amazons are fictional. We are talking about intergroup competition here.

    Look at a haplotype map of Europe. You can very clearly see R1b and R1a cluster - very powerful evidence for men cooperating. But none on the level of mitochondria.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Defense? You think women successfully defended themselves against raiding men?

    I don’t know. I wasn’t there, but the idea isn’t nearly as risible as the idea of the Taliban defeating the United States military, is it? Yet, here we are, and it’s not the first time. I can’t imagine men left their women without weapons, dogs, or, at minimum, a place to hide and an evacuation plan with a chain of command. Never underestimate the power of home court advantage.

    Look at a haplotype map of Europe. You can very clearly see R1b and R1a cluster – very powerful evidence for men cooperating. But none on the level of mitochondria.

    Lol my achin’ sides.

    DR men: Men are more cooperative than women.

    Rosie: Evidence?

    DR men: Our prodigious history of mass slaughter, and an episode of a reality TV show.

    Seriously, just GFY already. Intelligent people shouldn’t be subjected to this kind of nonsense.

    • Troll: songbird
    • Replies: @songbird
    @Rosie

    Military cooperation means slaughter. What else do you think it means? You think they wanted to win hearts and minds in the bronze age? Didn't want women, resources, or land?

    Replies: @Rosie

  36. I would say that it’s perhaps less about ” internalized sexism” among the woke than it is about a sense of betrayal.

    Men are expected to be pig degenerates, but women are supposed to be the enlightened ones. When they appear to deviate from the expected line, vengeance will be swift and sure.

    This is similar to how black dissidents from the “party line” are seemingly spurned more harshly by good thinkers than whites making similar points.

    • Agree: Rosie, Anatoly Karlin
  37. @Philip Owen
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Moscow is the only place I have seen trans/crossdressing men on the street, well on the metro actually. Twice. Different ones.

    Replies: @(((They))) Live, @Anatoly Karlin, @Wency

    The difference is that they are regarded as freaks by society, though urbane Russians are too civilized to say that to their faces. (Why make fun of the mentally ill).

    In the West, you are forced to participate in the charade.

  38. Owen Jones is an effeminate homo, so there might be some element of cattishness/sexual rivalry going on there.

  39. @Rosie

    So it comes that Man, the coward,
    when he gathers to confer
    With his fellow-braves in council,
    dare not leave a place for her
    Where, at war with Life and Conscience,
    he uplifts his erring hands
    To some God of Abstract Justice –
    which no woman understands.
     
    And how is that working out for y'all? As we reflect on the Afghanistan debacle, it bears remembering whose bright idea this was to begin with:

    https://www.e-ir.info/2012/01/19/men-and-womens-support-for-war-accounting-for-the-gender-gap-in-public-opinion/

    Replies: @iffen

    Men decided that women were not beasts of burden (some anyway).

    Men decided that women should have political equality.

    Men decided that women like Rosie should be allowed to express her opinion, and further, men decided that women some women had opinions that should be considered.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    women like Rosie
     
    WTF is that supposed to mean?

    Do you disagree with something I said?

    https://c.tenor.com/x8AwrtoIjxEAAAAi/cartoon-cute.gif

    Replies: @iffen

  40. @Philip Owen
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Moscow is the only place I have seen trans/crossdressing men on the street, well on the metro actually. Twice. Different ones.

    Replies: @(((They))) Live, @Anatoly Karlin, @Wency

    Honestly, living in the States, I suppose I’ve never seen one that I can recall. I’ve personally been acquainted with two FtMs.

    What I see a lot more in the States (especially when I venture to the coasts, which I haven’t done since Covid) are Zoomers that I imagine must identify as some sort of nonbinary/genderqueer. The weirdest one I recall was from last time I was in Boston. I stopped at a coffee shop and the skinny 20-year-old guy who took my order had long pigtails and a Jefferson Davis beard, all dyed bright green, wore eyeliner, and spoke in an affected feminine voice. I’ll be honest, it took all my concentration to keep a straight face, place my order, and get out of there.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Wency

    Agree. Over-the-hill men acting out some weird mental-sexual illness on themselves Bruce Jenner-style isn't really new, common, or even all that damaging in the grand scheme of society.

    What is more troubling, less precedented, and more socially damaging is the new trend of young women and girls mutilating themselves in the name of the "gender nonbinary" or whatever.

    To put it in coldly clinically sociological terms, elderly MtFs aren't really removing much if any human capital from society, but young FtMs or FtWhatevers just on the cusp of their most productive years are maximal human capital losses.

    Like you, I know no MtFs personally, but I'm acquainted with several young FtMs/FtWhatevers, every one of them was an above-average attractiveness, above-average intelligence, middle+ class young white woman. Besides the visceral repugnance at the harm they've done themselves, I can't help but think that for each of them there is a young male somewhere doomed to inceldom, resentment, and carrying out some equal and opposite reaction.

    , @Dmitry
    @Wency

    Why do you care what they are doing with their private sphere? Everyone has to "find god (or gods)" in their own way, however eccentric it might appear. For all we know, these eccentrically clothed people might be much better (or much worse) people than ourselves in their daily life.

    The problem in modern America (and technological society in general), is more in the opposite direction - there is increasing conformism, lack of real options for diversity, and eccentricity, etc. And this has been a view of observers for at least a century now.

    That is there are external signs of eccentricity or diversity (strange hair colours, gender nonbinary, etc), while peoples' souls become more and more homogenized to each other.

    It's the "ersatz diversity", or "ersatz eccentricity", while the world become increasingly a "global village", in most dystopian sense of "village" (hazing, surveillance, conformism, gossip from neighbours, etc).

    That is one of the disappointments of America - is that it presented ideologically (very beautifully) as a land of freedom and innovation, where everyone is creating their own cultural pathways and "experiments in life".

    However, of course the reality, is a little disappointing - a society with one of the world's highest imprisonment rates, massive surveillance, and homogenization of culture, architecture and lifestyle on a continent size scale.

    People can at least find some small control over diversity of personal appearances and eccentricity in that sphere - but the suburbs they originated from will all likely look the same, regardless if they are from Colorado or Pennsylvania.

  41. While gays may still be controversial for men, TG people (both m>f and f>m) simply don’t trigger a strong reaction among men, who find this, generally, weird & not having anything to do with their sex/gender position.

    With females, it is different because they feel- correctly- that fake women would like to be them while lacking all the real stuff (periods, maternity, psychological profile, physiology, behavioral and social roles & norms..). This is like an invasion of freaky male pervs with the goal of undermining femininity, the very female identity. Women find TG both gross and threatening.

    For men, these are just psycho cases having no repercussion re. masculinity.

  42. @Rich
    @El Dato

    Conservatives have, for the most part, been kicked out of main stream media. It started when the neocons took over National Review and then continued with their rampage through the republican party. Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan and others were pushed aside for more moderate figures like Rich Lowry and David French who aren't actually conservative. It's impossible to be a conservative if you support homosexual marriage, forced integration or abortion. Conservatives actually favor reducing the size of government and returning to following the Constitution.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

    “Conservatives actually favor reducing the size of government and returning to following the Constitution.”

    Delusional. Cut your losses before you are exterminated and work for a Velvet Divorce.

    A wolf will sacrifice it’s life for the pack. Conservatives are about that smart.

    • Replies: @Rich
    @Drapetomaniac

    When the rest of you are starving and weakening from your cytokin storms, conservatives will be standing strong. Conservatives are self sufficient, believe in strong families and self reliance. And yes, a conservative will sacrifice his life for his family and his Faith, and that's why we will survive while you and your ilk are kneeling, begging for government cheese.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

  43. @iffen
    @Rosie

    Men decided that women were not beasts of burden (some anyway).

    Men decided that women should have political equality.

    Men decided that women like Rosie should be allowed to express her opinion, and further, men decided that women some women had opinions that should be considered.

    Replies: @Rosie

    women like Rosie

    WTF is that supposed to mean?

    Do you disagree with something I said?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    Your attitude toward men is similar to the ankle biters that attack white Americans for acquiescing to slavery while ignoring the fact that it was white Americans that ended slavery in America.

    Anyway, your main problem is the baked in misogyny of your White Nationalism that is your preferred group identity. As we used to say in junior high, “seems like a personal problem to me.”

    Replies: @Rosie

  44. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie

    I think it's obviously true that men are better at cooperating with each other and consequently getting things done. They accept hierarchies in a way that women don't.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Drapetomaniac

    Tribal males went hunting in groups.

  45. @TelfoedJohn
    @Rosie

    https://m.imgur.com/gallery/juT94JC

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    This actually happened to be the example I was thinking.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    This actually happened to be the example I was thinking.
     
    If a fake reality TV show convinced you that women are less cooperative than men, you were already very much inclined to believe that.

    I have heard this claim about us living in caves before. How convenient that it is counterfactual and therefore unfalsifiable.

    The problem with it is that it fails to account for necessity. One might suppose that my grass would go uncut if something were to happen to Mr. Rosie, since he is the one who always cuts the grass. That is, of course, absurd. I would have to cut my own grass. If I couldn't push the one I have, I'd buy a lighter one. For all we know, the lack of men might have driven innovation for lack of muscle power. I have as much evidence for this claim as TelfoedJohn does for his: none.

    White men have done wonderful, amazing things, so why the need to belittle women? (And yes, assuming we would be helpless cave dwellers without you is belittling. That is the sort of conclusion charitable people draw only with compelling evidence.)

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    , @TelfoedJohn
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Differences in cooperation depend on the context. It’s the same old difference of emphasis between people-centred and thing-centred. If it’s a more social task, women will be better, and if it’s building or inventing something, men will be better. Rosie will not invent, build, or fix a lawnmower, but she will spend as much energy enforcing social rules.

  46. @Anatoly Karlin
    @TelfoedJohn

    This actually happened to be the example I was thinking.

    Replies: @Rosie, @TelfoedJohn

    This actually happened to be the example I was thinking.

    If a fake reality TV show convinced you that women are less cooperative than men, you were already very much inclined to believe that.

    I have heard this claim about us living in caves before. How convenient that it is counterfactual and therefore unfalsifiable.

    The problem with it is that it fails to account for necessity. One might suppose that my grass would go uncut if something were to happen to Mr. Rosie, since he is the one who always cuts the grass. That is, of course, absurd. I would have to cut my own grass. If I couldn’t push the one I have, I’d buy a lighter one. For all we know, the lack of men might have driven innovation for lack of muscle power. I have as much evidence for this claim as TelfoedJohn does for his: none.

    White men have done wonderful, amazing things, so why the need to belittle women? (And yes, assuming we would be helpless cave dwellers without you is belittling. That is the sort of conclusion charitable people draw only with compelling evidence.)

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie

    I'd be happy to see countervailing evidence.

    I'm sure you're capable of cutting grass. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the ability of large teams to get complex things done.

    Men have a 0.3-0.5 S.D. advantage in general knowledge and, more importantly, far better teamwork. All female teams are characterized by cliques and drama. There's a reason that women not wanting to work under women bosses is a meme.

    Women are more conscientious workers and less psychopathic. That's good, but the former outweighs the latter.

    I don't think women would end up living in caves if all the men vanished (and they were to solve the reproduction problem without our help). My guess, long-term, would be technological stasis at Latin American levels of development.

    Replies: @Rosie, @megabar

  47. @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    This actually happened to be the example I was thinking.
     
    If a fake reality TV show convinced you that women are less cooperative than men, you were already very much inclined to believe that.

    I have heard this claim about us living in caves before. How convenient that it is counterfactual and therefore unfalsifiable.

    The problem with it is that it fails to account for necessity. One might suppose that my grass would go uncut if something were to happen to Mr. Rosie, since he is the one who always cuts the grass. That is, of course, absurd. I would have to cut my own grass. If I couldn't push the one I have, I'd buy a lighter one. For all we know, the lack of men might have driven innovation for lack of muscle power. I have as much evidence for this claim as TelfoedJohn does for his: none.

    White men have done wonderful, amazing things, so why the need to belittle women? (And yes, assuming we would be helpless cave dwellers without you is belittling. That is the sort of conclusion charitable people draw only with compelling evidence.)

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    I’d be happy to see countervailing evidence.

    I’m sure you’re capable of cutting grass. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the ability of large teams to get complex things done.

    Men have a 0.3-0.5 S.D. advantage in general knowledge and, more importantly, far better teamwork. All female teams are characterized by cliques and drama. There’s a reason that women not wanting to work under women bosses is a meme.

    Women are more conscientious workers and less psychopathic. That’s good, but the former outweighs the latter.

    I don’t think women would end up living in caves if all the men vanished (and they were to solve the reproduction problem without our help). My guess, long-term, would be technological stasis at Latin American levels of development.

    • Troll: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    I’d be happy to see countervailing evidence.
     
    The problem is you haven't met your own burden of proof concerning your affirmative claim that women are less cooperative than men, so your demand for "countervailing" evidence is out of turn. Stereotypes and memes about "cliques and drama"are not evidence.

    Men have a 0.3-0.5 S.D. advantage in general knowledge
     
    I'm skeptical. What counts as "general knowledge" is, I suspect, determined in large part by what men are interested in. Does knowing how to teach a child how to read count? (BTW, learning how to read is one of the most difficult things a child will do in the whole of their academic career.)

    I don’t think women would end up living in caves if all the men vanished (and they were to solve the reproduction problem without our help). My guess, long-term, would be technological stasis at Latin American levels of development.
     
    This is unwarranted pessimism about women's abilities. What is the average IQ in Mexico? 89? White women's average IQ is at least a half standard deviation higher than that. We're more curious, too, by far. I know the conventional wisdom is that girls pay attention at school because we're "conformist" or whatever, but that is not the whole story. We actually like learning things.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    , @megabar
    @Anatoly Karlin

    > I don’t think women would end up living in caves if all the men vanished (and they were to solve the reproduction problem without our help).

    Eventually, it'd probably look a lot like our world, because the women who are more masculine in terms of organization, would be more successful, and would pass on their traits. Assuming, of course, that the "reproduction problem" isn't solved by means that obviate gene transmission.

  48. @Dreadilk
    Women do what men say. Almost everyone I know the man in the relationship dictates his woman's ideology. Even if the woman is leaning another way they still follow what the man says. If someone has opposite experience I would love to discuss. What happened with modernity is that a large slice of woman population was taken out of relationship space and put in degenerate space. Women in both spaces are mutually exclusive.

    Groypers are too young for me to interact or understand but little interaction I had with them was hilarious. I think it's mostly them that run Star Trek but Racist accounts.

    Replies: @Wency, @Rosie, @Barbarossa

    Women do what men say

    Some women are also good letting men think that they are the boss when the women are actually pulling the strings.

    It’s impossible to make generalizations though. Personally, I know more guys whose women keep their nuts in jar (not that most of those men would ever admit it!) than women who are domineered by their men. This even includes a fair sampling of “the man leads!” Evangelical Christians.

    I’m also dubious about the idea that women have their ideology dictated to them by men. Sometimes you’ll find women who have enough actual things to do in life that they can spare few cares for political ideology (which I’m pretty sure is actually a fairly sane course for both men and women), but when they do get hooked…watch out!
    It seems that women tend more toward fervent religious belief, and this also translates to politics. My own observation has been that whether it is essential oils, meditation, Jesus, Covid (either side), or wokeness, women tend toward more extreme and fervent positions.

    In my own marriage, my wife has little interest in actively dissecting the news, since it mostly irritates her, and she has other things she would rather pay attention to. Since I keep up with things and discuss it all with her, our views end up very close. We’ve always been in pretty basic agreement on how the world works though, which has only converged more closely over time. I certainly wouldn’t say I ever tell her what to think though, and we both provide a helpful check to the other.

  49. However, apart from that, there remains the highly “traditionalist” and, in this particular context, highly ironic social expectation that women in particular should not dare stray beyond the boundaries of Woke discourse.

    Are most of these cancellations related to the trans issue? Another commenter has mentioned that this is an issue where a lot of women hold views that run against the acceptable woke positions, and they are less willing to compromise on them. Male to female trans activists and their allies also seem particularly coordinated and aggressive in terms of their cancellation campaigns, they have their own reasons for directing these against prominent women they see as TERFs. I saw the other day that Judith Butler, reigning chief prophetess of Queer Theory, has been saying that these gender-sceptical women represent the vanguard of present day Fascism.

  50. @Drapetomaniac
    @Rich

    "Conservatives actually favor reducing the size of government and returning to following the Constitution."

    Delusional. Cut your losses before you are exterminated and work for a Velvet Divorce.

    A wolf will sacrifice it's life for the pack. Conservatives are about that smart.

    Replies: @Rich

    When the rest of you are starving and weakening from your cytokin storms, conservatives will be standing strong. Conservatives are self sufficient, believe in strong families and self reliance. And yes, a conservative will sacrifice his life for his family and his Faith, and that’s why we will survive while you and your ilk are kneeling, begging for government cheese.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    @Rich

    Conservatives will also kill millions because their government tells them to.

    How are they any better than the leftards? They aren't.

    Replies: @Rich

  51. On the one hand, since women are naturally much more conformist then men, there is nothing surprising about this – conformism is, by definition, loaded towards observing the norms and enforcing the mores of the dominant culture, so your opinions about it will naturally depend on your assessment of how “good” or “bad” said culture is (which happens to be Wokeism in the modern West).

    Broadly Wokism appears to be a sort of outgrowth of Western Feminism, and a lot of the leading scholars behind it are female (in CRT and ‘Whiteness studies’, in Gender/Queer Theory, in Feminism). Maybe it is the first mainstream political movement beyond Feminism itself in which women have played such a dominant leading role.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Coconuts


    Broadly Wokism appears to be a sort of outgrowth of Western Feminism,
     
    Utter nonsense. "Western feminism" doesn't even exist anymore. Now, we have "intersectional feminism," which is just minoritarian racial politics by another name. And no, this was not a natural or inevitable evolution of feminism. It was the entirely predictable consequence of Jewish domination of all Leftist causes.

    Nobody is allowed to care about much of anything anymore except insofar as Whites can be cast as villains undermining non-Whites' wellbeing. Hence, environmental racism, housing inequality, minority unemployment, etc.
  52. Did I say LGBTQ+ is a form of crypto-patriarchy where “deviant” norms are assessed based on a patriarchal, heteronornative view? You will not speak of LGBTQ+ in a world where humans have only one sex, the hermaphrodites with both reproductive organs and an overall feminine appearance.

    (The heteronormative views are largely developed from biological observations. But how it develops, along with the dominance of any one sex, is more cultural and social.)

  53. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie

    I'd be happy to see countervailing evidence.

    I'm sure you're capable of cutting grass. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the ability of large teams to get complex things done.

    Men have a 0.3-0.5 S.D. advantage in general knowledge and, more importantly, far better teamwork. All female teams are characterized by cliques and drama. There's a reason that women not wanting to work under women bosses is a meme.

    Women are more conscientious workers and less psychopathic. That's good, but the former outweighs the latter.

    I don't think women would end up living in caves if all the men vanished (and they were to solve the reproduction problem without our help). My guess, long-term, would be technological stasis at Latin American levels of development.

    Replies: @Rosie, @megabar

    I’d be happy to see countervailing evidence.

    The problem is you haven’t met your own burden of proof concerning your affirmative claim that women are less cooperative than men, so your demand for “countervailing” evidence is out of turn. Stereotypes and memes about “cliques and drama”are not evidence.

    Men have a 0.3-0.5 S.D. advantage in general knowledge

    I’m skeptical. What counts as “general knowledge” is, I suspect, determined in large part by what men are interested in. Does knowing how to teach a child how to read count? (BTW, learning how to read is one of the most difficult things a child will do in the whole of their academic career.)

    I don’t think women would end up living in caves if all the men vanished (and they were to solve the reproduction problem without our help). My guess, long-term, would be technological stasis at Latin American levels of development.

    This is unwarranted pessimism about women’s abilities. What is the average IQ in Mexico? 89? White women’s average IQ is at least a half standard deviation higher than that. We’re more curious, too, by far. I know the conventional wisdom is that girls pay attention at school because we’re “conformist” or whatever, but that is not the whole story. We actually like learning things.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie


    Stereotypes and memes about “cliques and drama”are not evidence.
     
    Stereotypes usually exist for a reason.

    I’m skeptical.
     
    That's fine. But facts say otherwise.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289601000642?via%3Dihub

    What counts as “general knowledge” is, I suspect, determined in large part by what men are interested in.
     
    Men created ~98% of significant inventions and scientific advances, a ratio that hasn't changed even with women's liberation this century. So I would say that what men are interested in is also what is important, at least so far as "getting complex things done" is concerned.

    Does knowing how to teach a child how to read count?
     
    Women are generally better with children. That's important too, in it's own way. I didn't claim otherwise.

    We’re more curious, too, by far. I know the conventional wisdom is that girls pay attention at school because we’re “conformist” or whatever, but that is not the whole story. We actually like learning things.
     
    "Like learning things" is one of the most conformist things that one can possibly say, so thank you for confirming my point. :)

    Incidentally, I never said conformism is bad. Having conformists/"conservatives" in place helps anchor society.
  54. We all know men can migrate en masse to unsettled country without women and take over. Great example: the Spanish Conquest of Americas. Of course, they might have had some help from the native women!

    Could women liberate their sisters in Afghanistan? Would they? Or will they keep nagging the white man to die for their insane fantasy of equality?

    I don’t believe for even a second that women are the main targets of political correctness. Experience and common sense says the opposite. However, CONSERVATIVES would never oppose men being targeted by false accusation and political denunciations. It’s only bad if it affects WOMEN disproportionately.

    All laws are enforced by men, so all laws are effectively determined by what men are willing to accept. Women’s suffrage must inevitably lead to the collapse of a republican system, and that has never been more clear in this current year.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @GazaPlanet


    Could women liberate their sisters in Afghanistan? Would they?
     
    I don't know. All I know is that, whatever we do or don't do, you will be there to tell us all about how it shows how stupid and evil we are.

    Or will they keep nagging the white man to die for their insane fantasy of equality?
     
    Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, women have always been more skeptical than men about foreign wars invariably started by the overwhelmingly-male military-industrial complex.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @GazaPlanet


    Women’s suffrage must inevitably lead to the collapse of a republican system, and that has never been more clear in this current year.
     
    The US has had female suffrage for more than a century now. Said collapse (into what? ) seems to be taking its time.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

    , @Rosie
    @GazaPlanet


    Of course, they might have had some help from the native women!
     
    BTW, GP, wasn't it native men, tired of being hunted down and sacrificed/cannibalize by Aztec men, who helped the conquistadors?

    https://www.history.com/news/aztec-human-sacrifice-religion
  55. @Coconuts

    On the one hand, since women are naturally much more conformist then men, there is nothing surprising about this – conformism is, by definition, loaded towards observing the norms and enforcing the mores of the dominant culture, so your opinions about it will naturally depend on your assessment of how “good” or “bad” said culture is (which happens to be Wokeism in the modern West).
     
    Broadly Wokism appears to be a sort of outgrowth of Western Feminism, and a lot of the leading scholars behind it are female (in CRT and 'Whiteness studies', in Gender/Queer Theory, in Feminism). Maybe it is the first mainstream political movement beyond Feminism itself in which women have played such a dominant leading role.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Broadly Wokism appears to be a sort of outgrowth of Western Feminism,

    Utter nonsense. “Western feminism” doesn’t even exist anymore. Now, we have “intersectional feminism,” which is just minoritarian racial politics by another name. And no, this was not a natural or inevitable evolution of feminism. It was the entirely predictable consequence of Jewish domination of all Leftist causes.

    Nobody is allowed to care about much of anything anymore except insofar as Whites can be cast as villains undermining non-Whites’ wellbeing. Hence, environmental racism, housing inequality, minority unemployment, etc.

  56. @GazaPlanet
    We all know men can migrate en masse to unsettled country without women and take over. Great example: the Spanish Conquest of Americas. Of course, they might have had some help from the native women!

    Could women liberate their sisters in Afghanistan? Would they? Or will they keep nagging the white man to die for their insane fantasy of equality?

    I don't believe for even a second that women are the main targets of political correctness. Experience and common sense says the opposite. However, CONSERVATIVES would never oppose men being targeted by false accusation and political denunciations. It's only bad if it affects WOMEN disproportionately.

    All laws are enforced by men, so all laws are effectively determined by what men are willing to accept. Women's suffrage must inevitably lead to the collapse of a republican system, and that has never been more clear in this current year.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Anatoly Karlin, @Rosie

    Could women liberate their sisters in Afghanistan? Would they?

    I don’t know. All I know is that, whatever we do or don’t do, you will be there to tell us all about how it shows how stupid and evil we are.

    Or will they keep nagging the white man to die for their insane fantasy of equality?

    Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, women have always been more skeptical than men about foreign wars invariably started by the overwhelmingly-male military-industrial complex.

  57. @Anatoly Karlin
    @TelfoedJohn

    This actually happened to be the example I was thinking.

    Replies: @Rosie, @TelfoedJohn

    Differences in cooperation depend on the context. It’s the same old difference of emphasis between people-centred and thing-centred. If it’s a more social task, women will be better, and if it’s building or inventing something, men will be better. Rosie will not invent, build, or fix a lawnmower, but she will spend as much energy enforcing social rules.

  58. @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    I’d be happy to see countervailing evidence.
     
    The problem is you haven't met your own burden of proof concerning your affirmative claim that women are less cooperative than men, so your demand for "countervailing" evidence is out of turn. Stereotypes and memes about "cliques and drama"are not evidence.

    Men have a 0.3-0.5 S.D. advantage in general knowledge
     
    I'm skeptical. What counts as "general knowledge" is, I suspect, determined in large part by what men are interested in. Does knowing how to teach a child how to read count? (BTW, learning how to read is one of the most difficult things a child will do in the whole of their academic career.)

    I don’t think women would end up living in caves if all the men vanished (and they were to solve the reproduction problem without our help). My guess, long-term, would be technological stasis at Latin American levels of development.
     
    This is unwarranted pessimism about women's abilities. What is the average IQ in Mexico? 89? White women's average IQ is at least a half standard deviation higher than that. We're more curious, too, by far. I know the conventional wisdom is that girls pay attention at school because we're "conformist" or whatever, but that is not the whole story. We actually like learning things.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Stereotypes and memes about “cliques and drama”are not evidence.

    Stereotypes usually exist for a reason.

    I’m skeptical.

    That’s fine. But facts say otherwise.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289601000642?via%3Dihub

    What counts as “general knowledge” is, I suspect, determined in large part by what men are interested in.

    Men created ~98% of significant inventions and scientific advances, a ratio that hasn’t changed even with women’s liberation this century. So I would say that what men are interested in is also what is important, at least so far as “getting complex things done” is concerned.

    Does knowing how to teach a child how to read count?

    Women are generally better with children. That’s important too, in it’s own way. I didn’t claim otherwise.

    We’re more curious, too, by far. I know the conventional wisdom is that girls pay attention at school because we’re “conformist” or whatever, but that is not the whole story. We actually like learning things.

    “Like learning things” is one of the most conformist things that one can possibly say, so thank you for confirming my point. 🙂

    Incidentally, I never said conformism is bad. Having conformists/”conservatives” in place helps anchor society.

  59. @GazaPlanet
    We all know men can migrate en masse to unsettled country without women and take over. Great example: the Spanish Conquest of Americas. Of course, they might have had some help from the native women!

    Could women liberate their sisters in Afghanistan? Would they? Or will they keep nagging the white man to die for their insane fantasy of equality?

    I don't believe for even a second that women are the main targets of political correctness. Experience and common sense says the opposite. However, CONSERVATIVES would never oppose men being targeted by false accusation and political denunciations. It's only bad if it affects WOMEN disproportionately.

    All laws are enforced by men, so all laws are effectively determined by what men are willing to accept. Women's suffrage must inevitably lead to the collapse of a republican system, and that has never been more clear in this current year.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Anatoly Karlin, @Rosie

    Women’s suffrage must inevitably lead to the collapse of a republican system, and that has never been more clear in this current year.

    The US has had female suffrage for more than a century now. Said collapse (into what? ) seems to be taking its time.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Said collapse (into what?) seems to be taking it's time.

    Back into the animal world of the concept other people's property not existing.

    Just those in power having property: our lords and masters.

  60. @Rosie
    @songbird


    Defense? You think women successfully defended themselves against raiding men?
     
    I don't know. I wasn't there, but the idea isn't nearly as risible as the idea of the Taliban defeating the United States military, is it? Yet, here we are, and it’s not the first time. I can't imagine men left their women without weapons, dogs, or, at minimum, a place to hide and an evacuation plan with a chain of command. Never underestimate the power of home court advantage.

    Look at a haplotype map of Europe. You can very clearly see R1b and R1a cluster – very powerful evidence for men cooperating. But none on the level of mitochondria.
     
    Lol my achin' sides.

    DR men: Men are more cooperative than women.

    Rosie: Evidence?

    DR men: Our prodigious history of mass slaughter, and an episode of a reality TV show.

    Seriously, just GFY already. Intelligent people shouldn't be subjected to this kind of nonsense.

    Replies: @songbird

    Military cooperation means slaughter. What else do you think it means? You think they wanted to win hearts and minds in the bronze age? Didn’t want women, resources, or land?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @songbird


    Military cooperation means slaughter.
     
    I readily concede that men are better at cooperating to kill each other than women are.

    Replies: @songbird

  61. Stereotypes usually exist for a reason.

    Lazy. If this is what I encountered when I first started learning about race differences, I would have laughed it off as intellectual bootstrapping, and rightly so.

    Men created ~98% of significant inventions and scientific advances, a ratio that hasn’t changed even with women’s liberation this century. So I would say that what men are interested in is also what is important, at least so far as “getting complex things done” is concerned.

    The problem here is that you fail to take account of the crowding out effect of men’s existence. Men are more mechanically inclined than women, on average. The most mechanically gifted therefore will always be men. Now, suppose there were no men. You now have all sorts of opportunities for women that you otherwise wouldn’t have had.

    If women’s track and field didn’t exist, men would win all the races all the time. It does not follow from that that women can’t run and would never finish a race. Respective 100 meter records:

    Usain Bolt, 9.58
    Flojo, 10.49

    Anywhere Usain Bolt can go, Flojo can also go. It will just take her a few seconds longer.
    This is the fundamental problem with your counterfactual speculation (and you know perfectly well that’s what they are). There is no reason at all to believe there would ever be technological stasis without men. You can choose to believe it if you like, but don’t try to pretend it’s self-evident common sense.

    That’s important too, in it’s own way.

    That’s putting it mildly. You can’t make progress if you can’t share information across time and space via the written word. I value women’s traditional roles, and I am 100% fine with specializing in what we’re best at. Reactionaries like to go on about how feminism makes women act like men. Maybe a little bit of feminism does, but a lot of feminism makes them act like women again.

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/women-stem-gender-equality-paradox-correction

    “Like learning things” is one of the most conformist things that one can possibly say, so thank you for confirming my point.

    Anything and everything women say can and will be used against us in these forums. In any event, I would encourage you, as a dissident right thought leader, and one of the better ones at that, to think hard about whether it makes strategic sense to insult women in ways that (1) are not verifiable, and (2) are totally academic, practically useless questions, anyway.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie


    Lazy.
     
    Not searching out sources in support of near consensus opinions is not laziness. I sourced my claim that men have superior general knowledge.

    Now, suppose there were no men. You now have all sorts of opportunities for women that you otherwise wouldn’t have had.
     
    The problem is that there is much less variability amongst women, and cardinal advances are typically made by extremely superlative people. Perhaps there will be some technological progress, but it will advance at a glacial pace.

    Nobody is stopping women from, say, playing chess. They are in fact strongly encouraged to do so in the modern world (go into programming, into STEM, etc). But there is typically only 1, maximum 2, women in the world's top 100 players by Elo rating at any one time. As expected, the current top woman, Hou Yifan, is #82 overall. No woman except perhaps Judit Polgar (for a few months, anyway) ever made it into the top 10. This 2% ratio, surprise surprise, happens to perfectly reflect the sex distribution in elite-level human accomplishment historically.

    Is this bio-reality unfair? Maybe. Then again, many things are.

    In any event, I would encourage you, as a dissident right thought leader, and one of the better ones at that, to think hard about whether it makes strategic sense to insult women in ways that (1) are not verifiable, and (2) are totally academic, practically useless questions, anyway.
     
    This post is highly pro-woman, pointing out significant sexist discrimination in a way that also happens to trigger resident rightoids.

    You barged in with your own "truthy" assertions that mostly range from highly questionable to obviously wrong, and take personal offense when the numbers don't back up what you say, and then presume to dictate what I should or should not say based on how they affect your feelings, and because said observations are "useless anyway" (indeed, why do anything interesting or eccentric at all, beyond mowing the lawn). This is unfortunately also something that is more typical of women, and goes some way to explaining why some men insist on male only spaces for debates and discussions. This is of course highly unfair to reasonable and intelligent women, of whom there are many, including here I am happy to say.

    Replies: @Rosie

  62. @songbird
    @Rosie

    Military cooperation means slaughter. What else do you think it means? You think they wanted to win hearts and minds in the bronze age? Didn't want women, resources, or land?

    Replies: @Rosie

    Military cooperation means slaughter.

    I readily concede that men are better at cooperating to kill each other than women are.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Rosie

    Don't feel too bad about it. Women who achieve power generally have no problem ordering men to kill. For ex: Cleopatra or Livia. Where women are deficient is in organizing at the squad level and up.

    Replies: @joe862

  63. @GazaPlanet
    We all know men can migrate en masse to unsettled country without women and take over. Great example: the Spanish Conquest of Americas. Of course, they might have had some help from the native women!

    Could women liberate their sisters in Afghanistan? Would they? Or will they keep nagging the white man to die for their insane fantasy of equality?

    I don't believe for even a second that women are the main targets of political correctness. Experience and common sense says the opposite. However, CONSERVATIVES would never oppose men being targeted by false accusation and political denunciations. It's only bad if it affects WOMEN disproportionately.

    All laws are enforced by men, so all laws are effectively determined by what men are willing to accept. Women's suffrage must inevitably lead to the collapse of a republican system, and that has never been more clear in this current year.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Anatoly Karlin, @Rosie

    Of course, they might have had some help from the native women!

    BTW, GP, wasn’t it native men, tired of being hunted down and sacrificed/cannibalize by Aztec men, who helped the conquistadors?

    https://www.history.com/news/aztec-human-sacrifice-religion

  64. @Rosie

    Stereotypes usually exist for a reason.
     
    Lazy. If this is what I encountered when I first started learning about race differences, I would have laughed it off as intellectual bootstrapping, and rightly so.

    Men created ~98% of significant inventions and scientific advances, a ratio that hasn’t changed even with women’s liberation this century. So I would say that what men are interested in is also what is important, at least so far as “getting complex things done” is concerned.
     
    The problem here is that you fail to take account of the crowding out effect of men's existence. Men are more mechanically inclined than women, on average. The most mechanically gifted therefore will always be men. Now, suppose there were no men. You now have all sorts of opportunities for women that you otherwise wouldn't have had.

    If women's track and field didn't exist, men would win all the races all the time. It does not follow from that that women can't run and would never finish a race. Respective 100 meter records:

    Usain Bolt, 9.58
    Flojo, 10.49

    Anywhere Usain Bolt can go, Flojo can also go. It will just take her a few seconds longer.
    This is the fundamental problem with your counterfactual speculation (and you know perfectly well that's what they are). There is no reason at all to believe there would ever be technological stasis without men. You can choose to believe it if you like, but don't try to pretend it's self-evident common sense.

    That’s important too, in it’s own way.
     
    That's putting it mildly. You can't make progress if you can't share information across time and space via the written word. I value women's traditional roles, and I am 100% fine with specializing in what we're best at. Reactionaries like to go on about how feminism makes women act like men. Maybe a little bit of feminism does, but a lot of feminism makes them act like women again.

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/women-stem-gender-equality-paradox-correction

    “Like learning things” is one of the most conformist things that one can possibly say, so thank you for confirming my point.
     
    Anything and everything women say can and will be used against us in these forums. In any event, I would encourage you, as a dissident right thought leader, and one of the better ones at that, to think hard about whether it makes strategic sense to insult women in ways that (1) are not verifiable, and (2) are totally academic, practically useless questions, anyway.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Lazy.

    Not searching out sources in support of near consensus opinions is not laziness. I sourced my claim that men have superior general knowledge.

    Now, suppose there were no men. You now have all sorts of opportunities for women that you otherwise wouldn’t have had.

    The problem is that there is much less variability amongst women, and cardinal advances are typically made by extremely superlative people. Perhaps there will be some technological progress, but it will advance at a glacial pace.

    Nobody is stopping women from, say, playing chess. They are in fact strongly encouraged to do so in the modern world (go into programming, into STEM, etc). But there is typically only 1, maximum 2, women in the world’s top 100 players by Elo rating at any one time. As expected, the current top woman, Hou Yifan, is #82 overall. No woman except perhaps Judit Polgar (for a few months, anyway) ever made it into the top 10. This 2% ratio, surprise surprise, happens to perfectly reflect the sex distribution in elite-level human accomplishment historically.

    Is this bio-reality unfair? Maybe. Then again, many things are.

    In any event, I would encourage you, as a dissident right thought leader, and one of the better ones at that, to think hard about whether it makes strategic sense to insult women in ways that (1) are not verifiable, and (2) are totally academic, practically useless questions, anyway.

    This post is highly pro-woman, pointing out significant sexist discrimination in a way that also happens to trigger resident rightoids.

    You barged in with your own “truthy” assertions that mostly range from highly questionable to obviously wrong, and take personal offense when the numbers don’t back up what you say, and then presume to dictate what I should or should not say based on how they affect your feelings, and because said observations are “useless anyway” (indeed, why do anything interesting or eccentric at all, beyond mowing the lawn). This is unfortunately also something that is more typical of women, and goes some way to explaining why some men insist on male only spaces for debates and discussions. This is of course highly unfair to reasonable and intelligent women, of whom there are many, including here I am happy to say.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    You barged in with your own “truthy” assertions that mostly range from highly questionable to obviously wrong, and take personal offense when the numbers don’t back up what you say, and then presume to dictate what I should or should not say based on how they affect your feelings, and because said observations are “useless anyway” (indeed, why do anything interesting or eccentric at all, beyond mowing the lawn). This is unfortunately also something that is more typical of women, and goes some way to explaining why some men insist on male only spaces for debates and discussions. This is of course highly unfair to reasonable and intelligent women, of whom there are many, including here I am happy to say.
     
    Mr. Karlin. You are 100% entitled to say anything you please. That does not mean that it is prudent to say such things. I know that people's feelings are considered immaterial in these parts, and that is precisely why the dissident right is not a movement but a stuckment, because it doesn't move. The Left, meanwhile, goes from victory to victory by ... caring about people's feelings. That is to say, they make it a point not to insult and demean potential allies. My feelings, I'll grant you, my feelings aren't particularly important. I am a true believer and nothing you or anyone else says will drive me away. It's potential converts I'm worried about.

    I sourced my claim that men have superior general knowledge.
     
    I appreciate that, but, because it was behind a paywall, I wasn't able to examine it. Again, that is something that a blogger or journalist should do, but noone ever does, and that is precisely my problem with how the WQ is dealt with in these parts.

    The problem is that there is much less variability amongst women, and cardinal advances are typically made by extremely superlative people. Perhaps there will be some technological progress, but it will advance at a glacial pace.

     

    The question is not whether there is much less variability among women. The question is whether there is enough variability such that, in the absence of men, progress would continue. If I am not mistaken, there are more extremely high IQ women in existence now than there were extremely high IQ men at the dawn of the industrial revolution, partly because of better nutrition and partly because of higher population. On what grounds, then, do you conclude that progress would "proceed at a glacial pace" without men?

    Mr. Karlin, your argument is, in essence, that, because women don't do X, we can't do X. That is a non sequitur, because it fails to take account of comparative advantage. Almost all film producers are Jewish. Does that mean White men can't make movies? No, it means that Jews dominate because of a marginal IQ advantage. Without Jews, White men would make perfectly good movies.

    Now, that is a different situation, because Jews are an outgroup and men are not. At least for now, we can't do without you and wouldn't want to even if we could. You enhance our lives in myriad ways and we cherish your fellowship and contributions. Why isn't that enough for you?


    Nobody is stopping women from, say, playing chess.
     
    Indeed, and that is the whole point. There are in fact thousands of women playing exceptionally good chess nowadays. These women are so incredible that they would wipe the floor with all but a tiny fraction of men on the planet. The difference between the best man and the best woman is totally beyond the ken of us mere mortals. If men were to disappear tomorrow, chess would carry on just fine without you.

    Notice, I am not blaming men for women's underachievement in chess. I am not demanding affirmative action for women. I am not demanding that women be represented I this or that. All I am doing is suggesting that you give women the benefit of the doubt. If that seems unreasonable to you, that's something you need to think about.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @HenryBaker

  65. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie


    Lazy.
     
    Not searching out sources in support of near consensus opinions is not laziness. I sourced my claim that men have superior general knowledge.

    Now, suppose there were no men. You now have all sorts of opportunities for women that you otherwise wouldn’t have had.
     
    The problem is that there is much less variability amongst women, and cardinal advances are typically made by extremely superlative people. Perhaps there will be some technological progress, but it will advance at a glacial pace.

    Nobody is stopping women from, say, playing chess. They are in fact strongly encouraged to do so in the modern world (go into programming, into STEM, etc). But there is typically only 1, maximum 2, women in the world's top 100 players by Elo rating at any one time. As expected, the current top woman, Hou Yifan, is #82 overall. No woman except perhaps Judit Polgar (for a few months, anyway) ever made it into the top 10. This 2% ratio, surprise surprise, happens to perfectly reflect the sex distribution in elite-level human accomplishment historically.

    Is this bio-reality unfair? Maybe. Then again, many things are.

    In any event, I would encourage you, as a dissident right thought leader, and one of the better ones at that, to think hard about whether it makes strategic sense to insult women in ways that (1) are not verifiable, and (2) are totally academic, practically useless questions, anyway.
     
    This post is highly pro-woman, pointing out significant sexist discrimination in a way that also happens to trigger resident rightoids.

    You barged in with your own "truthy" assertions that mostly range from highly questionable to obviously wrong, and take personal offense when the numbers don't back up what you say, and then presume to dictate what I should or should not say based on how they affect your feelings, and because said observations are "useless anyway" (indeed, why do anything interesting or eccentric at all, beyond mowing the lawn). This is unfortunately also something that is more typical of women, and goes some way to explaining why some men insist on male only spaces for debates and discussions. This is of course highly unfair to reasonable and intelligent women, of whom there are many, including here I am happy to say.

    Replies: @Rosie

    You barged in with your own “truthy” assertions that mostly range from highly questionable to obviously wrong, and take personal offense when the numbers don’t back up what you say, and then presume to dictate what I should or should not say based on how they affect your feelings, and because said observations are “useless anyway” (indeed, why do anything interesting or eccentric at all, beyond mowing the lawn). This is unfortunately also something that is more typical of women, and goes some way to explaining why some men insist on male only spaces for debates and discussions. This is of course highly unfair to reasonable and intelligent women, of whom there are many, including here I am happy to say.

    Mr. Karlin. You are 100% entitled to say anything you please. That does not mean that it is prudent to say such things. I know that people’s feelings are considered immaterial in these parts, and that is precisely why the dissident right is not a movement but a stuckment, because it doesn’t move. The Left, meanwhile, goes from victory to victory by … caring about people’s feelings. That is to say, they make it a point not to insult and demean potential allies. My feelings, I’ll grant you, my feelings aren’t particularly important. I am a true believer and nothing you or anyone else says will drive me away. It’s potential converts I’m worried about.

    I sourced my claim that men have superior general knowledge.

    I appreciate that, but, because it was behind a paywall, I wasn’t able to examine it. Again, that is something that a blogger or journalist should do, but noone ever does, and that is precisely my problem with how the WQ is dealt with in these parts.

    The problem is that there is much less variability amongst women, and cardinal advances are typically made by extremely superlative people. Perhaps there will be some technological progress, but it will advance at a glacial pace.

    The question is not whether there is much less variability among women. The question is whether there is enough variability such that, in the absence of men, progress would continue. If I am not mistaken, there are more extremely high IQ women in existence now than there were extremely high IQ men at the dawn of the industrial revolution, partly because of better nutrition and partly because of higher population. On what grounds, then, do you conclude that progress would “proceed at a glacial pace” without men?

    Mr. Karlin, your argument is, in essence, that, because women don’t do X, we can’t do X. That is a non sequitur, because it fails to take account of comparative advantage. Almost all film producers are Jewish. Does that mean White men can’t make movies? No, it means that Jews dominate because of a marginal IQ advantage. Without Jews, White men would make perfectly good movies.

    Now, that is a different situation, because Jews are an outgroup and men are not. At least for now, we can’t do without you and wouldn’t want to even if we could. You enhance our lives in myriad ways and we cherish your fellowship and contributions. Why isn’t that enough for you?

    Nobody is stopping women from, say, playing chess.

    Indeed, and that is the whole point. There are in fact thousands of women playing exceptionally good chess nowadays. These women are so incredible that they would wipe the floor with all but a tiny fraction of men on the planet. The difference between the best man and the best woman is totally beyond the ken of us mere mortals. If men were to disappear tomorrow, chess would carry on just fine without you.

    Notice, I am not blaming men for women’s underachievement in chess. I am not demanding affirmative action for women. I am not demanding that women be represented I this or that. All I am doing is suggesting that you give women the benefit of the doubt. If that seems unreasonable to you, that’s something you need to think about.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie


    I know that people’s feelings are considered immaterial in these parts, and that is precisely why the dissident right is not a movement but a stuckment, because it doesn’t move.
     
    I don't consider myself to be in a Dissident Right movement (I am not an activist), i.e. obligated to do politics/PR, nor do I even consider myself to be very "Right" as such (I am a centrist on most social and economic issues, it's just that HBD'ism automatically gets anyone classified as Far Right). My main goal with blogging is to try to understand how the world works, and some people appreciate that. Other, highly ideological people tend to get triggered and leave sooner or later.

    I appreciate that, but, because it was behind a paywall, I wasn’t able to examine it.
     
    Use https://sci-hub.se/ (made by a woman, incidentally). Guide here: https://akarlin.com/piracy-guide/

    On what grounds, then, do you conclude that progress would “proceed at a glacial pace” without men?
     
    The problems you need to solve to make this progress are much harder than they were two centuries ago. I had an (admittedly quite long, but the basic idea is simple) discussion of that here: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/intro-apollos-ascent/

    You enhance our lives in myriad ways and we cherish your fellowship and contributions. Why isn’t that enough for you?
     
    Where did I say it wasn't?

    If men were to disappear tomorrow, chess would carry on just fine without you.
     
    Yes, it would. What will happen is that the upper limit of what's humanly possible within chess would be somewhat reduced; there have been zero female players at the level of Magnus Carlsen or anywhere within his vicinity. Which is indeed irrelevant here, because chess, in general, is irrelevant. But this doesn't apply to scientific or technological progress, which, based on what we know about the distribution of human achievement, should become vastly slower. Note that I don't deny that such a hypothetical world would also very likely be a more peaceful and redistributionist one.

    All I am doing is suggesting that you give women the benefit of the doubt. If that seems unreasonable to you, that’s something you need to think about.
     
    In what specific way?

    For instance, my guess is that, a hypothetical Africa with the outside world and all non-Negroids removed will not build Wakanda anytime soon. Perhaps after another 10k years of agricultural civilization under Malthusian constraints, that will change. Should I give them the "benefit of the doubt" to assuage their feelings? It would certainly be the "nicer" thing to do, I suppose.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Rosie

    , @HenryBaker
    @Rosie

    I'd like to give my 2 cents on this whole discussion, since I've always enjoyed thinking about this topic. I'm somewhat late to it, so I'll keep my reply a little brief and reply to (what I think is) the general gist of your argumentation, not any specific quotation.

    I agree with you that as soon as women are involved, the (Dissident-)Right, Rationalist HBD 'Right' or 'Center' etc. suddenly gets a very cavalier attitude towards method. Spouting some truisms is often seen as sufficient. That's probably because it's a very self-consciously male movement, with male identity being a marker of pride, seen as a source of independence, rational-minded thinking, etc.

    However, I still agree with the gist of Anatoly's argumentation. That's because, even if the Right depends on just-so stories about women, the nature of social psychology is such that you will not get much better out of it anyways. Doing any statistical research on female/male behavior is hard because a. behavior has to be causally interpreted (nature/nurture) and b. it often relies on self-reporting. Since men tend to have a male peer-group, and women a female peer-group, you don't compare yourself to an objective standard, but an inter-subjective standard. Say a woman says she's very headstrong (compared to her friends who she sees most), well okay but that would mean she's headstrong 'for a woman', whatever that might mean. For example, you probably know of those investigations showing 'women are more different from men as social equality increases'. Well okay that's a nice headline but that mostly relies on self-reporting.

    Therefore, I decided some time ago to just put my ear to the ground, so to speak, and just pay attention to how the men and women that I meet behave. That tends to be representative of middle class, urbane people in my country. You're not quickly going to get much better than some anecdotal random sampling like this because you just *see* what someone is really like without abstracting that experience away into statistics that you have to interpret.

    This is what I notice most, both in real life and by experience with roughly 'rationalist' fora:
    1. The single largest difference is that I know of is that I've seen almost no women that are willing to ostracize themselves for their beliefs. There is a rather sizeable sub-group of men that cares for, not so much Truth, as well as their own Beliefs over social acceptability. Of course they exist but they really are very few and you really see this in hard numbers as well. I'm saying that because even a Sean Last or a Ryan Faulk (both of which willingly took on a lot of potential heat saying what they did) of course have some of their own biases and dogmas. By the way, I myself have always been drawn to strong beliefs, 'true but taboo' topics, etc. The first thing I did when having learned German was buying a book on IQ.

    In Spain around the 20s or 30s, the first elected female politicians actually voted against active female voting rights as women trended so conservative (christian) that they might vote away the Republic and their own emancipation. In Germany around the same time, women overwhelmingly rejected the party that most supported their rights: the KPD. The communists in Germany were the most male dominated party around (I think 70/30). Women voted christian mostly, and tended not to vote for the nazis up, until about the nazis looked close to winning: then the male and female nazi vote was about evenly split.

    In my country, women were known as 'right' up until about the 60s or 70s, then, suddenly, as society as a whole veered left women became known as more progressive.

    I'll give my evpsych 'just-so' story on all this: it indeed does make sense for women to fear ostracism as they are more physically vulnerable. If a man was expelled from the group back in the primitive days, he had more hope of survival by himself. Especially when with child, a woman is just vulnerable. Open independent thinking has also led to violent conflict. You can call Luther, Lenin, Hitler, a lot of things but they were independent and critical thinkers for sure (in the most literal sense of those words), that came to an opinion, and refused to let go of it no matter the cost to either themselves or the society around them. We glorify independent thinking but real independent thinking is harsh, dangerous, and often destabilizing. Back in the day, it would make sense for 'violently independent' people like these to be men, as such personalities lead to conflict and there physical prowesse was important. Women almost NEVER profit from open violent conflict within a society, as individuals, since women tend to prefer influence over physical danger.

    Men are also judged more actively and women more passively- I've almost never hear people refer to women as 'losers' as we subconsciously hardly expect them to play any game of life at all. It's men that have to prove themselves. This leads to a need of being able to function apart of others, not always depend on others, etc.

    I've noticed more differences but this is the most important one, imo. Women are not stupid at all, but there's just less of a NEED to excel that some men have baked in- and I know some women that are very stubborn but even they never deviate from societally accepted norms.

    Replies: @HenryBaker, @Rosie

  66. 1. Modern progressives mostly have a strong definition of what is “good” and what is “evil.” They may frequently use different adjectives, but they usually treat what they define as “racism”, “misogyny” and “homophobia” as moral crimes.

    I don’t much care for the language of morality, but people can engage with it in sophisticated ways. One way is to recognise the immorality in themselves and own it as an individual and as it truly is. Great preachers tend to do this, though they are protected in their position because they are doing their job, so we cannot all be expected to be as public and open and vulnerable as them.

    Below this in sophistication are the charlatan preachers, either knowing or unknowing. They may claim to see the “sin” in themselves but they are really lying. Robin DiAngelo is this type. It isn’t that she doesn’t have racism in her, but it is that, despite being unable to admit it to herself, she knows enough about psychology to tell herself that she will present a good front and may even be good if she admits to what she does not see.

    Further below this are the antisocial types, for whom all of the world is projection. They’ve latched onto progressive morality because it serves their self image. They don’t see the things they hate in themselves, so they see them everywhere else. Why they are like this is a huge topic, but it lets them be endlessly righteous while being endlessly hateful. This is quite a drug.

    People exist along this spectrum in many different of their aspects, whether personal issues or political or religious.

    Given all of this and the almost self-evident fact that “cancel culture” types are extremely antisocial, it is predictable that when most triggered they will act in the most racist, sexist and homophobic ways. It is little different from the old time evangelical who rails against homosexuality and, in their next personal crisis, is found in bed with a couple of rent boys while high on crystal meth.

    Human society still has someway to go before people learn to look at antisocial behaviour, no matter how it is dressed up “morally”, “politically” or “religiously” and tell people that their bad energy is their own and that they need to take responsibility for it.

    If someone is screaming that gays need to die, most people are wise to the underlying psychological drive. Now we need to learn the same for those who want to “destroy” the lives of homophobes. Occasionally progressives get this and tacitly admit, even if homosexual, to “internalised homophobia”, but they lack courage at the last hurdle and, rather than owning it, make it the fault and responsibility of the evil homophobes and the patriarchy or Hollywood or whatever they feel like projecting onto.

    2. There seems to be a discussion on this comment section surrounding the value of women and whether it can be found in history. One of the problems of extrapolating from hunter gatherer societies is that women were likely pregnant a lot. Being pregnant makes a woman as different from herself on average as women are from men on average. Pregnant women might be classified as their own sex for this type of comparison. Constant and multiple pregnancies are also hard, especially in the later months.

    Another factor missing is that humans do not exist just as biological organisms but also with our tools. Given that our tools have become far more sophisticated what was true before is not true now. I have travelled far faster than any hunter gathered man as I have been in a jetliner. This means that women are best at this and men are best at this because that is the pattern from history can be very specious. 10 women might lose in a fist fight with 1 man. 1 woman with a gun might even overcome a few men with guns, if she is lucky. 10 women would doubtlessly kill 1 men. The challenge of fighting and physical dominace is one undergone, in reality, with our tools. Just like all other challenges are. Mad Max is not happening and our existences will become ever more tool-based and less biological. People can weep, seethe and be threatened by this, but that’s their bad energy.

    IQ distribution, on the other hand, is measured now and, although technology does help the lower IQ overcome some of their additional challenges, for the purposes of great intellectual achievement, it does not. This means that the female distribution of IQ, which it seems is certainly more concentrated at the middle than men’s, will mean fewer female grwat intellectual achievers relative to men. That if all men died, women would occupy all of the top intellectual spots is a very glib fact. It is both obvious and has no relevance to anything.

    3. Whether women are really more conformist by biology or merely socialised that way, is interesting. I also wonder if women really are more conformist. The word may be defined in different ways and it is often defined on the dissident right as merely not interested in dissident right material. I understand why, but there are plenty of other explanations for this pattern. I also find it tempting to argue that, in the modern world, women may only seem more conformist because women set the fashions. If this is combined with women being unable to have much of a public life before and with there being fewer female intellectual leaders for reasons of IQ distribution, then I think it cannot be disproven, either by history or looking at elite intellectuals. I find the evo psych arguments to be so often be Just So stories. Maybe they are true and women needed the tribe’s protection more than men, but one might also argue the opposite, as a women would more likely be taken in by a rival tribe, or at least the evolution psych people also argue. It is also a bit of a jump to go from saying that because women would have wanted to be more secure they would have genetically evolved that way. There are lots of different evolutionary pressures and sex specific psychological traits seem like they would be quite low down the list of things that would make the species more survivable. I suppose this is all a long way of saying I don’t know. My feeling is the feminists aren’t completely wrong and women do get punished more for being non-conformist but more now in ways that go against feminism and contemporary notions of what a good woman is. Feminism itself has become a ball and chain that women are now shamed to identity with. This is less a trap than the old sexist identities, but it is still brittle and suffocating at the same time. Even though there were many ways a women could be if she were not the ideal Victorian wife, she might still have been dismissed as plainly a “whore” if she did not abide. The same could be said about the very narrow ideology of contemporary feminism , no matter what motte and bailey bores try to deceive themselves with.

    If someone ever says “you have to believe” something abstract, just ask them why they want you to, how that really would help them and then if they would hate you if you don’t. If they can’t tolerate your difference of view then that is pretty interesting.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    @Triteleia Laxa

    "Modern progressives mostly have a strong definition of what is “good” and what is “evil.” They may frequently use different adjectives, but they usually treat what they define as “racism”, “misogyny” and “homophobia” as moral crimes."

    How about good = other people are not your property and bad = other people are your property.

    Too many people have obvious God Complexes. Another person is not your toy.

    , @Mehen
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Further below this are the antisocial types, for whom all of the world is projection. They’ve latched onto progressive morality because it serves their self image. They don’t see the things they hate in themselves, so they see them everywhere else. Why they are like this is a huge topic, but it lets them be endlessly righteous while being endlessly hateful.
     
    I recently stumbled upon the following essay and I get the sense you might appreciate it:

    https://www.ecosophia.net/hate-new-sex/

    (hast thou forsaken me, luv?)
  67. It seems what is getting people cancelled for at the moment explains much of the disparity, and that’s trans issues.
    The trans movement is dominated by male to female transgenders (by men, that is) and drag is the aesthetic (this too is male-dominated, of course); women are having their identity appropriated, and what they’re getting for it is a generation of unhappy female to male transgenders.

    I wonder at the demographics of the cancel-crew. Is it overwhelmingly female? If it’s largely women denouncing women, then “sexism” (which I reject out-of-hand, I admit, as it’s never really “sexism”, whatever the eff that even means at this point) is no explanation at all.

  68. @Rich
    @Drapetomaniac

    When the rest of you are starving and weakening from your cytokin storms, conservatives will be standing strong. Conservatives are self sufficient, believe in strong families and self reliance. And yes, a conservative will sacrifice his life for his family and his Faith, and that's why we will survive while you and your ilk are kneeling, begging for government cheese.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

    Conservatives will also kill millions because their government tells them to.

    How are they any better than the leftards? They aren’t.

    • Replies: @Rich
    @Drapetomaniac

    Again, you guys are always confusing conservatives with Republicans. There's a giant difference. Conservatives opposed WW1and WW2. Conservatives favor small government and a limited military set up only to defend the homeland. We do support soldiers who fight in wars, but that's after the country goes to war. Conservatives like Pat Buchanan tried to stop our recent middle east adventures, but were silenced by the neocons and the war supporting leftists.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

  69. @Anatoly Karlin
    @GazaPlanet


    Women’s suffrage must inevitably lead to the collapse of a republican system, and that has never been more clear in this current year.
     
    The US has had female suffrage for more than a century now. Said collapse (into what? ) seems to be taking its time.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

    Said collapse (into what?) seems to be taking it’s time.

    Back into the animal world of the concept other people’s property not existing.

    Just those in power having property: our lords and masters.

  70. @Triteleia Laxa
    1. Modern progressives mostly have a strong definition of what is "good" and what is "evil." They may frequently use different adjectives, but they usually treat what they define as "racism", "misogyny" and "homophobia" as moral crimes.

    I don't much care for the language of morality, but people can engage with it in sophisticated ways. One way is to recognise the immorality in themselves and own it as an individual and as it truly is. Great preachers tend to do this, though they are protected in their position because they are doing their job, so we cannot all be expected to be as public and open and vulnerable as them.

