Unbelievably Heartbreaking

minime
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:52 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by minime » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:34 pm

Pauli137 wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:08 am
jakell wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:44 pm
jakell wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 pm
I'm going to have a look at that video but I would like to jump in with my standard response to your No. 1 above which is that "White Supremacy" is an ill-fitting tag to use as whites only occupy the middle ground on the IQ distribution (ie.. 'ordinary, not supreme), the logical conclusion, if one were to take that route, would be 'Jewish supremacy'. Dave and Stefan explore this in a good humoured way.
This seems a plain observation to me, but most people completely ignore it , always coming back to 'whiteness'.

Regarding IQ being a worthless metric, I'd say fine.. let's treat it as incidental and measure it anyway. Personally I haven't got much time for it either, but that's no reason for me to make broad statements about it.
I say "standard response" here because it's a bit of a no-brainer once one looks objectively at the material. It's rests upon the coarse assumption that IQ=intelligence though but, as this is an answer to that assumption, I would tend to leave it at that.

Here though, as in most of the more considered examinations of the subject, we have opened up intelligence to mean more than IQ. It has occurred to me that this can give second wind to that easily discarded white supremacy claim.
It could be said that the extremes of IQ both have drawbacks.. the lower one leading to poor functioning and the higher one leading to introversion, introspection, obsessiveness and narrow specialisation, all things that can be found to various degrees on the autism spectrum, the 'sweet-spot' lying somewhere in between. A canny (and more nuanced) white-supremacist, agreeing that whites tend to occupy this middle ground, might therefore find fresh justifications for that belief.

This would be a much harder one to argue against.
I'd like to take this in a slightly different direction, away from the question of white supremacy. (Not that I'm not interested in that topic -- I hate racism with a fiery passion, both the white supremacy kind and the "whites are evil" kind -- but it's a forum black hole as far a I'm concerned, it just sucks all the light out of most online conversations.) I'd like instead to discuss neuroplasticity, the idea that our brains can change substantially over time. Personal anecdote: I was once diagnosed with a very very high IQ. And, yes, it came with exactly the drawbacks you list: introversion, introspection, obsessiveness, and narrow specialization. Fortunately, there is something about my core personality that is intensely relational, and I came to understand how the way I was structuring my thinking was harming my overall functioning and making me very unhappy. I would go so far as to say that it was harming me spiritually. So I figured out a way to change. I haven't had my IQ tested since I was young, but I would predict that it has fallen substantially, and not just due to age. I am a correspondingly warmer, more relaxed, and with a wider set of interests and abilities. Also much happier. Point being: brains change over time. And they change in response to decisions that one can make, at the level of what I believe is a higher order of being.

We have a finite number of neurons and a finite number of possible connections that can exist among those neurons. However, there are a great many different configurations in network connectivity that are possible. Some of these configurations are heavily influenced by culture, and some of them may even be genetically determined (in a stochastic sense). However, it is possible to make decisions about how one wants ones brain to function. Will exists on a higher ontological order than mere cognition.
Thanks, Pauli. I feel dumber just reading your post.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by Pauli137 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:30 pm

minime wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:34 pm
Pauli137 wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:08 am
jakell wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:44 pm


I say "standard response" here because it's a bit of a no-brainer once one looks objectively at the material. It's rests upon the coarse assumption that IQ=intelligence though but, as this is an answer to that assumption, I would tend to leave it at that.

Here though, as in most of the more considered examinations of the subject, we have opened up intelligence to mean more than IQ. It has occurred to me that this can give second wind to that easily discarded white supremacy claim.
It could be said that the extremes of IQ both have drawbacks.. the lower one leading to poor functioning and the higher one leading to introversion, introspection, obsessiveness and narrow specialisation, all things that can be found to various degrees on the autism spectrum, the 'sweet-spot' lying somewhere in between. A canny (and more nuanced) white-supremacist, agreeing that whites tend to occupy this middle ground, might therefore find fresh justifications for that belief.

This would be a much harder one to argue against.
I'd like to take this in a slightly different direction, away from the question of white supremacy. (Not that I'm not interested in that topic -- I hate racism with a fiery passion, both the white supremacy kind and the "whites are evil" kind -- but it's a forum black hole as far a I'm concerned, it just sucks all the light out of most online conversations.) I'd like instead to discuss neuroplasticity, the idea that our brains can change substantially over time. Personal anecdote: I was once diagnosed with a very very high IQ. And, yes, it came with exactly the drawbacks you list: introversion, introspection, obsessiveness, and narrow specialization. Fortunately, there is something about my core personality that is intensely relational, and I came to understand how the way I was structuring my thinking was harming my overall functioning and making me very unhappy. I would go so far as to say that it was harming me spiritually. So I figured out a way to change. I haven't had my IQ tested since I was young, but I would predict that it has fallen substantially, and not just due to age. I am a correspondingly warmer, more relaxed, and with a wider set of interests and abilities. Also much happier. Point being: brains change over time. And they change in response to decisions that one can make, at the level of what I believe is a higher order of being.

We have a finite number of neurons and a finite number of possible connections that can exist among those neurons. However, there are a great many different configurations in network connectivity that are possible. Some of these configurations are heavily influenced by culture, and some of them may even be genetically determined (in a stochastic sense). However, it is possible to make decisions about how one wants ones brain to function. Will exists on a higher ontological order than mere cognition.

Thanks, Pauli. I feel dumber just reading your post.
How so?

Anyway, I could have put it more simply: 20th Century psychometric ideas are needlessly deterministic.

Modern (21st Century) neurobiology teaches us that there is much more room to maneuver. It also teaches us that choices can be made in the nanoseconds between synaptic firings. Quantum indeterminacy? Maybe. In my own faith/belief system, Will exists at a higher ontological order than Thought. Countless small decisions (exercises in Will) can lead to major repatterning of cognition.

I may be hijacking the purposes of this thread, but this does relate to the topic of race and IQ. The question is mired in 20th Century ideology, that genetics determines neurobiology determines destiny. Modern (21st Century) clinical psychology has a much more nuanced, cybernetic view that considers interacting and nested systems at various scales. You can't think about IQ and race without thinking about social context and the presence of intelligences not measured by IQ.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by Pauli137 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:38 pm

jakell wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:43 pm
You're right about it being a 'black hole', but in some environments more than others, it tends to be more a case of a previously laid minefield (rather than something naturally occuring) plus an allergic reaction if someone attempts to do some minesweeping. The question in my mind is whether one is prepared to tolerate intellectual booby traps and it seems to me that no decent analysis can be done when certain data points are considered out of bounds.
Because I've been dealing with WS's online for over a decade now, I'm well past any allergic reactions, to the extent where I can start to have some fun with their arguments. In the first instance here I was strawmanning the pure-IQ argument because, up till recently, that is the level they have mostly been operating at, I've only just noticed the more nuanced possibility, and here I am steelmanning** it instead. Whether an actual WS will take it up remains to be seen.

Regarding your dealing with high IQ as a handicap, I wouldn't leave things as vague as "something about my personality..", I don't see anything particularly mysterious there, that re-adjustment would be the other elements of intelligence working in tandem to (eventually) produce a rounded way of interacting with the world, something that hopefully develops as we grow older and wiser. I say this is where that neuroplasiticity comes in - ensuring that the personality remains flexible enough to adapt throughout life rather than becoming rigid.
I'm thinking about those Jews again now.. If a high IQ has certain drawbacks then why are the Ashkenazi Jews so successful in the real world, why don't they have a high proportion of mumbling autists? (maybe they do but they are kept in shuttered rooms). I would put this down to their particular culture being geared to making that IQ work in a social setting, whereas in other cultures it can make misfits.


** I got this phrase and concept from Mouthy Buddha where he talks of steelmanning Alt Right arguments in order to produce something worthy of opposition.
Well I could go into detail "about my personality" but this isn't the place for my life story. The point that decisions can be made, also that we are all part of interacting systems (and made up of interacting systems). Your point about Jews is relevant here: the particular system in which a particular cognitive pattern is prevalent has a lot to do with whether the pattern is adaptive or not.

White supremacists miss the whole interacting system bit. Sure, maybe some races are genetically predisposed (in a stochastic sense) to have lower IQ. However, they are also likely genetically predisposed to have stronger intelligences of a different sort, and a diversity of cognitive patterns is necessary for a healthy social ecosystem. Monoculture always leads to ruin. My problem is with the value system that elevates whatever IQ measures over all other forms of intelligence.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:15 pm

Pauli137 wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:38 pm
jakell wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:43 pm
You're right about it being a 'black hole', but in some environments more than others, it tends to be more a case of a previously laid minefield (rather than something naturally occuring) plus an allergic reaction if someone attempts to do some minesweeping. The question in my mind is whether one is prepared to tolerate intellectual booby traps and it seems to me that no decent analysis can be done when certain data points are considered out of bounds.
Because I've been dealing with WS's online for over a decade now, I'm well past any allergic reactions, to the extent where I can start to have some fun with their arguments. In the first instance here I was strawmanning the pure-IQ argument because, up till recently, that is the level they have mostly been operating at, I've only just noticed the more nuanced possibility, and here I am steelmanning** it instead. Whether an actual WS will take it up remains to be seen.

Regarding your dealing with high IQ as a handicap, I wouldn't leave things as vague as "something about my personality..", I don't see anything particularly mysterious there, that re-adjustment would be the other elements of intelligence working in tandem to (eventually) produce a rounded way of interacting with the world, something that hopefully develops as we grow older and wiser. I say this is where that neuroplasiticity comes in - ensuring that the personality remains flexible enough to adapt throughout life rather than becoming rigid.
I'm thinking about those Jews again now.. If a high IQ has certain drawbacks then why are the Ashkenazi Jews so successful in the real world, why don't they have a high proportion of mumbling autists? (maybe they do but they are kept in shuttered rooms). I would put this down to their particular culture being geared to making that IQ work in a social setting, whereas in other cultures it can make misfits.


** I got this phrase and concept from Mouthy Buddha where he talks of steelmanning Alt Right arguments in order to produce something worthy of opposition.
Well I could go into detail "about my personality" but this isn't the place for my life story. The point that decisions can be made, also that we are all part of interacting systems (and made up of interacting systems). Your point about Jews is relevant here: the particular system in which a particular cognitive pattern is prevalent has a lot to do with whether the pattern is adaptive or not.

White supremacists miss the whole interacting system bit. Sure, maybe some races are genetically predisposed (in a stochastic sense) to have lower IQ. However, they are also likely genetically predisposed to have stronger intelligences of a different sort, and a diversity of cognitive patterns is necessary for a healthy social ecosystem. Monoculture always leads to ruin. My problem is with the value system that elevates whatever IQ measures over all other forms of intelligence.
I think we are pretty much past that point anyway, but this has come about via an unexpected route. The Regressive Left's obsession with identity politics and intersectionality has put notions of ability and merit on the back-burner and I doubt that IQ is measured or taken seriously anywhere outside of academic disciplines, and even there I would think it is under fire. The initial race/IQ data came from army sources but, if they are still compiling this, they are being very quiet about it.
The race and IQ 'debate' rests upon (recent) historical studies and data and I expect no more work will be done in the near future, it's too controversial. This is actually quite inconvenient for those who might wish to disprove the links, to make it untouchable gives a mythical tinge to the whole business.

As to the "purposes of the thread", it was Stefan Molyneux' grasping of the emotive side that caught my eye.. to speak of the tragedy' of the situation, rather than use it as an unstated excuse to turn away seems a more mature approach. My purpose was to merely to show that, as it makes a change.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by Pauli137 » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:22 am

jakell wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:15 pm
Pauli137 wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:38 pm
jakell wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:43 pm
You're right about it being a 'black hole', but in some environments more than others, it tends to be more a case of a previously laid minefield (rather than something naturally occuring) plus an allergic reaction if someone attempts to do some minesweeping. The question in my mind is whether one is prepared to tolerate intellectual booby traps and it seems to me that no decent analysis can be done when certain data points are considered out of bounds.
Because I've been dealing with WS's online for over a decade now, I'm well past any allergic reactions, to the extent where I can start to have some fun with their arguments. In the first instance here I was strawmanning the pure-IQ argument because, up till recently, that is the level they have mostly been operating at, I've only just noticed the more nuanced possibility, and here I am steelmanning** it instead. Whether an actual WS will take it up remains to be seen.

Regarding your dealing with high IQ as a handicap, I wouldn't leave things as vague as "something about my personality..", I don't see anything particularly mysterious there, that re-adjustment would be the other elements of intelligence working in tandem to (eventually) produce a rounded way of interacting with the world, something that hopefully develops as we grow older and wiser. I say this is where that neuroplasiticity comes in - ensuring that the personality remains flexible enough to adapt throughout life rather than becoming rigid.
I'm thinking about those Jews again now.. If a high IQ has certain drawbacks then why are the Ashkenazi Jews so successful in the real world, why don't they have a high proportion of mumbling autists? (maybe they do but they are kept in shuttered rooms). I would put this down to their particular culture being geared to making that IQ work in a social setting, whereas in other cultures it can make misfits.


** I got this phrase and concept from Mouthy Buddha where he talks of steelmanning Alt Right arguments in order to produce something worthy of opposition.
Well I could go into detail "about my personality" but this isn't the place for my life story. The point that decisions can be made, also that we are all part of interacting systems (and made up of interacting systems). Your point about Jews is relevant here: the particular system in which a particular cognitive pattern is prevalent has a lot to do with whether the pattern is adaptive or not.

White supremacists miss the whole interacting system bit. Sure, maybe some races are genetically predisposed (in a stochastic sense) to have lower IQ. However, they are also likely genetically predisposed to have stronger intelligences of a different sort, and a diversity of cognitive patterns is necessary for a healthy social ecosystem. Monoculture always leads to ruin. My problem is with the value system that elevates whatever IQ measures over all other forms of intelligence.
I think we are pretty much past that point anyway, but this has come about via an unexpected route. The Regressive Left's obsession with identity politics and intersectionality has put notions of ability and merit on the back-burner and I doubt that IQ is measured or taken seriously anywhere outside of academic disciplines, and even there I would think it is under fire. The initial race/IQ data came from army sources but, if they are still compiling this, they are being very quiet about it.
The race and IQ 'debate' rests upon (recent) historical studies and data and I expect no more work will be done in the near future, it's too controversial. This is actually quite inconvenient for those who might wish to disprove the links, to make it untouchable gives a mythical tinge to the whole business.

As to the "purposes of the thread", it was Stefan Molyneux' grasping of the emotive side that caught my eye.. to speak of the tragedy' of the situation, rather than use it as an unstated excuse to turn away seems a more mature approach. My purpose was to merely to show that, as it makes a change.
It's true that nobody outside academic circles cares much anymore about IQ as a specific psychometric instrument. But what it purports to measure is still very much valued. Take a look at where society throws dollars and you'll see the kind of cognitive pattern that is rewarded.

semper occultus
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by semper occultus » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:05 pm

well the academic debate is about the heritibility of intelligence generally isn't it - of which Robert Plomin is a leading researcher although in an interview http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j1qts he was recalling alot of the campus protests he has faced over the years - maybe why he's now working in the UK :

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... study-says

Almost 10 per cent of children's educational attainment at age 16 can be predicted from DNA alone, academics claim
A new study, led by Robert Plomin, professor of behavioural genetics at King's College London, reveals that academic potential can be measured using a genetic score made up of 20,000 DNA variants.

Professor Plomin's previous research found that 60 per cent of variations between individuals' educational achievement could be attributed to differences in DNA. However, this used a scoring system better suited to measuring population trends.

The new scoring system, by contrast, is better suited to making individual predictions. It could therefore be used to help identify children at risk of developing learning difficulties.

Predictor of differences
Professor Plomin’s study measured academic achievement in maths and English among 5,825 pupils, all unrelated to one another. They were measured at ages 7, 12 and 16.

The findings showed that pupils’ educational achievement was strongly affected by differences in their DNA. Those with a higher DNA score were more likely to achieve an A or B grade at GCSE than their contemporaries with lower DNA scores.

And, while 65 per cent of the higher group went on to take A levels, only 35 per cent of those in the lower group did so.

The 10 per cent predictor of differences is relatively high. For example, sex difference explains 1 per cent of the variation in maths scores between boys and girls.

The King's College academics claim that it trumps even grit, the combination of passion and perseverance which US academic Angela Duckworth believes is vital for success.

Grit predicts 5 per cent of variance in educational achievement.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:14 am

As long as he stays away from the subject of race then he will probably avoid the predictable controversy. Who knows what is present in his data though and a younger mind might see it as an opportunity to prove/disprove the alleged connections, this guy looks like he's been around the block a few times by now and knows that science is not the decider of such things in the present climate.
When he is on the verge of retirement and safe from the long knives, he may have one or two surprises for us.

Even though race is not used as a marker in his output, it seems there are still those who find his work objectionable. This is not surprising though as academia is pretty fraught at present with plenty looking to make their bones on the back of other researchers. The most prominent is probably Peterson but I've come across a few more, extending down to the recent roasting of Lindsay Shepherd which displays how closely people are watching each other for wrongspeak.
It probably also helps that he is working in the UK, North America seems to be the happy hunting ground ATM although it's pleasing to see examples of pushback.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:32 pm

jakell wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:44 pm
Here though, as in most of the more considered examinations of the subject, we have opened up intelligence to mean more than IQ. It has occurred to me that this can give second wind to that easily discarded white supremacy claim.
It could be said that the extremes of IQ both have drawbacks.. the lower one leading to poor functioning and the higher one leading to introversion, introspection, obsessiveness and narrow specialisation, all things that can be found to various degrees on the autism spectrum, the 'sweet-spot' lying somewhere in between. A canny (and more nuanced) white-supremacist, agreeing that whites tend to occupy this middle ground, might therefore find fresh justifications for that belief.

This would be a much harder one to argue against.
Staying for a little longer in thought-experiment territory, I'm going to bat for the other side in this instance

This came to me whilst listening to a recent Alt-Right podcast and I think the speaker is Mike Enoch. In contrast to Richard Spencer here he comes over as an unabashed white supremacist and (probably unknowingly) lowers the tone of the conversation.. Spencer remains quiet but this is counter to what he was saying earlier. He frequently refers to blacks as "85's" which will be reference to the alleged average IQ of their bell-curve.
Unfortunately he doesn't seem to understand the concept of this distribution and he comments that African leaders will have IQ's of around 90, so either he thinks that the bell-curve is much narrower for blacks (not supported), or he's just a dumb racist who can't understand the theory. If we are talking of the small subset of individuals who might become leaders, then it's quite conceivable that there will a more than adequate supply of candidates of 105+ IQ available to cater to this, that's the nature of the distribution

So, here's my shot at supporting Black Supremacism: If the average IQ for Sub-Saharan African Blacks is 85, and we have a similar shaped bell curve, whilst also accepting that for practical leadership there is a 'sweet-spot' for IQ (let's arbitrarily call it 110), then there will be no massive surfeit of nerdy autists getting in the way with pointlessly abstract political sophistry (Marxists anyone?).
Therefore, if blacks can get it together, they can produce more politically stable societies than others and stability is the prerequisite for many other good things.

I'm going to try and find the right spot in the podcast and will then link to it.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by Pauli137 » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:03 am

jakell wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:32 pm
jakell wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:44 pm
Here though, as in most of the more considered examinations of the subject, we have opened up intelligence to mean more than IQ. It has occurred to me that this can give second wind to that easily discarded white supremacy claim.
It could be said that the extremes of IQ both have drawbacks.. the lower one leading to poor functioning and the higher one leading to introversion, introspection, obsessiveness and narrow specialisation, all things that can be found to various degrees on the autism spectrum, the 'sweet-spot' lying somewhere in between. A canny (and more nuanced) white-supremacist, agreeing that whites tend to occupy this middle ground, might therefore find fresh justifications for that belief.

This would be a much harder one to argue against.
Staying for a little longer in thought-experiment territory, I'm going to bat for the other side in this instance

This came to me whilst listening to a recent Alt-Right podcast and I think the speaker is Mike Enoch. In contrast to Richard Spencer here he comes over as an unabashed white supremacist and (probably unknowingly) lowers the tone of the conversation.. Spencer remains quiet but this is counter to what he was saying earlier. He frequently refers to blacks as "85's" which will be reference to the alleged average IQ of their bell-curve.
Unfortunately he doesn't seem to understand the concept of this distribution and he comments that African leaders will have IQ's of around 90, so either he thinks that the bell-curve is much narrower for blacks (not supported), or he's just a dumb racist who can't understand the theory. If we are talking of the small subset of individuals who might become leaders, then it's quite conceivable that there will a more than adequate supply of candidates of 105+ IQ available to cater to this, that's the nature of the distribution

So, here's my shot at supporting Black Supremacism: If the average IQ for Sub-Saharan African Blacks is 85, and we have a similar shaped bell curve, whilst also accepting that for practical leadership there is a 'sweet-spot' for IQ (let's arbitrarily call it 110), then there will be no massive surfeit of nerdy autists getting in the way with pointlessly abstract political sophistry (Marxists anyone?).
Therefore, if blacks can get it together, they can produce more politically stable societies than others and stability is the prerequisite for many other good things.

I'm going to try and find the right spot in the podcast and will then link to it.
That's a fascinating argument.

The problem is that white supremacists always stack the deck: they formulate the criteria in such a way that only those of (non-Jewish) European ancestry can meet them. Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs? Well then, they have too many nerds. Nerdiness is good for making money in the modern world? Well, then, Jews don't deserve it because they're Satan's spawn. Science, religion, doesn't matter, they'll use whatever is necessary to make Whites the true masters of the universe (while simultaneously playing the long suffering victim role).

Seriously, I have interacted with one self-righteously vegetarian esoteric Hitlerist who insisted that Jews singlehandedly were responsible for human sacrifice, that the Norse never practiced it at all. This same person unabashedly called for mass killing of "degenerates".

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:27 pm

Pauli137 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:03 am
That's a fascinating argument.
In the sandbox of thought experiment, anything is possible.

That's my take anyway, many think that even engaging about these issues is poison and if they write about them then they have to pepper the text with constant signals to their social group concerning their orientation James Damore and Lindsay Shepherd etc etc serve as (professional) examples about what happens if they don't, social pressure is arguably more insideous.

Here's the section of the podcast where the guy starts talking of "85's". It isn't Mike Enoch after all, the podcast is Richard Spencer and three other guys I don't know, Spencer's is the only voice I recognise. He previously starts off by saying he is going to do some "big-brain" hard science stuff which is ironic because his take is far less nuanced than Spencer's (which seems to be largely live-and-let-live), in fact it is poorly disguised white supremacism, he also believes that whites are destined to 'rule' in Africa again as opposed to Spencer who seems to think that it should be left (by whites) to its own devices.
The problem is that white supremacists always stack the deck: they formulate the criteria in such a way that only those of (non-Jewish) European ancestry can meet them. Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs? Well then, they have too many nerds. Nerdiness is good for making money in the modern world? Well, then, Jews don't deserve it because they're Satan's spawn. Science, religion, doesn't matter, they'll use whatever is necessary to make Whites the true masters of the universe (while simultaneously playing the long suffering victim role).

Seriously, I have interacted with one self-righteously vegetarian esoteric Hitlerist who insisted that Jews singlehandedly were responsible for human sacrifice, that the Norse never practiced it at all. This same person unabashedly called for mass killing of "degenerates".
TBH I find the general take of the antisemitic** Far Right not to rest upon rational arguments about the Jews but upon an emotional foundation, they will make 'rational' arguments for the sake of discussion but IMO that is not where the impetus lies. In some of the discussions there is sometimes a (disguised) admiration as if they are considering the tactics of an opposing tribe that wants roughly the same things.

** They aren't all this, Jared Taylor makes a good case for not focusing on the Jews.

semper occultus
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by semper occultus » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:53 pm

so what exactly is the much fabled historical phenomenon of "white supremacy" or "western hegemony" supposed to based upon other than a more or less implicit admission of technological & organisational success tested over a few centuries in a global arena - and generally how else are the historical factors - scientific / philosophical / political - employed to explain this not boiled down to the cumulative transmitted qualitative output of men's brains - however you refer to it or even measure it. Where does it come from ?

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:12 pm

semper occultus wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:53 pm
so what exactly is the much fabled historical phenomenon of "white supremacy" or "western hegemony" supposed to based upon other than a more or less implicit admission of technological & organisational success tested over a few centuries in a global arena - and generally how else are the historical factors - scientific / philosophical / political - employed to explain this not boiled down to the cumulative transmitted qualitative output of men's brains - however you refer to it or even measure it. Where does it come from ?
This might be considered an irrelevent question to some and that technological and organisational success tested over a few centuries is more than sufficient to represent something that is worth appreciating, celebrating and holding on to.

The Proud Boys seem to encapsulate this quite well in the phrase 'Western Chauvanism" (probably coined by Mcginnes) which stops short of White Supremacism whilst still unashamedly staking out some territory . This last is still enough for the Left to regard them as beyond the pale whilst on the other hand the Alt Right regard them as cucked civic nationalists.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests