Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums
Sign in to follow this  
TheUnbeholden

WTF did I just read?

Recommended Posts

They are not trolls.

They are psychologically damaged people (tipically delusional loners and they find strength in "mass" ideals as the nationalist ones) misguided by very cinical and rapacious people (like the ones of Trump propaganda machine). The latter ones will do ANYTHING for their career using the rage of the former ones.

 

The same for a gang members (about black people).....it's really the same behaviour, the same psychological dynamics.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're serious? :|

I have avoided this thread for the most part, I love Scandinavia, but I can see a biased video here. That said I can clearly see the political 'impotence' on the part of the police and political system over there, as it almost word for word mirrors what is happening in the UK with the "insert-name-minorities" so I tend to lean towards the viewpoint in said video. If I as a white male said fuck you to the system I would get smashed into the ground, yet if my skin was anything else the aforementioned would not happen. The historical irony is not lost on me.

 

[spelling & typing]

Edited by Bikerdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those traits are inherently beneficial. They depend entirely on the context of the individual's environment.

 

It's important to spell this out so nobody takes reactionary logical leaps along the lines of "people discriminate against me because I'm white/male". With that said, it effaces the issue. We don't live in the land of hypotheticals, the context of the real world is that America displaced and enslaved african people, committed genocide against the native population and then put up a white picket fence in front of the crematorium where it piled all the corpses, so it wouldn't look so unseemly. Rome did something similar before it, and oh, I don't know about Great Britain, really, they may or may not have, who's to say. In this world's timeline those traits are inherently, socially beneficial - history's certainly proven it.

 

Everything is an issue of classism if you want to be reductive, but racism is what you engage in when you don't want to feel bad about classist issues. You can't have compassion for people in classes lower than yours if you completely exclude them from the caste system and treat them as an altogether different type of human, see. Or skip that altogether and just label them property.

 

Reducing "white privilege" to an issue of class just generalises the term to the point where a racist can hand-wave it without feeling guilty. You don't let racists go scot-free.

  • Like 1

My FMs: The King of Diamonds (2016)



| Visit my Mapbook thread sometimes! | Read my tutorial on Image-Based Lighting Workflows for TDM! |

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the context of the real world is that America displaced and enslaved african people, committed genocide against the native population and then put up a white picket fence in front of the crematorium where it piled all the corpses, so it wouldn't look so unseemly.

Metaphors aside, name a country more than a few hundred years old that hasn't committed atrocities against someone else? Humans of all skin colours are inherently tribal and have always been capable of great violence against out-groups.

 

While it's important to understand history and how we have been impacted by it, we don't hold children responsible for the actions of their parents, or their grandparents, or their great, great, great grandparents. I don't suspect you're suggesting otherwise, but I'm not sure how the historical context relates to what I've said earlier.

 

 

In this world's timeline those traits are inherently, socially beneficial - history's certainly proven it.

 

 

When you say "those traits", which ones are you referring to?

 

but racism is what you engage in when you don't want to feel bad about classist issues.

 

 

I think that class issues are far more significant than race issues. A lot of what gets blamed on skin colour often has more to do with class than anything else. Race provides a much quicker and more convenient way to divide into in-groups and out-groups, however, which is what people are prone to do.

 

You don't let racists go scot-free.

 

 

Is anyone advocating for that? I'm certainly not. I don't believe in judging people based on the physical categories they fit into.

 

Reducing "white privilege" to an issue of class just generalises the term to the point where a racist can hand-wave it without feeling guilty.

 

 

Are you saying the concept of "white privilege" is intended to make racists feel guilty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone advocating for that? I'm certainly not. I don't believe in judging people based on the physical categories they fit into.

The skin color alone is a stupid criterion.

But the beauty ("emotional perception of the projected image of ourselves") is not......so we say every day that beauty is not important but in fact it is the contrary :/

And beauty is intrinsically physical.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metaphors aside, name a country more than a few hundred years old that hasn't committed atrocities against someone else? Humans of all skin colours are inherently tribal and have always been capable of great violence against out-groups.

 

While it's important to understand history and how we have been impacted by it, we don't hold children responsible for the actions of their parents, or their grandparents, or their great, great, great grandparents. I don't suspect you're suggesting otherwise, but I'm not sure how the historical context relates to what I've said earlier.

 

I don't judge the sins of the father, except for when people proudly integrate them into their cultural identity. At that point, of course, it's no longer your ancestors' fault, it is yours.

 

 

When you say "those traits", which ones are you referring to?

 

White, male. Heterosexual to a lesser extent. We can argue what ethnicities "white" encompasses besides anglo-saxon, but I don't see that going anywhere.

 

Are you saying the concept of "white privilege" is intended to make racists feel guilty?

 

No, but if it ended up making them feel guilty, I'd say it's a nice side benefit.

 

 

I think that class issues are far more significant than race issues. A lot of what gets blamed on skin colour often has more to do with class than anything else. Race provides a much quicker and more convenient way to divide into in-groups and out-groups, however, which is what people are prone to do.

 

I agree completely. If we could shift racist discourse into classist one, it would be a lot easier to effect meaningful change to society. Unfortunately, you can't just disregard centuries of systemic, ingrained racism and as long as that remains in the public conciousness, it will continue to poison the well. Ween people off that first, maybe then we could address the class issues before the ice caps melt and we go extinct.

 

 

 

re: the video that was posted earlier in the thread, I watched it and I can't really say anything about it. It's just run of the mill fear mongering, there's nothing to even rebut. Also, "cuck" gets used unironically, which made me squee in glee, so thank you for that.


My FMs: The King of Diamonds (2016)



| Visit my Mapbook thread sometimes! | Read my tutorial on Image-Based Lighting Workflows for TDM! |

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered why racists don't get that their views lead only to biological determinism. There's no point in doing anything, you just have to be born into "superior" skin color. There's no sense in education, self-development, any progress of any kind. Similar thing with class, but with some wiggle room for being "promoted" or "degraded" to another tier. Still, people rarely go up the social ladder, a lot of depends on the status of the family they were born in.

Edited by Judith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered why racists don't get that their views lead only to biological determinism.

'cause they can't admit they are the problem and biological determinism (I believe in a soft version of it :P) shows them their existential failure and they can't cope with it 'cause they're mentally childish and they want to remain so!

I repeat, they're tipically "loner" / "socially awkward" / "divergent" people OR they've failed graduation (every kind of it).

 

Or they are literally children of a family of that kind of men/women.

Racists aren't interested in "truth" as they proclaim, they are interested in a childish version of social vengeance.

 

It's why they embrace an adapted (retrofitted?) version of marxism (see in Italy "Casapound" movement), it's functional to their stupid existential revenge.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to say both the left and the right have extreme fringes that are quite honestly as disgusting as each other, at least in the USA and Europe right now.

I don't like communists. I don't like Nazis.

I don't like anyone bigoted towards people based on genitalia or skin color (though I can understand a degree of cultural background).

I think it's sad I have to say all this in the current political climate.

 

I think it's saddest I have to recommend we start some kind of politics sub-forum.

Edited by V-Man339
  • Like 1

I like to record difficult stealth games, and right now you wonderful people are the only ones delivering on that front.

Click here for the crappy channel where that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If black people stay too long in the cold north or south over generations they will end up being white, they will adapt to the lesser sun radiation and lose their skin pigmentation, the same goes for white people who end up over many generation on the equator, they will end up going black. May take a thousand generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's saddest I have to recommend we start some kind of politics sub-forum.

Politics are most often "Off Topic" when it comes to TDM - so this sub forum should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The skin color alone is a stupid criterion.

But the beauty ("emotional perception of the projected image of ourselves") is not......so we say every day that beauty is not important but in fact it is the contrary :/

And beauty is intrinsically physical.

 

While it's true that physical beauty has a big impact on other people and is highly correlated with success in society (I'm still waiting for SJWs to attack people for "beauty privilege") we still don't (or at least shouldn't) judge someone's character based on their inherent physical attractiveness.

 

I agree completely. If we could shift racist discourse into classist one, it would be a lot easier to effect meaningful change to society.

 

 

Sounds like we're more or less in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for SJWs to attack people for "beauty privilege"

Beauty is not earnable so it's not a matter of "justice". Beauty is strictly related to "uniqueness" so you can't even reproduce it (without the creation of something maybe monstrous). You can't fake "beauty".

Still it's impossible to totally bypass it in a case of judgement.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beauty is not earnable so it's not a matter of "justice". Beauty is strictly related to "uniqueness" so you can't even reproduce it (without the creation of something maybe monstrous). You can't fake "beauty".

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with any of those statements.

 

1. Beauty may not be earnable, but that is equally true of skin colour or gender, and those are both prime targets of people looking for "privilege".

2. I don't think beauty has much to do with uniqueness. Guiness' Book of World Records is full of "unique" people, but they're rarely considered beautiful.

3. You can't fake beauty? Don't tell that to the plastic surgeon or make-up industries. The fact that it's possible to create computer generated characters that are considered beautiful also presents itself as a counter-point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] (I'm still waiting for SJWs to attack people for "beauty privilege") [...]

I am pretty sure, that that either already happens (i am not that much into "social media" storm watching) or will happen in the near future. I would expect the attacks to be disguised as attacks on sexism though - so look out for debates and name calling involving keywords like "barbie", "girlie", "slut" or whatever else may be associated with beauty-"defining" physical attributes makeup or "sexy" couture. I would expect the debate to start around the fashion model business and actresses. As the whole topic of beauty seems to be more associated with humans of female sex, the discussion will likely be about negative or positive discrimination of female actresses and models.

 

At least academically, the hard targets are not privilegues because of sex, gender, skin color... - but because of character itself.

An example: In the IT business world we already got some discussions about how to use the full potential of introvert coders. They have great skills but can't work in cubicles, hate the phone, are silent at meetings, don't like presentations and never ask for a pay raise. So they get ignored often. That wastes their potential and might make them feel... ignored. Don't know, whether traits like introversion are alterable - but they surely affect, how one is treated by the environment (it also affects, how one treats his environment though).

The ultimate queistion is, whether everyone really is free to choose his own character. If not, character would have to be treated like skin color too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure I agree with any of those statements.

 

1. Beauty may not be earnable, but that is equally true of skin colour or gender, and those are both prime targets of people looking for "privilege".

2. I don't think beauty has much to do with uniqueness. Guiness' Book of World Records is full of "unique" people, but they're rarely considered beautiful.

3. You can't fake beauty? Don't tell that to the plastic surgeon or make-up industries. The fact that it's possible to create computer generated characters that are considered beautiful also presents itself as a counter-point.

1) Because it's simpler to create an ad hoc discrimination with a SINGLE parameter like the skin color. Beauty is not simply parameterizable

2) Beauty triggers that uniqueness feeling and get a feedback from it

3) I'm talking about real humans (not desireable CG objects) AND the bad consequences of plastic surgeries (aging too) :P

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a thing or two about morals and politics, and I am right-wing/conservative and do not fear being open about this, so maybe I can provide you some insight into how things seem to work and how other people think and feel.

I am a homophobe, sexist, racist conservative who wants to "have" slaves. I explained myself in this post here:

http://forums.thedarkmod.com/topic/19070-mass-effect-andromeda-is-dead/?p=410982

 

To analyze politics and morals, I think we need to have a model of these, a fundamental basis of understanding of the simplest basics from where we can then work up in insight.

Otherwise, we would only tell each other what we feel and think, and we would not gain insight, only become aroused emotionally and confused cognitively.

 

Morals:

Those, of course, do not really exist. They are made up, are biological and social constructs, if there ever were some. They are opinions we have, or should have (as seen by others).

Scientifically analyzing morals quickly hits a barrier: They cannot be rationally explained, people have them just like that.

Therefore, they are called pre-rational.

 

 

Consider building an Artificial Intelligence, say, a robot. You can make it very smart, it has extremely high intelligence, and a vast knowledge.
So far, so good!
But the robot will not move, not do anything at all. Why?
He has no emotions: No pre-rational concepts.
This, for example, could be the pre-rational desire to stay in existence, to "stay alive". He cannot use reasoning to arrive at this desire; one can either have it, or not. Therefore, it's "pre-rational".
A robot with a powerful desire to keep alive would have a motivation, that is, to keep alive, and THEN, and only then, it can activate his cognitive machinery to try to meet this objective, and from that, show BEHAVIOR, that is, do anything.
The pre-rational concepts are the REASON something ACTS and why it WANTS something - the cognitive, conscious systems then are used to achieve this someting, trying to come up with a solution to HOW the object is to be achieved.
In humans, the pre-rational system determines that we want to have a sports car (the WHY); the rational, cognitive system then is activated afterwards to construct, build, or somehow get it (HOW).
Pre-rationally, we want to be warm and safe and eat and have sex - these desires come first, and have no reason other than that we are evolutionary hard-wired to have them, because in the past, those we had them out-reproduced those who lacked them: rationally, we THEN try to find ways to achieve these desires.

Pre-rational feelings and opinions are the basis of our perception.

We cannot change what we want, only do or not do it (because willpower/self-discipline is limited, usually we sooner or later end up doing what we want - openly or secretly).

Example: Food or sexual preference.

Trying to explain our moral basic opinions (which are actually feelings, instincts) we experience a phenomenon called "Moral Dumbfounding": We "know", that is feel, what "is" good and bad, good and evil, what we want other people to behave and be like, but we lack the ability to explain it directly -

First, we feel that something should be in a certain way, and only AFTERWARD we activate cognitive resources trying to find or produce reasons and arguments for our feelings of right and wrong, trying to rationalize them.

 

 

Example: Killing, or sex with babies. Most people feel immediately and strongly that this should be taboo. When asked why, only then they bring in cognitive resources to find reasons.

Obviously the feeling comes first and immediately; evolutionary selection lead to humans having this trait, which reproduced more successfully than humans who would have lacked it.

Sex with siblings or one's parents (as consenting adults) is another example:

Many people feel morally this should be taboo. They come up with reasons, for example prevention of inbreeding. Those who are pro sibling/parent-sex then argue that they could use contraceptives, so no offspring would ever be produced. Those who harbour the instinct/moral still feel this is a taboo and nobody should do it, but they cannot keep up reasons why, exactly. This is the Moral Dumbfounding in action.

 

 

Just like food, sexual or other kinds of preferences this shows what morals are: Genetically implemented instincts, which were evolutionary selected for, that is, proved to yield superior success in natural

and sexual selection for the trait-carrying individual.

 

Because they are evolutionary, genetically imprinted instincts, we can and do have many of them, and because they need not be rational (and can not be, because rational thought is much too difficult, complex - JUST WANTING to live or to have sex or to eat etc. is much simpler and more reliable than more complex, higher-order cognitive processes) - they can, and often are, conflicting, that is, drive organisms (like humans) to OPPOSED, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE OBJECTIVES AND DESIRES:

The paradoxical reality is that an organism can, at the same time, want and not want the same thing!

Behavioral science knows many examples for this paradox, one is some kind of bird that nests on the ground on an island where only a single type of predator exists, a red-haired, weasel-like mammal that eats its eggs.

The birds harbor two instincts, two "morals":

A ) Protect egg/sit on it ("Birds who do not tend lovingly to their eggs are bad birds, but we are good birds and therefore superior.")

B ) Attack anything that is red and near the nest. ("Wiggling red shapes are the spawn of Bird-Satan and need to be fought and exterminated mercilessly by all good Birds.")

In came human researchers, who, being more clever than the bird, wondered what would happen if they distracted the bird for a moment and secretly painted its egg in red color.

Result: For hours, until exhausted, the bird at the same time tried to both protect and attack the red egg, caught in a dilemma it could not solve (Maybe the Bird could use a politician?).

Simpler animals, it seems, lack the human higher-order cognitive processes that enable us to consciously regulate/weigh conflicting instincts/morals; but even humans have lots of trouble with this ability,

as crime, venereal diseases, the obesity epidemic etc., is evidence of.

Humans experience such paradoxical motivations routinely:

We want and do not want to eat delicious food at the same time: One subsystem, one evolved "brain-module" motivates us to eat (because tasty food is available and we should store energy in our body fat to improve future survival of possible famines); another subsystem wants to conserve energy (we are driven to do nothing or to procrastinate); another subsystem wants to conserve resources (saving food=money to have more of it in the future when there may be a greater need for it or something else it may be traded for); another subsystem wants to have us starved (it calculates that we need to successfully reproduce, so we need to be sexually attractive and keep off body fat).

Another human wants to rape and not rape a woman at the same time: One evolved brain-module drives him to rape her (reproduction chance is detected), other brain modules drive him not do it (one may drive towards a behavior that leads to get the woman's consent, because that would make having sex again later, and therefore successful reproduction, more probable; another module may warn of the social or legal consequences of rape).

Instincts/morals improve(d) individual survival and reproduction. They must be simple, basic rules/desires to work effectively. But complex reality cannot be very successfully navigated with simple rules alone, therefore a consciousness evolved, which could experience and reason to weigh and decide optimal behaviour (desiring eating and not eating as instinct both make sense and exist - to increase survival of famines, and to stay unobese/mobile and sexually attractive) by gaining insight to when to ignore certain subsets of instincts/morals (or even to invent adaptive behavior that has no previous foundations in any instinct/moral).

(Being able to act on one's rational insights, however, is another matter: We all know that figuring out the optimal behavior and having the willpower to execute it are two very different things - as obese or people with STDs are evidence of.)

 

 

Consider a contemporary example of evolution of morality:

Black, ugly, weak and low-IQ ghetto-dwelling men. They will probably never reproduce, because they have nothing what other, better men can offer to women.

Such a Negro can have two morals/instincts:

A ) Being risk-averse, accepting his situation, doing nothing.

B ) Seeking risk, perhaps by robbing a bank or liquor store, or by rape.

Result:

Black A will never reproduce, his peaceful, passive, content traits are removed from the gene pool (success rate = 0%)

Black B may be shot/imprisoned, or, be successful and have money, therefore being able for once to attract a female for reproduction (success rate higher than 0%).

Therefore, mostly or only type B Blacks will reproduce, and therefore only/mostly type B instincts/morality will be found in the following generations.

(This general evolutionary pressure on men to take risks, however, is of course not limited to Black men, but it is more easily observable in them, because they, on average, combine the typical male propensity for higher risk-taking (compared with women) with lower competence in judging risks well.)

 

 

 

Taken together, we see:

1) Morals are genetically imprinted instincts.

2) They were evolutionary selected for, that is, achieved a high degree of success in natural and sexual selection in the past, this being the reason humans have them in the first place.

3) They are arbitrary, they need not to make sense, they can be paradoxical, we can have opposing instincts/morals in the same brain/person even - let alone in the same society/different individuals.

4) They are, because directly felt, usually experienced as an "absolute truth" of the person who harbors them (and who lacks knowledge of evolutionary psychology, for example)

5) They are not evenly distributed in humans; some humans may have more or less of them, the same kind like others, or completely opposed instincts/morals.

6) Humans 1st experience them, only then afterward are they coming up with reasons + arguments cognitively why this specific set of morals is true/best/"good".

 

 

 

The only objectively true, supreme law - moral or otherwise, is this:

Only the one with the highest power (to cause pain and destruction/death) has the highest right, is the true sovereign.

Even our idea of God must submit under this law.

Law follows power. For if one lacks power to enforce one's idea of "law", moral or otherwise, of good and right, good and evil, one has just an plea, can only beg to others to hope to have it some real-world impact.

Anybody can make up "laws", based on his (genetically imprinted) feelings of what is right and wrong, even a child can do it. Therefore, having morals is nothing special or impressive;

to give it meaning to those who feel/think otherwise, a moral system must be proven to them - which is difficult or impossible (because morals are instinct-based and therefore genetic, and because of opposing interests in individuals, which will not be dissolved, only suppressed, by laws); however, the "proof", the demonstration of its superiority can also be in

the form of raw power: Do as the more powerful entity says, or get tortured or killed. This, by the way, is how our legal system works, actually: They say that one would be able to arrive at the pleasure of

being law-abiding by insight, but nonetheless law-breakers are tortured (I see imprisonment as torture) or killed as the primary motivator.

Here we touch politics, of course, because it is about the morals/interests of one person or group being enforced on all people as law, with threats of torture or death (again: all law flows from power or it is no law);

politics and power are most closely related.

 

 

 

And now we arrive at politics, which is the art and science of organizing public life in the reality of many different, often opposing, morals and interests people hold.

All people desire two things, need two things objectively:

Success in natural and sexual selection. That is, resources and mates.

And because resources and mates, especially high-quality mates, are scarce, demand being always higher than supply, there is conflict, and this conflict and its management is called politics.

 

 

Politics only becomes necessary in social animals who are individualists - like us humans, and also in, for example, wolves or chickens (their "politics" is just simpler, for example governing hierarchy, literally the "pecking order" in chicken - who gets to eat food first, who is allowed to mate) - in social animals that are collectivists (bees, ants) politics is not necessary, because of their genetic makeup there is practically no conflict for hierarchical position - instead such organisms are genetically "born into" a social role (worker, queen, soldier ant etc.).

 

 

In all primates, and of course humans, all this is primarily governed by Social Status [sS]( = hierarchy position, rank, "pecking order").

SS is what humans are effectively after:

A higher SS brings access to more resources and mates; conversely, too, more resources and (more or better) mates leads to higher SS.

So, in humans, SS is the true name of the social game, the social war (for resources and mates, for SS).

Politics is the battleground of individuals and groups that decides about who has higher or lower SS.

 

 

SS is no matter of mere vanity. Higher SS consistently is correlated with higher health span and life span. This, very counter-intuitively, has no solely economic reasons. In the past, it was thought that people of lower classes/SS were more diseased and died sooner because of economic deprivation (less good food, less healthcare, worse environment etc.). This idea made sense in the past, because indeed this causes poor outcomes. But it turned out that economic deprivation is a completely independent cause! Even after economic redistribution, that is, after access to good food, healthy environment and healthcare for everybody, the SS advantage in health- and lifespan persisted!

First doubts were had when studies on British rail workers were done; around 12000 of them were studied in a longitudinal (observe what happens over time) health study.

Rail workers in the 60s were poor - they did not eat as much as they would have liked. They had to work physically in the open (replacing rails and rail switches, walking for miles checking the rails every day and so on).

Medicine, on average, can prove statistically what is good for health:

1. Avoid being overweight.

2. Do not smoke and drink much alcohol.

3. Eat healthy food (vegetables and so on).

4. Exercise regularly.

Those rail workers should have enjoyed good health, because they had not much money (= -1- avoided obesity, -3- ate many (cheap) vegetables; -2- lacked money for much tobacco and alcohol; -4- through their work, got copious amounts of regular exercise in fresh air).

Now the paradox happened:

Some, a few hundreds, of those rail workers got promoted to foreman. They got higher wages, and they got a nice, warm foreman's office to sit in. This resulted in:

1A. They consumed more (tasty, energy-dense) food. They got fat.

2A. They consumed much more tobacco and drinks.

3A. Vegetables were largely removed from their diet, instead they ate more sweets and other tasty things.

4A. Instead of regular exercise, they sat all year in their offices, living a mostly sedentary lifestyle.

What happened to them? Medical theory would predict that they should be more diseased and live shorter lives than those who were not promoted.

The opposite happened: The foremen, strikingly, most significantly turned out to be much healthier (much lower frequency of cancers, heart attacks etc.), lived significantly longer, and enjoyed a significant slower cognitive decline with age, compared to the non-promoted rail workers!

The points 1,2,3,4 still held to be true - on average, over the whole population, as predictors of superior health and life span outcomes.

However, the effect of SS turned out to be a much more powerful as a predictor!

Scientists got interested in this SS phenomenon and thought about how to demonstrate/proof a direct relationship of SS for health outcomes, unrelated to economic class.

This would require a population to study which is economically equal, but still experiences SS-dynamics. Such populations/societies were found - in some local tribes in New Guinea, and in the South American Yanomami people: In their society, economic distribution for everybody is quite perfectly equal. Nobody enjoyed advantages (or suffered disadvantages) in access to food, material goods, personal care during illness or high age or living conditions - their existence could be called being somewhat like a "proto-communism".

But, as in any known human society, they had a strong system governing SS. Their SS depended on two factors:

Success in war (inter-tribal local warfare) and success in hunting. The advantages of those with high SS merely consisted in a higher-status position in the order of sitting in their communal house;

no economic benefit was connected with this. Those with this higher SS had the privilege of higher "face", as they called it, which meant that their publicly stated opinions during tribal meetings weighed more. And they enjoyed more sexual access - in a non-enforced way (they were simply more favored): Women wanted to just have more sex with such men, who then also fathered more offspring.

Here scientists studied the effects of SS.

Success in war and hunting fluctuated, and so did individual SS - some men gained SS, some men lost it (over months and years).

The scientists measured health variables (inflammation markers, C-reactive protein, blood pressure, incidence and duration of infections, cortisol level, white blood cell count, and more) over time in parallel to the SS.

It turned out that those who rose into high SS achieved improvements in health markers (and health, obviously), while those who suffered a decrease in or permanent low SS showed a prolonged stress response (higher cortisol level) and were more prone to disease.

This proved that SS as variable in humans is an independent, and one of the strongest, predictor of health and life span in humans.

Because we are ~98,5% genetically identical with other primates, especially chimps, there was follow-up research on chimp health and chimp SS, which essentially yielded the same results.

Later more and more evidence was produced, for example a longitudinal study in human bureaucrats/government officials: Life and health span was found to be an almost perfectly linear relationship to SS:

The gatekeeper was off worst, then clerks and higher-ranked clerks, then the deputy directors, and on top with the best health outcomes the directors.

 

SS is an independent, and fascinatingly powerful predictor of health- and life span.

High SS = high social power = low stress

(Stress exists in two forms: As an emergency response to threats - fights, accidents, challenges - hormones are released to down-regulate digestion, sexual function, certain higher-order brain processes,

detoxification (liver, kidneys) and immune function - none of this is needed by an organism in an emergency situation, but all available energy must be available for a fight-or-flight response. This is very beneficial for survival when the emergency situation is only of short duration. However, chronic stress is different: Here, the emergency (or the subjective interpretation of a situation to be so) is prolonged - and this is why chronic stress is so destructive to health- and life span - chronically elevated levels of stress hormones (cortisol, adrenalin, ...) down-regulate all the functions above for a long time - and this causes much more frequent diseases and earlier deaths.)

 

High SS in humans causes low stress, a relaxation response ("I am safe and powerful.")

Low SS in humans causes high stress, and an anxiety response ("I am not in control and subject to others, my existence is unsafe.")

 

This insight helps to explain some seemingly statistical exceptions, for example:

Winston Churchill: Heavy smoker, "no sports", legendary, almost unbelievably heavy drinker, obese. Lived to age 90 in good mental and physical health.

Helmut Schmidt (German chancellor): Heavy smoker for at least half a century until his death, on average 40 cigarettes per day, lived to age 96 in good mental and physical health.

Both enjoyed supreme levels of SS, both had very unhealthy habits, but both lived long and prospered.

 

 

 

In politics, an ubiquitous phenomenon is what we may call left and right.

The former typically want "change", or even revolution, the latter less so, or not at all.

There is a strong correlation of being left-wing and being young, and of being older and being right-wing/conservative - in all known human societies.

Consider a young man

(I exclude women mostly, because they tend to be less politically interested and active than men, and tend to just follow the examples of those men or groups who are in power.

Revolutionaries are almost exclusively male. It seems most women care only to get successful, that is, powerful and resourceful, high-SS men, and care much less over any details of the political system, at least when they have access to such men or see a chance for themselves. Such women also are largely unpolitical and conservative, at least in terms of adherence to the political system that supports their access to successful men - therefore we find a tendency for such women to be apolitical, while women who lack access to successful men - mostly older and uglier women - being more "revolutionary" minded, more politically active, seeking "change", that is, a means to increase their own SS by access to successful men.).

As a young man he wants two things: Resources and sex. That is, money and (attractive, young) women (high SS). This he must want in some form or another, because that is what is needed to succeed evolutionary; those who want other things are removed from evolution for lack of surviving, trait-carrying offspring.

Our young man sees that the positions of power, the money, and the SS, and therefore many women, all the things he wants - are already taken!

Mostly, a few older men hold all those good things. He now has two options:

Try to climb up in SS by hard work, being clever etc. This takes time, and he must prove to be better than many others who compete for the same. Some men try, some men succeed at this.

Or, he could just try to take what he wants - resources, women, power - SS - by force. By revolting, through revolution, he could "abolish the old system". If he is strong and/or finds allies, he may make it.

But the old guys in power were once young, too, and know exactly how such young men feel and think. They will take precautions to keep their SS - in tribal societies, or in industrial ones.

The angry low-SS young men are perhaps send to war. This was done in the past, and a lot of them died, removing them as political trouble sources, perhaps even furthering the interests, wealth and power of the older men in power by conquering new land, peoples, or markets.

In modern societies war is less of an option, so those young men must be neutralized by other means.

The angry, testosterone-fueled young men still want money+women+power, SS. This is what they truly want. They cannot say so openly, for they feel this would threaten their political legitimacy. So they find excuses and pretexts, perhaps even believing them themselves.

 

Nevertheless those are always crafted in such a way that the "unjust system" will be abolished, and a new political system be erected that will be so that they, the young men, will enjoy a higher SS.

 

The older, powerful, high SS men, the rulers of society, have set up incentives for those young men to spend and waste their energies in ultimately pointless and futile actions-

until they are older - because with age, testosterone levels, and with them the desire for aggression and dominance and sexual conquest, will diminish. There are no old revolutionaries.

 

It is interesting that revolutions are always a mere replacement of one upper class with another. The new upper class is composed of members of the old upper class, and the old middle class.

Never in human history any revolution was successful with moving lower or working class to upper class.

Upper and middle class only use lower and working class as tools- soldiers, protesters etc., by exploiting their hopes of achieving a higher SS, or a higher share in economic distribution.

 

What are social classes, anyway?

Ultimately, they are representations of cognitive class. There are a few exceptions here and there, but the general rule holds.

Cognitive class is a product of genetic class, that is, genetic quality.
Beauty, health, intelligence, willpower, ambition, discipline and all other personality traits are largely genetic, that is, largely heritable.

The higher the social class, the higher health and intelligence and conscientiousness, together the strongest predictors of life success.

 

What about those who say that superior intellect and stronger willpower and better health are the results of environment, that is, the rich have it better, therefore they develop better?

This is provably wrong, and many have proven it. Pinker has done it in "The Blank Slate", Clark has done it in "The Son Also Rises", for example.

 

Some say members of the upper class were once working or middle class, and this would prove that the upper class' genes and cognitive ability is not superior and that also individuals from lower classes can raise, as this has happened in the past. This is only partially true:

In the past, cognitive ability and willpower were no strong predictors for high SS. If you were a serf, being physically strong and having robust health was more important. Being smart provided limited advantages in natural and sexual selection, because there were so few available positions in nobility at all. But being able to work hard physically and to survive infections and famines was critical.

Industrial revolution changed that: Suddenly being smart and disciplined afforded huge advantages. It is therefore that in the transition from pre- into industrial societies a selection happened:

Those who were smarter rose in class, and most that were smart of the lower classes rose. But this was a one-time selection: This transition happened only once.

Afterwards, social mobility was much lower again.

 

Another factor proving the importance of genetic quality as basis for cognitive and therefore social class is that only some of the offspring of upper class people stay upper class;

a lot of their children fall down into lower classes, again. Genetic recombination and mutation is a process influenced by randomness: Some of the children of parents who are both cognitively and

mentally gifted and of good health are not like their parents: They suffer from lower IQs, become drug addicts, suffer from lower conscientiousness or bad health.

If the environmental theory of social class were true, practically all children growing up in upper class households should be smart and disciplined and successful, as they all enjoyed the superior environment. Clearly this is not the case.

 

But as is pointed out in Clark's book, especially after the transitional selection phase during industrialization, the vast majority of men that rise to significance have had ancestors that also have risen to significance.

In short:

Genetically gifted parents have both talented and untalented offspring (due to mutations and recombination), while non-gifted parents almost completely have non-gifted offspring only.

 

 

What drives human political behavior? Natural and sexual selection, access to resources and quality mates. Those are scarce, demand is greater than supply. Therefore, most people must have less resources and only get lower quality mates, some even no mates at all.

SS is key to both, but not an economic good - it cannot be equally distributed by economic growth, because it is a zero-sum game: One can only have the status others lose.

Even if some fairy would wave a magical wand to make all people perfectly equal in cognitive ability, willpower, beauty, health and wealth, human nature would immediately make people compete for a higher SS, trying to prove or at least try to demonstrate that they are better than others. Sexual selection dictates this, because women must have a means to find out which male has superior genes, and they can only learn about this reliably by having the men compete with each other for SS (resources and women, power).

Therefore, "equality" is impossible to achieve, and an utopian, delusional goal of some of the left wing.

But the powerful drive to increase one SS remains. It manifests himself in what Warren Buffett called the thing that truly makes the world go round: Not greed, but envy.

Humans are not very greedy. But because SS is so extremely important for their health and success in evolutionary selection (resources/sex) envy is perhaps the strongest human emotional motivator.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, exactly for that reason, envy is largely a taboo: Being envious would be evidence that one is discontent with one's SS, demonstrating that one is weaker/dumber etc. than one's competition. Not surprisingly, inducing envy is one of the strongest means to manipulate people:

To make people into marionettes, manipulate their desires and actions, it is merely necessary to show them that other people have better things and can do more than they themselves can.

This is fundamentally what advertising is about.

Just being seen having more or better things than one's peers is more than enough to strongly arouse humans. For example, if one neighbor is seen with a luxury car, soon enough some sort of competition for ever-more-expensive cars can be induced, with one neighbor trying to get to the same or even a slightly better level of car - soon the whole neighborhood is in debt and driving cars they cannot really afford.

This also works on the top end of society. Owning a luxury yacht is rewarding. The joy from it is however immediately lost on the owner as soon as a peer owns a bigger one.

"Yacht envy" is the driver of a whole industry of luxury yachts, that serve no other purpose than the social war for SS among some members of the upper class, with yachts having prices in the hundreds of

millions of dollars.

This is actually a useful thing - while it induces impotent envy in sub-upper class people, it redistributes large sums of money from some rich people into the pockets of workers and middle class - who build and design and operate those yachts. It's not exactly a revolutionary expropriation of the upper class, but it is close enough.

 

 

Conservatives are people who are content with the status quo. Their motto is: "Gustav Mahler — 'Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire." Or “Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”― G.K. Chesterton. They are content with their SS, therefore they have or perceive to have a rather high SS.

They know that the progress leftist progressives desire to progress to is nothing else than the desire to lower the SS of those who hold higher SS to increase the SS of those who have lower SS.

Conservatives and right-wingers share a lot of interests and feelings, because they both want to keep safe what they already have.

 

Right-wing people feel a strong desire for in-group favoritism - be it race, social class, or nationality. They experience a strong "us vs. them" in perceiving society.

They are typically much more competitive, militaristic even, and therefore favor strict hierarchies.

They seem to be more driven by fears, which they try to manage by being strong and organized, protective of their own possessions, SS and people.

The more radical right-wing they are, the more they accept violence and aggression to keep what they see as their own, and protect it, even if that means they need to use military action to remove what they see as external threats to themselves.

 

This is quite the exact opposite of those who feel left-wing desires - that is, have a strong out-group favoritism. They desire some form of universal equality of all humans, and they tend to ignore practicability, economic and military interests of others to achieve their ideal. They are driven by a lack of fears of others. They are trusting and noncompetitive, "Hippy"-like, dreaming more or less of a world of eternal peace free of conflict. They are socialists - specifically international socialists, because they see no point in equality if it is not absolutely universal. The more radical left-wing they are, the more they accept violence for bringing about perfect equality, even if that means revolution and murdering and expropriation of the rich.

It is noteworthy that of all political ideologies, only left-wing/socialism is inherently unstable and inefficient:

1. People compete for SS; even if perfect economic equality could be achieved, the drive for higher SS would still mean that leftist desire a kind of "eternal revolution", if need be by making up problems if

they cannot find real ones. They try to out-compete each other in being more "moral", more revolutionary, more "truly socialist", which brings useless social instability. For example, the left-wing Red Khmer killed thousands of people just for wearing glasses, as they argued such people would be intellectuals and therefore trying to be better than others and therefore betray the goal of perfect equality.

2.

People, like all organisms, cannot be truly altruistic. ("A cow that gives her milk freely to anyone who asks will kill her calf and then herself.")

The leftist creed "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." must fail.

There is a nice short story explaining this:

 

 

Does socialism work? A classroom experiment
-
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich; a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.
There are five morals to this story:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
I’ll make one final point. There are five morals to the story, but there are dozens of nations giving us real-world examples every day.
Sort of makes you wonder why some people still believe this nonsense?

Nazis are something completely different - and new. They are, at the same time, socialists and nationalists, "national socialists" (vs. "international socialists") as their name clearly announces, combining aspects of both right- and left-wing ideology.
This is a central element how Hitler won the elections that brought him to power: By combining the elective potential from both left- and right-wing parties, and most of the people who stand in-between.
He promised "everything to everybody": The right should keep their national pride, militarism and SS, patriotism, hierarchy and receive a "strong leader"; the left should get their expropriation of the "rich" (which were impersonated as just being Jews), and guaranteed work/abolishment of unemployment. So, every ideology could kind of "have their cake and eat it, too."
While this wins elections by promising a large majority of people what they desire, it cannot work in reality, just like socialism cannot work. At least not by having the resources of only one nation.
Therefore, aggressive expansion and exploitation is necessary, basically with the goal of enslaving other people who are not members of the "national socialists", the in-group - so the Nazis made up quickly some kind of ideology from scratch that "proved" that those who are not "Aryans" are subhumans, who can be readily enslaved to provide the resources for the "socialism" for the "nationals", that is, "Aryans", the in-group of national socialism, or Nazism. This is all a huge ball of nonsense, nothing else but a weird dictatorship.
But it had and has great political power, and therefore is a political threat, because it still has the potential to combine forces of the left and the right-wing, forming a potentially unbeatable alliance in elections or politics generally.
A second aspect why it is so powerful and dangerous is the concept of "Aryan" (or anything else that can fit the same purpose): By attributing a vastly higher SS to people just because they are members of a nation or "race" (or something else that sets them apart as superior) Nazism produces classes of superior and inferior people on the spot out of nothing: And this is dangerous because it can be exploited for gaining political power in almost any political system, because it can create strong loyalty to a cause (If called Nazism or something else) from those who are supposed to have a higher SS in the new political system: Not surprisingly many people like the message that they are superior over others, who should then be their slaves to make them rich and powerful, high SS, very much, and are very ready to support such a political system with sudden and strong loyalty. Potentially, a Nazism-like political phenomenon can come into existence dangerously quickly and powerfully - devaluing others to appreciate ourselves in SS is welcomed by a large part of the population quite about everywhere.
That being said, a lot of people these days have made "Nazi" or "Fascist" into a meaningless word without meaning other than "somebody I do not like".
quote-the-word-fascism-has-now-no-meanin
The Russian Revolution and most religions worked by the same principle:
Promising people with low SS a higher, potentially supreme SS. The Soviets promised low-SS people to remove the old caste of high SS, therefore rising the SS of everybody else.
Most people got to improve their SS through the revolution, so most people supported or at least passively tolerated it.
Christian religion promises superior SS in the afterlife for enduring low SS in the earthly existence. It basically promises people that by being docile slaves for a limited time (their life) they can
be high-SS in "eternity".
Regarding Trump - I think I feel I share the opinion of many of those who voted for him: I do not so much like the man, as I dislike the alternative.
Compared to Clinton or Sanders - I'd rather voted for a toaster than those.
Anyway, in terms of politics I think the saying holds true that the US has two right-wing parties that just have different names. In the end, nothing important will change anyway,
and results will largely be the same, irrespective of a D or R is president, because there is not really much "wiggle room" for fundamentally different politics, because global and economic and power-structure environment dictates the optimal course of action rather than ideology - nether Trump nor Clinton can do much about the Great Recession or the rise of China or the demography and related effects on economic growth, social security and all the other issues.
The climate change discussion is an intra-upper-class revolution, nothing about the climate. We cannot predict climate, and it is always changing anyway.
But the fossil fuel industry is economically sub-optimal - gas, coal and oil producers grow too rich and powerful, only Exxon alone is an incredible wealth creator - for too few people.
"Fighting climate change" essentially means fighting fossil fuels, that is, those who profit from it. Which are few, massively rich people. Other massively rich people envy them for this privilege,
and they want to take it from them, because if those profits are redistributed to the people, they will end up not by the fossil energy czars but the other billionaires like Jeff Bezos or in the coffers of Apple.
This is how it works:
Ending fossil fuels requires another energy source. This should be mostly "green" energy, solar, wind etc.
This means two things will happen:
1. Unemployment will fall because massively more people need to be employed to produce a quantity of energy from Green Energy than from just burning fossil fuel.
2. Energy cost will rise, effectively being paid by everybody, therefore paying for those many new jobs in Green Energy.
The net effect is just economic redistribution - the income is spread out more evenly. And this will make most top billionaires richer, minus the fossil czars who lose their huge profits, because more people
have jobs and income, therefore more people will consume mass products and redirect those profit streams from Exxon and friends to the likes of Apple or Amazon, because 1000 fossil-fuel billionaires will not buy another 10 million Iphones, but 10 million people more having jobs and good income will.
The anti-fossil-fuel fraction of the upper class should win this war, because billionaires and the like fight by influencing public opinion. By creating the idea of a great threat of climate collapse and supporting many leftist environmental groups with ideas and money the public is made to desire the idea to "fight climate change" so "we are not going to die due to climate change". That their electricity bills will rise to the level of Germany (30+ cents per KWh, world's highest, because that "Green Energy anti-climate-change program, aka economic redistribution of profits, is already partly in effect here), that means at least paying a five-times higher electricity energy bill compared to what the average US customer pays now (and on top of that paying higher prices for quite about any product and service, because electricity costs are part of about any product and service) is not exactly forced into the public attention, though.
>Being white is still life easy-mode on average though.
Our true rulers, the upper class, works by divide and conquer.
Divisions are produced and strengthened, between races, rich and poor, old and young, women and men, and others.
Paradoxically, by fueling these conflicts, social stability is increased. Few divisions could bring about a unification of the lower and middle classes against the upper class, threatening stability.
The more lower and middle class fractions and subfractions fight among each other the more they neutralize each other, producing much noise and no gain, wasting their energies.
How current economic ruling of the upper class works, why aspects of left-wing ideology is supported by the upper class, and why the current "refugee" mass immigration in Europe happens I explain here:

I’ll explain what the refugee phenomenon in Europe is really about:
Envy – and greed – by our European, especially German, upper classes, compared with what they see their US counterparts enjoy: A sizable low-IQ, mostly Negroid underclass.
Why?
Because, for the upper class, Negroes function as what I termed “profit pumps”, or “profit guarantees”:
The only class that really produces surplus is the middle class (MC) – skilled workers, above that doctors, engineers, small businessmen etc.
I repeat, for this is important: The middle class is the only class producing meaningful amounts of surplus wealth.
The upper class (UC)wants that money from them, naturally.
Problem:
Middle class is too smart to simply being tricked to give their work’s profits to the UC;
and this cannot be changed, because they MC must be kept rather smart, because the nature
of their work as a profit source needs to keep them smart.
How did the UC solve this problem?
MC has a weakness – they lack capital,they are not really, independently rich – they fear unemployment, illness and falling down the social ladder because of that.
Therefore, they agree to pay high taxes – for a social welfare system, because of their deep-seated
fear that they would need it one day themselves.
Their tax money, therefore, goes to the lower classes (LC) – White Trash and Negroes, in the USA.
But does their money END there? Not at all – LC people immediately spend it – specifically for stuff the MC would never spend it for (as they are too smart, saving, conscientious for that), like huge-margin/profit goods like branded sports shoes (Negroes actually kill each other for those and crave them – MC parents would scold their kids for buying things like shoes for 500$ that last few months before being worn/ugly and cost 3$ to make, the difference being profits for the UC owners of industry).
So how can the UC increase the money flow from the MC to themselves?
By growing the immediate-gratification, money-squandering LC, ideally Negroes (as those have lowest IQs and act like easily impressionalble - by advertising - kids even as adults).
Thanks to the welfare system, the more LC people live in a society, the more money is forced from the MC to flow to the UC (by proxy of LC).
This is also the reason the UC enforces “anti-racism” rules – as any questioning of importing more LC people the welfare tax-based system would immediately endanger UC’s vast profits from the work of the MC!
This is also the reason for the UC pushing "racism" ,“equality” and “social justice” and all those concepts – the higher MC is taxed for the welfare system, the more the LC consumes of the MC’s money, and the more profits flow to the UC.
Therefore, I think it appropriate to think of the welfare system not longer merely as just that –
it actually has been modified into a weapon to enslave the MC by the UC.
And this is what happens in Europe – the native population is too MC, too conscientious, they tend to save too much and squander not enough of their income and savings for consumer trash, therefore limiting UC’s profits. This is especially relevant in connection with the rise of China, as more and more wealth of Western societies flows out towards there because more and more products and services are made and based in China – moving profits and wealth also there; to limit the threat to themselves, Europeans UC’s now mass-import a future LC, their own versions of US Negroes so to speak, to enforce and secure future profit flows from the productive MC to the UC.
This would allow the European UC to keep their wealth, or even increase it, even in a future where average European wealth would decrease due to Chinese competition and an aging population.
Demography is a weapon, tool, profit and status foundation for ruling.

>There's thousands of shooting every year
All people want to be high SS and in control.
Right wing people derive a sense of personal power and control from owning guns, which they feel increases their SS somewhat.
Left wing people perceive a threat in any form of physical or martial competitiveness and power for themselves, for their SS - they desire others to be as weak as possible, therefore wanting to ban guns, and they feel that their own safety and SS would be somewhat higher if that of the gun owners would be lowered, therefore they desire that those loose personal power/SS by making them losing their guns.
In terms of people killed by guns in the US: The number is rather stable, around 30.000 per years.
Sound dramatic, but is not: Around 20.000 of those deaths are suicides, because having a gun is a reliable and efficient way to suicide (perhaps better than not having this option).
This leaves 10.000 cases of gun fatalities. The vast majority of those is intra-black and intra-hispanic ghetto/gang violence, therefore not being much of an issue for middle and upper class people in the US.
This leaves only a few "real" gun-related violent deaths among middle and upper class Americans, a rate comparable with the peaceful gun-owning nation of Switzerland.
This are the facts, as undistorted and unbiased as I can tell them. Interested parties - political ideologues, hysteria-benefiting mass media - profit from presenting a warped picture of reality, therefore do the very same.
Feminism works on different levels.
There is the fact that most feminists tend to be old and ugly females. They lack male attention and, especially male resources. That makes them envious and bitter.
They cannot reprogram male sexual instincts, and they cannot attack their core competitors, that is young, attractive females, because those are sacrosanct.
Therefore, feminism works primarily by trying to limit the male access to sexual release, for example by campaigning to ban prostitution, ban pornography, ban sexual contact with young women.
Knowing that men still need to have sexual release, they know that their own sexual SS, their desirability to men, and therefore their social power and access to resources, will increase through these bans, which they try to enforce on "moral" grounds.
It works with sex just with food: The hungrier you get, the more accepting you become of bland, unattractive food. The same works with men and sex.
Another level on feminism is the "labour force participation rate" - sounds weird, but is a central+common element of economic analysis.
Basically, young women are "genetic superstars" - as long as they are young and attractive, the great demand they arouse in men makes them socially powerful and having a very high SS.
Their life is perfect, they receive gifts and services basically for free. Through the power of their sex, they can command men and resources.
This almost suddenly ends when they hit a certain age, very roughly around 30. Suddenly they are not in demand, suddenly they lack income. Because life was so easy for them they did not much in terms of education and work. To somehow keep up their SS, they decide they must have kids - then they are "mothers", not lowly unemployed or low-income, unskilled workers. Then they can keep on living on the bill of men - directly, through husbands or ex-partner child support payments or social welfare - in every situation they do not or not much working in a job, and they have lower income, and therefore less to spend in the economy. More women in work would also compete with men for jobs, driving down wages and increasing work output for wages paid - good for the upper class' profits.
Therefore, feminism is supported by the upper class, because just telling women they need to work will not achieve this objective. Who would work if she does not really need to and get money anyway?
Feminism, upper-class-propaganda style, however, presents relentlessly other "strong, successful" women as role models who work and are "successful", inducing SS-envy in women. This drives a desire in women to work, too, and become successful in a career, therefore increasing "labour force participation rate" and with that economic output/growth - from the women who work instead of not working, and from the men who now must work even more and harder, to be attractive to women ("Hypergamy") and because of the added pressure on wages due to increased supply of workers.
Because women are still somewhat reluctant, recently even an "anti-male" propaganda is in place, by showing more and more strong characters of women in movies, advertising etc. that beat, dominate, win over men. I suspect this is to increase female self-confidence in their ability to compete with men at work, and to induce a defiance in men, who perceive this, too, and should react with another extra effort to be even more manly, hard-working and successful to prove their superiority over women, which is a central component of male identity.
(I cannot believe how much I wrote again already. Well, maybe somebody will find it interesting. It helped me to sort my thoughts better, and practice the bit of English proficiency I have, because in my life I have not much opportunity to do so, as I only hear and read English much, not speak or write it - after some years this lack of exercise degrades one's skill by non-use - as one of the Ancient Greek said "We are what we repeatedly do.")

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

"When outmatched... cheat."— Batman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a thesis? :D

  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone is using the TDM forum for proofreading his dissertation. at least the first quarter is well written despite some ugly preconception in the examples. Attention quota did not last for the remainder though. Also, social status seems to get a bit overrated. But it is insightfull nontheless. Try to shorten it and remove the "the black man generally is not able to assess risks properly" propaganda before presenting to the next non-academic audience (if it is not the KKK). Might as well link sources to increase credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, outlooker, after reading your points you put up, I come to the conclusion that you're right, you ARE a racist. Calling blacks subhuman ghetto dwelling morons? Hell, I'm white, and I believe you're wrong. Not only that, but if I could get away with it, i would use a steak knife to skin you alive, then saw off little bits of you at a time, start with your eyelids and fingertips, before sawing off whole limbs. I'd break your jaw and cut off YOUR subhuman, conservative cock and balls. I'd then rape you repeatedly while laughing about how you're going to die screaming, before dousing your skinless, wailing form in salt, then tossing you into a bonfire to burn alive. I'd pull you out before you're dead, though. I would then toss your half-alive carcass into a pit in the woods, and utilize that pit as a toilet, you would either starve and slowly die of infection, or have to subsist on my human waste like the ACTUAL SUBHUMAN MAGGOT you are. Because at the end of the day, it isn't race that decides whether someone who is human has lost the right to be treated as such. It is their treatment and feelings for their fellow man. And you are, by your own accounts, fitting all the criteria for someone I would do what I just wrote to. Well, as long as I could get away with it. I'm not going to ruin my life going to jail over a stupid cunt like you.

Edited by Kurshok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

:wub:


Come the time of peril, did the ground gape, and did the dead rest unquiet 'gainst us. Our bands of iron and hammers of stone prevailed not, and some did doubt the Builder's plan. But the seals held strong, and the few did triumph, and the doubters were lain into the foundations of the new sanctum. -- Collected letters of the Smith-in-Exile, Civitas Approved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoy your vacation, internet tough guy.


Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600K @ 3.4ghz stock clocks
8gb Kingston 1600mhz CL8 XMP RAM stock frequency
Sapphire Radeon HD7870 2GB FLeX GHz Edition @ stock @ 1920x1080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Feminism works on different levels.

 

Hideous feminist fetish domination hardcore for free: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpdqL_y-7TM&pbjreload=10

Edited by Anderson
  • Like 1

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say without condoning or condemning a congratulations to kurshok for being one of the few individuals to unironically be responded to with the navy seal copypasta out of sheer acknowledgement for level of discourse currently being held.

  • Like 2

I like to record difficult stealth games, and right now you wonderful people are the only ones delivering on that front.

Click here for the crappy channel where that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread title was prophetic.

  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...