    Below this in sophistication are the charlatan preachers, either knowing or unknowing. They may claim to see the "sin" in themselves but they are really lying. Robin DiAngelo is this type. It isn't that she doesn't have racism in her, but it is that, despite being unable to admit it to herself, she knows enough about psychology to tell herself that she will present a good front and may even be good if she admits to what she does not see.

    Further below this are the antisocial types, for whom all of the world is projection. They've latched onto progressive morality because it serves their self image. They don't see the things they hate in themselves, so they see them everywhere else. Why they are like this is a huge topic, but it lets them be endlessly righteous while being endlessly hateful. This is quite a drug.

    People exist along this spectrum in many different of their aspects, whether personal issues or political or religious.

    Given all of this and the almost self-evident fact that "cancel culture" types are extremely antisocial, it is predictable that when most triggered they will act in the most racist, sexist and homophobic ways. It is little different from the old time evangelical who rails against homosexuality and, in their next personal crisis, is found in bed with a couple of rent boys while high on crystal meth.

    Human society still has someway to go before people learn to look at antisocial behaviour, no matter how it is dressed up "morally", "politically" or "religiously" and tell people that their bad energy is their own and that they need to take responsibility for it.

    If someone is screaming that gays need to die, most people are wise to the underlying psychological drive. Now we need to learn the same for those who want to "destroy" the lives of homophobes. Occasionally progressives get this and tacitly admit, even if homosexual, to "internalised homophobia", but they lack courage at the last hurdle and, rather than owning it, make it the fault and responsibility of the evil homophobes and the patriarchy or Hollywood or whatever they feel like projecting onto.

    2. There seems to be a discussion on this comment section surrounding the value of women and whether it can be found in history. One of the problems of extrapolating from hunter gatherer societies is that women were likely pregnant a lot. Being pregnant makes a woman as different from herself on average as women are from men on average. Pregnant women might be classified as their own sex for this type of comparison. Constant and multiple pregnancies are also hard, especially in the later months.

    Another factor missing is that humans do not exist just as biological organisms but also with our tools. Given that our tools have become far more sophisticated what was true before is not true now. I have travelled far faster than any hunter gathered man as I have been in a jetliner. This means that women are best at this and men are best at this because that is the pattern from history can be very specious. 10 women might lose in a fist fight with 1 man. 1 woman with a gun might even overcome a few men with guns, if she is lucky. 10 women would doubtlessly kill 1 men. The challenge of fighting and physical dominace is one undergone, in reality, with our tools. Just like all other challenges are. Mad Max is not happening and our existences will become ever more tool-based and less biological. People can weep, seethe and be threatened by this, but that's their bad energy.

    IQ distribution, on the other hand, is measured now and, although technology does help the lower IQ overcome some of their additional challenges, for the purposes of great intellectual achievement, it does not. This means that the female distribution of IQ, which it seems is certainly more concentrated at the middle than men's, will mean fewer female grwat intellectual achievers relative to men. That if all men died, women would occupy all of the top intellectual spots is a very glib fact. It is both obvious and has no relevance to anything.

    3. Whether women are really more conformist by biology or merely socialised that way, is interesting. I also wonder if women really are more conformist. The word may be defined in different ways and it is often defined on the dissident right as merely not interested in dissident right material. I understand why, but there are plenty of other explanations for this pattern. I also find it tempting to argue that, in the modern world, women may only seem more conformist because women set the fashions. If this is combined with women being unable to have much of a public life before and with there being fewer female intellectual leaders for reasons of IQ distribution, then I think it cannot be disproven, either by history or looking at elite intellectuals. I find the evo psych arguments to be so often be Just So stories. Maybe they are true and women needed the tribe's protection more than men, but one might also argue the opposite, as a women would more likely be taken in by a rival tribe, or at least the evolution psych people also argue. It is also a bit of a jump to go from saying that because women would have wanted to be more secure they would have genetically evolved that way. There are lots of different evolutionary pressures and sex specific psychological traits seem like they would be quite low down the list of things that would make the species more survivable. I suppose this is all a long way of saying I don't know. My feeling is the feminists aren't completely wrong and women do get punished more for being non-conformist but more now in ways that go against feminism and contemporary notions of what a good woman is. Feminism itself has become a ball and chain that women are now shamed to identity with. This is less a trap than the old sexist identities, but it is still brittle and suffocating at the same time. Even though there were many ways a women could be if she were not the ideal Victorian wife, she might still have been dismissed as plainly a "whore" if she did not abide. The same could be said about the very narrow ideology of contemporary feminism , no matter what motte and bailey bores try to deceive themselves with.

    If someone ever says "you have to believe" something abstract, just ask them why they want you to, how that really would help them and then if they would hate you if you don't. If they can't tolerate your difference of view then that is pretty interesting.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac, @Mehen

    “Modern progressives mostly have a strong definition of what is “good” and what is “evil.” They may frequently use different adjectives, but they usually treat what they define as “racism”, “misogyny” and “homophobia” as moral crimes.”

    How about good = other people are not your property and bad = other people are your property.

    Too many people have obvious God Complexes. Another person is not your toy.

  71. @Rosie
    @iffen


    women like Rosie
     
    WTF is that supposed to mean?

    Do you disagree with something I said?

    https://c.tenor.com/x8AwrtoIjxEAAAAi/cartoon-cute.gif

    Replies: @iffen

    Your attitude toward men is similar to the ankle biters that attack white Americans for acquiescing to slavery while ignoring the fact that it was white Americans that ended slavery in America.

    Anyway, your main problem is the baked in misogyny of your White Nationalism that is your preferred group identity. As we used to say in junior high, “seems like a personal problem to me.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    Your attitude toward men is similar to the ankle biters that attack white Americans for acquiescing to slavery while ignoring the fact that it was white Americans that ended slavery in America.
     
    Shame on you, iffen. I have repeatedly pointed out that White men have been the tip of the spear in advancing women's rights. Most recently, see comment 52, here:

    https://www.unz.com/estriker/gay-activist-us-army-staff-sergeant-fantasizes-about-oppressing-right-wing-americans-in-viral-video/?highlight=Pythagoras

    Look through my comments and you'll find many posts like this.

    I look forward to your apology.

    Replies: @iffen

  72. @iffen
    @Rosie

    Your attitude toward men is similar to the ankle biters that attack white Americans for acquiescing to slavery while ignoring the fact that it was white Americans that ended slavery in America.

    Anyway, your main problem is the baked in misogyny of your White Nationalism that is your preferred group identity. As we used to say in junior high, “seems like a personal problem to me.”

    Replies: @Rosie

    Your attitude toward men is similar to the ankle biters that attack white Americans for acquiescing to slavery while ignoring the fact that it was white Americans that ended slavery in America.

    Shame on you, iffen. I have repeatedly pointed out that White men have been the tip of the spear in advancing women’s rights. Most recently, see comment 52, here:

    https://www.unz.com/estriker/gay-activist-us-army-staff-sergeant-fantasizes-about-oppressing-right-wing-americans-in-viral-video/?highlight=Pythagoras

    Look through my comments and you’ll find many posts like this.

    I look forward to your apology.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    Well, there is no problem then. You go girl with those tippy spears.

  73. @Rosie
    @iffen


    Your attitude toward men is similar to the ankle biters that attack white Americans for acquiescing to slavery while ignoring the fact that it was white Americans that ended slavery in America.
     
    Shame on you, iffen. I have repeatedly pointed out that White men have been the tip of the spear in advancing women's rights. Most recently, see comment 52, here:

    https://www.unz.com/estriker/gay-activist-us-army-staff-sergeant-fantasizes-about-oppressing-right-wing-americans-in-viral-video/?highlight=Pythagoras

    Look through my comments and you'll find many posts like this.

    I look forward to your apology.

    Replies: @iffen

    Well, there is no problem then. You go girl with those tippy spears.

  74. @Drapetomaniac
    @Rich

    Conservatives will also kill millions because their government tells them to.

    How are they any better than the leftards? They aren't.

    Replies: @Rich

    Again, you guys are always confusing conservatives with Republicans. There’s a giant difference. Conservatives opposed WW1and WW2. Conservatives favor small government and a limited military set up only to defend the homeland. We do support soldiers who fight in wars, but that’s after the country goes to war. Conservatives like Pat Buchanan tried to stop our recent middle east adventures, but were silenced by the neocons and the war supporting leftists.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    @Rich

    So name five or ten conservatives in the House or Senate.

    You know, ones that are for "small government and a limited military set up only to defend the homeland" and not the leviathan that seems to have almost total support.

    Replies: @Rich

  75. @Triteleia Laxa
    1. Modern progressives mostly have a strong definition of what is "good" and what is "evil." They may frequently use different adjectives, but they usually treat what they define as "racism", "misogyny" and "homophobia" as moral crimes.

    I don't much care for the language of morality, but people can engage with it in sophisticated ways. One way is to recognise the immorality in themselves and own it as an individual and as it truly is. Great preachers tend to do this, though they are protected in their position because they are doing their job, so we cannot all be expected to be as public and open and vulnerable as them.

    Below this in sophistication are the charlatan preachers, either knowing or unknowing. They may claim to see the "sin" in themselves but they are really lying. Robin DiAngelo is this type. It isn't that she doesn't have racism in her, but it is that, despite being unable to admit it to herself, she knows enough about psychology to tell herself that she will present a good front and may even be good if she admits to what she does not see.

    Further below this are the antisocial types, for whom all of the world is projection. They've latched onto progressive morality because it serves their self image. They don't see the things they hate in themselves, so they see them everywhere else. Why they are like this is a huge topic, but it lets them be endlessly righteous while being endlessly hateful. This is quite a drug.

    People exist along this spectrum in many different of their aspects, whether personal issues or political or religious.

    Given all of this and the almost self-evident fact that "cancel culture" types are extremely antisocial, it is predictable that when most triggered they will act in the most racist, sexist and homophobic ways. It is little different from the old time evangelical who rails against homosexuality and, in their next personal crisis, is found in bed with a couple of rent boys while high on crystal meth.

    Human society still has someway to go before people learn to look at antisocial behaviour, no matter how it is dressed up "morally", "politically" or "religiously" and tell people that their bad energy is their own and that they need to take responsibility for it.

    If someone is screaming that gays need to die, most people are wise to the underlying psychological drive. Now we need to learn the same for those who want to "destroy" the lives of homophobes. Occasionally progressives get this and tacitly admit, even if homosexual, to "internalised homophobia", but they lack courage at the last hurdle and, rather than owning it, make it the fault and responsibility of the evil homophobes and the patriarchy or Hollywood or whatever they feel like projecting onto.

    2. There seems to be a discussion on this comment section surrounding the value of women and whether it can be found in history. One of the problems of extrapolating from hunter gatherer societies is that women were likely pregnant a lot. Being pregnant makes a woman as different from herself on average as women are from men on average. Pregnant women might be classified as their own sex for this type of comparison. Constant and multiple pregnancies are also hard, especially in the later months.

    Another factor missing is that humans do not exist just as biological organisms but also with our tools. Given that our tools have become far more sophisticated what was true before is not true now. I have travelled far faster than any hunter gathered man as I have been in a jetliner. This means that women are best at this and men are best at this because that is the pattern from history can be very specious. 10 women might lose in a fist fight with 1 man. 1 woman with a gun might even overcome a few men with guns, if she is lucky. 10 women would doubtlessly kill 1 men. The challenge of fighting and physical dominace is one undergone, in reality, with our tools. Just like all other challenges are. Mad Max is not happening and our existences will become ever more tool-based and less biological. People can weep, seethe and be threatened by this, but that's their bad energy.

    IQ distribution, on the other hand, is measured now and, although technology does help the lower IQ overcome some of their additional challenges, for the purposes of great intellectual achievement, it does not. This means that the female distribution of IQ, which it seems is certainly more concentrated at the middle than men's, will mean fewer female grwat intellectual achievers relative to men. That if all men died, women would occupy all of the top intellectual spots is a very glib fact. It is both obvious and has no relevance to anything.

    3. Whether women are really more conformist by biology or merely socialised that way, is interesting. I also wonder if women really are more conformist. The word may be defined in different ways and it is often defined on the dissident right as merely not interested in dissident right material. I understand why, but there are plenty of other explanations for this pattern. I also find it tempting to argue that, in the modern world, women may only seem more conformist because women set the fashions. If this is combined with women being unable to have much of a public life before and with there being fewer female intellectual leaders for reasons of IQ distribution, then I think it cannot be disproven, either by history or looking at elite intellectuals. I find the evo psych arguments to be so often be Just So stories. Maybe they are true and women needed the tribe's protection more than men, but one might also argue the opposite, as a women would more likely be taken in by a rival tribe, or at least the evolution psych people also argue. It is also a bit of a jump to go from saying that because women would have wanted to be more secure they would have genetically evolved that way. There are lots of different evolutionary pressures and sex specific psychological traits seem like they would be quite low down the list of things that would make the species more survivable. I suppose this is all a long way of saying I don't know. My feeling is the feminists aren't completely wrong and women do get punished more for being non-conformist but more now in ways that go against feminism and contemporary notions of what a good woman is. Feminism itself has become a ball and chain that women are now shamed to identity with. This is less a trap than the old sexist identities, but it is still brittle and suffocating at the same time. Even though there were many ways a women could be if she were not the ideal Victorian wife, she might still have been dismissed as plainly a "whore" if she did not abide. The same could be said about the very narrow ideology of contemporary feminism , no matter what motte and bailey bores try to deceive themselves with.

    If someone ever says "you have to believe" something abstract, just ask them why they want you to, how that really would help them and then if they would hate you if you don't. If they can't tolerate your difference of view then that is pretty interesting.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac, @Mehen

    Further below this are the antisocial types, for whom all of the world is projection. They’ve latched onto progressive morality because it serves their self image. They don’t see the things they hate in themselves, so they see them everywhere else. Why they are like this is a huge topic, but it lets them be endlessly righteous while being endlessly hateful.

    I recently stumbled upon the following essay and I get the sense you might appreciate it:

    https://www.ecosophia.net/hate-new-sex/

    (hast thou forsaken me, luv?)

  76. @Almost Missouri

    the one culture war besides banning the abortion of Down’s syndrome fetuses that modern American conservatives seem to really care about.
     
    Just a quick, friendly note to say that Down's Syndrome abortions are such a tiny fraction of abortions that it rounds to zero, and that mass abortion is dysgenic.

    Replies: @Not Raul

    Just a quick, friendly note to say that Down’s Syndrome abortions are such a tiny fraction of abortions that it rounds to zero, and that mass abortion is dysgenic.

    Yes, I remember Steve Sailer discussing this a number of times.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Not Raul

    Thanks, I hadn't seen that tweet.

    I think Sailer is even being a rather generous to Leavitt by implying that, "oh you might have been right if it weren't for those darn Crack Wars."

    When you enlarge the "undesirable" births as Roe v. Wade seems to have done, then reduce the the births from "responsible" parents as Roe v. Wade also seems to have done, it is natural and inevitable that you will have a cohort of the worst that society has to offer. They happened to express their awfulness in part through the Crack Wars, but if crack didn't exist, they would have found something else. In other words, the Crack Wars were an effect, not a cause.

    ------

    The calculation is approximately as follows: pregnancies increased by about 30% immediately after Roe, implying that the additional 30% wouldn't have happened were it not for the presumed availability of abortion, and hence were undesired and "undesirable". But then only about 20% of pregnancies were actually aborted after Roe. So it seems that Roe ushered in a 10% increase in births, entirely in the "undesirable" category. But this is the most optimistic scenario because it assumes that all of the 20 percentage points of aborted pregnancies were against the 30 percentage points of undesirable pregnancies. But as Sailer pointed out, this isn't how things tend to work in real life where the more "responsible" parents abort their unintended pregnancies while the least responsible just carry them to term. So in actuality, most of the 30 percentage points of new, unintended pregnancies probably got born, while most of the 20 percentage points of aborted pregnancies were probably taken out of the foundational yeomanry class. So the actuality was probably much closer to the worst case scenario of +30 "bad" births -20 "good" births = new cohort has massively increased "bad" guys and substantially reduced "good" guys. This is of course a dysgenia disaster, but all the smart people just blindly chirp "abortion is eugenic" and congratulate themselves for being edgy. Smh.

  77. @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    You barged in with your own “truthy” assertions that mostly range from highly questionable to obviously wrong, and take personal offense when the numbers don’t back up what you say, and then presume to dictate what I should or should not say based on how they affect your feelings, and because said observations are “useless anyway” (indeed, why do anything interesting or eccentric at all, beyond mowing the lawn). This is unfortunately also something that is more typical of women, and goes some way to explaining why some men insist on male only spaces for debates and discussions. This is of course highly unfair to reasonable and intelligent women, of whom there are many, including here I am happy to say.
     
    Mr. Karlin. You are 100% entitled to say anything you please. That does not mean that it is prudent to say such things. I know that people's feelings are considered immaterial in these parts, and that is precisely why the dissident right is not a movement but a stuckment, because it doesn't move. The Left, meanwhile, goes from victory to victory by ... caring about people's feelings. That is to say, they make it a point not to insult and demean potential allies. My feelings, I'll grant you, my feelings aren't particularly important. I am a true believer and nothing you or anyone else says will drive me away. It's potential converts I'm worried about.

    I sourced my claim that men have superior general knowledge.
     
    I appreciate that, but, because it was behind a paywall, I wasn't able to examine it. Again, that is something that a blogger or journalist should do, but noone ever does, and that is precisely my problem with how the WQ is dealt with in these parts.

    The problem is that there is much less variability amongst women, and cardinal advances are typically made by extremely superlative people. Perhaps there will be some technological progress, but it will advance at a glacial pace.

     

    The question is not whether there is much less variability among women. The question is whether there is enough variability such that, in the absence of men, progress would continue. If I am not mistaken, there are more extremely high IQ women in existence now than there were extremely high IQ men at the dawn of the industrial revolution, partly because of better nutrition and partly because of higher population. On what grounds, then, do you conclude that progress would "proceed at a glacial pace" without men?

    Mr. Karlin, your argument is, in essence, that, because women don't do X, we can't do X. That is a non sequitur, because it fails to take account of comparative advantage. Almost all film producers are Jewish. Does that mean White men can't make movies? No, it means that Jews dominate because of a marginal IQ advantage. Without Jews, White men would make perfectly good movies.

    Now, that is a different situation, because Jews are an outgroup and men are not. At least for now, we can't do without you and wouldn't want to even if we could. You enhance our lives in myriad ways and we cherish your fellowship and contributions. Why isn't that enough for you?


    Nobody is stopping women from, say, playing chess.
     
    Indeed, and that is the whole point. There are in fact thousands of women playing exceptionally good chess nowadays. These women are so incredible that they would wipe the floor with all but a tiny fraction of men on the planet. The difference between the best man and the best woman is totally beyond the ken of us mere mortals. If men were to disappear tomorrow, chess would carry on just fine without you.

    Notice, I am not blaming men for women's underachievement in chess. I am not demanding affirmative action for women. I am not demanding that women be represented I this or that. All I am doing is suggesting that you give women the benefit of the doubt. If that seems unreasonable to you, that's something you need to think about.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @HenryBaker

    I know that people’s feelings are considered immaterial in these parts, and that is precisely why the dissident right is not a movement but a stuckment, because it doesn’t move.

    I don’t consider myself to be in a Dissident Right movement (I am not an activist), i.e. obligated to do politics/PR, nor do I even consider myself to be very “Right” as such (I am a centrist on most social and economic issues, it’s just that HBD’ism automatically gets anyone classified as Far Right). My main goal with blogging is to try to understand how the world works, and some people appreciate that. Other, highly ideological people tend to get triggered and leave sooner or later.

    I appreciate that, but, because it was behind a paywall, I wasn’t able to examine it.

    Use https://sci-hub.se/ (made by a woman, incidentally). Guide here: https://akarlin.com/piracy-guide/

    On what grounds, then, do you conclude that progress would “proceed at a glacial pace” without men?

    The problems you need to solve to make this progress are much harder than they were two centuries ago. I had an (admittedly quite long, but the basic idea is simple) discussion of that here: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/intro-apollos-ascent/

    You enhance our lives in myriad ways and we cherish your fellowship and contributions. Why isn’t that enough for you?

    Where did I say it wasn’t?

    If men were to disappear tomorrow, chess would carry on just fine without you.

    Yes, it would. What will happen is that the upper limit of what’s humanly possible within chess would be somewhat reduced; there have been zero female players at the level of Magnus Carlsen or anywhere within his vicinity. Which is indeed irrelevant here, because chess, in general, is irrelevant. But this doesn’t apply to scientific or technological progress, which, based on what we know about the distribution of human achievement, should become vastly slower. Note that I don’t deny that such a hypothetical world would also very likely be a more peaceful and redistributionist one.

    All I am doing is suggesting that you give women the benefit of the doubt. If that seems unreasonable to you, that’s something you need to think about.

    In what specific way?

    For instance, my guess is that, a hypothetical Africa with the outside world and all non-Negroids removed will not build Wakanda anytime soon. Perhaps after another 10k years of agricultural civilization under Malthusian constraints, that will change. Should I give them the “benefit of the doubt” to assuage their feelings? It would certainly be the “nicer” thing to do, I suppose.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    @Anatoly Karlin

    You really ought to interview Greg Clark.

    , @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    Use https://sci-hub.se/ (made by a woman, incidentally). Guide here: https://akarlin.com/piracy-guide/
     
    I'll take a look, but initially, I'll say this: I couldn't care less that this was done by a woman. I will scrutinize it all the same.

    Where did I say it wasn’t?
     
    Your insistence on speculating about this issue reveals that it isn’t enough for you.

    Note that I don’t deny that such a hypothetical world would also very likely be a more peaceful and redistributionist one.
     
    Indeed. We could dispense almost entirely with police forces, prisons, and armed forces and devote more resources to R&D.


    In what specific way?

    For instance, my guess is that, a hypothetical Africa with the outside world and all non-Negroids removed will not build Wakanda anytime soon. Perhaps after another 10k years of agricultural civilization under Malthusian constraints, that will change. Should I give them the “benefit of the doubt” to assuage their feelings? It would certainly be the “nicer” thing to do, I suppose.

     

    Women have nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africans. First of all, the racial IQ gap dwarfs the gender gap, and there are no compensating factors, like higher conscientious, to offset the gap, either. Moreover, Africans are part of the Leftist coalition. If Leftists started insulting Africans the way dissident right men insult women, that would indeed be very foolish on their part. That won't happen, of course, because they are focused on power. Finally, we actually have real-world observations about what one can expect from African societies. We have no such experience of all-female societies.

    Replies: @iffen

  78. @Not Raul
    @Almost Missouri


    Just a quick, friendly note to say that Down’s Syndrome abortions are such a tiny fraction of abortions that it rounds to zero, and that mass abortion is dysgenic.
     
    Yes, I remember Steve Sailer discussing this a number of times.

    https://twitter.com/steve_sailer/status/1130441079025573888?s=21

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Thanks, I hadn’t seen that tweet.

    I think Sailer is even being a rather generous to Leavitt by implying that, “oh you might have been right if it weren’t for those darn Crack Wars.”

    When you enlarge the “undesirable” births as Roe v. Wade seems to have done, then reduce the the births from “responsible” parents as Roe v. Wade also seems to have done, it is natural and inevitable that you will have a cohort of the worst that society has to offer. They happened to express their awfulness in part through the Crack Wars, but if crack didn’t exist, they would have found something else. In other words, the Crack Wars were an effect, not a cause.

    ——

    The calculation is approximately as follows: pregnancies increased by about 30% immediately after Roe, implying that the additional 30% wouldn’t have happened were it not for the presumed availability of abortion, and hence were undesired and “undesirable”. But then only about 20% of pregnancies were actually aborted after Roe. So it seems that Roe ushered in a 10% increase in births, entirely in the “undesirable” category. But this is the most optimistic scenario because it assumes that all of the 20 percentage points of aborted pregnancies were against the 30 percentage points of undesirable pregnancies. But as Sailer pointed out, this isn’t how things tend to work in real life where the more “responsible” parents abort their unintended pregnancies while the least responsible just carry them to term. So in actuality, most of the 30 percentage points of new, unintended pregnancies probably got born, while most of the 20 percentage points of aborted pregnancies were probably taken out of the foundational yeomanry class. So the actuality was probably much closer to the worst case scenario of +30 “bad” births -20 “good” births = new cohort has massively increased “bad” guys and substantially reduced “good” guys. This is of course a dysgenia disaster, but all the smart people just blindly chirp “abortion is eugenic” and congratulate themselves for being edgy. Smh.

    • Agree: Not Raul
  79. @Wency
    @Philip Owen

    Honestly, living in the States, I suppose I've never seen one that I can recall. I've personally been acquainted with two FtMs.

    What I see a lot more in the States (especially when I venture to the coasts, which I haven't done since Covid) are Zoomers that I imagine must identify as some sort of nonbinary/genderqueer. The weirdest one I recall was from last time I was in Boston. I stopped at a coffee shop and the skinny 20-year-old guy who took my order had long pigtails and a Jefferson Davis beard, all dyed bright green, wore eyeliner, and spoke in an affected feminine voice. I'll be honest, it took all my concentration to keep a straight face, place my order, and get out of there.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Dmitry

    Agree. Over-the-hill men acting out some weird mental-sexual illness on themselves Bruce Jenner-style isn’t really new, common, or even all that damaging in the grand scheme of society.

    What is more troubling, less precedented, and more socially damaging is the new trend of young women and girls mutilating themselves in the name of the “gender nonbinary” or whatever.

    To put it in coldly clinically sociological terms, elderly MtFs aren’t really removing much if any human capital from society, but young FtMs or FtWhatevers just on the cusp of their most productive years are maximal human capital losses.

    Like you, I know no MtFs personally, but I’m acquainted with several young FtMs/FtWhatevers, every one of them was an above-average attractiveness, above-average intelligence, middle+ class young white woman. Besides the visceral repugnance at the harm they’ve done themselves, I can’t help but think that for each of them there is a young male somewhere doomed to inceldom, resentment, and carrying out some equal and opposite reaction.

    • Agree: Wency
  80. My main goal with blogging is to try to understand how the world works, and some people appreciate that.

    Some of us certainly do appreciate that.

    nor do I even consider myself to be very “Right” as such (I am a centrist on most social and economic issues,

    Does this mean you have resigned from the Black Hundreds?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @iffen


    Does this mean you have resigned from the Black Hundreds?
     
    No. I support Russian nationalism.

    Happily, many of its core objectives have been accomplished over the past 2-3 years, leaving me very little remaining to gripe over with.

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1438631374681001985

    Replies: @Dmitry

  81. @iffen
    My main goal with blogging is to try to understand how the world works, and some people appreciate that.

    Some of us certainly do appreciate that.

    nor do I even consider myself to be very “Right” as such (I am a centrist on most social and economic issues,

    Does this mean you have resigned from the Black Hundreds?

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Does this mean you have resigned from the Black Hundreds?

    No. I support Russian nationalism.

    Happily, many of its core objectives have been accomplished over the past 2-3 years, leaving me very little remaining to gripe over with.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Your political views have been prorussian government ones.

    There's nothing wrong with this - as a blogger it is good to have a stable product placement. It also prevent your audience long-term audience becoming confused. Nonobjective commentary is acceptable, after the audience understands the particular perspective from which they are reading, and they became familiar with it, and it's doesn't change too much.

    And this is also likely your personal lodestar - if you are not doing pure Dada experiments on us.

    Lol there just needs a promise to Bashibuzuk that you don't compilate his personal life details at the weekly briefing in Lubyanka. In a lot of ways, he was one of the most productive forum member, as he used to post replies every hours, and had a wide diversity of hobbies. He was making us refresh the page as he respond to everyone you wrote so fast.


    less interested in Russian elections than today.
     
    Well it's a sign of loss of American ideological brainwashing, if you feel that elections do not matter, and that the individual vote is meaningless (which is latter is known to everyone who can understand arithmetic).

    Of course, in Russia, this is more of a half-effort theatre. That is, there is something cozy and relaxing, in the fact there only half-effort to theatricize performances (and avoid behind scenes insights), unlike in America where they are trying to create a more realistic and deeper presentation of politics.

    The more concerning things that happen in society are in much deeper technological processes, than government politics. Criticizing governments and politicians can be quite a distraction.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

  82. @Rosie
    @songbird


    Military cooperation means slaughter.
     
    I readily concede that men are better at cooperating to kill each other than women are.

    Replies: @songbird

    Don’t feel too bad about it. Women who achieve power generally have no problem ordering men to kill. For ex: Cleopatra or Livia. Where women are deficient is in organizing at the squad level and up.

    • Replies: @joe862
    @songbird

    My observation of women in positions of power is that they're fundamentally secretaries. You can call them supreme executive president but they don't stop being primarily concerned with peripheral details. They don't pay nearly enough attention to the fundamental tasks. They talk way too much and female conversation is more of an odd social ritual rather than a tool to figure out how to go about getting something done.

  83. @Rosie
    @songbird


    By one theory, men are evolved to be much more cooperative with and tolerant of each other than women are evolved to be with each other, partly due to the organizing necessity of warfare. That is why women are observedly cattier with each other. The household sphere did not need the same scope of alliances.
     
    More armchair hogwash from the usual suspects. There were no "households" in the evolutionary environment.

    https://youtu.be/qG12DqwABsg

    Replies: @songbird, @Anatoly Karlin, @joe862

    Anyone who hasn’t noticed that women tend to squabble more than men is severely intellectually disabled.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @joe862


    Anyone who hasn’t noticed that women tend to squabble more than men is severely intellectually disabled.
     
    What do you lot call the constant one-up-manship and mutual sabotage you engage in if not squabbling?

    Replies: @joe862

  84. @songbird
    @Rosie

    Don't feel too bad about it. Women who achieve power generally have no problem ordering men to kill. For ex: Cleopatra or Livia. Where women are deficient is in organizing at the squad level and up.

    Replies: @joe862

    My observation of women in positions of power is that they’re fundamentally secretaries. You can call them supreme executive president but they don’t stop being primarily concerned with peripheral details. They don’t pay nearly enough attention to the fundamental tasks. They talk way too much and female conversation is more of an odd social ritual rather than a tool to figure out how to go about getting something done.

  85. White American men granted black men the right to vote 50 years before granting white women that right.

  86. When women’s suffrage was in the breach, women threatened men with withholding sex. Presently, the Left sees women’s assent and participation in expanding Woke society and civilization as vital to the cause, to gain compliance of men and the general public. To bolster this strategy up, women who are not in agreement and worse communicate their misgivings on anything Woke are singled out for special treatment, for simply not being ‘with-it’. And woe to the woman who conveys common sensical awareness and/or writes an intellectual paper on any issue not within the precepts of Woke Alignment; Because whatever a woman says is important to her, despite appearances, men listen. Your thoughts.

    • Replies: @Resartus
    @Cking


    . Your thoughts.
     
    It's been the Social Meme for 100s of years, that marriage killed the sex drive of women.....
    That wanting things their way, doesn't change that view very much....

    Could be why less men care to marry these days....
  87. @Cking
    When women's suffrage was in the breach, women threatened men with withholding sex. Presently, the Left sees women's assent and participation in expanding Woke society and civilization as vital to the cause, to gain compliance of men and the general public. To bolster this strategy up, women who are not in agreement and worse communicate their misgivings on anything Woke are singled out for special treatment, for simply not being 'with-it'. And woe to the woman who conveys common sensical awareness and/or writes an intellectual paper on any issue not within the precepts of Woke Alignment; Because whatever a woman says is important to her, despite appearances, men listen. Your thoughts.

    Replies: @Resartus

    . Your thoughts.

    It’s been the Social Meme for 100s of years, that marriage killed the sex drive of women…..
    That wanting things their way, doesn’t change that view very much….

    Could be why less men care to marry these days….

  88. @Wency
    @Philip Owen

    Honestly, living in the States, I suppose I've never seen one that I can recall. I've personally been acquainted with two FtMs.

    What I see a lot more in the States (especially when I venture to the coasts, which I haven't done since Covid) are Zoomers that I imagine must identify as some sort of nonbinary/genderqueer. The weirdest one I recall was from last time I was in Boston. I stopped at a coffee shop and the skinny 20-year-old guy who took my order had long pigtails and a Jefferson Davis beard, all dyed bright green, wore eyeliner, and spoke in an affected feminine voice. I'll be honest, it took all my concentration to keep a straight face, place my order, and get out of there.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Dmitry

    Why do you care what they are doing with their private sphere? Everyone has to “find god (or gods)” in their own way, however eccentric it might appear. For all we know, these eccentrically clothed people might be much better (or much worse) people than ourselves in their daily life.

    The problem in modern America (and technological society in general), is more in the opposite direction – there is increasing conformism, lack of real options for diversity, and eccentricity, etc. And this has been a view of observers for at least a century now.

    That is there are external signs of eccentricity or diversity (strange hair colours, gender nonbinary, etc), while peoples’ souls become more and more homogenized to each other.

    It’s the “ersatz diversity”, or “ersatz eccentricity”, while the world become increasingly a “global village”, in most dystopian sense of “village” (hazing, surveillance, conformism, gossip from neighbours, etc).

    That is one of the disappointments of America – is that it presented ideologically (very beautifully) as a land of freedom and innovation, where everyone is creating their own cultural pathways and “experiments in life”.

    However, of course the reality, is a little disappointing – a society with one of the world’s highest imprisonment rates, massive surveillance, and homogenization of culture, architecture and lifestyle on a continent size scale.

    People can at least find some small control over diversity of personal appearances and eccentricity in that sphere – but the suburbs they originated from will all likely look the same, regardless if they are from Colorado or Pennsylvania.

  89. @Rich
    @Drapetomaniac

    Again, you guys are always confusing conservatives with Republicans. There's a giant difference. Conservatives opposed WW1and WW2. Conservatives favor small government and a limited military set up only to defend the homeland. We do support soldiers who fight in wars, but that's after the country goes to war. Conservatives like Pat Buchanan tried to stop our recent middle east adventures, but were silenced by the neocons and the war supporting leftists.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

    So name five or ten conservatives in the House or Senate.

    You know, ones that are for “small government and a limited military set up only to defend the homeland” and not the leviathan that seems to have almost total support.

    • Replies: @Rich
    @Drapetomaniac

    Rand Paul, Mo Brooks. Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, Thomas Massie, Mark Meadows, Alex Mooney, Bill Posey. And I'll throw in an eleventh, just to be kind, Warren Davidson. There are a few more, but, unfortunately, not enough to save the republic.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

  90. @Anatoly Karlin
    @iffen


    Does this mean you have resigned from the Black Hundreds?
     
    No. I support Russian nationalism.

    Happily, many of its core objectives have been accomplished over the past 2-3 years, leaving me very little remaining to gripe over with.

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1438631374681001985

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Your political views have been prorussian government ones.

    There’s nothing wrong with this – as a blogger it is good to have a stable product placement. It also prevent your audience long-term audience becoming confused. Nonobjective commentary is acceptable, after the audience understands the particular perspective from which they are reading, and they became familiar with it, and it’s doesn’t change too much.

    And this is also likely your personal lodestar – if you are not doing pure Dada experiments on us.

    Lol there just needs a promise to Bashibuzuk that you don’t compilate his personal life details at the weekly briefing in Lubyanka. In a lot of ways, he was one of the most productive forum member, as he used to post replies every hours, and had a wide diversity of hobbies. He was making us refresh the page as he respond to everyone you wrote so fast.

    less interested in Russian elections than today.

    Well it’s a sign of loss of American ideological brainwashing, if you feel that elections do not matter, and that the individual vote is meaningless (which is latter is known to everyone who can understand arithmetic).

    Of course, in Russia, this is more of a half-effort theatre. That is, there is something cozy and relaxing, in the fact there only half-effort to theatricize performances (and avoid behind scenes insights), unlike in America where they are trying to create a more realistic and deeper presentation of politics.

    The more concerning things that happen in society are in much deeper technological processes, than government politics. Criticizing governments and politicians can be quite a distraction.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Dmitry

    I was happy to vote for United Russia.

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1439230799706984449

  91. @Drapetomaniac
    @Rich

    So name five or ten conservatives in the House or Senate.

    You know, ones that are for "small government and a limited military set up only to defend the homeland" and not the leviathan that seems to have almost total support.

    Replies: @Rich

    Rand Paul, Mo Brooks. Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, Thomas Massie, Mark Meadows, Alex Mooney, Bill Posey. And I’ll throw in an eleventh, just to be kind, Warren Davidson. There are a few more, but, unfortunately, not enough to save the republic.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    @Rich

    So they ALL vote against omnibus spending bills and for bringing ALL overseas military operations to an end.

    I'm just saying that none of the are for small government and minding 'our' own business.

    None of them. Not even Rand Paul.

    Replies: @Rich

  92. @Dmitry
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Your political views have been prorussian government ones.

    There's nothing wrong with this - as a blogger it is good to have a stable product placement. It also prevent your audience long-term audience becoming confused. Nonobjective commentary is acceptable, after the audience understands the particular perspective from which they are reading, and they became familiar with it, and it's doesn't change too much.

    And this is also likely your personal lodestar - if you are not doing pure Dada experiments on us.

    Lol there just needs a promise to Bashibuzuk that you don't compilate his personal life details at the weekly briefing in Lubyanka. In a lot of ways, he was one of the most productive forum member, as he used to post replies every hours, and had a wide diversity of hobbies. He was making us refresh the page as he respond to everyone you wrote so fast.


    less interested in Russian elections than today.
     
    Well it's a sign of loss of American ideological brainwashing, if you feel that elections do not matter, and that the individual vote is meaningless (which is latter is known to everyone who can understand arithmetic).

    Of course, in Russia, this is more of a half-effort theatre. That is, there is something cozy and relaxing, in the fact there only half-effort to theatricize performances (and avoid behind scenes insights), unlike in America where they are trying to create a more realistic and deeper presentation of politics.

    The more concerning things that happen in society are in much deeper technological processes, than government politics. Criticizing governments and politicians can be quite a distraction.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    I was happy to vote for United Russia.

  93. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie

    I'd be happy to see countervailing evidence.

    I'm sure you're capable of cutting grass. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the ability of large teams to get complex things done.

    Men have a 0.3-0.5 S.D. advantage in general knowledge and, more importantly, far better teamwork. All female teams are characterized by cliques and drama. There's a reason that women not wanting to work under women bosses is a meme.

    Women are more conscientious workers and less psychopathic. That's good, but the former outweighs the latter.

    I don't think women would end up living in caves if all the men vanished (and they were to solve the reproduction problem without our help). My guess, long-term, would be technological stasis at Latin American levels of development.

    Replies: @Rosie, @megabar

    > I don’t think women would end up living in caves if all the men vanished (and they were to solve the reproduction problem without our help).

    Eventually, it’d probably look a lot like our world, because the women who are more masculine in terms of organization, would be more successful, and would pass on their traits. Assuming, of course, that the “reproduction problem” isn’t solved by means that obviate gene transmission.

  94. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie


    I know that people’s feelings are considered immaterial in these parts, and that is precisely why the dissident right is not a movement but a stuckment, because it doesn’t move.
     
    I don't consider myself to be in a Dissident Right movement (I am not an activist), i.e. obligated to do politics/PR, nor do I even consider myself to be very "Right" as such (I am a centrist on most social and economic issues, it's just that HBD'ism automatically gets anyone classified as Far Right). My main goal with blogging is to try to understand how the world works, and some people appreciate that. Other, highly ideological people tend to get triggered and leave sooner or later.

    I appreciate that, but, because it was behind a paywall, I wasn’t able to examine it.
     
    Use https://sci-hub.se/ (made by a woman, incidentally). Guide here: https://akarlin.com/piracy-guide/

    On what grounds, then, do you conclude that progress would “proceed at a glacial pace” without men?
     
    The problems you need to solve to make this progress are much harder than they were two centuries ago. I had an (admittedly quite long, but the basic idea is simple) discussion of that here: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/intro-apollos-ascent/

    You enhance our lives in myriad ways and we cherish your fellowship and contributions. Why isn’t that enough for you?
     
    Where did I say it wasn't?

    If men were to disappear tomorrow, chess would carry on just fine without you.
     
    Yes, it would. What will happen is that the upper limit of what's humanly possible within chess would be somewhat reduced; there have been zero female players at the level of Magnus Carlsen or anywhere within his vicinity. Which is indeed irrelevant here, because chess, in general, is irrelevant. But this doesn't apply to scientific or technological progress, which, based on what we know about the distribution of human achievement, should become vastly slower. Note that I don't deny that such a hypothetical world would also very likely be a more peaceful and redistributionist one.

    All I am doing is suggesting that you give women the benefit of the doubt. If that seems unreasonable to you, that’s something you need to think about.
     
    In what specific way?

    For instance, my guess is that, a hypothetical Africa with the outside world and all non-Negroids removed will not build Wakanda anytime soon. Perhaps after another 10k years of agricultural civilization under Malthusian constraints, that will change. Should I give them the "benefit of the doubt" to assuage their feelings? It would certainly be the "nicer" thing to do, I suppose.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Rosie

    You really ought to interview Greg Clark.

  95. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Rosie


    I know that people’s feelings are considered immaterial in these parts, and that is precisely why the dissident right is not a movement but a stuckment, because it doesn’t move.
     
    I don't consider myself to be in a Dissident Right movement (I am not an activist), i.e. obligated to do politics/PR, nor do I even consider myself to be very "Right" as such (I am a centrist on most social and economic issues, it's just that HBD'ism automatically gets anyone classified as Far Right). My main goal with blogging is to try to understand how the world works, and some people appreciate that. Other, highly ideological people tend to get triggered and leave sooner or later.

    I appreciate that, but, because it was behind a paywall, I wasn’t able to examine it.
     
    Use https://sci-hub.se/ (made by a woman, incidentally). Guide here: https://akarlin.com/piracy-guide/

    On what grounds, then, do you conclude that progress would “proceed at a glacial pace” without men?
     
    The problems you need to solve to make this progress are much harder than they were two centuries ago. I had an (admittedly quite long, but the basic idea is simple) discussion of that here: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/intro-apollos-ascent/

    You enhance our lives in myriad ways and we cherish your fellowship and contributions. Why isn’t that enough for you?
     
    Where did I say it wasn't?

    If men were to disappear tomorrow, chess would carry on just fine without you.
     
    Yes, it would. What will happen is that the upper limit of what's humanly possible within chess would be somewhat reduced; there have been zero female players at the level of Magnus Carlsen or anywhere within his vicinity. Which is indeed irrelevant here, because chess, in general, is irrelevant. But this doesn't apply to scientific or technological progress, which, based on what we know about the distribution of human achievement, should become vastly slower. Note that I don't deny that such a hypothetical world would also very likely be a more peaceful and redistributionist one.

    All I am doing is suggesting that you give women the benefit of the doubt. If that seems unreasonable to you, that’s something you need to think about.
     
    In what specific way?

    For instance, my guess is that, a hypothetical Africa with the outside world and all non-Negroids removed will not build Wakanda anytime soon. Perhaps after another 10k years of agricultural civilization under Malthusian constraints, that will change. Should I give them the "benefit of the doubt" to assuage their feelings? It would certainly be the "nicer" thing to do, I suppose.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Rosie

    Use https://sci-hub.se/ (made by a woman, incidentally). Guide here: https://akarlin.com/piracy-guide/

    I’ll take a look, but initially, I’ll say this: I couldn’t care less that this was done by a woman. I will scrutinize it all the same.

    Where did I say it wasn’t?

    Your insistence on speculating about this issue reveals that it isn’t enough for you.

    Note that I don’t deny that such a hypothetical world would also very likely be a more peaceful and redistributionist one.

    Indeed. We could dispense almost entirely with police forces, prisons, and armed forces and devote more resources to R&D.

    In what specific way?

    For instance, my guess is that, a hypothetical Africa with the outside world and all non-Negroids removed will not build Wakanda anytime soon. Perhaps after another 10k years of agricultural civilization under Malthusian constraints, that will change. Should I give them the “benefit of the doubt” to assuage their feelings? It would certainly be the “nicer” thing to do, I suppose.

    Women have nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africans. First of all, the racial IQ gap dwarfs the gender gap, and there are no compensating factors, like higher conscientious, to offset the gap, either. Moreover, Africans are part of the Leftist coalition. If Leftists started insulting Africans the way dissident right men insult women, that would indeed be very foolish on their part. That won’t happen, of course, because they are focused on power. Finally, we actually have real-world observations about what one can expect from African societies. We have no such experience of all-female societies.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    the way dissident right men insult women,

    The dissident right is a nothing-burger. The misogyny of the men is a dill pickle chip falling out of that nothing-burger onto a dirty floor.

  96. @joe862
    @Rosie

    Anyone who hasn't noticed that women tend to squabble more than men is severely intellectually disabled.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Anyone who hasn’t noticed that women tend to squabble more than men is severely intellectually disabled.

    What do you lot call the constant one-up-manship and mutual sabotage you engage in if not squabbling?

    • Replies: @joe862
    @Rosie

    what do you call just about every significant organization in history built by men? Aside from child bearing and care women contribute nothing of significance. Without men there's nothing. The modern woman is an astonishingly ungrateful pig who fails to appreciate anything. Absolutely disgusting people.

    Replies: @Rosie

  97. @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    Use https://sci-hub.se/ (made by a woman, incidentally). Guide here: https://akarlin.com/piracy-guide/
     
    I'll take a look, but initially, I'll say this: I couldn't care less that this was done by a woman. I will scrutinize it all the same.

    Where did I say it wasn’t?
     
    Your insistence on speculating about this issue reveals that it isn’t enough for you.

    Note that I don’t deny that such a hypothetical world would also very likely be a more peaceful and redistributionist one.
     
    Indeed. We could dispense almost entirely with police forces, prisons, and armed forces and devote more resources to R&D.


    In what specific way?

    For instance, my guess is that, a hypothetical Africa with the outside world and all non-Negroids removed will not build Wakanda anytime soon. Perhaps after another 10k years of agricultural civilization under Malthusian constraints, that will change. Should I give them the “benefit of the doubt” to assuage their feelings? It would certainly be the “nicer” thing to do, I suppose.

     

    Women have nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africans. First of all, the racial IQ gap dwarfs the gender gap, and there are no compensating factors, like higher conscientious, to offset the gap, either. Moreover, Africans are part of the Leftist coalition. If Leftists started insulting Africans the way dissident right men insult women, that would indeed be very foolish on their part. That won't happen, of course, because they are focused on power. Finally, we actually have real-world observations about what one can expect from African societies. We have no such experience of all-female societies.

    Replies: @iffen

    the way dissident right men insult women,

    The dissident right is a nothing-burger. The misogyny of the men is a dill pickle chip falling out of that nothing-burger onto a dirty floor.

  98. @Rosie
    @joe862


    Anyone who hasn’t noticed that women tend to squabble more than men is severely intellectually disabled.
     
    What do you lot call the constant one-up-manship and mutual sabotage you engage in if not squabbling?

    Replies: @joe862

    what do you call just about every significant organization in history built by men? Aside from child bearing and care women contribute nothing of significance. Without men there’s nothing. The modern woman is an astonishingly ungrateful pig who fails to appreciate anything. Absolutely disgusting people.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @joe862


    The modern woman is an astonishingly ungrateful pig who fails to appreciate anything.
     
    The feeling's mutual. Your welcome for all of the women since the dawn of time who have spent their entire lives bearing children until they die of it just to keep the population stable as you all kill and maim each other in droves.

    I'm ready to drop the subject of who's more important whenever you are. Meanwhile, don't expect me to pull punches.

    Replies: @joe862

  99. @Rich
    @Drapetomaniac

    Rand Paul, Mo Brooks. Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, Thomas Massie, Mark Meadows, Alex Mooney, Bill Posey. And I'll throw in an eleventh, just to be kind, Warren Davidson. There are a few more, but, unfortunately, not enough to save the republic.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac

    So they ALL vote against omnibus spending bills and for bringing ALL overseas military operations to an end.

    I’m just saying that none of the are for small government and minding ‘our’ own business.

    None of them. Not even Rand Paul.

    • Replies: @Rich
    @Drapetomaniac

    You should read up on them. They all consistently vote to end foreign military adventures and to reduce spending. And there are a significant number of them in the repub party. Obviously, they don't get the press and are outnumbered by moderate repubs and the democrat left, but they are there. And there's a very significant number of Americans who agree with them. Not enough to win in a country with universal suffrage and easily corrupted elections, though. I think that if we returned to the original requirements to vote, we might actually win both houses and the presidency.

  100. @joe862
    @Rosie

    what do you call just about every significant organization in history built by men? Aside from child bearing and care women contribute nothing of significance. Without men there's nothing. The modern woman is an astonishingly ungrateful pig who fails to appreciate anything. Absolutely disgusting people.

    Replies: @Rosie

    The modern woman is an astonishingly ungrateful pig who fails to appreciate anything.

    The feeling’s mutual. Your welcome for all of the women since the dawn of time who have spent their entire lives bearing children until they die of it just to keep the population stable as you all kill and maim each other in droves.

    I’m ready to drop the subject of who’s more important whenever you are. Meanwhile, don’t expect me to pull punches.

    • Replies: @joe862
    @Rosie

    I'm worried to death about your punches, please pull them. Neither is more important in keeping humanity in existence. Getting us past the hunter gatherer stage is all men.

  101. @Drapetomaniac
    @Rich

    So they ALL vote against omnibus spending bills and for bringing ALL overseas military operations to an end.

    I'm just saying that none of the are for small government and minding 'our' own business.

    None of them. Not even Rand Paul.

    Replies: @Rich

    You should read up on them. They all consistently vote to end foreign military adventures and to reduce spending. And there are a significant number of them in the repub party. Obviously, they don’t get the press and are outnumbered by moderate repubs and the democrat left, but they are there. And there’s a very significant number of Americans who agree with them. Not enough to win in a country with universal suffrage and easily corrupted elections, though. I think that if we returned to the original requirements to vote, we might actually win both houses and the presidency.

  102. @Rosie
    @joe862


    The modern woman is an astonishingly ungrateful pig who fails to appreciate anything.
     
    The feeling's mutual. Your welcome for all of the women since the dawn of time who have spent their entire lives bearing children until they die of it just to keep the population stable as you all kill and maim each other in droves.

    I'm ready to drop the subject of who's more important whenever you are. Meanwhile, don't expect me to pull punches.

    Replies: @joe862

    I’m worried to death about your punches, please pull them. Neither is more important in keeping humanity in existence. Getting us past the hunter gatherer stage is all men.

  103. The amusing thing about this, is that if Rosie actually succeeded in making White Nationalist men consider women their equals, she would significantly weaken White Nationalists ability to keep Jews and other foreign races out.

    The reason is, White Nationalism is based on rejection and exclusion of the “Other” – and for men, women are their earliest and deepest examples of an “Other”. Women as mysterious, unfathomable, witches, etc – such stereotypes are legion. Woman is the primary “Other” for man.

    For men to accept women as equals, requires them to significantly reduce and tamp down their rejection of the “Other” – but of course, this can’t be done selectively.

    Once you “lower the gates”, the gates are lowered for everyone 🙂 There is a reason Women’s Emancipation began at roughly the same time as Jewish Emancipation and the Abolition of Slavery.

    They were all part of the same relaxation of hostility to the “Other” that came to characterize European society under the Enlightenment.

    To Rosie’s intense chagrin, she is discovering that she is actually the “Jew” to WN men – as much as actual Jews – and that it cannot be otherwise 🙂

    Of course, if Rosie really cared about the success of the White Nationalist movement she would subsume her own ego and accept that women have to be second class citizens in any movement based on exclusion of the “Other” – but she can’t do it, which shows that for her too, men are the primary “Other”, not race 🙂

    It is significant that the only person to ever defend Rosie on AE’s old blog was dfordoom – who also defended Jews and opposed racism and HBD 🙂

    Is it theoretically possible for a Nationalist or a Racialist movement to not regard women as in some sense second class citizens who are inferior? I would argue that no, it is not – based on the basic psychology of opposing the “Other”.

    I cannot think of any real world examples, from Japanese, to Orthodox Jews, to traditional Asians, etc.

    The best that can be hoped for, is that women be given a special “sphere” in which she reigns supreme – which sphere is always regarded as inferior to man’s – and that provided she accepts her inferior status, she is treated with considetarion and some measure of respect due an inferior who knows their place. And this is the ideal scenario 🙂

    Women’s equality seems only conceivable even in an Enlightenment context, where objection to the “Other” is considerably relaxed – but in all honesty, does it occur even here? What we have seen historically, is that women in an Enlightenment context try and gain supremacy!

    What to make of this absolute mess we call the human condition lol 🙂

    Well, as a Buddhist and Taoist, I have the great privalege of not having to figure out how to make the world “work” – I just give it all up 🙂

    Personally, I treat women and men as equals – watching with bemusement as each gender tries to gain supremacy over the other 🙂

    Surely, both genders are equally stupid and retarded in their petty squabbles and bids for supremacy.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @AaronB


    Of course, if Rosie really cared about the success of the White Nationalist movement she would subsume her own ego and accept that women have to be second class citizens in any movement based on exclusion of the “Other” – but she can’t do it, which shows that for her too, men are the primary “Other”, not race 🙂
     
    Just what we need, a Jew to come along with the old divide and conquer tactics. There was a time when I thought you were different, Aaron. No longer.

    If I thought misogyny was a winning strategy, I'd grin and bear it for now. The polling clearly shows that it is not a winning strategy. There is, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, too much fraternizing with the enemy.

    Replies: @AaronB

    , @joe862
    @AaronB

    Of course things can and should be done selectively. Jewish emancipation? Were you slaves? Is every other the same? Women tend to be gullible and have been tricked into believing a lot of nonsense. Jews are terrible, greedy, manipulative, bullying, selfish pieces of crap most of the time. What you're doing is what you people do. Really aggressive, obvious manipulation. People can't relate to it so it works for a while until it doesn't. I'm continuously amazed by what disgusting swine you people are.

  104. Getting us past the hunter gatherer stage is all men.

    Nevermind hunter-gatherers Joe, you’re mentally more on the level of a subhuman primate.

    via GIPHY

    • Replies: @joe862
    @Rosie

    You've got nothing.

    , @mal
    @Rosie

    In my experience, women like subhuman primates. I commute on a motorbike for a reason. Its not that it turns my wife on (she is used to it). But it turns local waitresses on etc. And that threat of competition turns the wife on. It's fun.

    Replies: @Rosie

  105. @AaronB
    The amusing thing about this, is that if Rosie actually succeeded in making White Nationalist men consider women their equals, she would significantly weaken White Nationalists ability to keep Jews and other foreign races out.

    The reason is, White Nationalism is based on rejection and exclusion of the "Other" - and for men, women are their earliest and deepest examples of an "Other". Women as mysterious, unfathomable, witches, etc - such stereotypes are legion. Woman is the primary "Other" for man.

    For men to accept women as equals, requires them to significantly reduce and tamp down their rejection of the "Other" - but of course, this can't be done selectively.

    Once you "lower the gates", the gates are lowered for everyone :) There is a reason Women's Emancipation began at roughly the same time as Jewish Emancipation and the Abolition of Slavery.

    They were all part of the same relaxation of hostility to the "Other" that came to characterize European society under the Enlightenment.

    To Rosie's intense chagrin, she is discovering that she is actually the "Jew" to WN men - as much as actual Jews - and that it cannot be otherwise :)

    Of course, if Rosie really cared about the success of the White Nationalist movement she would subsume her own ego and accept that women have to be second class citizens in any movement based on exclusion of the "Other" - but she can't do it, which shows that for her too, men are the primary "Other", not race :)

    It is significant that the only person to ever defend Rosie on AE's old blog was dfordoom - who also defended Jews and opposed racism and HBD :)

    Is it theoretically possible for a Nationalist or a Racialist movement to not regard women as in some sense second class citizens who are inferior? I would argue that no, it is not - based on the basic psychology of opposing the "Other".

    I cannot think of any real world examples, from Japanese, to Orthodox Jews, to traditional Asians, etc.

    The best that can be hoped for, is that women be given a special "sphere" in which she reigns supreme - which sphere is always regarded as inferior to man's - and that provided she accepts her inferior status, she is treated with considetarion and some measure of respect due an inferior who knows their place. And this is the ideal scenario :)

    Women's equality seems only conceivable even in an Enlightenment context, where objection to the "Other" is considerably relaxed - but in all honesty, does it occur even here? What we have seen historically, is that women in an Enlightenment context try and gain supremacy!

    What to make of this absolute mess we call the human condition lol :)

    Well, as a Buddhist and Taoist, I have the great privalege of not having to figure out how to make the world "work" - I just give it all up :)

    Personally, I treat women and men as equals - watching with bemusement as each gender tries to gain supremacy over the other :)

    Surely, both genders are equally stupid and retarded in their petty squabbles and bids for supremacy.

    Replies: @Rosie, @joe862

    Of course, if Rosie really cared about the success of the White Nationalist movement she would subsume her own ego and accept that women have to be second class citizens in any movement based on exclusion of the “Other” – but she can’t do it, which shows that for her too, men are the primary “Other”, not race 🙂

    Just what we need, a Jew to come along with the old divide and conquer tactics. There was a time when I thought you were different, Aaron. No longer.

    If I thought misogyny was a winning strategy, I’d grin and bear it for now. The polling clearly shows that it is not a winning strategy. There is, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, too much fraternizing with the enemy.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @Rosie

    Lol, Rosie, I'm neither for you not against you.

    I've said before I have no problem if some Whites want to self-segregate. I believe everyone should be allowed to live as far as possible as they like, without hurting others.

    I would only oppose you if you try to force your beliefs on an unwilling country. But I think there is zero chance your ideas will become popular. Jew-hatred had it's heyday and like all spent ideologies, is today a niche and boutique concern - as such, it should be tolerated and people with this obsession should be humored.

    As for me using "divide and conquer" tactics, lol, as a known Jew here, if I can still sway WN men so easily then you got bigger problems than misogyny :)

    Have a little self-confidence in your kind, Rosie :) Try to drop the fearful loser attitude and cultivate a winning attitude as far as possible - it helps, trust me!

    Instead of being so fearful of Jews, laugh at us! And believe in yourselves! I promise you you'll feel a million times better.

    This was always the major weakness of Christianity and all the Western thought-systems that developed out of it - an essentially fearful and weak attitude towards "evil". A building it up into something terrifying and fearsome - instead of not taking it seriously, which would come out of a feeling of strength, and was the attitude of Buddhism and Taoism.

    As for the male/female divide, to deny that is one of the most primary and classic in-group/out-group divides seems futile.

    But what is fascinating to me is that a distinctive feature of the late-modern period seems to be characterized by incoherent and self-contradictory philosophies.

    For instance, Conservative have always supported Capitalism - the system that reliably destroys tradition and a settled way of life.

    There is a commenter here whose main hope for the future is revolutionary scientific creativity - but who spends immense energy trying to shut down eccentric and "unapproved" thought, socially policing this board, and who thinks "wrong" ideas are "dangerous".

    Now you - you support a political movement based on an extremely highly developed and cultivated sense of in-group/out-group difference, with an extraordinary sense of the "Other" - yet you want an exception made for one of the most classic, primary, important, and encompassing group differences, that cuts deep into our psyches - gender. And you have no sense that this would weaken the very attitude that is at the root of your movement, or that this flies in the face of all historical and existing examples of your favored movement type - or that you have not yet found a single individual within your movement interested in/capable of making this exception.

    But who knows? I wish you all the luck in the world :)

    Not that you would dream of taking advice from me, but a word of advice - power can be very real without being explicit, legal, and formal. Unofficial power can even be more real.

    Traditionally, women cultivated influence and power unofficially while accepting formal inequality as a fig leaf to maintain social peace and placate the fragile egos of their men :)

    The Spartans, the most macho of the Greeks, were famous for being dominated by their women according to Plutarch. Macho men are easiest to manipulate - and WN men, being weak, aspire to being macho.

    If you truly cared about WN, you would forget about pointless formal equality - mere appearance - and teach your fellow WN women to develop unofficial power - more potent - while placating the fragile egos of your WN men and keeping social peace.

    But such a course is far too subtle and sophisticated, wise and self-sacrificing, altruistic while also achieving your desires end and being self-respecting, for any late modern, born in a period of incoherece and breakdown, to adopt.

  106. @Rosie

    Getting us past the hunter gatherer stage is all men.
     
    Nevermind hunter-gatherers Joe, you're mentally more on the level of a subhuman primate.

    via GIPHY

    Replies: @joe862, @mal

    You’ve got nothing.

  107. @AaronB
    The amusing thing about this, is that if Rosie actually succeeded in making White Nationalist men consider women their equals, she would significantly weaken White Nationalists ability to keep Jews and other foreign races out.

    The reason is, White Nationalism is based on rejection and exclusion of the "Other" - and for men, women are their earliest and deepest examples of an "Other". Women as mysterious, unfathomable, witches, etc - such stereotypes are legion. Woman is the primary "Other" for man.

    For men to accept women as equals, requires them to significantly reduce and tamp down their rejection of the "Other" - but of course, this can't be done selectively.

    Once you "lower the gates", the gates are lowered for everyone :) There is a reason Women's Emancipation began at roughly the same time as Jewish Emancipation and the Abolition of Slavery.

    They were all part of the same relaxation of hostility to the "Other" that came to characterize European society under the Enlightenment.

    To Rosie's intense chagrin, she is discovering that she is actually the "Jew" to WN men - as much as actual Jews - and that it cannot be otherwise :)

    Of course, if Rosie really cared about the success of the White Nationalist movement she would subsume her own ego and accept that women have to be second class citizens in any movement based on exclusion of the "Other" - but she can't do it, which shows that for her too, men are the primary "Other", not race :)

    It is significant that the only person to ever defend Rosie on AE's old blog was dfordoom - who also defended Jews and opposed racism and HBD :)

    Is it theoretically possible for a Nationalist or a Racialist movement to not regard women as in some sense second class citizens who are inferior? I would argue that no, it is not - based on the basic psychology of opposing the "Other".

    I cannot think of any real world examples, from Japanese, to Orthodox Jews, to traditional Asians, etc.

    The best that can be hoped for, is that women be given a special "sphere" in which she reigns supreme - which sphere is always regarded as inferior to man's - and that provided she accepts her inferior status, she is treated with considetarion and some measure of respect due an inferior who knows their place. And this is the ideal scenario :)

    Women's equality seems only conceivable even in an Enlightenment context, where objection to the "Other" is considerably relaxed - but in all honesty, does it occur even here? What we have seen historically, is that women in an Enlightenment context try and gain supremacy!

    What to make of this absolute mess we call the human condition lol :)

    Well, as a Buddhist and Taoist, I have the great privalege of not having to figure out how to make the world "work" - I just give it all up :)

    Personally, I treat women and men as equals - watching with bemusement as each gender tries to gain supremacy over the other :)

    Surely, both genders are equally stupid and retarded in their petty squabbles and bids for supremacy.

    Replies: @Rosie, @joe862

    Of course things can and should be done selectively. Jewish emancipation? Were you slaves? Is every other the same? Women tend to be gullible and have been tricked into believing a lot of nonsense. Jews are terrible, greedy, manipulative, bullying, selfish pieces of crap most of the time. What you’re doing is what you people do. Really aggressive, obvious manipulation. People can’t relate to it so it works for a while until it doesn’t. I’m continuously amazed by what disgusting swine you people are.

  108. @Rosie

    Getting us past the hunter gatherer stage is all men.
     
    Nevermind hunter-gatherers Joe, you're mentally more on the level of a subhuman primate.

    via GIPHY

    Replies: @joe862, @mal

    In my experience, women like subhuman primates. I commute on a motorbike for a reason. Its not that it turns my wife on (she is used to it). But it turns local waitresses on etc. And that threat of competition turns the wife on. It’s fun.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @mal


    In my experience, women like subhuman primates.
     
    Women like ____________.

    If I had a nickel for every different answer I've seen to theis fill-in-the-blank, I'd have a bazillion dollars.

    A sampling of what I've seen:

    Criminal outcasts
    High-status, wealthy men
    Smooth-looking guys
    Rough-looking guys
    Refined but useless artists, and now ... subhuman primates
  109. @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    You barged in with your own “truthy” assertions that mostly range from highly questionable to obviously wrong, and take personal offense when the numbers don’t back up what you say, and then presume to dictate what I should or should not say based on how they affect your feelings, and because said observations are “useless anyway” (indeed, why do anything interesting or eccentric at all, beyond mowing the lawn). This is unfortunately also something that is more typical of women, and goes some way to explaining why some men insist on male only spaces for debates and discussions. This is of course highly unfair to reasonable and intelligent women, of whom there are many, including here I am happy to say.
     
    Mr. Karlin. You are 100% entitled to say anything you please. That does not mean that it is prudent to say such things. I know that people's feelings are considered immaterial in these parts, and that is precisely why the dissident right is not a movement but a stuckment, because it doesn't move. The Left, meanwhile, goes from victory to victory by ... caring about people's feelings. That is to say, they make it a point not to insult and demean potential allies. My feelings, I'll grant you, my feelings aren't particularly important. I am a true believer and nothing you or anyone else says will drive me away. It's potential converts I'm worried about.

    I sourced my claim that men have superior general knowledge.
     
    I appreciate that, but, because it was behind a paywall, I wasn't able to examine it. Again, that is something that a blogger or journalist should do, but noone ever does, and that is precisely my problem with how the WQ is dealt with in these parts.

    The problem is that there is much less variability amongst women, and cardinal advances are typically made by extremely superlative people. Perhaps there will be some technological progress, but it will advance at a glacial pace.

     

    The question is not whether there is much less variability among women. The question is whether there is enough variability such that, in the absence of men, progress would continue. If I am not mistaken, there are more extremely high IQ women in existence now than there were extremely high IQ men at the dawn of the industrial revolution, partly because of better nutrition and partly because of higher population. On what grounds, then, do you conclude that progress would "proceed at a glacial pace" without men?

    Mr. Karlin, your argument is, in essence, that, because women don't do X, we can't do X. That is a non sequitur, because it fails to take account of comparative advantage. Almost all film producers are Jewish. Does that mean White men can't make movies? No, it means that Jews dominate because of a marginal IQ advantage. Without Jews, White men would make perfectly good movies.

    Now, that is a different situation, because Jews are an outgroup and men are not. At least for now, we can't do without you and wouldn't want to even if we could. You enhance our lives in myriad ways and we cherish your fellowship and contributions. Why isn't that enough for you?


    Nobody is stopping women from, say, playing chess.
     
    Indeed, and that is the whole point. There are in fact thousands of women playing exceptionally good chess nowadays. These women are so incredible that they would wipe the floor with all but a tiny fraction of men on the planet. The difference between the best man and the best woman is totally beyond the ken of us mere mortals. If men were to disappear tomorrow, chess would carry on just fine without you.

    Notice, I am not blaming men for women's underachievement in chess. I am not demanding affirmative action for women. I am not demanding that women be represented I this or that. All I am doing is suggesting that you give women the benefit of the doubt. If that seems unreasonable to you, that's something you need to think about.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @HenryBaker

    I’d like to give my 2 cents on this whole discussion, since I’ve always enjoyed thinking about this topic. I’m somewhat late to it, so I’ll keep my reply a little brief and reply to (what I think is) the general gist of your argumentation, not any specific quotation.

    I agree with you that as soon as women are involved, the (Dissident-)Right, Rationalist HBD ‘Right’ or ‘Center’ etc. suddenly gets a very cavalier attitude towards method. Spouting some truisms is often seen as sufficient. That’s probably because it’s a very self-consciously male movement, with male identity being a marker of pride, seen as a source of independence, rational-minded thinking, etc.

    However, I still agree with the gist of Anatoly’s argumentation. That’s because, even if the Right depends on just-so stories about women, the nature of social psychology is such that you will not get much better out of it anyways. Doing any statistical research on female/male behavior is hard because a. behavior has to be causally interpreted (nature/nurture) and b. it often relies on self-reporting. Since men tend to have a male peer-group, and women a female peer-group, you don’t compare yourself to an objective standard, but an inter-subjective standard. Say a woman says she’s very headstrong (compared to her friends who she sees most), well okay but that would mean she’s headstrong ‘for a woman’, whatever that might mean. For example, you probably know of those investigations showing ‘women are more different from men as social equality increases’. Well okay that’s a nice headline but that mostly relies on self-reporting.

    Therefore, I decided some time ago to just put my ear to the ground, so to speak, and just pay attention to how the men and women that I meet behave. That tends to be representative of middle class, urbane people in my country. You’re not quickly going to get much better than some anecdotal random sampling like this because you just *see* what someone is really like without abstracting that experience away into statistics that you have to interpret.

    This is what I notice most, both in real life and by experience with roughly ‘rationalist’ fora:
    1. The single largest difference is that I know of is that I’ve seen almost no women that are willing to ostracize themselves for their beliefs. There is a rather sizeable sub-group of men that cares for, not so much Truth, as well as their own Beliefs over social acceptability. Of course they exist but they really are very few and you really see this in hard numbers as well. I’m saying that because even a Sean Last or a Ryan Faulk (both of which willingly took on a lot of potential heat saying what they did) of course have some of their own biases and dogmas. By the way, I myself have always been drawn to strong beliefs, ‘true but taboo’ topics, etc. The first thing I did when having learned German was buying a book on IQ.

    In Spain around the 20s or 30s, the first elected female politicians actually voted against active female voting rights as women trended so conservative (christian) that they might vote away the Republic and their own emancipation. In Germany around the same time, women overwhelmingly rejected the party that most supported their rights: the KPD. The communists in Germany were the most male dominated party around (I think 70/30). Women voted christian mostly, and tended not to vote for the nazis up, until about the nazis looked close to winning: then the male and female nazi vote was about evenly split.

    In my country, women were known as ‘right’ up until about the 60s or 70s, then, suddenly, as society as a whole veered left women became known as more progressive.

    I’ll give my evpsych ‘just-so’ story on all this: it indeed does make sense for women to fear ostracism as they are more physically vulnerable. If a man was expelled from the group back in the primitive days, he had more hope of survival by himself. Especially when with child, a woman is just vulnerable. Open independent thinking has also led to violent conflict. You can call Luther, Lenin, Hitler, a lot of things but they were independent and critical thinkers for sure (in the most literal sense of those words), that came to an opinion, and refused to let go of it no matter the cost to either themselves or the society around them. We glorify independent thinking but real independent thinking is harsh, dangerous, and often destabilizing. Back in the day, it would make sense for ‘violently independent’ people like these to be men, as such personalities lead to conflict and there physical prowesse was important. Women almost NEVER profit from open violent conflict within a society, as individuals, since women tend to prefer influence over physical danger.

    Men are also judged more actively and women more passively- I’ve almost never hear people refer to women as ‘losers’ as we subconsciously hardly expect them to play any game of life at all. It’s men that have to prove themselves. This leads to a need of being able to function apart of others, not always depend on others, etc.

    I’ve noticed more differences but this is the most important one, imo. Women are not stupid at all, but there’s just less of a NEED to excel that some men have baked in- and I know some women that are very stubborn but even they never deviate from societally accepted norms.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @HenryBaker
    @HenryBaker

    By the way, the whole 'KPD dominated by men' thing is one of the funny ironies of history. Communism, back in the day, tended to be staunchly progressive before Stalin, anti-racist, female emancipation, etc. But if you think about it, the whole communist style was ridiculously 'toxically' masculine. The entire world is your enemy, you can trust no one outside of your militaristic movement, you must sacrifice all your interests to the 'war', you have no loyalty but to the workers/ussr, everything, everywhere is but a 'situation' to be analyzed and overcome, and there are no real defeats, only setbacks...

    It's fascinating how communism (and nazism to an extent) really were secular messianic movements...

    Replies: @iffen

    , @Rosie
    @HenryBaker


    That’s probably because it’s a very self-consciously male movement, with male identity being a marker of pride, seen as a source of independence, rational-minded thinking, etc.
     
    There's nothing wrong with that, but I too am proud of being a woman. In mainstream society, I am expected to shut up and take anti-White abuse. In the dissident right, I am expected to shut up and take misogynist abuse. (Note, I am not accuing AK of this, but the bullying is severe and frequent, as you can see on this thread.) I am unwilling to hate Amy part of myself, except defects of character.

    However, I still agree with the gist of Anatoly’s argumentation. That’s because, even if the Right depends on just-so stories about women, the nature of social psychology is such that you will not get much better out of it anyways.
     
    Then agnosticism and diplomatic silence are the appropriate course. These speculations about women are used to justify demands for a backlash against women on the flimsiest of evidence, and sometimes in the face of contrary evidence. If women are so dangerous to the social order that we have to be disenfranchised, someone should be able produce some compelling evidence of this.

    The single largest difference is that I know of is that I’ve seen almost no women that are willing to ostracize themselves for their beliefs.
     
    And yet, 14 women as well as 5 men were executed during the Salem Witch trials, even though all they had to do to escape this fate was confess. That's not a bad showing out of ~200 accused. I consider myself very strong-willed, but I don’t think I'd have been that courageous. See also... women Christian martyrs.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

    Of course, the funny thing about this whole kerfuffle is that, the more correct the claim that women are less likely to risk ostracism, the more ridiculous it is to blame womwn for our plight. There were no dissenting votes from Steve King's censure, not even a single solitary ****ing one. If men are cowering before the mob, it's ridiculous to expect women to, especially in the face of guilt trips and appeals to pity. We think of ourselves as more compassionate than you, and if even you are saying that immigration restriction is "heartless," we are going to take that to heart.

    Notice, even if this claim concerning women is 100% true, that in no way justifies disenfranchising and restricting women, because this very quality is a strength as well as a weakness. We need a social safety net, humane prisons, etc.

    Men are also judged more actively and women more passively- I’ve almost never hear people refer to women as ‘losers’ as we subconsciously hardly expect them to play any game of life at all. It’s men that have to prove themselves. This leads to a need of being able to function apart of others, not always depend on others, etc.

    I’ve noticed more differences but this is the most important one, imo. Women are not stupid at all, but there’s just less of a NEED to excel that some men have baked in- and I know some women that are very stubborn but even they never deviate from societally accepted norms.

     

    Yes, I think this is true, and here again is one of the ironies of dissident right rhetoric about women. The more women are taunted about our relative lack of achievement, the more motivated we are going to be to prove these claims wrong. I think that's part of why you see women excel in STEM in Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are tired of chest-thumping male-triumphalists treating them as inferior. You don't convince women to embrace theor traditional roles by telling them they're otherwise useless and incapable. That is going to backfire.

    Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful and civil reply.
  110. @HenryBaker
    @Rosie

    I'd like to give my 2 cents on this whole discussion, since I've always enjoyed thinking about this topic. I'm somewhat late to it, so I'll keep my reply a little brief and reply to (what I think is) the general gist of your argumentation, not any specific quotation.

    I agree with you that as soon as women are involved, the (Dissident-)Right, Rationalist HBD 'Right' or 'Center' etc. suddenly gets a very cavalier attitude towards method. Spouting some truisms is often seen as sufficient. That's probably because it's a very self-consciously male movement, with male identity being a marker of pride, seen as a source of independence, rational-minded thinking, etc.

    However, I still agree with the gist of Anatoly's argumentation. That's because, even if the Right depends on just-so stories about women, the nature of social psychology is such that you will not get much better out of it anyways. Doing any statistical research on female/male behavior is hard because a. behavior has to be causally interpreted (nature/nurture) and b. it often relies on self-reporting. Since men tend to have a male peer-group, and women a female peer-group, you don't compare yourself to an objective standard, but an inter-subjective standard. Say a woman says she's very headstrong (compared to her friends who she sees most), well okay but that would mean she's headstrong 'for a woman', whatever that might mean. For example, you probably know of those investigations showing 'women are more different from men as social equality increases'. Well okay that's a nice headline but that mostly relies on self-reporting.

    Therefore, I decided some time ago to just put my ear to the ground, so to speak, and just pay attention to how the men and women that I meet behave. That tends to be representative of middle class, urbane people in my country. You're not quickly going to get much better than some anecdotal random sampling like this because you just *see* what someone is really like without abstracting that experience away into statistics that you have to interpret.

    This is what I notice most, both in real life and by experience with roughly 'rationalist' fora:
    1. The single largest difference is that I know of is that I've seen almost no women that are willing to ostracize themselves for their beliefs. There is a rather sizeable sub-group of men that cares for, not so much Truth, as well as their own Beliefs over social acceptability. Of course they exist but they really are very few and you really see this in hard numbers as well. I'm saying that because even a Sean Last or a Ryan Faulk (both of which willingly took on a lot of potential heat saying what they did) of course have some of their own biases and dogmas. By the way, I myself have always been drawn to strong beliefs, 'true but taboo' topics, etc. The first thing I did when having learned German was buying a book on IQ.

    In Spain around the 20s or 30s, the first elected female politicians actually voted against active female voting rights as women trended so conservative (christian) that they might vote away the Republic and their own emancipation. In Germany around the same time, women overwhelmingly rejected the party that most supported their rights: the KPD. The communists in Germany were the most male dominated party around (I think 70/30). Women voted christian mostly, and tended not to vote for the nazis up, until about the nazis looked close to winning: then the male and female nazi vote was about evenly split.

    In my country, women were known as 'right' up until about the 60s or 70s, then, suddenly, as society as a whole veered left women became known as more progressive.

    I'll give my evpsych 'just-so' story on all this: it indeed does make sense for women to fear ostracism as they are more physically vulnerable. If a man was expelled from the group back in the primitive days, he had more hope of survival by himself. Especially when with child, a woman is just vulnerable. Open independent thinking has also led to violent conflict. You can call Luther, Lenin, Hitler, a lot of things but they were independent and critical thinkers for sure (in the most literal sense of those words), that came to an opinion, and refused to let go of it no matter the cost to either themselves or the society around them. We glorify independent thinking but real independent thinking is harsh, dangerous, and often destabilizing. Back in the day, it would make sense for 'violently independent' people like these to be men, as such personalities lead to conflict and there physical prowesse was important. Women almost NEVER profit from open violent conflict within a society, as individuals, since women tend to prefer influence over physical danger.

    Men are also judged more actively and women more passively- I've almost never hear people refer to women as 'losers' as we subconsciously hardly expect them to play any game of life at all. It's men that have to prove themselves. This leads to a need of being able to function apart of others, not always depend on others, etc.

    I've noticed more differences but this is the most important one, imo. Women are not stupid at all, but there's just less of a NEED to excel that some men have baked in- and I know some women that are very stubborn but even they never deviate from societally accepted norms.

    Replies: @HenryBaker, @Rosie

    By the way, the whole ‘KPD dominated by men’ thing is one of the funny ironies of history. Communism, back in the day, tended to be staunchly progressive before Stalin, anti-racist, female emancipation, etc. But if you think about it, the whole communist style was ridiculously ‘toxically’ masculine. The entire world is your enemy, you can trust no one outside of your militaristic movement, you must sacrifice all your interests to the ‘war’, you have no loyalty but to the workers/ussr, everything, everywhere is but a ‘situation’ to be analyzed and overcome, and there are no real defeats, only setbacks…

    It’s fascinating how communism (and nazism to an extent) really were secular messianic movements…

    • Replies: @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    It's really hard to flesh out the differences between applied Bolshevism and Nazism.

    Excellent comments.

    Rosie is trying to get blood out of a turnip.

    White Nationalism/alt-right is reactionary. They could no more support equity feminism than they could support same-sex marriage.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

  111. @HenryBaker
    @HenryBaker

    By the way, the whole 'KPD dominated by men' thing is one of the funny ironies of history. Communism, back in the day, tended to be staunchly progressive before Stalin, anti-racist, female emancipation, etc. But if you think about it, the whole communist style was ridiculously 'toxically' masculine. The entire world is your enemy, you can trust no one outside of your militaristic movement, you must sacrifice all your interests to the 'war', you have no loyalty but to the workers/ussr, everything, everywhere is but a 'situation' to be analyzed and overcome, and there are no real defeats, only setbacks...

    It's fascinating how communism (and nazism to an extent) really were secular messianic movements...

    Replies: @iffen

    It’s really hard to flesh out the differences between applied Bolshevism and Nazism.

    Excellent comments.

    Rosie is trying to get blood out of a turnip.

    White Nationalism/alt-right is reactionary. They could no more support equity feminism than they could support same-sex marriage.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @iffen


    They could no more support equity feminism than they could support same-sex marriage.
     
    Rosie is a strange fruit in that she seems to be more of a gender feminist (questioning obvious differences between the sexes and casting aspersions on those who don't buy into that) than an equity feminist.

    Replies: @Rosie

  112. @mal
    @Rosie

    In my experience, women like subhuman primates. I commute on a motorbike for a reason. Its not that it turns my wife on (she is used to it). But it turns local waitresses on etc. And that threat of competition turns the wife on. It's fun.

    Replies: @Rosie

    In my experience, women like subhuman primates.

    Women like ____________.

    If I had a nickel for every different answer I’ve seen to theis fill-in-the-blank, I’d have a bazillion dollars.

    A sampling of what I’ve seen:

    Criminal outcasts
    High-status, wealthy men
    Smooth-looking guys
    Rough-looking guys
    Refined but useless artists, and now … subhuman primates

  113. @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    It's really hard to flesh out the differences between applied Bolshevism and Nazism.

    Excellent comments.

    Rosie is trying to get blood out of a turnip.

    White Nationalism/alt-right is reactionary. They could no more support equity feminism than they could support same-sex marriage.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    They could no more support equity feminism than they could support same-sex marriage.

    Rosie is a strange fruit in that she seems to be more of a gender feminist (questioning obvious differences between the sexes and casting aspersions on those who don’t buy into that) than an equity feminist.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Anatoly Karlin


    Rosie is a strange fruit in that she seems to be more of a gender feminist (questioning obvious differences between the sexes and casting aspersions on those who don’t buy into that) than an equity feminist.
     
    Not so at all. I have conceded in this very thread that women are less mechanically inclined than men, who dominate engineering because of an IQ advantage and greater interest in the field. In so doing, I didn't just meet you half way. I met you 90% of the way. I drew the line at speculative claims that progress would slow to a crawl if not screech to a grinding halt without men.

    Yet, still I'm called a feminist because I don’t subscribe in all respects to conventional (and usually derogatory) wisdom about women. If that makes me a "gender feminist," so be it.
  114. @HenryBaker
    @Rosie

    I'd like to give my 2 cents on this whole discussion, since I've always enjoyed thinking about this topic. I'm somewhat late to it, so I'll keep my reply a little brief and reply to (what I think is) the general gist of your argumentation, not any specific quotation.

    I agree with you that as soon as women are involved, the (Dissident-)Right, Rationalist HBD 'Right' or 'Center' etc. suddenly gets a very cavalier attitude towards method. Spouting some truisms is often seen as sufficient. That's probably because it's a very self-consciously male movement, with male identity being a marker of pride, seen as a source of independence, rational-minded thinking, etc.

    However, I still agree with the gist of Anatoly's argumentation. That's because, even if the Right depends on just-so stories about women, the nature of social psychology is such that you will not get much better out of it anyways. Doing any statistical research on female/male behavior is hard because a. behavior has to be causally interpreted (nature/nurture) and b. it often relies on self-reporting. Since men tend to have a male peer-group, and women a female peer-group, you don't compare yourself to an objective standard, but an inter-subjective standard. Say a woman says she's very headstrong (compared to her friends who she sees most), well okay but that would mean she's headstrong 'for a woman', whatever that might mean. For example, you probably know of those investigations showing 'women are more different from men as social equality increases'. Well okay that's a nice headline but that mostly relies on self-reporting.

    Therefore, I decided some time ago to just put my ear to the ground, so to speak, and just pay attention to how the men and women that I meet behave. That tends to be representative of middle class, urbane people in my country. You're not quickly going to get much better than some anecdotal random sampling like this because you just *see* what someone is really like without abstracting that experience away into statistics that you have to interpret.

    This is what I notice most, both in real life and by experience with roughly 'rationalist' fora:
    1. The single largest difference is that I know of is that I've seen almost no women that are willing to ostracize themselves for their beliefs. There is a rather sizeable sub-group of men that cares for, not so much Truth, as well as their own Beliefs over social acceptability. Of course they exist but they really are very few and you really see this in hard numbers as well. I'm saying that because even a Sean Last or a Ryan Faulk (both of which willingly took on a lot of potential heat saying what they did) of course have some of their own biases and dogmas. By the way, I myself have always been drawn to strong beliefs, 'true but taboo' topics, etc. The first thing I did when having learned German was buying a book on IQ.

    In Spain around the 20s or 30s, the first elected female politicians actually voted against active female voting rights as women trended so conservative (christian) that they might vote away the Republic and their own emancipation. In Germany around the same time, women overwhelmingly rejected the party that most supported their rights: the KPD. The communists in Germany were the most male dominated party around (I think 70/30). Women voted christian mostly, and tended not to vote for the nazis up, until about the nazis looked close to winning: then the male and female nazi vote was about evenly split.

    In my country, women were known as 'right' up until about the 60s or 70s, then, suddenly, as society as a whole veered left women became known as more progressive.

    I'll give my evpsych 'just-so' story on all this: it indeed does make sense for women to fear ostracism as they are more physically vulnerable. If a man was expelled from the group back in the primitive days, he had more hope of survival by himself. Especially when with child, a woman is just vulnerable. Open independent thinking has also led to violent conflict. You can call Luther, Lenin, Hitler, a lot of things but they were independent and critical thinkers for sure (in the most literal sense of those words), that came to an opinion, and refused to let go of it no matter the cost to either themselves or the society around them. We glorify independent thinking but real independent thinking is harsh, dangerous, and often destabilizing. Back in the day, it would make sense for 'violently independent' people like these to be men, as such personalities lead to conflict and there physical prowesse was important. Women almost NEVER profit from open violent conflict within a society, as individuals, since women tend to prefer influence over physical danger.

    Men are also judged more actively and women more passively- I've almost never hear people refer to women as 'losers' as we subconsciously hardly expect them to play any game of life at all. It's men that have to prove themselves. This leads to a need of being able to function apart of others, not always depend on others, etc.

    I've noticed more differences but this is the most important one, imo. Women are not stupid at all, but there's just less of a NEED to excel that some men have baked in- and I know some women that are very stubborn but even they never deviate from societally accepted norms.

    Replies: @HenryBaker, @Rosie

    That’s probably because it’s a very self-consciously male movement, with male identity being a marker of pride, seen as a source of independence, rational-minded thinking, etc.

    There’s nothing wrong with that, but I too am proud of being a woman. In mainstream society, I am expected to shut up and take anti-White abuse. In the dissident right, I am expected to shut up and take misogynist abuse. (Note, I am not accuing AK of this, but the bullying is severe and frequent, as you can see on this thread.) I am unwilling to hate Amy part of myself, except defects of character.

    However, I still agree with the gist of Anatoly’s argumentation. That’s because, even if the Right depends on just-so stories about women, the nature of social psychology is such that you will not get much better out of it anyways.

    Then agnosticism and diplomatic silence are the appropriate course. These speculations about women are used to justify demands for a backlash against women on the flimsiest of evidence, and sometimes in the face of contrary evidence. If women are so dangerous to the social order that we have to be disenfranchised, someone should be able produce some compelling evidence of this.

    The single largest difference is that I know of is that I’ve seen almost no women that are willing to ostracize themselves for their beliefs.

    And yet, 14 women as well as 5 men were executed during the Salem Witch trials, even though all they had to do to escape this fate was confess. That’s not a bad showing out of ~200 accused. I consider myself very strong-willed, but I don’t think I’d have been that courageous. See also… women Christian martyrs.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

    Of course, the funny thing about this whole kerfuffle is that, the more correct the claim that women are less likely to risk ostracism, the more ridiculous it is to blame womwn for our plight. There were no dissenting votes from Steve King’s censure, not even a single solitary ****ing one. If men are cowering before the mob, it’s ridiculous to expect women to, especially in the face of guilt trips and appeals to pity. We think of ourselves as more compassionate than you, and if even you are saying that immigration restriction is “heartless,” we are going to take that to heart.

    Notice, even if this claim concerning women is 100% true, that in no way justifies disenfranchising and restricting women, because this very quality is a strength as well as a weakness. We need a social safety net, humane prisons, etc.

    Men are also judged more actively and women more passively- I’ve almost never hear people refer to women as ‘losers’ as we subconsciously hardly expect them to play any game of life at all. It’s men that have to prove themselves. This leads to a need of being able to function apart of others, not always depend on others, etc.

    I’ve noticed more differences but this is the most important one, imo. Women are not stupid at all, but there’s just less of a NEED to excel that some men have baked in- and I know some women that are very stubborn but even they never deviate from societally accepted norms.

    Yes, I think this is true, and here again is one of the ironies of dissident right rhetoric about women. The more women are taunted about our relative lack of achievement, the more motivated we are going to be to prove these claims wrong. I think that’s part of why you see women excel in STEM in Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are tired of chest-thumping male-triumphalists treating them as inferior. You don’t convince women to embrace theor traditional roles by telling them they’re otherwise useless and incapable. That is going to backfire.

    Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful and civil reply.

  115. @Anatoly Karlin
    @iffen


    They could no more support equity feminism than they could support same-sex marriage.
     
    Rosie is a strange fruit in that she seems to be more of a gender feminist (questioning obvious differences between the sexes and casting aspersions on those who don't buy into that) than an equity feminist.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Rosie is a strange fruit in that she seems to be more of a gender feminist (questioning obvious differences between the sexes and casting aspersions on those who don’t buy into that) than an equity feminist.

    Not so at all. I have conceded in this very thread that women are less mechanically inclined than men, who dominate engineering because of an IQ advantage and greater interest in the field. In so doing, I didn’t just meet you half way. I met you 90% of the way. I drew the line at speculative claims that progress would slow to a crawl if not screech to a grinding halt without men.

    Yet, still I’m called a feminist because I don’t subscribe in all respects to conventional (and usually derogatory) wisdom about women. If that makes me a “gender feminist,” so be it.

  116. ‘In mainstream society, I am expected to shut up and take anti-White abuse. In the dissident right, I am expected to shut up and take misogynist abuse.’

    Yeah, I see what you mean. Someone like Nick Fuentes is a funny guy but people like him don’t accept that women too have individual characters, and can’t just be treated like interchangeable Platonic Woman. Like Volkmar Weiss (himself a racist) once speculated about how Lynn seemed to think some genetic differences make Blacks a different species, but, there’s more difference within-group than between-group etc. Women differ just like men do. I’ll try to keep the cliches to those sentences there. Most of Diss. Right young guys are also on 4chan where casual misogyny is obviously 100% acceptable.

    ‘Then agnosticism and diplomatic silence are the appropriate course.’
    I strongly disagree. I also 100% believe we can’t predict the future, yet we have to take action on our beliefs anyways. Like Mao said, women hold up half the sky, you just HAVE to speculate about what that might mean now, then, and later.

    ‘If women are so dangerous to the social order that we have to be disenfranchised…’
    I think that if you firmly believe women are somewhat conformist then it doesn’t matter whether women have the franchise or not, for obvious reasons. You can only disenfranchise when you have power, yet if you have power and conformists conform anyways… I don’t see women as much of a danger to anything at all. They could support Franco, Hitler, Stalin, just as much as reading Judith Butler. Just like men could, of course.

    ‘And yet, 14 women as well as 5 men were executed during the Salem Witch trials, even though all they had to do to escape this fate was confess.’

    A fair point. It’s true that very headstrong women do exist. But percentages, percentages…

    ‘There were no dissenting votes from Steve King’s censure, not even a single solitary ****ing one.’

    Also fair, but we are of course speaking about p*liticians here. It’s true that most men are also conformists (who sometimes think they can think for themselves, yet are unwilling to face real taboos), but the semi-autistic Sean Lasts and Ryan Faulks of the world are simply mostly men. Come to think of it, isn’t the autistic brain structured in a hyper-masculine way, with autism being a mostly male disease?

    ‘Notice, even if this claim concerning women is 100% true, that in no way justifies disenfranchising and restricting women, because this very quality is a strength as well as a weakness. We need a social safety net, humane prisons, etc.’

    I don’t like the idea that any policy seen as ‘compassionate’ is pushed into the corner of ‘effeminate’. It’s a dumb reductionist way of approaching some issues. I myself support policies like safety nets, reasonable treatment of prisoners etc., but because I see it as effective towards social stability and quality of life, and simply just in general, but not out of the warmness of my heart. I separate my feelings and my political beliefs. I don’t oppose the disenfranchisement of women- don’t think you can support disenfranchising 100IQ people. I think the political class should be mostly male (75/25% would be ideal). I like action and conflict. It powers the world. However, the problem with politicians is not that they are male of female but mostly just that they’re, well, power-hungry politicians. Not the most worthy people, in general.

    ‘I think that’s part of why you see women excel in STEM in Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are tired of chest-thumping male-triumphalists treating them as inferior. You don’t convince women to embrace theor traditional roles by telling them they’re otherwise useless and incapable. That is going to backfire.’

    Maybe, just-so story. Could also just be that they go wherever the money is because, well, they need to make money in a poor country.

    ‘Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful and civil reply’

    Heh don’t see much of a way to reply to that without seeming like I’m white knighting, but thanks for the compliment. Let’s just say I try to speak normally to everyone on the internet.

  117. @Rosie
    @AaronB


    Of course, if Rosie really cared about the success of the White Nationalist movement she would subsume her own ego and accept that women have to be second class citizens in any movement based on exclusion of the “Other” – but she can’t do it, which shows that for her too, men are the primary “Other”, not race 🙂
     
    Just what we need, a Jew to come along with the old divide and conquer tactics. There was a time when I thought you were different, Aaron. No longer.

    If I thought misogyny was a winning strategy, I'd grin and bear it for now. The polling clearly shows that it is not a winning strategy. There is, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, too much fraternizing with the enemy.

    Replies: @AaronB

    Lol, Rosie, I’m neither for you not against you.

    I’ve said before I have no problem if some Whites want to self-segregate. I believe everyone should be allowed to live as far as possible as they like, without hurting others.

    I would only oppose you if you try to force your beliefs on an unwilling country. But I think there is zero chance your ideas will become popular. Jew-hatred had it’s heyday and like all spent ideologies, is today a niche and boutique concern – as such, it should be tolerated and people with this obsession should be humored.

    As for me using “divide and conquer” tactics, lol, as a known Jew here, if I can still sway WN men so easily then you got bigger problems than misogyny 🙂

    Have a little self-confidence in your kind, Rosie 🙂 Try to drop the fearful loser attitude and cultivate a winning attitude as far as possible – it helps, trust me!

    Instead of being so fearful of Jews, laugh at us! And believe in yourselves! I promise you you’ll feel a million times better.

    This was always the major weakness of Christianity and all the Western thought-systems that developed out of it – an essentially fearful and weak attitude towards “evil”. A building it up into something terrifying and fearsome – instead of not taking it seriously, which would come out of a feeling of strength, and was the attitude of Buddhism and Taoism.

    As for the male/female divide, to deny that is one of the most primary and classic in-group/out-group divides seems futile.

    But what is fascinating to me is that a distinctive feature of the late-modern period seems to be characterized by incoherent and self-contradictory philosophies.

    For instance, Conservative have always supported Capitalism – the system that reliably destroys tradition and a settled way of life.

    There is a commenter here whose main hope for the future is revolutionary scientific creativity – but who spends immense energy trying to shut down eccentric and “unapproved” thought, socially policing this board, and who thinks “wrong” ideas are “dangerous”.

    Now you – you support a political movement based on an extremely highly developed and cultivated sense of in-group/out-group difference, with an extraordinary sense of the “Other” – yet you want an exception made for one of the most classic, primary, important, and encompassing group differences, that cuts deep into our psyches – gender. And you have no sense that this would weaken the very attitude that is at the root of your movement, or that this flies in the face of all historical and existing examples of your favored movement type – or that you have not yet found a single individual within your movement interested in/capable of making this exception.

    But who knows? I wish you all the luck in the world 🙂

    Not that you would dream of taking advice from me, but a word of advice – power can be very real without being explicit, legal, and formal. Unofficial power can even be more real.

    Traditionally, women cultivated influence and power unofficially while accepting formal inequality as a fig leaf to maintain social peace and placate the fragile egos of their men 🙂

    The Spartans, the most macho of the Greeks, were famous for being dominated by their women according to Plutarch. Macho men are easiest to manipulate – and WN men, being weak, aspire to being macho.

    If you truly cared about WN, you would forget about pointless formal equality – mere appearance – and teach your fellow WN women to develop unofficial power – more potent – while placating the fragile egos of your WN men and keeping social peace.

    But such a course is far too subtle and sophisticated, wise and self-sacrificing, altruistic while also achieving your desires end and being self-respecting, for any late modern, born in a period of incoherece and breakdown, to adopt.

  118. ‘a distinctive feature of the late-modern period seems to be characterized by incoherent and self-contradictory philosophies’
    Yes, we should instead go back to cohesive and logical Trad ideas like the Trinity. Anything humans pick up is a little incoherent and contradictory, man.

    By the way, ‘white nationalism’ was simply the norm in Europe, America, and Australia until what, 1920? Yet there first wave feminism was also grudgingly accepted. Ideas of chivalry and such also never really went away since Medieval times.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @HenryBaker


    By the way, ‘white nationalism’ was simply the norm in Europe, America, and Australia until what, 1920?
     
    Not among the elite. Since a little before the Enlightenment, the elite were slowly chipping away at hostility toward the Other, and strong in-group/out-group preferences. The whole point of the Enlightenment was that such biases are irrational and uncivilized.

    Montesquieu's Letters Persanes, perhaps, is the first broadside against White Nationalism - the first serious attack on the notion that the way "we" do things is natural and civilized, and the way "foreigners" do things is stupid and barbarous.

    Also, in the 20s Women's Emancipation was not in a very advanced state, and misogyny was dominant and widespread.

    Also, the Enlightenment did not arrive as a "finished package" - it was a movement and a trend, a set of ideas whose gradual application to all areas of life, and whose full implications, was thought to unfold over several centuries. You can't look at a particular decade and "fix, when that decade was not a "terminus" but a moment in a process.

    And women's rights, was part of the same "bundle", and advanced in tandem with, abolishing of Slavery, Jewish rights, and general relaxation of hostility toward the Other and an appreciation for the foreign - emerging globalism, really.


    Ideas of chivalry and such also never really went away since Medieval times.
     
    Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission - that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.

    Yes, if women accept they are weak and need protection, and cannot participate in serious work and politics, and are under the control of men, chivalry will return.

    Is Rosie willing to accept this?

    I mentioned already that something like this is the best women can expect in a traditional WN movement - but chivalry, too was an ideal, and coexisted with misogyny and fear of women in most ordinary, not particularly idealistic, men.


    Yes, we should instead go back to cohesive and logical Trad ideas like the Trinity. Anything humans pick up is a little incoherent and contradictory, man
     
    In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.

    In practical programs, self-defeating inconsistency, or conflicting goals, ate not virtues - they are signs of breakdown and incoherence, and decline.

    Replies: @HenryBaker

  119. @HenryBaker
    'a distinctive feature of the late-modern period seems to be characterized by incoherent and self-contradictory philosophies'
    Yes, we should instead go back to cohesive and logical Trad ideas like the Trinity. Anything humans pick up is a little incoherent and contradictory, man.

    By the way, 'white nationalism' was simply the norm in Europe, America, and Australia until what, 1920? Yet there first wave feminism was also grudgingly accepted. Ideas of chivalry and such also never really went away since Medieval times.

    Replies: @AaronB

    By the way, ‘white nationalism’ was simply the norm in Europe, America, and Australia until what, 1920?

    Not among the elite. Since a little before the Enlightenment, the elite were slowly chipping away at hostility toward the Other, and strong in-group/out-group preferences. The whole point of the Enlightenment was that such biases are irrational and uncivilized.

    Montesquieu’s Letters Persanes, perhaps, is the first broadside against White Nationalism – the first serious attack on the notion that the way “we” do things is natural and civilized, and the way “foreigners” do things is stupid and barbarous.

    Also, in the 20s Women’s Emancipation was not in a very advanced state, and misogyny was dominant and widespread.

    Also, the Enlightenment did not arrive as a “finished package” – it was a movement and a trend, a set of ideas whose gradual application to all areas of life, and whose full implications, was thought to unfold over several centuries. You can’t look at a particular decade and “fix, when that decade was not a “terminus” but a moment in a process.

    And women’s rights, was part of the same “bundle”, and advanced in tandem with, abolishing of Slavery, Jewish rights, and general relaxation of hostility toward the Other and an appreciation for the foreign – emerging globalism, really.

    Ideas of chivalry and such also never really went away since Medieval times.

    Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission – that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.

    Yes, if women accept they are weak and need protection, and cannot participate in serious work and politics, and are under the control of men, chivalry will return.

    Is Rosie willing to accept this?

    I mentioned already that something like this is the best women can expect in a traditional WN movement – but chivalry, too was an ideal, and coexisted with misogyny and fear of women in most ordinary, not particularly idealistic, men.

    Yes, we should instead go back to cohesive and logical Trad ideas like the Trinity. Anything humans pick up is a little incoherent and contradictory, man

    In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.

    In practical programs, self-defeating inconsistency, or conflicting goals, ate not virtues – they are signs of breakdown and incoherence, and decline.

    • Replies: @HenryBaker
    @AaronB

    'Since a little before the Enlightenment, the elite were slowly chipping away at hostility toward the Other'

    Yeah bro I'm going to need a bit more evidence of that beyond some letters of philosophes. It's been more or less acknowledged that Enlightenment rationality was seen as mostly extending to Whites. The only group I know of that really chipped away systematically at 'hostility towards the Other' (for Whites) is Jews, by demolishing academic and political worldviews and legal frameworks that would support any sort of white identity. That's been documented *ad nauseam* by Joyce and McDonald. The best other example I can think of is abolitionists, but European-style slavery was so cruel and harsh that abolishing it was hardly a stellar leap forward in 'globalism'.

    Of course, what 'hostility' and what 'Others' are you even speaking of? It's well-known that post-Enlightenment Europe in some sense became even MORE self-aware. This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, after which nazism and fascism could still rise up only 80 years ago. Communists of course think of Others all the time. Globalism, I'd say, is more of a reaction to the 2d world war, and Fascism and then Communism failing, paired with Jewish worldviews becoming mainstream. The reason is because Enlightenment was NOT as universalistic as you claim. It just came down to treating the world in a reasoned manner. Well, if the 'reasoned manner' is measuring skulls, you're not getting much more universalistic.

    Now, at this point I should probably clarify my thinking. I'm hopefully not a *dogmatic* anti-semite (I'm not WN nor dislike all Jews; Shamir, Atzmon, Unz, Herrnstein are counter-examples), but after reading mcDonald and Joyce I find it somewhat hard to see how 'globalism' could ever have spread without the Jews. Ryan Faulk/Sean Last had some good statistics on this, showing, for example, that I think about 60/70% of bio. anthropologists with Jewish parents disbelieved in race, while for non-Jews, the majority believed in race. McDonald and Joyce have documented *ad nauseam* the various Jewish activities regarding race; I myself am a history graduate and I tend to see their evidence and documentation as roughly sufficient.

    In my opinion, it is simply impossible to be a convinced globalist if you believe in genetic racial differences and ethnic competition. You cannot read 'The Ethnic Phenomenon' (written by a Marxist anthropologist) and then say 'yes, we need MORE diversity.' You cannot look back at the past, seeing how civilizations have treated each other, and say 'ah yes we really need more of these Others in our life'. Your nice teleology about Others etc. obscures the fact that the realities of today have NOT been created in some landslide process (I admit it existed, but it's dubious it was either as strong or far-reaching as you'd like), but have usually been intentionally imposed, or were the result of sudden shocks like WW2, 1989, etc.

    'Also, in the 20s Women’s Emancipation was not in a very advanced state, and misogyny was dominant and widespread.'

    Unfounded assertion. Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike. So, you got proof?

    'Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission – that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.'

    Yes, but it's sexist, not misogynistic.

    'I mentioned already that something like this is the best women can expect in a traditional WN movement.'

    I'm not WN, and I agree with the gist of what you're saying here.

    'In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.'

    Meaningless abstracted nonsense.

    'In practical programs, self-defeating inconsistency, or conflicting goals, ate not virtues – they are signs of breakdown and incoherence, and decline.'

    Untrue. The reason that practical programs too cannot be wholly consistent, is because reality is such that if your program is broad enough, conflicts of principle will be pushed on you. For example, Marxism was explicity about immediately liberating the workers from overseers, exploitation, etc. Yet when the USSR came in power, workers became MORE exploited, MORE overseen. Nazism was about defending German tradition etc. yet it intensified meritocracy in schooling, completely broke down the federal tradition, and introduced revolutionary expansion-schemes. Both of these facts do not mean 'self-defeat', merely the prioritizing of one goal (victory) over some others.

    Likewise, Conservatism in a sense DOES conserve good ol' American tradition- the shame is that American tradition is breaking down tradition, to simplify matters somewhat.

    Replies: @iffen, @AaronB, @AaronB

  120. ‘Woke Sexism: Women 2-3x More Likely to be “Targeted” for Crimethink’

    I would guess they’re targeted by other women. Women are far less tolerant of ideological deviation than men. Men fight; women demand consensus.

  121. @AaronB
    @HenryBaker


    By the way, ‘white nationalism’ was simply the norm in Europe, America, and Australia until what, 1920?
     
    Not among the elite. Since a little before the Enlightenment, the elite were slowly chipping away at hostility toward the Other, and strong in-group/out-group preferences. The whole point of the Enlightenment was that such biases are irrational and uncivilized.

    Montesquieu's Letters Persanes, perhaps, is the first broadside against White Nationalism - the first serious attack on the notion that the way "we" do things is natural and civilized, and the way "foreigners" do things is stupid and barbarous.

    Also, in the 20s Women's Emancipation was not in a very advanced state, and misogyny was dominant and widespread.

    Also, the Enlightenment did not arrive as a "finished package" - it was a movement and a trend, a set of ideas whose gradual application to all areas of life, and whose full implications, was thought to unfold over several centuries. You can't look at a particular decade and "fix, when that decade was not a "terminus" but a moment in a process.

    And women's rights, was part of the same "bundle", and advanced in tandem with, abolishing of Slavery, Jewish rights, and general relaxation of hostility toward the Other and an appreciation for the foreign - emerging globalism, really.


    Ideas of chivalry and such also never really went away since Medieval times.
     
    Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission - that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.

    Yes, if women accept they are weak and need protection, and cannot participate in serious work and politics, and are under the control of men, chivalry will return.

    Is Rosie willing to accept this?

    I mentioned already that something like this is the best women can expect in a traditional WN movement - but chivalry, too was an ideal, and coexisted with misogyny and fear of women in most ordinary, not particularly idealistic, men.


    Yes, we should instead go back to cohesive and logical Trad ideas like the Trinity. Anything humans pick up is a little incoherent and contradictory, man
     
    In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.

    In practical programs, self-defeating inconsistency, or conflicting goals, ate not virtues - they are signs of breakdown and incoherence, and decline.

    Replies: @HenryBaker

    ‘Since a little before the Enlightenment, the elite were slowly chipping away at hostility toward the Other’

    Yeah bro I’m going to need a bit more evidence of that beyond some letters of philosophes. It’s been more or less acknowledged that Enlightenment rationality was seen as mostly extending to Whites. The only group I know of that really chipped away systematically at ‘hostility towards the Other’ (for Whites) is Jews, by demolishing academic and political worldviews and legal frameworks that would support any sort of white identity. That’s been documented *ad nauseam* by Joyce and McDonald. The best other example I can think of is abolitionists, but European-style slavery was so cruel and harsh that abolishing it was hardly a stellar leap forward in ‘globalism’.

    Of course, what ‘hostility’ and what ‘Others’ are you even speaking of? It’s well-known that post-Enlightenment Europe in some sense became even MORE self-aware. This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, after which nazism and fascism could still rise up only 80 years ago. Communists of course think of Others all the time. Globalism, I’d say, is more of a reaction to the 2d world war, and Fascism and then Communism failing, paired with Jewish worldviews becoming mainstream. The reason is because Enlightenment was NOT as universalistic as you claim. It just came down to treating the world in a reasoned manner. Well, if the ‘reasoned manner’ is measuring skulls, you’re not getting much more universalistic.

    Now, at this point I should probably clarify my thinking. I’m hopefully not a *dogmatic* anti-semite (I’m not WN nor dislike all Jews; Shamir, Atzmon, Unz, Herrnstein are counter-examples), but after reading mcDonald and Joyce I find it somewhat hard to see how ‘globalism’ could ever have spread without the Jews. Ryan Faulk/Sean Last had some good statistics on this, showing, for example, that I think about 60/70% of bio. anthropologists with Jewish parents disbelieved in race, while for non-Jews, the majority believed in race. McDonald and Joyce have documented *ad nauseam* the various Jewish activities regarding race; I myself am a history graduate and I tend to see their evidence and documentation as roughly sufficient.

    In my opinion, it is simply impossible to be a convinced globalist if you believe in genetic racial differences and ethnic competition. You cannot read ‘The Ethnic Phenomenon’ (written by a Marxist anthropologist) and then say ‘yes, we need MORE diversity.’ You cannot look back at the past, seeing how civilizations have treated each other, and say ‘ah yes we really need more of these Others in our life’. Your nice teleology about Others etc. obscures the fact that the realities of today have NOT been created in some landslide process (I admit it existed, but it’s dubious it was either as strong or far-reaching as you’d like), but have usually been intentionally imposed, or were the result of sudden shocks like WW2, 1989, etc.

    ‘Also, in the 20s Women’s Emancipation was not in a very advanced state, and misogyny was dominant and widespread.’

    Unfounded assertion. Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike. So, you got proof?

    ‘Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission – that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.’

    Yes, but it’s sexist, not misogynistic.

    ‘I mentioned already that something like this is the best women can expect in a traditional WN movement.’

    I’m not WN, and I agree with the gist of what you’re saying here.

    ‘In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.’

    Meaningless abstracted nonsense.

    ‘In practical programs, self-defeating inconsistency, or conflicting goals, ate not virtues – they are signs of breakdown and incoherence, and decline.’

    Untrue. The reason that practical programs too cannot be wholly consistent, is because reality is such that if your program is broad enough, conflicts of principle will be pushed on you. For example, Marxism was explicity about immediately liberating the workers from overseers, exploitation, etc. Yet when the USSR came in power, workers became MORE exploited, MORE overseen. Nazism was about defending German tradition etc. yet it intensified meritocracy in schooling, completely broke down the federal tradition, and introduced revolutionary expansion-schemes. Both of these facts do not mean ‘self-defeat’, merely the prioritizing of one goal (victory) over some others.

    Likewise, Conservatism in a sense DOES conserve good ol’ American tradition- the shame is that American tradition is breaking down tradition, to simplify matters somewhat.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    We seem to be drifting off topic. But since we have not invoked Hack's law, I feel free to invoke a Godwin's law corollary, namely the JQ.

    It’s been more or less acknowledged that Enlightenment rationality was seen as mostly extending to Whites.

    Acknowledged by whom? When?

    ... demolishing academic and political worldviews and legal frameworks that would support any sort of white identity.

    And where were the not-Others when this was going on and what were they doing?

    ... been documented *ad nauseam* by Joyce and McDonald.

    I haven’t read much by Joyce, but I can agree with the ad nauseam description of some of MacDonald’s work that I have read.

    This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, …

    Yes, but the Enlightenment forced them into making convoluted claims that the colonization was for the benefit of the colonized, not the colonizers.

    The reason is because Enlightenment was NOT as universalistic as you claim.

    The ideas were there and have since developed from that foundation. Kind of like how the universalist ideas of those Hellenized Jews of the Mediterranean at the beginning of the 1st millennium took a while to percolate.

    I’m hopefully not a *dogmatic* anti-semite …

    Too late. I think that anyone who favorably quotes and references MacDonald (or McDonald) has stuck themselves tightly to that anti-Semite tar-baby.

    Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike.

    Excellent point and I am going to make sure that I observe this distinction going forward.

    Precise wording is a good thing!


    ‘In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.’
     
    Meaningless abstracted nonsense.

    Sometimes, late at night, AaronB stares at his jar of moonbeams too intensely, or for too long, and these profound thoughts come to him. The next day he shares them with us before checking in the light of day to see if they make sense.

    … introduced revolutionary expansion-schemes.

    I think that you will have a heavy lift convincing very many that the idea of an aggressive, colonizing nation-state was introduced or revolutionary in 19th century Europe.

    Replies: @HenryBaker, @HenryBaker

    , @AaronB
    @HenryBaker

    Enlightenment thinking makes "Reason" the central principle of life.

    What is the function of reason? To abstract universals from particulars.

    So the March of Enlightenment Values meant the abolition of particular cultures and traditions and their replacement by Universal Man and Universal Culture. Obviously this means the collapse of in-group/out-group thinking.

    European nations used to hate each other and felt keenly their difference. An Englishman might regard a Frenchman as utterly racially foreign.

    The Enlightenment from the beginning worked to abolish this feeling. True, initially Enlightenment ideals applied only to Europeans - and many Enlightenment thinkers were keen racists. The Enlightenment also had a dark side.

    But if you make Reason your principle, it has an irresistible momentum all it's own. You gradually see how you've failed to apply it and correct that mistake.

    Besides, read the actual thinkers of the Enlightenment and what they said and how they talked!

    They prided themselves on overcoming "irrational" local prejudices and being "catholic" and universal in their tastes and values.

    Immanuel Kant I believe was the first one to suggest a United Nations.

    Incidentally, to the extent that McDonald is not just astonishingly ignorant of European history and culture - something I find depressingly common omg WNs - his "Culture of Critique" is an incredible feat of trolling :)

    Think about it - the distinctive feature of Western civilization, that European writers have historically prided themselves on and contrasted with "barbarous Asia", was.....that Europeans subjected everything to rational critique!

    Enlightenment thinkers destroyed tradition and religion, etc, and were hated by the Romantics for this and accused by traditional Muslims and Asians for this.

    So for good old Kevin to accuse Jews of being the Culture of Critique - unless it is a totally unconscious projecting of the Jungian shadow of European civ, out of an enormous sense of guilt, it is great trolling :)

    But I think it's classic scapegoating out of an unbearable sense of guilt - European civ has disenchanted the world and substituted a dull, mechanistic conception for the meaningfulness of religion, so for a crime so enormous nothing less than a scapegoat will do!

    McDonald's and Joyce's "documentation" of Jews is not just selective and ignorant of the basic trends of European thought, but also deals with assimilated Jews who bought into Enlightenment values.


    You cannot look back at the past, seeing how civilizations have treated each other, and say ‘ah yes we really need more of these Others in our life
     
    Not unless you believe in Reason - then, you believe the universal "Man" is more real than any particular type of man.

    You believe in the capacity of Reason to transform any man into a carbon copy of another. Because the particular - the quiddity of a man, as it were - is not something Reason can see.

    Unfounded assertion. Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike. So, you got proof?
     
    I used to read a lot in fiction from that era and before - misogyny was common.


    Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission – that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.’

    Yes, but it’s sexist, not misogynistic.
     
    Fair enough, I concede that point.

    But the great mass of men are not particularly idealistic or fair minded. Chivalry was reserved for the highly cultured elite. Most men will take pleasure in misogyny.

    But a mixed system of chivalry and misogyny seems the most one can expect in a non-Enlightenment system based on a string sense of the Other.

    Untrue. The reason that practical programs too cannot be wholly consistent, is because reality is such that if your program is broad enough, conflicts of principle will be pushed on you
     
    I don't disagree with that, yes, human affairs are always messy and inconsistent and full of compromise. As they should be.

    But I do think there is such a thing as self-defeating inconsistency, when your principles conflict at their very core in such a way that your basic agenda is undermined dramatically.

    Like conservatives who desperately want stability and tradition but fervently support the one economic system that is a ferocious engine of upheaval and social change.

    Etc, etc.
    , @AaronB
    @HenryBaker


    It’s well-known that post-Enlightenment Europe in some sense became even MORE self-aware. This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, after which nazism and fascism could still rise up only 80 years ago
     
    Colonialism as mere conquest started well before the Enlightenment. Nationalism, not colonialism, was a reaction against the Enlightenment.

    Colonialism, also, morally justified itself by claiming to bring Enlightenment civilization to "ignorant savages" - White Man's burden and all that?

    Japan and Thailand avoided colonization by accepting the framework of Enlightenment civilization and adopting it's main principles - thus neutralizing the Europeans claim to the right to colonize them.

    The Thai King explicitly made this argument to British and French colonizers, and it was accepted.

    That being said, by the 20s most British intellectuals - the class of people at the forefront of developing the implicit ideas embedded in a culture - were morally repulsed by Colonialism. Have you read George Orwell?

    So the March of Enlightenment Values went from we must bring these savages Universal Culture and make them like us to all men are the same and we have no right to rule them. And besides, were just exploiting them out moral talk is cant.

    Replies: @HenryBaker

  122. @HenryBaker
    @AaronB

    'Since a little before the Enlightenment, the elite were slowly chipping away at hostility toward the Other'

    Yeah bro I'm going to need a bit more evidence of that beyond some letters of philosophes. It's been more or less acknowledged that Enlightenment rationality was seen as mostly extending to Whites. The only group I know of that really chipped away systematically at 'hostility towards the Other' (for Whites) is Jews, by demolishing academic and political worldviews and legal frameworks that would support any sort of white identity. That's been documented *ad nauseam* by Joyce and McDonald. The best other example I can think of is abolitionists, but European-style slavery was so cruel and harsh that abolishing it was hardly a stellar leap forward in 'globalism'.

    Of course, what 'hostility' and what 'Others' are you even speaking of? It's well-known that post-Enlightenment Europe in some sense became even MORE self-aware. This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, after which nazism and fascism could still rise up only 80 years ago. Communists of course think of Others all the time. Globalism, I'd say, is more of a reaction to the 2d world war, and Fascism and then Communism failing, paired with Jewish worldviews becoming mainstream. The reason is because Enlightenment was NOT as universalistic as you claim. It just came down to treating the world in a reasoned manner. Well, if the 'reasoned manner' is measuring skulls, you're not getting much more universalistic.

    Now, at this point I should probably clarify my thinking. I'm hopefully not a *dogmatic* anti-semite (I'm not WN nor dislike all Jews; Shamir, Atzmon, Unz, Herrnstein are counter-examples), but after reading mcDonald and Joyce I find it somewhat hard to see how 'globalism' could ever have spread without the Jews. Ryan Faulk/Sean Last had some good statistics on this, showing, for example, that I think about 60/70% of bio. anthropologists with Jewish parents disbelieved in race, while for non-Jews, the majority believed in race. McDonald and Joyce have documented *ad nauseam* the various Jewish activities regarding race; I myself am a history graduate and I tend to see their evidence and documentation as roughly sufficient.

    In my opinion, it is simply impossible to be a convinced globalist if you believe in genetic racial differences and ethnic competition. You cannot read 'The Ethnic Phenomenon' (written by a Marxist anthropologist) and then say 'yes, we need MORE diversity.' You cannot look back at the past, seeing how civilizations have treated each other, and say 'ah yes we really need more of these Others in our life'. Your nice teleology about Others etc. obscures the fact that the realities of today have NOT been created in some landslide process (I admit it existed, but it's dubious it was either as strong or far-reaching as you'd like), but have usually been intentionally imposed, or were the result of sudden shocks like WW2, 1989, etc.

    'Also, in the 20s Women’s Emancipation was not in a very advanced state, and misogyny was dominant and widespread.'

    Unfounded assertion. Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike. So, you got proof?

    'Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission – that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.'

    Yes, but it's sexist, not misogynistic.

    'I mentioned already that something like this is the best women can expect in a traditional WN movement.'

    I'm not WN, and I agree with the gist of what you're saying here.

    'In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.'

    Meaningless abstracted nonsense.

    'In practical programs, self-defeating inconsistency, or conflicting goals, ate not virtues – they are signs of breakdown and incoherence, and decline.'

    Untrue. The reason that practical programs too cannot be wholly consistent, is because reality is such that if your program is broad enough, conflicts of principle will be pushed on you. For example, Marxism was explicity about immediately liberating the workers from overseers, exploitation, etc. Yet when the USSR came in power, workers became MORE exploited, MORE overseen. Nazism was about defending German tradition etc. yet it intensified meritocracy in schooling, completely broke down the federal tradition, and introduced revolutionary expansion-schemes. Both of these facts do not mean 'self-defeat', merely the prioritizing of one goal (victory) over some others.

    Likewise, Conservatism in a sense DOES conserve good ol' American tradition- the shame is that American tradition is breaking down tradition, to simplify matters somewhat.

    Replies: @iffen, @AaronB, @AaronB

    We seem to be drifting off topic. But since we have not invoked Hack’s law, I feel free to invoke a Godwin’s law corollary, namely the JQ.

    It’s been more or less acknowledged that Enlightenment rationality was seen as mostly extending to Whites.

    Acknowledged by whom? When?

    … demolishing academic and political worldviews and legal frameworks that would support any sort of white identity.

    And where were the not-Others when this was going on and what were they doing?

    … been documented *ad nauseam* by Joyce and McDonald.

    I haven’t read much by Joyce, but I can agree with the ad nauseam description of some of MacDonald’s work that I have read.

    This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, …

    Yes, but the Enlightenment forced them into making convoluted claims that the colonization was for the benefit of the colonized, not the colonizers.

    The reason is because Enlightenment was NOT as universalistic as you claim.

    The ideas were there and have since developed from that foundation. Kind of like how the universalist ideas of those Hellenized Jews of the Mediterranean at the beginning of the 1st millennium took a while to percolate.

    I’m hopefully not a *dogmatic* anti-semite …

    Too late. I think that anyone who favorably quotes and references MacDonald (or McDonald) has stuck themselves tightly to that anti-Semite tar-baby.

    Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike.

    Excellent point and I am going to make sure that I observe this distinction going forward.

    Precise wording is a good thing!

    ‘In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.’

    Meaningless abstracted nonsense.

    Sometimes, late at night, AaronB stares at his jar of moonbeams too intensely, or for too long, and these profound thoughts come to him. The next day he shares them with us before checking in the light of day to see if they make sense.

    … introduced revolutionary expansion-schemes.

    I think that you will have a heavy lift convincing very many that the idea of an aggressive, colonizing nation-state was introduced or revolutionary in 19th century Europe.

    • Replies: @HenryBaker
    @iffen

    I'll reply some more later, I'm focusing on some other things right now. Just wanted to quickly respond to: 'I think that you will have a heavy lift convincing very many that the idea of an aggressive, colonizing nation-state was introduced or revolutionary in 19th century Europe.'

    Not only colonizing fellow Europeans, but waging genocide against them, was indeed 'revolutionary'. The idea that millions of (European) Slavs could not only have their states destroyed, acting on them like 'natives' but then also be physically annihilated, has no 19th century equivalent in other European powers.

    By the way, I agree that once you get the anti-semitism hammer, everything nail looks like, uh, a Jew. So to speak. That's the big problem of that type of thinking.

    , @HenryBaker
    @iffen

    I was typing out a big reply to you, but I don't want to leave a huge post on a topic like this online, lol. Don't really feel comfortable having those discussions online for all to read until the end of time.

  123. @HenryBaker
    @AaronB

    'Since a little before the Enlightenment, the elite were slowly chipping away at hostility toward the Other'

    Yeah bro I'm going to need a bit more evidence of that beyond some letters of philosophes. It's been more or less acknowledged that Enlightenment rationality was seen as mostly extending to Whites. The only group I know of that really chipped away systematically at 'hostility towards the Other' (for Whites) is Jews, by demolishing academic and political worldviews and legal frameworks that would support any sort of white identity. That's been documented *ad nauseam* by Joyce and McDonald. The best other example I can think of is abolitionists, but European-style slavery was so cruel and harsh that abolishing it was hardly a stellar leap forward in 'globalism'.

    Of course, what 'hostility' and what 'Others' are you even speaking of? It's well-known that post-Enlightenment Europe in some sense became even MORE self-aware. This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, after which nazism and fascism could still rise up only 80 years ago. Communists of course think of Others all the time. Globalism, I'd say, is more of a reaction to the 2d world war, and Fascism and then Communism failing, paired with Jewish worldviews becoming mainstream. The reason is because Enlightenment was NOT as universalistic as you claim. It just came down to treating the world in a reasoned manner. Well, if the 'reasoned manner' is measuring skulls, you're not getting much more universalistic.

    Now, at this point I should probably clarify my thinking. I'm hopefully not a *dogmatic* anti-semite (I'm not WN nor dislike all Jews; Shamir, Atzmon, Unz, Herrnstein are counter-examples), but after reading mcDonald and Joyce I find it somewhat hard to see how 'globalism' could ever have spread without the Jews. Ryan Faulk/Sean Last had some good statistics on this, showing, for example, that I think about 60/70% of bio. anthropologists with Jewish parents disbelieved in race, while for non-Jews, the majority believed in race. McDonald and Joyce have documented *ad nauseam* the various Jewish activities regarding race; I myself am a history graduate and I tend to see their evidence and documentation as roughly sufficient.

    In my opinion, it is simply impossible to be a convinced globalist if you believe in genetic racial differences and ethnic competition. You cannot read 'The Ethnic Phenomenon' (written by a Marxist anthropologist) and then say 'yes, we need MORE diversity.' You cannot look back at the past, seeing how civilizations have treated each other, and say 'ah yes we really need more of these Others in our life'. Your nice teleology about Others etc. obscures the fact that the realities of today have NOT been created in some landslide process (I admit it existed, but it's dubious it was either as strong or far-reaching as you'd like), but have usually been intentionally imposed, or were the result of sudden shocks like WW2, 1989, etc.

    'Also, in the 20s Women’s Emancipation was not in a very advanced state, and misogyny was dominant and widespread.'

    Unfounded assertion. Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike. So, you got proof?

    'Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission – that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.'

    Yes, but it's sexist, not misogynistic.

    'I mentioned already that something like this is the best women can expect in a traditional WN movement.'

    I'm not WN, and I agree with the gist of what you're saying here.

    'In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.'

    Meaningless abstracted nonsense.

    'In practical programs, self-defeating inconsistency, or conflicting goals, ate not virtues – they are signs of breakdown and incoherence, and decline.'

    Untrue. The reason that practical programs too cannot be wholly consistent, is because reality is such that if your program is broad enough, conflicts of principle will be pushed on you. For example, Marxism was explicity about immediately liberating the workers from overseers, exploitation, etc. Yet when the USSR came in power, workers became MORE exploited, MORE overseen. Nazism was about defending German tradition etc. yet it intensified meritocracy in schooling, completely broke down the federal tradition, and introduced revolutionary expansion-schemes. Both of these facts do not mean 'self-defeat', merely the prioritizing of one goal (victory) over some others.

    Likewise, Conservatism in a sense DOES conserve good ol' American tradition- the shame is that American tradition is breaking down tradition, to simplify matters somewhat.

    Replies: @iffen, @AaronB, @AaronB

    Enlightenment thinking makes “Reason” the central principle of life.

    What is the function of reason? To abstract universals from particulars.

    So the March of Enlightenment Values meant the abolition of particular cultures and traditions and their replacement by Universal Man and Universal Culture. Obviously this means the collapse of in-group/out-group thinking.

    European nations used to hate each other and felt keenly their difference. An Englishman might regard a Frenchman as utterly racially foreign.

    The Enlightenment from the beginning worked to abolish this feeling. True, initially Enlightenment ideals applied only to Europeans – and many Enlightenment thinkers were keen racists. The Enlightenment also had a dark side.

    But if you make Reason your principle, it has an irresistible momentum all it’s own. You gradually see how you’ve failed to apply it and correct that mistake.

    Besides, read the actual thinkers of the Enlightenment and what they said and how they talked!

    They prided themselves on overcoming “irrational” local prejudices and being “catholic” and universal in their tastes and values.

    Immanuel Kant I believe was the first one to suggest a United Nations.

    Incidentally, to the extent that McDonald is not just astonishingly ignorant of European history and culture – something I find depressingly common omg WNs – his “Culture of Critique” is an incredible feat of trolling 🙂

    Think about it – the distinctive feature of Western civilization, that European writers have historically prided themselves on and contrasted with “barbarous Asia”, was…..that Europeans subjected everything to rational critique!

    Enlightenment thinkers destroyed tradition and religion, etc, and were hated by the Romantics for this and accused by traditional Muslims and Asians for this.

    So for good old Kevin to accuse Jews of being the Culture of Critique – unless it is a totally unconscious projecting of the Jungian shadow of European civ, out of an enormous sense of guilt, it is great trolling 🙂

    But I think it’s classic scapegoating out of an unbearable sense of guilt – European civ has disenchanted the world and substituted a dull, mechanistic conception for the meaningfulness of religion, so for a crime so enormous nothing less than a scapegoat will do!

    McDonald’s and Joyce’s “documentation” of Jews is not just selective and ignorant of the basic trends of European thought, but also deals with assimilated Jews who bought into Enlightenment values.

    You cannot look back at the past, seeing how civilizations have treated each other, and say ‘ah yes we really need more of these Others in our life

    Not unless you believe in Reason – then, you believe the universal “Man” is more real than any particular type of man.

    You believe in the capacity of Reason to transform any man into a carbon copy of another. Because the particular – the quiddity of a man, as it were – is not something Reason can see.

    Unfounded assertion. Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike. So, you got proof?

    I used to read a lot in fiction from that era and before – misogyny was common.

    Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission – that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.’

    Yes, but it’s sexist, not misogynistic.

    Fair enough, I concede that point.

    But the great mass of men are not particularly idealistic or fair minded. Chivalry was reserved for the highly cultured elite. Most men will take pleasure in misogyny.

    But a mixed system of chivalry and misogyny seems the most one can expect in a non-Enlightenment system based on a string sense of the Other.

    Untrue. The reason that practical programs too cannot be wholly consistent, is because reality is such that if your program is broad enough, conflicts of principle will be pushed on you

    I don’t disagree with that, yes, human affairs are always messy and inconsistent and full of compromise. As they should be.

    But I do think there is such a thing as self-defeating inconsistency, when your principles conflict at their very core in such a way that your basic agenda is undermined dramatically.

    Like conservatives who desperately want stability and tradition but fervently support the one economic system that is a ferocious engine of upheaval and social change.

    Etc, etc.

  124. @HenryBaker
    @AaronB

    'Since a little before the Enlightenment, the elite were slowly chipping away at hostility toward the Other'

    Yeah bro I'm going to need a bit more evidence of that beyond some letters of philosophes. It's been more or less acknowledged that Enlightenment rationality was seen as mostly extending to Whites. The only group I know of that really chipped away systematically at 'hostility towards the Other' (for Whites) is Jews, by demolishing academic and political worldviews and legal frameworks that would support any sort of white identity. That's been documented *ad nauseam* by Joyce and McDonald. The best other example I can think of is abolitionists, but European-style slavery was so cruel and harsh that abolishing it was hardly a stellar leap forward in 'globalism'.

    Of course, what 'hostility' and what 'Others' are you even speaking of? It's well-known that post-Enlightenment Europe in some sense became even MORE self-aware. This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, after which nazism and fascism could still rise up only 80 years ago. Communists of course think of Others all the time. Globalism, I'd say, is more of a reaction to the 2d world war, and Fascism and then Communism failing, paired with Jewish worldviews becoming mainstream. The reason is because Enlightenment was NOT as universalistic as you claim. It just came down to treating the world in a reasoned manner. Well, if the 'reasoned manner' is measuring skulls, you're not getting much more universalistic.

    Now, at this point I should probably clarify my thinking. I'm hopefully not a *dogmatic* anti-semite (I'm not WN nor dislike all Jews; Shamir, Atzmon, Unz, Herrnstein are counter-examples), but after reading mcDonald and Joyce I find it somewhat hard to see how 'globalism' could ever have spread without the Jews. Ryan Faulk/Sean Last had some good statistics on this, showing, for example, that I think about 60/70% of bio. anthropologists with Jewish parents disbelieved in race, while for non-Jews, the majority believed in race. McDonald and Joyce have documented *ad nauseam* the various Jewish activities regarding race; I myself am a history graduate and I tend to see their evidence and documentation as roughly sufficient.

    In my opinion, it is simply impossible to be a convinced globalist if you believe in genetic racial differences and ethnic competition. You cannot read 'The Ethnic Phenomenon' (written by a Marxist anthropologist) and then say 'yes, we need MORE diversity.' You cannot look back at the past, seeing how civilizations have treated each other, and say 'ah yes we really need more of these Others in our life'. Your nice teleology about Others etc. obscures the fact that the realities of today have NOT been created in some landslide process (I admit it existed, but it's dubious it was either as strong or far-reaching as you'd like), but have usually been intentionally imposed, or were the result of sudden shocks like WW2, 1989, etc.

    'Also, in the 20s Women’s Emancipation was not in a very advanced state, and misogyny was dominant and widespread.'

    Unfounded assertion. Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike. So, you got proof?

    'Chivalry presupposes female inferiority and submission – that is why feminists fight it so ferociously.'

    Yes, but it's sexist, not misogynistic.

    'I mentioned already that something like this is the best women can expect in a traditional WN movement.'

    I'm not WN, and I agree with the gist of what you're saying here.

    'In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.'

    Meaningless abstracted nonsense.

    'In practical programs, self-defeating inconsistency, or conflicting goals, ate not virtues – they are signs of breakdown and incoherence, and decline.'

    Untrue. The reason that practical programs too cannot be wholly consistent, is because reality is such that if your program is broad enough, conflicts of principle will be pushed on you. For example, Marxism was explicity about immediately liberating the workers from overseers, exploitation, etc. Yet when the USSR came in power, workers became MORE exploited, MORE overseen. Nazism was about defending German tradition etc. yet it intensified meritocracy in schooling, completely broke down the federal tradition, and introduced revolutionary expansion-schemes. Both of these facts do not mean 'self-defeat', merely the prioritizing of one goal (victory) over some others.

    Likewise, Conservatism in a sense DOES conserve good ol' American tradition- the shame is that American tradition is breaking down tradition, to simplify matters somewhat.

    Replies: @iffen, @AaronB, @AaronB

    It’s well-known that post-Enlightenment Europe in some sense became even MORE self-aware. This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, after which nazism and fascism could still rise up only 80 years ago

    Colonialism as mere conquest started well before the Enlightenment. Nationalism, not colonialism, was a reaction against the Enlightenment.

    Colonialism, also, morally justified itself by claiming to bring Enlightenment civilization to “ignorant savages” – White Man’s burden and all that?

    Japan and Thailand avoided colonization by accepting the framework of Enlightenment civilization and adopting it’s main principles – thus neutralizing the Europeans claim to the right to colonize them.

    The Thai King explicitly made this argument to British and French colonizers, and it was accepted.

    That being said, by the 20s most British intellectuals – the class of people at the forefront of developing the implicit ideas embedded in a culture – were morally repulsed by Colonialism. Have you read George Orwell?

    So the March of Enlightenment Values went from we must bring these savages Universal Culture and make them like us to all men are the same and we have no right to rule them. And besides, were just exploiting them out moral talk is cant.

    • Replies: @HenryBaker
    @AaronB

    Nah man nationalism started to rev up with the Enlightenment. Nationalism as an ideology started with French Rev. Before, nation was just a shorthand for 'a people' and could be used to rile up populace against foreign kings of elites but lacked sentimental power otherwise. There's nice speeches by conquistadores about how 'real Castilians' fight, that's a type of nationalism, but communication wasn't good enough for large imagined communities. Changes with republicanism, mostly.


    But if you make Reason your principle, it has an irresistible momentum all it’s own. You gradually see how you’ve failed to apply it and correct that mistake.
     
    Yes, but what if it irresistibly leads you towards HBD? I think real Western universalism has to do general affluence, the tendency for material comfort to lead to complacency and softness. Remember the Salamanca debates and New Laws under Charles V! Universalism already around in christianity. But our new emphasis on comfort and avoiding conflict made it easy to accept universalism, real universalism, moreso than Enlightenment imho.

    Not unless you believe in Reason – then, you believe the universal “Man” is more real than any particular type of man.

    You believe in the capacity of Reason to transform any man into a carbon copy of another. Because the particular – the quiddity of a man, as it were – is not something Reason can see.
     
    Now you're going on a tangent again. Reason can lead to nature as well as nurture. You're reading too much into it.

    Replies: @AaronB

  125. @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    We seem to be drifting off topic. But since we have not invoked Hack's law, I feel free to invoke a Godwin's law corollary, namely the JQ.

    It’s been more or less acknowledged that Enlightenment rationality was seen as mostly extending to Whites.

    Acknowledged by whom? When?

    ... demolishing academic and political worldviews and legal frameworks that would support any sort of white identity.

    And where were the not-Others when this was going on and what were they doing?

    ... been documented *ad nauseam* by Joyce and McDonald.

    I haven’t read much by Joyce, but I can agree with the ad nauseam description of some of MacDonald’s work that I have read.

    This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, …

    Yes, but the Enlightenment forced them into making convoluted claims that the colonization was for the benefit of the colonized, not the colonizers.

    The reason is because Enlightenment was NOT as universalistic as you claim.

    The ideas were there and have since developed from that foundation. Kind of like how the universalist ideas of those Hellenized Jews of the Mediterranean at the beginning of the 1st millennium took a while to percolate.

    I’m hopefully not a *dogmatic* anti-semite …

    Too late. I think that anyone who favorably quotes and references MacDonald (or McDonald) has stuck themselves tightly to that anti-Semite tar-baby.

    Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike.

    Excellent point and I am going to make sure that I observe this distinction going forward.

    Precise wording is a good thing!


    ‘In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.’
     
    Meaningless abstracted nonsense.

    Sometimes, late at night, AaronB stares at his jar of moonbeams too intensely, or for too long, and these profound thoughts come to him. The next day he shares them with us before checking in the light of day to see if they make sense.

    … introduced revolutionary expansion-schemes.

    I think that you will have a heavy lift convincing very many that the idea of an aggressive, colonizing nation-state was introduced or revolutionary in 19th century Europe.

    Replies: @HenryBaker, @HenryBaker

    I’ll reply some more later, I’m focusing on some other things right now. Just wanted to quickly respond to: ‘I think that you will have a heavy lift convincing very many that the idea of an aggressive, colonizing nation-state was introduced or revolutionary in 19th century Europe.’

    Not only colonizing fellow Europeans, but waging genocide against them, was indeed ‘revolutionary’. The idea that millions of (European) Slavs could not only have their states destroyed, acting on them like ‘natives’ but then also be physically annihilated, has no 19th century equivalent in other European powers.

    By the way, I agree that once you get the anti-semitism hammer, everything nail looks like, uh, a Jew. So to speak. That’s the big problem of that type of thinking.

  126. So for good old Kevin to accuse Jews of being the Culture of Critique – unless it is a totally unconscious projecting of the Jungian shadow of European civ, out of an enormous sense of guilt, it is great trolling 🙂

    But I think it’s classic scapegoating out of an unbearable sense of guilt – European civ has disenchanted the world and substituted a dull, mechanistic conception for the meaningfulness of religion, so for a crime so enormous nothing less than a scapegoat will do!

    To clarify, I don’t think European civ is “guilty”, and I certainly don’t think White people as such are “guilty” for unloosing this beast on the world. I don’t believe In racial guilt. I also find a very beautiful side to European civ.

    But I can understand why someone who thinks in “racial categories”, may feel so profound a sense of guilt over what White thinkers unleashed on the world, that he would die if he could not find another race to unload his sense of guilt on. And I suspect this is what happened to Kevin MacDonald, and is the peculiar affliction of many of the anti-Semites on Unz.

    This is an example of how overly strong racial thinking can be bad for ones mental health.

    For my part, I think these terrible philosophies of disenchantment, making the world a mechanistic rather than a living, soulfull place, and enshrining the principle of competition and strife, rather than love, as the basis of society and life – while they spread a darkness over the world, are not the province of any one race.

    Look at China! They are today worse than the West today in this philosophy, and have not been able to resist it.

    So this world-darkening philosophy may have originated in White thinkers, it was clearly a sickness that no people in the world could resist. In a sense, White societies were the first victims of this philosophy – and in many ways, remain the most scarred.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @AaronB

    'To clarify, I don’t think European civ is “guilty”, and I certainly don’t think White people as such are “guilty” for unloosing this beast on the world. I don’t believe In racial guilt. I also find a very beautiful side to European civ.

    'But I can understand why someone who thinks in “racial categories”, may feel so profound a sense of guilt over what White thinkers unleashed on the world, that he would die if he could not find another race to unload his sense of guilt on. And I suspect this is what happened to Kevin MacDonald, and is the peculiar affliction of many of the anti-Semites on Unz...'

    Even by the exacting bar your usual posts set, Aaron, this is unusually tripeful.

    I suppose some sort of Unz Review Ignoble is called for.

    What if, for starters, those of us who 'think in racial categories' (not you, of course), don't feel in the least guilty about 'what White thinkers unleashed on the world.'? That in fact, we'd appreciate some thanks.

  127. @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    We seem to be drifting off topic. But since we have not invoked Hack's law, I feel free to invoke a Godwin's law corollary, namely the JQ.

    It’s been more or less acknowledged that Enlightenment rationality was seen as mostly extending to Whites.

    Acknowledged by whom? When?

    ... demolishing academic and political worldviews and legal frameworks that would support any sort of white identity.

    And where were the not-Others when this was going on and what were they doing?

    ... been documented *ad nauseam* by Joyce and McDonald.

    I haven’t read much by Joyce, but I can agree with the ad nauseam description of some of MacDonald’s work that I have read.

    This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, …

    Yes, but the Enlightenment forced them into making convoluted claims that the colonization was for the benefit of the colonized, not the colonizers.

    The reason is because Enlightenment was NOT as universalistic as you claim.

    The ideas were there and have since developed from that foundation. Kind of like how the universalist ideas of those Hellenized Jews of the Mediterranean at the beginning of the 1st millennium took a while to percolate.

    I’m hopefully not a *dogmatic* anti-semite …

    Too late. I think that anyone who favorably quotes and references MacDonald (or McDonald) has stuck themselves tightly to that anti-Semite tar-baby.

    Sexism, sure, but misogyny is more active strong dislike.

    Excellent point and I am going to make sure that I observe this distinction going forward.

    Precise wording is a good thing!


    ‘In metaphysics, inconsistency is good, because ultimate reality contains All.’
     
    Meaningless abstracted nonsense.

    Sometimes, late at night, AaronB stares at his jar of moonbeams too intensely, or for too long, and these profound thoughts come to him. The next day he shares them with us before checking in the light of day to see if they make sense.

    … introduced revolutionary expansion-schemes.

    I think that you will have a heavy lift convincing very many that the idea of an aggressive, colonizing nation-state was introduced or revolutionary in 19th century Europe.

    Replies: @HenryBaker, @HenryBaker

    I was typing out a big reply to you, but I don’t want to leave a huge post on a topic like this online, lol. Don’t really feel comfortable having those discussions online for all to read until the end of time.

  128. @AaronB
    @HenryBaker


    It’s well-known that post-Enlightenment Europe in some sense became even MORE self-aware. This was the time the entire world was colonized according to a simple Us/Them schema, after which nazism and fascism could still rise up only 80 years ago
     
    Colonialism as mere conquest started well before the Enlightenment. Nationalism, not colonialism, was a reaction against the Enlightenment.

    Colonialism, also, morally justified itself by claiming to bring Enlightenment civilization to "ignorant savages" - White Man's burden and all that?

    Japan and Thailand avoided colonization by accepting the framework of Enlightenment civilization and adopting it's main principles - thus neutralizing the Europeans claim to the right to colonize them.

    The Thai King explicitly made this argument to British and French colonizers, and it was accepted.

    That being said, by the 20s most British intellectuals - the class of people at the forefront of developing the implicit ideas embedded in a culture - were morally repulsed by Colonialism. Have you read George Orwell?

    So the March of Enlightenment Values went from we must bring these savages Universal Culture and make them like us to all men are the same and we have no right to rule them. And besides, were just exploiting them out moral talk is cant.

    Replies: @HenryBaker

    Nah man nationalism started to rev up with the Enlightenment. Nationalism as an ideology started with French Rev. Before, nation was just a shorthand for ‘a people’ and could be used to rile up populace against foreign kings of elites but lacked sentimental power otherwise. There’s nice speeches by conquistadores about how ‘real Castilians’ fight, that’s a type of nationalism, but communication wasn’t good enough for large imagined communities. Changes with republicanism, mostly.

    But if you make Reason your principle, it has an irresistible momentum all it’s own. You gradually see how you’ve failed to apply it and correct that mistake.

    Yes, but what if it irresistibly leads you towards HBD? I think real Western universalism has to do general affluence, the tendency for material comfort to lead to complacency and softness. Remember the Salamanca debates and New Laws under Charles V! Universalism already around in christianity. But our new emphasis on comfort and avoiding conflict made it easy to accept universalism, real universalism, moreso than Enlightenment imho.

    Not unless you believe in Reason – then, you believe the universal “Man” is more real than any particular type of man.

    You believe in the capacity of Reason to transform any man into a carbon copy of another. Because the particular – the quiddity of a man, as it were – is not something Reason can see.

    Now you’re going on a tangent again. Reason can lead to nature as well as nurture. You’re reading too much into it.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @HenryBaker


    Nah man nationalism started to rev up with the Enlightenment. Nationalism as an ideology started with French Rev.
     
    Nationalism was both a step in the Enlightenment program of universal culture as well as a reaction.

    Nationalism was a step on the path towards globalism. Before, people had their local community. A nation is a much larger collective. The globe even larger.

    Little by little....

    At the same time, some European thinkers saw nations as bulwarks against the Enlightenment program of universal culture.

    Yes, but what if it irresistibly leads you towards HBD?
     
    Rationality can lead to HBD, maybe - Reason as an Ideology can only lead to Universal Man :)

    Man had been reasoning from facts for millenia. The innovation of the Enlightenment wasn't to introduce the method of reasoning from facts - it was to make Reason an ideology. Ideologies are peculiar beasts akin to religions.

    Heck, if one reasons from facts, one may well conclude that man needs traditional culture and religion to flourish - but the Enlightenment did not conclude that.

    Heck, there is nothing in "reason" that says you shouldn't prefer colorful local traditions but should rather want a Universal Culture. But if reason is your ideology, you might.

    One of Burke's criticism against the French Revolution was that there was no need to abandon their entire history and tradition - they could merely enact wise reforms based on attractive historical periods, if they weren't happy with current times.

    But why did an Enlightenment inspired revolution have to abandon all tradition and history? Reason as ideology - not rationality.

    Reason can lead to nature as well as nurture. You’re reading too much into it
     
    .

    I'll let you in on a little secret - reason can not only lead to nature, reason can also show that it isn't a guide to reality.

    Kant actually showed that reason cannot give us access to reality.

    But Reason as Ideology is not mere rationality or reasoning from facts - it is a religion, that can no more accept nurture as it can accept the verdict if reason on itself. Nurture is an affront to reason - it limits it's power and province.

    And in fact, the "blank slate" and not nurture - introduced by John Locke - was and is the guiding principle of the Enlightenment. To admit nurture would be to limit and circumscribe the power of reason to shape man - and God is not limited!

    You’re reading too much into it
     
    Lol, I ain't reading shit - this is intellectual history :)

    Replies: @AaronB, @HenryBaker

  129. @HenryBaker
    @AaronB

    Nah man nationalism started to rev up with the Enlightenment. Nationalism as an ideology started with French Rev. Before, nation was just a shorthand for 'a people' and could be used to rile up populace against foreign kings of elites but lacked sentimental power otherwise. There's nice speeches by conquistadores about how 'real Castilians' fight, that's a type of nationalism, but communication wasn't good enough for large imagined communities. Changes with republicanism, mostly.


    But if you make Reason your principle, it has an irresistible momentum all it’s own. You gradually see how you’ve failed to apply it and correct that mistake.
     
    Yes, but what if it irresistibly leads you towards HBD? I think real Western universalism has to do general affluence, the tendency for material comfort to lead to complacency and softness. Remember the Salamanca debates and New Laws under Charles V! Universalism already around in christianity. But our new emphasis on comfort and avoiding conflict made it easy to accept universalism, real universalism, moreso than Enlightenment imho.

    Not unless you believe in Reason – then, you believe the universal “Man” is more real than any particular type of man.

    You believe in the capacity of Reason to transform any man into a carbon copy of another. Because the particular – the quiddity of a man, as it were – is not something Reason can see.
     
    Now you're going on a tangent again. Reason can lead to nature as well as nurture. You're reading too much into it.

    Replies: @AaronB

    Nah man nationalism started to rev up with the Enlightenment. Nationalism as an ideology started with French Rev.

    Nationalism was both a step in the Enlightenment program of universal culture as well as a reaction.

    Nationalism was a step on the path towards globalism. Before, people had their local community. A nation is a much larger collective. The globe even larger.

    Little by little….

    At the same time, some European thinkers saw nations as bulwarks against the Enlightenment program of universal culture.

    Yes, but what if it irresistibly leads you towards HBD?

    Rationality can lead to HBD, maybe – Reason as an Ideology can only lead to Universal Man 🙂

    Man had been reasoning from facts for millenia. The innovation of the Enlightenment wasn’t to introduce the method of reasoning from facts – it was to make Reason an ideology. Ideologies are peculiar beasts akin to religions.

    Heck, if one reasons from facts, one may well conclude that man needs traditional culture and religion to flourish – but the Enlightenment did not conclude that.

    Heck, there is nothing in “reason” that says you shouldn’t prefer colorful local traditions but should rather want a Universal Culture. But if reason is your ideology, you might.

    One of Burke’s criticism against the French Revolution was that there was no need to abandon their entire history and tradition – they could merely enact wise reforms based on attractive historical periods, if they weren’t happy with current times.

    But why did an Enlightenment inspired revolution have to abandon all tradition and history? Reason as ideology – not rationality.

    Reason can lead to nature as well as nurture. You’re reading too much into it

    .

    I’ll let you in on a little secret – reason can not only lead to nature, reason can also show that it isn’t a guide to reality.

    Kant actually showed that reason cannot give us access to reality.

    But Reason as Ideology is not mere rationality or reasoning from facts – it is a religion, that can no more accept nurture as it can accept the verdict if reason on itself. Nurture is an affront to reason – it limits it’s power and province.

    And in fact, the “blank slate” and not nurture – introduced by John Locke – was and is the guiding principle of the Enlightenment. To admit nurture would be to limit and circumscribe the power of reason to shape man – and God is not limited!

    You’re reading too much into it

    Lol, I ain’t reading shit – this is intellectual history 🙂

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AaronB

    In other words, the Enlightenment believed reason had unlimited power to shape society and man. It was a God in a very real sense.

    They did not worship reason in the limited sense of drawing conclusions based on facts - they worshiped it's power.

    The existence of specific races with specific qualities and attributes that will stand in the way of Reasons ability to shape mankind?

    Nonsense! God's power is not limited.

    Reasoning from facts leasing to nurture, which puts a limit on what Reason can do? Blasphemy!

    God is not mocked!


    Universalism already around in christianity.
     
    It has been said, that the Enlightenment is a secularization of Christianity in many respects.

    Replies: @HenryBaker

    , @HenryBaker
    @AaronB


    I’ll let you in on a little secret – reason can not only lead to nature, reason can also show that it isn’t a guide to reality.
     
    Yes, different types of reasoning lead to different theories. That is not new to me.

    Kant actually showed that reason cannot give us access to reality.
     
    Kant didn't show anything. He came up with a theory, which is 'just, like, his opinion man.' Many that came after Kant disagreed with him, and I myself read the Critique of Pure Reason but disagree with this idea. If reason 'cannot give us access to reality' then why can science directly and in some cases perfectly manipulate the stuff of matter? 'Bro reason doesn't give access to reality, yeah you can figure out how to make chips with 16 billion transponders and run computing at the speed of light but- yeah you can make rockets and send them to the moon but-' No. Reason gives perfect access to reality in some fields and Kant needed to get out of his damn head.

    But Reason as Ideology is not mere rationality or reasoning from facts – it is a religion, that can no more accept nurture as it can accept the verdict if reason on itself. Nurture is an affront to reason – it limits it’s power and province.

     

    Luckily this is a caricatural belief, perhaps held by some philosophes back in the day, but abandoned nowadays. The HBD-Rationalist sphere likes small-r reason, not big-R Reason. Human rights people like emotional attachments to humanism over Reason. Idpol people don't care much for Reason at all.

    And in fact, the “blank slate” and not nurture – introduced by John Locke – was and is the guiding principle of the Enlightenment. To admit nurture would be to limit and circumscribe the power of reason to shape man – and God is not limited!
     
    Yes and almost no one truly believes this anymore (everyone accepts genes matter to some extent), although I will admit that some modern conceptions of schooling and 'effects of racism' implicitly come close to it. Still, I'm not going to debate about a boogeyman.
  130. @AaronB
    @HenryBaker


    Nah man nationalism started to rev up with the Enlightenment. Nationalism as an ideology started with French Rev.
     
    Nationalism was both a step in the Enlightenment program of universal culture as well as a reaction.

    Nationalism was a step on the path towards globalism. Before, people had their local community. A nation is a much larger collective. The globe even larger.

    Little by little....

    At the same time, some European thinkers saw nations as bulwarks against the Enlightenment program of universal culture.

    Yes, but what if it irresistibly leads you towards HBD?
     
    Rationality can lead to HBD, maybe - Reason as an Ideology can only lead to Universal Man :)

    Man had been reasoning from facts for millenia. The innovation of the Enlightenment wasn't to introduce the method of reasoning from facts - it was to make Reason an ideology. Ideologies are peculiar beasts akin to religions.

    Heck, if one reasons from facts, one may well conclude that man needs traditional culture and religion to flourish - but the Enlightenment did not conclude that.

    Heck, there is nothing in "reason" that says you shouldn't prefer colorful local traditions but should rather want a Universal Culture. But if reason is your ideology, you might.

    One of Burke's criticism against the French Revolution was that there was no need to abandon their entire history and tradition - they could merely enact wise reforms based on attractive historical periods, if they weren't happy with current times.

    But why did an Enlightenment inspired revolution have to abandon all tradition and history? Reason as ideology - not rationality.

    Reason can lead to nature as well as nurture. You’re reading too much into it
     
    .

    I'll let you in on a little secret - reason can not only lead to nature, reason can also show that it isn't a guide to reality.

    Kant actually showed that reason cannot give us access to reality.

    But Reason as Ideology is not mere rationality or reasoning from facts - it is a religion, that can no more accept nurture as it can accept the verdict if reason on itself. Nurture is an affront to reason - it limits it's power and province.

    And in fact, the "blank slate" and not nurture - introduced by John Locke - was and is the guiding principle of the Enlightenment. To admit nurture would be to limit and circumscribe the power of reason to shape man - and God is not limited!

    You’re reading too much into it
     
    Lol, I ain't reading shit - this is intellectual history :)

    Replies: @AaronB, @HenryBaker

    In other words, the Enlightenment believed reason had unlimited power to shape society and man. It was a God in a very real sense.

    They did not worship reason in the limited sense of drawing conclusions based on facts – they worshiped it’s power.

    The existence of specific races with specific qualities and attributes that will stand in the way of Reasons ability to shape mankind?

    Nonsense! God’s power is not limited.

    Reasoning from facts leasing to nurture, which puts a limit on what Reason can do? Blasphemy!

    God is not mocked!

    Universalism already around in christianity.

    It has been said, that the Enlightenment is a secularization of Christianity in many respects.

    • Replies: @HenryBaker
    @AaronB


    It has been said, that the Enlightenment is a secularization of Christianity in many respects.
     
    Yes. And McDonald (who you decry) drew a line farther back and noticed that Europeans also have always tended to monogamy, individualism, voluntary association (mannerbund), universalism, and such. You said above that he does not see how Europeans 'critique' everything, but that's not quite true. If you read between the lines of what 'anti-semites' and 'nationalists' are saying, you actually find a profound pessimism about the possibility of lasting nationalism for Europeans. Of note is the Sailer-Taylor debate. Sailer, known for popularizing HBD somewhat, argued that any sort of ethnic nationalism WOULD NOT WORK in America since Americans are naturally drawn to univeral principles too much. I myself feel natural revulsion against the idea that I'm supposed to reject people simply because they are different.

    Why did Europeans practise Christianity as they did? Why did they come up with Enlightenment as we did? Why is the most virulent nationalism here usually more reactive than passive? Seems to be who we are.

    Replies: @iffen, @AaronB

  131. @AaronB

    So for good old Kevin to accuse Jews of being the Culture of Critique – unless it is a totally unconscious projecting of the Jungian shadow of European civ, out of an enormous sense of guilt, it is great trolling 🙂

    But I think it’s classic scapegoating out of an unbearable sense of guilt – European civ has disenchanted the world and substituted a dull, mechanistic conception for the meaningfulness of religion, so for a crime so enormous nothing less than a scapegoat will do!
     
    To clarify, I don't think European civ is "guilty", and I certainly don't think White people as such are "guilty" for unloosing this beast on the world. I don't believe In racial guilt. I also find a very beautiful side to European civ.

    But I can understand why someone who thinks in "racial categories", may feel so profound a sense of guilt over what White thinkers unleashed on the world, that he would die if he could not find another race to unload his sense of guilt on. And I suspect this is what happened to Kevin MacDonald, and is the peculiar affliction of many of the anti-Semites on Unz.

    This is an example of how overly strong racial thinking can be bad for ones mental health.

    For my part, I think these terrible philosophies of disenchantment, making the world a mechanistic rather than a living, soulfull place, and enshrining the principle of competition and strife, rather than love, as the basis of society and life - while they spread a darkness over the world, are not the province of any one race.

    Look at China! They are today worse than the West today in this philosophy, and have not been able to resist it.

    So this world-darkening philosophy may have originated in White thinkers, it was clearly a sickness that no people in the world could resist. In a sense, White societies were the first victims of this philosophy - and in many ways, remain the most scarred.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘To clarify, I don’t think European civ is “guilty”, and I certainly don’t think White people as such are “guilty” for unloosing this beast on the world. I don’t believe In racial guilt. I also find a very beautiful side to European civ.

    ‘But I can understand why someone who thinks in “racial categories”, may feel so profound a sense of guilt over what White thinkers unleashed on the world, that he would die if he could not find another race to unload his sense of guilt on. And I suspect this is what happened to Kevin MacDonald, and is the peculiar affliction of many of the anti-Semites on Unz…’

    Even by the exacting bar your usual posts set, Aaron, this is unusually tripeful.

    I suppose some sort of Unz Review Ignoble is called for.

    What if, for starters, those of us who ‘think in racial categories’ (not you, of course), don’t feel in the least guilty about ‘what White thinkers unleashed on the world.’? That in fact, we’d appreciate some thanks.

  132. @AaronB
    @HenryBaker


    Nah man nationalism started to rev up with the Enlightenment. Nationalism as an ideology started with French Rev.
     
    Nationalism was both a step in the Enlightenment program of universal culture as well as a reaction.

    Nationalism was a step on the path towards globalism. Before, people had their local community. A nation is a much larger collective. The globe even larger.

    Little by little....

    At the same time, some European thinkers saw nations as bulwarks against the Enlightenment program of universal culture.

    Yes, but what if it irresistibly leads you towards HBD?
     
    Rationality can lead to HBD, maybe - Reason as an Ideology can only lead to Universal Man :)

    Man had been reasoning from facts for millenia. The innovation of the Enlightenment wasn't to introduce the method of reasoning from facts - it was to make Reason an ideology. Ideologies are peculiar beasts akin to religions.

    Heck, if one reasons from facts, one may well conclude that man needs traditional culture and religion to flourish - but the Enlightenment did not conclude that.

    Heck, there is nothing in "reason" that says you shouldn't prefer colorful local traditions but should rather want a Universal Culture. But if reason is your ideology, you might.

    One of Burke's criticism against the French Revolution was that there was no need to abandon their entire history and tradition - they could merely enact wise reforms based on attractive historical periods, if they weren't happy with current times.

    But why did an Enlightenment inspired revolution have to abandon all tradition and history? Reason as ideology - not rationality.

    Reason can lead to nature as well as nurture. You’re reading too much into it
     
    .

    I'll let you in on a little secret - reason can not only lead to nature, reason can also show that it isn't a guide to reality.

    Kant actually showed that reason cannot give us access to reality.

    But Reason as Ideology is not mere rationality or reasoning from facts - it is a religion, that can no more accept nurture as it can accept the verdict if reason on itself. Nurture is an affront to reason - it limits it's power and province.

    And in fact, the "blank slate" and not nurture - introduced by John Locke - was and is the guiding principle of the Enlightenment. To admit nurture would be to limit and circumscribe the power of reason to shape man - and God is not limited!

    You’re reading too much into it
     
    Lol, I ain't reading shit - this is intellectual history :)

    Replies: @AaronB, @HenryBaker

    I’ll let you in on a little secret – reason can not only lead to nature, reason can also show that it isn’t a guide to reality.

    Yes, different types of reasoning lead to different theories. That is not new to me.

    Kant actually showed that reason cannot give us access to reality.

    Kant didn’t show anything. He came up with a theory, which is ‘just, like, his opinion man.’ Many that came after Kant disagreed with him, and I myself read the Critique of Pure Reason but disagree with this idea. If reason ‘cannot give us access to reality’ then why can science directly and in some cases perfectly manipulate the stuff of matter? ‘Bro reason doesn’t give access to reality, yeah you can figure out how to make chips with 16 billion transponders and run computing at the speed of light but- yeah you can make rockets and send them to the moon but-‘ No. Reason gives perfect access to reality in some fields and Kant needed to get out of his damn head.

    But Reason as Ideology is not mere rationality or reasoning from facts – it is a religion, that can no more accept nurture as it can accept the verdict if reason on itself. Nurture is an affront to reason – it limits it’s power and province.

    Luckily this is a caricatural belief, perhaps held by some philosophes back in the day, but abandoned nowadays. The HBD-Rationalist sphere likes small-r reason, not big-R Reason. Human rights people like emotional attachments to humanism over Reason. Idpol people don’t care much for Reason at all.

    And in fact, the “blank slate” and not nurture – introduced by John Locke – was and is the guiding principle of the Enlightenment. To admit nurture would be to limit and circumscribe the power of reason to shape man – and God is not limited!

    Yes and almost no one truly believes this anymore (everyone accepts genes matter to some extent), although I will admit that some modern conceptions of schooling and ‘effects of racism’ implicitly come close to it. Still, I’m not going to debate about a boogeyman.

  133. @AaronB
    @AaronB

    In other words, the Enlightenment believed reason had unlimited power to shape society and man. It was a God in a very real sense.

    They did not worship reason in the limited sense of drawing conclusions based on facts - they worshiped it's power.

    The existence of specific races with specific qualities and attributes that will stand in the way of Reasons ability to shape mankind?

    Nonsense! God's power is not limited.

    Reasoning from facts leasing to nurture, which puts a limit on what Reason can do? Blasphemy!

    God is not mocked!


    Universalism already around in christianity.
     
    It has been said, that the Enlightenment is a secularization of Christianity in many respects.

    Replies: @HenryBaker

    It has been said, that the Enlightenment is a secularization of Christianity in many respects.

    Yes. And McDonald (who you decry) drew a line farther back and noticed that Europeans also have always tended to monogamy, individualism, voluntary association (mannerbund), universalism, and such. You said above that he does not see how Europeans ‘critique’ everything, but that’s not quite true. If you read between the lines of what ‘anti-semites’ and ‘nationalists’ are saying, you actually find a profound pessimism about the possibility of lasting nationalism for Europeans. Of note is the Sailer-Taylor debate. Sailer, known for popularizing HBD somewhat, argued that any sort of ethnic nationalism WOULD NOT WORK in America since Americans are naturally drawn to univeral principles too much. I myself feel natural revulsion against the idea that I’m supposed to reject people simply because they are different.

    Why did Europeans practise Christianity as they did? Why did they come up with Enlightenment as we did? Why is the most virulent nationalism here usually more reactive than passive? Seems to be who we are.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    ... Europeans also have always tended to monogamy, individualism, voluntary association (mannerbund), universalism, and such.

    If we follow the trend line, does it not logically reach pure globalism and a NWO?

    Replies: @HenryBaker, @HenryBaker

    , @AaronB
    @HenryBaker

    I don't think European history is the story of a people being "one way" always - rather, a story of dramatic change and development.

    And I think culture and ideas are as important - perhaps more - than innate predisposition, and certainly interact with each other, and history and chance, in ever new and unexpected ways.

    I think reading history as Europeans having a constant "essence" is very selective.

    But these are big topics.

    Replies: @HenryBaker

  134. @HenryBaker
    @AaronB


    It has been said, that the Enlightenment is a secularization of Christianity in many respects.
     
    Yes. And McDonald (who you decry) drew a line farther back and noticed that Europeans also have always tended to monogamy, individualism, voluntary association (mannerbund), universalism, and such. You said above that he does not see how Europeans 'critique' everything, but that's not quite true. If you read between the lines of what 'anti-semites' and 'nationalists' are saying, you actually find a profound pessimism about the possibility of lasting nationalism for Europeans. Of note is the Sailer-Taylor debate. Sailer, known for popularizing HBD somewhat, argued that any sort of ethnic nationalism WOULD NOT WORK in America since Americans are naturally drawn to univeral principles too much. I myself feel natural revulsion against the idea that I'm supposed to reject people simply because they are different.

    Why did Europeans practise Christianity as they did? Why did they come up with Enlightenment as we did? Why is the most virulent nationalism here usually more reactive than passive? Seems to be who we are.

    Replies: @iffen, @AaronB

    … Europeans also have always tended to monogamy, individualism, voluntary association (mannerbund), universalism, and such.

    If we follow the trend line, does it not logically reach pure globalism and a NWO?

    • Replies: @HenryBaker
    @iffen

    Yes. My personal conviction is that Core Europeans (sticking with HBD) could get quite close to that. Moldbuggian thesis was that this was more or less Puritanism in action. However, like I said, rationality also exists. Convictions simply matter. If you honestly believe in HBD, you can't be a globalist. It's impossible. That's why the whole CotC thing is important to get right.

    Invoking your JQ law again, the idea of McDonald was that Jewish activists latched on to tendencies already present with Europeans and pushed them farther than they otherwise would have gone. Before Boasians took over biological Darwinism was the accepted theory. Aaron says somewhere above that 'these Jews were just Enlightened bro' but that's not the point. Sure they used the Enlightenment. But you can't say that a group taking over media in all forms, influencing academia etc. and acting on that power is the same as the majority in a country. European naive rationality led to universalism, yes, but left alone it can also lead to HBD. Most of the stuff Joyce wrote explicitly resists assertions like those by Aaron; it's supposed to prove fundamental *difference* in otherwise 'assimilated' Jews.

    BUT the whole Jew/Goy thing is a perfect intellectual symbiosis, in a way. Perhaps more natural to us than HBD. For example, in the philo-semitic docu 'Hollywoodism' it is claimed that Jews more or less invented the American Dream in Hollywood (America not as a normal nation with a frontier society; but proposition nation that was a shining beacon of liberty for all). That'd imply that American identity right now is more or less a Judaic construct. In Esau's Tears the Jewish author also muses that Americans seem to have become more or less what Jews were stereotyped as, back in the day: e.g., urbane, rootless, mercantile, speculating... But it also implies that Americans more or less happily accepted the whole endeavour of America as a proposition nation, implying it can't have been that unnatural to them.

    I'll stop the weird rant there. I won't pretend to understand all this (how it fits together), anyhow. Too many paradoxes and twists in History. Let's just say I take a dim view of the possibility of nationalism for Core Europeans.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @HenryBaker
    @iffen

    Here's an example of the argument about how 'they were just assimilated bro' looks a bit weird when you see 'assimilated' people acting very differently than the majority they were supposed to be assimilating into: https://www.unz.com/article/review-the-jesuit-order-as-a-synagogue-of-jews/

    Anything about neocons or American Communist Pary also serves as an example.

  135. @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    ... Europeans also have always tended to monogamy, individualism, voluntary association (mannerbund), universalism, and such.

    If we follow the trend line, does it not logically reach pure globalism and a NWO?

    Replies: @HenryBaker, @HenryBaker

    Yes. My personal conviction is that Core Europeans (sticking with HBD) could get quite close to that. Moldbuggian thesis was that this was more or less Puritanism in action. However, like I said, rationality also exists. Convictions simply matter. If you honestly believe in HBD, you can’t be a globalist. It’s impossible. That’s why the whole CotC thing is important to get right.

    Invoking your JQ law again, the idea of McDonald was that Jewish activists latched on to tendencies already present with Europeans and pushed them farther than they otherwise would have gone. Before Boasians took over biological Darwinism was the accepted theory. Aaron says somewhere above that ‘these Jews were just Enlightened bro’ but that’s not the point. Sure they used the Enlightenment. But you can’t say that a group taking over media in all forms, influencing academia etc. and acting on that power is the same as the majority in a country. European naive rationality led to universalism, yes, but left alone it can also lead to HBD. Most of the stuff Joyce wrote explicitly resists assertions like those by Aaron; it’s supposed to prove fundamental *difference* in otherwise ‘assimilated’ Jews.

    BUT the whole Jew/Goy thing is a perfect intellectual symbiosis, in a way. Perhaps more natural to us than HBD. For example, in the philo-semitic docu ‘Hollywoodism’ it is claimed that Jews more or less invented the American Dream in Hollywood (America not as a normal nation with a frontier society; but proposition nation that was a shining beacon of liberty for all). That’d imply that American identity right now is more or less a Judaic construct. In Esau’s Tears the Jewish author also muses that Americans seem to have become more or less what Jews were stereotyped as, back in the day: e.g., urbane, rootless, mercantile, speculating… But it also implies that Americans more or less happily accepted the whole endeavour of America as a proposition nation, implying it can’t have been that unnatural to them.

    I’ll stop the weird rant there. I won’t pretend to understand all this (how it fits together), anyhow. Too many paradoxes and twists in History. Let’s just say I take a dim view of the possibility of nationalism for Core Europeans.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    ... Jewish activists latched on to tendencies already present with Europeans and pushed them farther than they otherwise would have gone.

    If you haven't read it already, The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine is definitely worth a read.

    If you honestly believe in HBD, you can’t be a globalist.

    Can I be an American melting pot, civic nationalist? And if so, is that not only a few steps removed from being a globalist?

    Replies: @HenryBaker

  136. @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    ... Europeans also have always tended to monogamy, individualism, voluntary association (mannerbund), universalism, and such.

    If we follow the trend line, does it not logically reach pure globalism and a NWO?

    Replies: @HenryBaker, @HenryBaker

    Here’s an example of the argument about how ‘they were just assimilated bro’ looks a bit weird when you see ‘assimilated’ people acting very differently than the majority they were supposed to be assimilating into: https://www.unz.com/article/review-the-jesuit-order-as-a-synagogue-of-jews/

    Anything about neocons or American Communist Pary also serves as an example.

  137. @HenryBaker
    @iffen

    Yes. My personal conviction is that Core Europeans (sticking with HBD) could get quite close to that. Moldbuggian thesis was that this was more or less Puritanism in action. However, like I said, rationality also exists. Convictions simply matter. If you honestly believe in HBD, you can't be a globalist. It's impossible. That's why the whole CotC thing is important to get right.

    Invoking your JQ law again, the idea of McDonald was that Jewish activists latched on to tendencies already present with Europeans and pushed them farther than they otherwise would have gone. Before Boasians took over biological Darwinism was the accepted theory. Aaron says somewhere above that 'these Jews were just Enlightened bro' but that's not the point. Sure they used the Enlightenment. But you can't say that a group taking over media in all forms, influencing academia etc. and acting on that power is the same as the majority in a country. European naive rationality led to universalism, yes, but left alone it can also lead to HBD. Most of the stuff Joyce wrote explicitly resists assertions like those by Aaron; it's supposed to prove fundamental *difference* in otherwise 'assimilated' Jews.

    BUT the whole Jew/Goy thing is a perfect intellectual symbiosis, in a way. Perhaps more natural to us than HBD. For example, in the philo-semitic docu 'Hollywoodism' it is claimed that Jews more or less invented the American Dream in Hollywood (America not as a normal nation with a frontier society; but proposition nation that was a shining beacon of liberty for all). That'd imply that American identity right now is more or less a Judaic construct. In Esau's Tears the Jewish author also muses that Americans seem to have become more or less what Jews were stereotyped as, back in the day: e.g., urbane, rootless, mercantile, speculating... But it also implies that Americans more or less happily accepted the whole endeavour of America as a proposition nation, implying it can't have been that unnatural to them.

    I'll stop the weird rant there. I won't pretend to understand all this (how it fits together), anyhow. Too many paradoxes and twists in History. Let's just say I take a dim view of the possibility of nationalism for Core Europeans.

    Replies: @iffen

    … Jewish activists latched on to tendencies already present with Europeans and pushed them farther than they otherwise would have gone.

    If you haven’t read it already, The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine is definitely worth a read.

    If you honestly believe in HBD, you can’t be a globalist.

    Can I be an American melting pot, civic nationalist? And if so, is that not only a few steps removed from being a globalist?

    • Replies: @HenryBaker
    @iffen

    'If you haven’t read it already, The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine is definitely worth a read.'
    Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look it up.


    Can I be an American melting pot, civic nationalist? And if so, is that not only a few steps removed from being a globalist?
     
    Well, you can of course be literally anything you want. I think Bill Kristol believes in HBD more or less yet he's a neocon globalist more or less.

    I think the problem with real *globalism* and HBD is that it would seem to be completely incongruous to expect similar institutions to hold for truly different people. HBD also implies that some people are a drag on the economy, some people are less trustful, less lawful, etc. So if you accept that these are facts, and you seek to model immigration policy on a rational basis, you will want to have political and border-separation from those that would be less useful to your 'commonwealth'.

    I'd say it's definitely not illogical to be an American melting pot, civic nationalist. Out of realism, I'm quite close to those ideas myself. Incidentally, Last and Faulk abandoned WN for such an ideology. The question is, a pot that is melting whom? I don't think HBD opposes such a 'crucible', the point is more that it would imply that some material is better than other material. As to not avoid the issue: I think it's hard to accept HBD yet support mass African and Arab immigration unless you're actively malevolent. The most Africanized melting pot I know of is Brazil, and yeah, that's hardly a success. It also seems very hard to me to both accept HBD and think Europe will be recognizably Europe without a European majority.

    Asians are probably more okay but they may be genetically somewhat predisposed to collectivism. I dunno. At least they build functioning societies. Asian-majority Europe would probably be most like Japan or South-Korea. A small step backwards imo, but not too bad.

  138. @iffen
    @HenryBaker

    ... Jewish activists latched on to tendencies already present with Europeans and pushed them farther than they otherwise would have gone.

    If you haven't read it already, The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine is definitely worth a read.

    If you honestly believe in HBD, you can’t be a globalist.

    Can I be an American melting pot, civic nationalist? And if so, is that not only a few steps removed from being a globalist?

    Replies: @HenryBaker

    ‘If you haven’t read it already, The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine is definitely worth a read.’
    Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll look it up.

    Can I be an American melting pot, civic nationalist? And if so, is that not only a few steps removed from being a globalist?

    Well, you can of course be literally anything you want. I think Bill Kristol believes in HBD more or less yet he’s a neocon globalist more or less.

    I think the problem with real *globalism* and HBD is that it would seem to be completely incongruous to expect similar institutions to hold for truly different people. HBD also implies that some people are a drag on the economy, some people are less trustful, less lawful, etc. So if you accept that these are facts, and you seek to model immigration policy on a rational basis, you will want to have political and border-separation from those that would be less useful to your ‘commonwealth’.

    I’d say it’s definitely not illogical to be an American melting pot, civic nationalist. Out of realism, I’m quite close to those ideas myself. Incidentally, Last and Faulk abandoned WN for such an ideology. The question is, a pot that is melting whom? I don’t think HBD opposes such a ‘crucible’, the point is more that it would imply that some material is better than other material. As to not avoid the issue: I think it’s hard to accept HBD yet support mass African and Arab immigration unless you’re actively malevolent. The most Africanized melting pot I know of is Brazil, and yeah, that’s hardly a success. It also seems very hard to me to both accept HBD and think Europe will be recognizably Europe without a European majority.

    Asians are probably more okay but they may be genetically somewhat predisposed to collectivism. I dunno. At least they build functioning societies. Asian-majority Europe would probably be most like Japan or South-Korea. A small step backwards imo, but not too bad.

  139. @HenryBaker
    @AaronB


    It has been said, that the Enlightenment is a secularization of Christianity in many respects.
     
    Yes. And McDonald (who you decry) drew a line farther back and noticed that Europeans also have always tended to monogamy, individualism, voluntary association (mannerbund), universalism, and such. You said above that he does not see how Europeans 'critique' everything, but that's not quite true. If you read between the lines of what 'anti-semites' and 'nationalists' are saying, you actually find a profound pessimism about the possibility of lasting nationalism for Europeans. Of note is the Sailer-Taylor debate. Sailer, known for popularizing HBD somewhat, argued that any sort of ethnic nationalism WOULD NOT WORK in America since Americans are naturally drawn to univeral principles too much. I myself feel natural revulsion against the idea that I'm supposed to reject people simply because they are different.

    Why did Europeans practise Christianity as they did? Why did they come up with Enlightenment as we did? Why is the most virulent nationalism here usually more reactive than passive? Seems to be who we are.

    Replies: @iffen, @AaronB

    I don’t think European history is the story of a people being “one way” always – rather, a story of dramatic change and development.

    And I think culture and ideas are as important – perhaps more – than innate predisposition, and certainly interact with each other, and history and chance, in ever new and unexpected ways.

    I think reading history as Europeans having a constant “essence” is very selective.

    But these are big topics.

    • Replies: @HenryBaker
    @AaronB


    But these are big topics.
     
    Yeah the thread has been derailed well. I also doubt our knowledge has advanced enough to get a definite answer as to what percentage is cultural, what is genetic, whether that can differ through time...

    And I think culture and ideas are as important – perhaps more – than innate predisposition, and certainly interact with each other, and history and chance, in ever new and unexpected ways.
     
    Yes, quite true.

    I don’t think European history is the story of a people being “one way” always
     
    Yes and no. Of course Europe has been very different through time. But you never see mass inbreeding like in Pakistan and Arabia or real polygamy, for example.
  140. @AaronB
    @HenryBaker

    I don't think European history is the story of a people being "one way" always - rather, a story of dramatic change and development.

    And I think culture and ideas are as important - perhaps more - than innate predisposition, and certainly interact with each other, and history and chance, in ever new and unexpected ways.

    I think reading history as Europeans having a constant "essence" is very selective.

    But these are big topics.

    Replies: @HenryBaker

    But these are big topics.

    Yeah the thread has been derailed well. I also doubt our knowledge has advanced enough to get a definite answer as to what percentage is cultural, what is genetic, whether that can differ through time…

    And I think culture and ideas are as important – perhaps more – than innate predisposition, and certainly interact with each other, and history and chance, in ever new and unexpected ways.

    Yes, quite true.

    I don’t think European history is the story of a people being “one way” always

    Yes and no. Of course Europe has been very different through time. But you never see mass inbreeding like in Pakistan and Arabia or real polygamy, for example.

    • Thanks: AaronB

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS