# The eerie Aryan aesthetic of Ralph ‘Lauren’

Honestly, this side-by-side is all I need to rest my case, it’s like they cloned him.

Right click and save for full size.

Qualities: sporty tan, facial symmetry, blonde hair, blue eyes, high cheekbones, strong jaw in men and full mouths in women, physically fit and shown to be active, affluent upwardly mobile poses.

Lots of blond, improbably….

ironically, California’s whole sporty blonde with a tan aesthetic was originally Nazi.

It’s American as Sauerkraut.

Note the deep tan. People think they wanted Nordic white-white but nope, they wanted golden tans, to accentuate the hair and eyes.

The facial proportions are distinct of the Nazi aesthetic for blood ‘superiority’, this was even in my school’s PC as hell textbooks.

This information is hardly hard to find.

You’d think a Jewish brand would promote anything BUT that…. logically.

Unless it’s been trading on white aesthetics (cultural appropriation) from the start.

I’m not saying it’s intentional. It’s sure as shit recognizable.
Especially white on women as the Roman code for purity.

The same hairstyle and colour.

The SJWs never touch this. Why?

I cannot be the only one seeing this. It’s actually creepy.

Same poses and everything.

Even mirroring.

It looks like the same guy. Sorry, is anyone else seeing this?

Pure white again, the only thing missing is the pigtails!

Again, it’s the SAME face.

Right???

It’s like you put Nazi propaganda into a photo AI and this was spat out.

You can even shop any white Lauren model into a Nazi uniform and it fits.

Source: Pinterest, obviously.

Why has nobody ever taken them to task on this?

I’d swear it’s the same guy.

Look in high-res, it’s more obvious.

it’s the same fucking face, C’MON, it’s like someone copy and pasted their homework

The haircut, colour and literally styling is the same.

I can do this all day. It’s like some advanced AI shit. I feel like I’m watching High Castle.

The hair slick may have been borrowed, that’s all I’m saying.

Again, all day. Statistically, what are the ODDS of this?

The hair swoop is even in the same fucking direction. That’s commitment.

How do they have the same faces? This is almost literally impossible.

Literally HOW.

It isn’t that all white men look the same, I wish you all looked like models.

And how do you explain the fact it works with the women too?

All those blonde women are different women. Look at the hairlines.

Posted without comment at this point.

The anti-fa hipsters knowingly sport Aryan hair too. Aryan hair, don’t care?

So it’s okay when THEY do it?

Clown world, truly.

https://thebolditalic.com/quiz-hitler-youth-or-hipster-with-an-undercut-78abfd96ac9e

Honk honk.

Looks like a Ralph Lauren ad.

http://machohairstyles.com/best-hitler-youth-haircut/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/11/30/does-this-haircut-make-me-look-like-a-nazi/

https://9gag.com/gag/aA1eKDE/one-of-the-most-popular-hairstyle-comes-from-mandatory-hairstyle-used-by-the-waffen-ss-hitlerjugend

To the guys acting like skirts above the knee are degenerate:

imagine thinking a buzz cut is LESS Nazi

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/thank-you-macklemore

Was this an excuse to stare at male models? Maybe. You can’t prove that.

The damn tilt is the same. EVEN THE TILT.

# Video: Cultural before Marxist

The snatch THEN the bait.

Making uprooting cool (hippies, Boomer gen) and by the time the tree is shaking in the wind (now) it just needs a little push….

And the origin of this premise? Das Frankfurt Schule.

Down with Western civ requires a multi-level pruning of influence, e.g. most famously anti-white gender war on both sides deter replacement birth rate.

the newfags will get it eventually, once their sperm turns autistic

They view us as a group, whether you bully half of it or not. They won’t go easier on you.

This also applies to pushing all forms of foreign culture as ‘superior’ (xenophilia, Boomers started it). Foodies and food trends (wtf) cannot push African culture on white men (Exc. music and ebonics) but they can push Asian due to a lowered guard (little dick stereotype they endure, while stealing your job) so Japanese was in then Chinese then Thai, anything non-white = good. This is sensory reprogramming of your brain. However many insects and how much MSG, it was pushed as superior because anything to boost white male colon cancer rates ist gut. This applies also to sexual behaviours (behavioural contagion and supernormal vectors) as well as clothing (“street fashion” permitting non-white societal/street/pavement dominance, no trend naturally lasts THIS long – decades- but making criminals look visibly obvious by comparison would prematurely end the game of pretending it’s about assimilation). If white men all wore top hats tomorrow, how would a hoodie rob you without being seen? They’d stick out like the outsider they are. There’s no urban stealth value if the honest signaller stops playing. The dishonest cannot imitate high-cost honesty e.g. exposed face, a white value. Much is discussed of androgynous fashion, but reject multicultural fashion too, it permits those who hate you to hide as One of you. Application is the distinction, nodding means nothing. If white people only went to white food restaurants, how many immigrants would go out of business, and go home? It isn’t just about the Netflix subscription, their system is local by design. You are responsible for your consumption choices, as a behaviour. Do you watch anti-white youtubers (this includes bashing white women, tarred with one irrational brush as ‘American’ and mysteriously leaving out the super-majority of women on the planet) and do you have the xenophilic ‘preference’ for ‘exotic’ food? That is a vote, with your feet. That is paying for your replacement.

Change your palette, stop with the politically correct ‘palette’ in home decor, ‘art’, music, clothing, ALL consumption. THAT is how you kill the Hydra, starvation. SHUN the degenerating forces.

They be CULTURAL.

We used to mock aristocrats for demanding foreign food, especially made by foreign chefs/slaves. How prissy, how effeminate! Now who’s the joke? Is curry really ‘British’? We haz the recipes, stop it already. If most of the culture you pay for is foreign, you are voting for the death of your patriotic traditions.

Don’t get me started on Boomer nomad ‘international’ hero James Bond and the slutty alkie death of the patriotic gentleman archetype.

I expect the manosphere to rip this off in a few years.

Patrick Bateman had a bland Ikea apartment before it was in Fight Club, and it only worked because as an American, there is no national identity anyway. There is no patriotic historical style. There is no unified aesthetic of all states. There is no hierarchy because there have never been ‘betters’ to imitate, no ‘upper crust’, no court system. There is no building with ancient-tier materials, the whole style is disposable. This is why trends emerge from America, trying too hard. Consider the cringe phrase ‘bachelor pad’. Groovy, baby.

You’re not WASPs and despite the public cope efforts of fug people like Jackie Kennedy, you never will be. Enjoy the pearls, famed from Scotland. Worn by the English monarchs to show dominance before and after we genocided some of their tribes. But an American taught the Chinks to forge them… Enjoy.

It’s like the PC boutonniere boys on Youtube wearing Brit hunting gear as a ‘suit’, as if it’s a business suit. That’s like turning up to a funeral only in bright red swimming trunks. WTF America. Another is wearing military-style clothing while slagging off the nation’s army and opposing the draft*. WTF. Clothes have meanings.

*Greece still has a mandatory military service, like Croatia and other white places, so you don’t get to call them cucks if you’re a pussy. Note – their men still look like it.
Americans are renowned in England for being such huge wimps they play rugby with child safe style padding and armour and changed the name (‘American’ football). I played rugger age 12 at school and none of the girls needed padding. Even disabled kids had a tendency to shun it.

Minimalism from the 1930s was invented by and pushed internationally by artsy Jews ‘fleeing’ Frankfurt and 1920s brothel Berlin. How many trends last almost a century, organically? Wake up. Ralph Lauren’s jumpers are Jewish like he is. The fake hollow WASP aesthetic was their entryism. The psychological punishment of solitary confinement is living in the same bland Ikea box some of you pay for!

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

They know their own, in all cases of adoption, suspect pedo.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/26/republicans-erupt-over-digs-left-amy-coney-barrett/

now Democratic activists are raising alarm about U.S. District Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support adoption of non-genetic children, it’s legalised child-snatching. The Bible says go forth and multiply if you want more kids. The CHINOs are an embarrassment.

Adoption of non-kin children is Satanic. It destroys the child’s legal right to their own heritage, culture and family. Celebrities could sponsor the child at home with the extended family but it’s all about pride. Looking at the child outcomes, like IQ and personality and such are even inherited from the real genetic parents. If you’re not blood, you are not their parent. Stop virtue signalling, children aren’t objects to be passed around like Pokemon cards to whoever has the most money.

The proportion of adopted kindergartners being raised by a mother of a different race or ethnic group rose by 50% between 1999 and 2011. The proportion of adoptees with Asian backgrounds nearly tripled over the same time period. Paradoxically, the fraction of adopted students who are African-American seems to have fallen. What has not changed is that a large majority of adoptive parents are white, older, well-educated, and relatively affluent.

I don’t think abuse of kids is justified if they’re another race, either. We must hold Christians to the correct standards. The Biblical one of if you want kids, make them.

It’s imperialistic. They treat the kid like a handbag, it’s sick.

How dare they call this Christian?

Their parents are generally well-educated and affluent. They receive more time and educational resources from those parents than the average child gets from theirs. Yet they get into more conflicts with their classmates at school, display relative little interest and enthusiasm about learning tasks, and register only middling academic performance. About whom are we talking? Adopted children. This is the paradox of adoption in America.

This is the first study of adopted children’s school behavior that is based on independent teacher reports and makes use of a representative national sample of students from adoptive families.

Yet my analysis shows that adoptees do not do as well in school as one would expect from their highly advantaged home environments. The results call into question the widely held assumption that larger investments of money and time in children can overcome the effects of early stress and deprivation and genetic risk factors.

DUH.

And the model minority thing is also propaganda, look at adolescent drinking/drug use/sexual promiscuity studies. There is no model minority, it’s just propaganda by the Boomers shaming the non-white kid into behaving. As you can see, when they’re not rigging the data by self-report, it doesn’t actually work.

Jayman used to blog about the non-existent parenting effect, even when they’re biologically yours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/

At best they claim 2-5 IQ point different with within-race adoption white to white, which isn’t significant. It’s never the upper number.

Our analysis showed that, among the biological parents, each additional unit on the parental education scale was associated with 2.7 IQ points in the child, whereas among the adoptive parents, each additional unit of education was associated with 1.7 IQ points.

Can we stop coddling their ego please? I don’t care about adult feefees and ego over any child.

The residual difference between the IQs of the two groups of children was reduced from 4.4 to 3.4 when the difference between the biological and rearing parents’ education was included in the model.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/

Shared environment accounts for 0% of life outcome.

The high early shared environment influence shows that in youth, environmental factors can make a difference. These influences diminish and disappear with time, dashing hopes of lasting parental influence. Some voices – including preeminent behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin himself – often try to claim that the increasing heritability of IQ and other behavioral traits can be boiled down to “gene-environment correlations” (rGE). The idea being that people seek out environments to suit their genetic proclivities (which they do), and the influence of that environment leads to the final trait. This is a nice rosy idea, because it appears to leave the door open to environmental manipulation, if we could intervene in the “proper” ways. However, it is fantasy. We clearly saw in my earlier post that the “gene-environment co-variance” was often negative! One’s environment seemed to be “making” one the opposite of what one would expect. Our experiences don’t shape our political attitudes like we think they do. So is the case with IQ.

Indeed, a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies attempted to test this idea. It sought to determine whether the increasing heritability of IQ could be explained by on-going environmental influence or genetic “amplification”; that is, the compounding of genetic effects over time. This is likely because the effect of each additional gene becomes more and more relevant as children grow up. Indeed, amplification is what they found:

Proponents of the efficacy of nurture – especially parenting – often repeat a few erroneous arguments. Here I will address them. One of them is the idea that parenting, while ineffective for most, may make a difference for individuals with certain temperaments. For example, perhaps the low IQ/shiftless/delinquent/criminal or otherwise poorly dispositioned might benefit from more authoritative parenting, say. It’s a nice idea to think about, but it doesn’t happen. This is essentially “Stolen Generations” wisdom. As we’ve seen in my earlier post, a massive review of twin and adoption studies found no significant shared environment effect on criminality in adults (well, modeling found a shared environment contribution of 0.09, which can generally regard to be non-significant given the enormous measurement error expected). Even an effect that operated on some children but not others would contribute to the overall average shared environment, which was negligible.

Edit, 6/5/14: [I wanted to expand on the above mentioned review of criminality (by Rhee & Waldman, R&W), particularly the appearance of a small but nonzero (though non-significant) shared environment finding. As we saw, the age the subjects are assessed seems to make a difference. As well, as discussed in my analysis on adolescent psychopathology below, the particular measure used – such who is doing the ratings – affect the values found. For example, self-ratings or ratings by parents tend to attenuate the heritability estimate, and both appear to inflate the shared environment estimate, at least in youth. The Rhee & Waldman meta-analysis is no exception. Here are the ADCE (A, or a2 = additive genetic variance; D, or d2 = non-additive genetic variance; C, or c2 = shared environment; E, or e2 = remaining variance) components as computed based on information given by different raters:

 Rating method a2 d2 c2 e2 Total no. of pairs in category Self-report 0.39 – 0.06 0.55 13,329 Other report (usually parents) 0.53 – 0.22 0.25 6,851 Criminal records 0.33 0.42 – 0.25 34,122

The total, or broad-sense heritability, H, is the sum of the additive (the narrow-sense heritability) and the non-additive genetic components. As we can see, when actual criminal records (a semi-objective metric) are used, as we’ve seen, the heritability shoots up to the usual range, at 0.75, and the shared environment estimate vanishes. The criminal record analysis also captures the largest number of subjects, bolstering its reliability. Parent reports, as seen below, inflate the shared environment measure. The self-report gives a negligible shared environment estimate, but reports a lower heritability estimate – which is not surprising, given that we can expect self-reported criminal behavior to be poorly reliable. It is unfortunate that R&W don’t separate out parents from peers and other non-relative raters in “other report.” Additionally, the adoption studies found a negligible shared environment impact of 0.05 between adoptive parents and adoptees. It is also too bad that R&W don’t cross tabulate the results by rating and age. But, as discussed below, adolescent shared environment effects maybe an artifact of unreliable raters anyway.

(For the record, the countries spanned by the studies in the meta-analysis include the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Denmark, and Sweden.)

The bottom line, it’s clear that when it comes to anti-social behavior, the 75-0-25 rule holds perfectly firm. Parents and parenting do nothing to create upstanding citizens, and heredity is considerably important. ***End Edit***]

But the eugenicists were wrong about everything, ignore the historic era of prosperity exactly one generation after their American sterilizations in the 20s… which they predicted.

Indeed, also supporting this is another massive meta-analysis of behavioral genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology (personality disorders). These captures various types of child misbehavior and dysfunction, including convenient diagnoses such as “oppositional-defiant disorder.” A look and the breakdown of their results is far more interesting than their main reported results. Typically, shared environment effects are seen in children (<18 years old). The main study reported this, but fortunately, they decomposed the type of measurements used. In addition to self-report and parental report, they also had teacher report, peer reports, and clinical diagnoses. The self and parental reports showed lower heritabilities (0.3-0.5) and significant (though small) shared environment components. However, when teacher or peer reports were used, they found much higher heritabilities, in the 0.65-0.8 range. As well, the shared environment impact vanished. Using clinical diagnosis also produced a zero shared environment impact. Considering the sheer size of this review, it’s clear that parental behavior dosen’t contribute to this malaise, even at these ages.

Adoptive parents can lie? Why do that?

[ego]

The problem of somewhat unreliable measurements (noise), especially coming from self-report, was illustrated in my earlier posts. Averaged peer ratings serve to adjust for this problem to an extent both by providing more proper social context by which to make accurate comparative ratings and by cancelling out fluke readings. Indeed, one behavioral genetic study, which attempted to investigate the idea of a “general factor of personality” (GFP), akin to g for cognitive ability, found that when using the combined scores of self and peer ratings, the heritabilities of the Big Five personality traits shot through the roof, with the additive heritable component being:

• Extraversion:           0.86
• Openness:              0.92
• Neuroticism:            0.59
• Agreeableness:       0.85
• Conscientiousness: 0.81

This demonstrates that more accurate measurements consistently push up the heritability estimate (even pushing them towards 100%), giving us the basis of the 75-0-25 or something rule.

As for the sixth dimension of personality, “honesty-humility”, the H component of the six factor HEXACO, evidence of its high heritability is also established, as we saw previously. Indeed, a recent post by Peter Frost (Evo and Proud: Compliance with moral norms: a partly heritable trait?) discussed a twin study from Sweden that looked at various forms of dishonesty, such as fraudulently claiming sick benefits or evading taxes. And sure enough, these particular behaviors showed considerable heritability. There is a desperate need for cross cultural behavioral genetic analyses. Many dimensions of personality systems like the HEXACO (as imperfect as they are) are likely to systematically vary from culture to culture.

The usefulness of behavioral genetics – indeed, the single most powerful and solid area of all social science – is highly evident. But behavioral genetic methods can be used to address several long-standing questions. Here we see it’s clear that parents don’t leave much of an impact on our behavioral traits. But what about people who aren’t parents? Here I will look at two sets of important people, spouses and peers.

It is no secret that spouses correlate on behavioral traits. This, assortative mating, is a powerful force, as we’ve seen previously. There are two aspects where spouses are highly correlated – the things you don’t talk about in a bar: politics and religion. Some have assumed that a good bit of this is because spouses grow more similar with time. But is this the case?

This is where the “extended twin” design comes in handy. One large study (N > 20,000) in particular looked at precisely that. By including twins, their spouses, and parents, etc, they were able to directly measure assortative mating. What did they find? Spouses were correlated for several traits. But the traits they were most correlated in were political orientation and religiosity. Social “homogamy” (having the same background as your spouse) couldn’t explain this, as the correlation between MZ twins and their co-twin’s spouse were consistently higher than that of DZ twins, and so on. As well, spouses weren’t influencing each other, as the correlation between spouses was not affected by length of the marriage (even when only couples married <2 years were examined).

The neocons marrying lefties are kidding themselves.

And leagues clearly exist, assortative mating is genetic.

The study was also able to lay to rest another persistent myth. We’ve heard that we choose spouses like our opposite sex parent (like our mothers for men and like our fathers for women). Anyone who’s remotely genetically informed should be able to see that this could just be due to choosing mates like ourselves. And so is the case. As the authors put it:

there was no evidence for the sexual imprinting hypothesis. Twins’ partners were not significantly more similar in any trait to the twin’s opposite-sex parent than to the twin’s same-sex parent or a DZ co-twin of either sex, nor was there even a trend in this direction

These results were also consistent with the Peter Hatemi et al extended twin study on political attitudes featured previously.

The similarity between spouses has nothing to do with mutual influence, but assortment. At least this bit is common sense. I suspect few long married individuals will believe that they changed their spouse.

On that note, a key theory put forward by the woman who first elucidated the non effect of parents, Judith Rich Harris, was that the unique environment “influence” might be boiled down to peer influence. Staffan did a nice recap of Harris’s theory (see The Nurture Enigma – How Does the Environment Influence Human Nature? | Staffan’s Personality Blog). We all have heard of peer pressure. And indeed, peers seem to be an important force when it comes to language and behaviors like smoking initiation. But do peers really have this great influence, as Harris posits? Well, as I posted over at the Lion of the Blogosphere:

Most research into peer effects is confounded by the same thing that standard parenting studies are: inability to control for the effect of heredity.

And:

A behavioral genetic study (on the Add Health data) that looked specifically at GPA and found that 72% of the similarity between U.S. high school students and their peers could be explained by genetic factors. In other words, school performance and the apparent peer “influence” is really just kids choosing to associate with kids of similar intelligence and motivation:

A behavior genetic analysis of the tendency for youth to associate according to GPA

Peers seem like a fine avenue to get excited about, because it seemed like a vehicle through which parents could assert some influence. But, when you really consider it, peers can’t really be all that important in the long run, because if there were systematic effects of peers on adult outcomes, it’d turn up in the shared environment, which it doesn’t. One could posit that the effect of peers is completely random, but if that were true (aside from the major violation of Occam’s Razor that presents), why worry about it?

The “75-0-25 or something” rule is robust and reliable. This instructs that should we find some major deviation from this, it can be taken to be a sign something is seriously amiss. We saw that with male homosexuality (see Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs). Now I will discuss two curious exceptions to this pattern.

One rather astonishing example was the heritability of social trust.behavioral genetic study out of the Netherlands found that the heritability of trust in others, as measured by:

The trust-in-others and trust-in-self scales were designed to include three items that were central in existing scales … thereby capturing items with positive valence (“I completely trust most other people”) and negative valence (“When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people”), both of which explicitly used the word “trust”, and an item that captured the broad behavioral implication of the trust: the intention to accept vulnerability, as explicated in one of the most widely-accepted definitions of trust … (“I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people”)

…found no significant heritable influence on these. The extent that people trusted, at least as captured by these measures, was virtually entirely a function of the unique environment.

homogeneous environment > high trust

not hard

This was a puzzling result. The clear pattern of the high heritability of all behavioral traits was established, as I’ve discussed. So how could a propensity to trust not also be influenced by genetic factors? One explanation touted around was that trust is contingent on experience; if we found people trustworthy, we would trust. If we didn’t, we would not. While that might sound convincing, the trouble is that the same could be said for many other behavioral traits. Is general trust less socially contingent than say bigoted feelings against some groups, like homophobia (which is at least 54% heritable)? That seems rather unreasonable.

One key question: how do they assess “trust”? Just how good was their measurement? Measurements in social science need to meet three basic criteria: they need to be reliable (that is multiple testing instances of the same individual should give roughly the same results), they need to be “valid” (that is, be predictive of some real-world outcome), and they should be heritable. This trust measure clearly fails on the third criterion. However, the study authors claim the test-retest correlation was good, so it is reliable. But what about the second? Does this trust measure actually predict anything?

To find out, I looked at a study that sought to answer that very question. This study, done in Germany, looked in detail at the reliability and the validity of their measurement of trust, a measurement very similar to the Dutch study. The noted a key point, one HBD Chick will appreciate. That is, trust is multi-faceted. There is trust in institutions, which is distinct from trust in known others, which is distinct from trust in strangers (I’d imagine HBD Chick would break it down one more, and separate “known others” into family and non-family). But more importantly, to question of validity, they assessed this by the correlation between trust in strangers and trusting behavior in the “dictator game.” They found a correlation, but only with trust in strangers.

But their correlation was very small (Spearman’s $\rho$ = 0.17) – and this is with a game which itself has questionable relation to trust behavior in the real world. I suspect that their instrument is not predictive of any trusting behavior in the real world. It’s worth mentioning another (fairly small) study of the heritability of trust from Australia found a non-insignificant heritability, though a smallish one (0.14-0.31).

The situation with trust is unclear. But this brings me to another example of a feature for which the heritability estimate appears to be trivial. That is the female G-spot. A study on about 1,800 female twins from Britain found that the heritability of the reported presence of a G-spot wasn’t significant. The result was virtually entirely unshared environment. Debate has raged on as to whether or not the female G spot exists at all, but that is to be expected, since research into human sexual behavior is among the most difficult to conduct properly. But, the result from this study indicating that the G spot isn’t heritable is puzzling. If the G spot was a real anatomical feature, and one that wasn’t universal, then one would expect a rather significant heritable impact. The finding that it’s not heritable points to one of two conclusions. One, perhaps the G-spot is in fact universal, but only some women have “discovered” it. That seems rather implausible, given the rather significant variation in heritable morphological features of sex organs in women. The second possibility is that the G-spot in fact doesn’t exist at all, and women who claim to have one are mistaken. That seems more likely, but I wouldn’t want to completely dismiss the claims of women who state they have such a feature. The mystery remains.

The findings of behavioral genetics, particularly the highly significant impact of heredity and the absence of shared environment effects, in addition to the complete failure to find reliable environmental sources that contribute to the “unique environment” component of the variance, calls into question virtually every pet environmental theory that has been put forward. It guides one to be suspicious of most “environmental” explanations of behavior. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that these environmental influences don’t exist. I am not saying that if they do exist, we won’t be able to ever find them. I am also not saying that development doesn’t require a complex interplay between genes and environment. Try going without food, water, air, or speaking to another person if you don’t believe me. I am also not saying that the secular changes in human traits that are brought about by gross environmental changes don’t happen. The increase in average height over the past century disproves that. But what I am saying is that you should be doubtful of most pet theories of how the environment influences us, especially those that promise we can control, or sometimes even predict it. For as we see, that’s far from an easy task.

# It isn’t racist if they do it

The West is so cucked… sorry, I mean fucked.

I guarantee if we mocked his eyes or his vocal fry we’d get arrested.

Most perplexing:

1. Acting like all white people look alike. 2. confusing us with the Germans. Like nah, most white people weren’t Nazis or you wouldn’t be here. At all.

It’s interesting to see the weebs become actively anti-white (cough Black Pigeon Speaks* cough) and consider us all trash for merely existing in native white countries (cough cuck cough) meanwhile their ‘always polite Asian friends’ are openly discussing shit like this, like we’re all debauched** scum.

They’re not Based, they’re socialists with social graces.

Interestingly, that audience was polite laughing at the lowest volume (i.e. vocally upset), and as lower middle class (they polite laugh, nobody else) I know for a fact they’ve been to Butlins at least once for the excuse to drink, it used to be quite posh in the 50s/60s, so a foreigner criticizing it is horribly offensive because it’s now where the poorest of poor and disabled people go. Laughing at someone for having no money for new teeth, how brave. How classy.

The security guards should’ve just left him there. The whole bit is “poor white people exist, LOL, middle-class white people, right? All you do is eat cheese and inherit.”

Is this comedy? I’ve noticed even the white anti-wife (anti-natal) comedy is slowly being phased out for Chinks. I guess they had it coming.

**I’ve yet to see a Butlins where they whored out their underage children to international pedophiles and called it culture but sure. You’re so cultured in your ‘academic’ shit brown turtleneck. Asian gammas are the worst.

*makes the same Terrible White People, I feel sorry for you post-waifu regret cope video five hundred times in a row. Weebs get offended when the West carries on without them.

# Trust the elites on vaccines

They’re just better than you, untermensch.

Results
There is a highly significant positive association between the percentage of people in a country who voted for populist parties and who believe that vaccines are not important (R = 0.7923, P = 0.007) and effective (R = 0.7222, P = 0.0035). The percentage of people who think vaccines are unsafe just misses being significant at the 5% level (R = 0.5027, P = 0.0669).

Vaccine hesitancy and political populism are driven by similar dynamics: a profound distrust in elites and experts. It is necessary for public health scholars and actors to work to build trust with parents that are reluctant to vaccinate their children, but there are limits to this strategy. The more general popular distrust of elites and experts which informs vaccine hesitancy will be difficult to resolve unless its underlying causes—the political disenfranchisement and economic marginalisation of large parts of the Western European population—are also addressed.

Yes, they called themselves ‘elites’.

How about a belief in human error and We Were Just Following Orders medical evil?

Those pesky conservatives, questioning unnecessary medical interventions with fatal side effects!!

Plumbers are responsible for saving more lives than doctors.

# Reject the self-abnegating Marxism of mindful/mindless ‘meditation’

So-called meditation is a religious practice, a form of prayer. It is communication with spiritual entities beyond one’s body. It has no place in schools. Schools want to impose it because it forms a kind of repression in the developing brain, it is cliche Victorian emotional repression (the stiff upper lip). I happen to think the state and agents of the state should have no ‘right’ to call a citizen’s emotions invalid or wrong. Children are not hysterics to be corrected into quiet submission. These mindful or mindless devotionals are used to control children, by adults, a great evil. The meditation as they would practise it is pagan in origin and cannot be made secular. One’s Higher Self is godly, the Creator. It is the thing we rejoin once we die. Clearly, this is horrendously inappropriate to ‘teach’ children in a school setting, under the guise of keeping them quiet (stiff upper lip) and teaching ‘focus’. All prayer teaches focus by repetition of words or concepts with the express purpose of drowning out personal emotion. Schools should not be emptying the minds of the students. It is a toxic concept, and you can point to all the scientism studies you like and it won’t change the fact children should not be lectured on their very thought process and censored therein, by the State! This is how docile populaces are made, and the brain changes are permanent. We call this clipping of their wings brain damage, if we’re being more accurate. There is nothing inherently wrong with their natural, evolving brain development! Being a healthy, developing child is not a sin and should not be condemned with appropriated, shallow religious practices.

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Emotional_development

Piaget said kids cannot understand the abstract before the teens, the brain is too immature. THAT’s why they want to get at the kids before then!

https://www.verywellmind.com/formal-operational-stage-of-cognitive-development-2795459

Piaget believed that what he referred to as “hypothetical-deductive reasoning” was essential at this stage of intellectual development. At this point, teens become capable of thinking about abstract and hypothetical ideas.

Capable! Prior to this, critical rejection is impossible.

But religious material is taught as RE, prior to this…..

The State cannot preach contentment and faith in devotional practices like a church. It is curious that such a ‘process’ does not work without faith and this failure would present in older children more often, so the schools push the prayer earlier. In the same way children are not physically capable of performing all the same activities, it is a violation of human rights to foist any censorship onto their emotional mind. The right to feel is human and sacrosanct, legally. Blotting out ‘undesirable’ emotions by the state agents, like anger, is cruel and unusual punishment. Not to mention, impossible. The military doesn’t go so far as to call possibly righteous emotions like anger ‘wrong’. A negative emotion is not innately ‘bad’ or wrong. If the teachers have failed to earn the respect (and obedience) of the students, however many drugs are pushed into that population, then perhaps the fault is with the adults and not the children? If we look at the league tables and life outcomes, a child’s disrespect of their teachers (and ‘misbehaviour’, aka questioning authority) is entirely valid.

“brain training” – it’s brainwashing

It’s creepy to watch those kids do qi or psi practices (those hand gestures) and think this is scientific.

Pushing Buddhism, they literally have a guy right there.

“their brains are being reshaped” – by the State
They’re encouraging ego death in white kids. See the fleeting reference to privilege, later? It forces a kind of depersonalization and derealization. Let me guess, this only ‘needs’ to be done on white kids in white schools?

If it were scientific, it’d work 100% of the time. This is based on faith.
When you drink water, you’re hydrated. There’s cause. With this, the ‘stress’ placebo only works if you believe it will. Slow breathing will literally do the same thing, but they want an empty mind.

Marcus Aurelius taught about ‘controlling the mind’ too but he was white and didn’t promote ego death for Cultural Marxism, so you won’t hear about it.

“delusions such as anger or attachment”
ATTACHMENT.
Like to your family, country, attachment!

“ignorance, jealousy, so when the mind is out of control”
They’re gaslighting children as hysterics.

Lobotomies have such a bad rep.

“They can’t control what they say or what they do”
I think they can they’re human beings, this is dehumanisation.
Worshipping Buddha, a man, is idolatry. It isn’t actually a religion, there is no God.

“everything we do relates to our intention”
actually the West judges by character and behaviour
I’m sure there are some really nice, lonely pedophiles, they’re still evil.

“be mindful of the correct things”
WHAT correct things?
oh DO tell us!

(he does not)

“everyone needs to meditate” – some weeb larper

“clarity and peace within our mind” – you mean around authorities like school?
We had those things in the West for millennia.

“overcome anger completely”
need I point out how evil that is?
making them like sitting ducks
emotion has evolutionary purpose, Darwin wrote a whole BOOK on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expression_of_the_Emotions_in_Man_and_Animals
Cultural Marxism pushes formless identity and state-censored emotion.

Prof Charlton’s Thought Prison went into this.

http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk/

Why don’t you convert to political correctness?

Since you can’t do anything about political correctness, why not just make the best of it?

Do what is expedient – why not?

*

Why not make a successful career out of PC – like so many others?

Why not surrender your private mind to PC, in the same way as you have already surrendered your public behaviour?

By having any reservations at all, you are making yourself miserable – why not simply cast-aside those reservations?

Just say an inner yes to what you will, anyway, be forced to do…

*

Since you necessarily inhabit the thought prison that is political correctness – then why not, at least, become one of the ‘trustys’ among the inmates – to assist with the smooth running of the gaol, and get yourself a few privileges.

Why not, indeed, strive to become one of the guards? Somebody has to do the job? Maybe you could temper the severity of the regime?

And herein lies the particular temptation for the intellectual elite – a temptation few resist.

That (literally) soul-destroying pragmatism by which (for eminently sensible reasons) we quietly, by gradual degrees, change sides in the spiritual battle of the world: that unseen warfare between The Good and that which opposes The Good.

*

Well why not?

There is no earthly reason why not.

In a world of pervasive and powerful PC, there is really only one compelling reason for holding back and resisting in any way, shape or form – which is that embracing political correctness will shrink your soul.

*

If you do not believe in the soul, this reason will carry no force at all: so by your own calculations you are stupid to resist PC.

the reprobate mind

Or, if you believe the soul is inviolable, and that nothing you think or do can affect the soul: then also, by your own calculations, you are stupid to resist PC.

If you do not believe in Natural Law (innate knowledge of The Good), and that breaking Natural Law harms the soul: then logically you should learn to love PC.

*

If you do not believe in the reality of transcendental good – then you might as well go with the flow, allow yourself to be re-programmed: to learn, by regular practice, to re-label lies as truth, ugliness as beauty, evil as virtue; until PC has entered into your heart and soul, as well as pouring into your ears and out-from your mouth.

*

But political correctness is nihilism; therefore it is not merely political: it is also existential.

To fight against political correctness is therefore ultimately an existential act: a battle to preserve the eternal soul.

*

But if you do not believe that political correctness will harm your eternal soul: then you would be well-advised to suck it up.

Why not?…

BBC scum:

“as a scientist, categorically”
no?

Mengele was a scientist, wouldn’t trust him with kids. Scientists are not a superior race, free of motive and emotionality.

The nose in the air is creepy.

It’s a placebo action, there is no actual control because the kids know when they’re doing it.

Controlled breathing would be a control. But they won’t do that- no effect!

“the stories that we tell about ourselves, about other people, aren’t necessarily true”
paging Scientology
How is this the business of the State?
How is self-image and identity their concern?

and “about other people” – such AS?
“so we can enquire into that”
violation of human rights, right to privacy
this is experimentation violating the Nuremberg Code
Can the State psychoanalyze you? Where is the consent?

“a healthy skepticism about our thought process”
well calling it healthy makes it healthy
pass the deep-fried Mars bar
this is science

can I be skeptical of your skepticism?

if it’s real, why can’t I question it?

If you guessed I was the one replying, you’d be right. Also measurement error.

the ‘get em young’ thing is a huge red flag

they go from showing teens, discussing teens to…
“8 and 9 year-olds”

and the Buddhist guy wants to be left alone around them, in a hypnotic state.

# I fucking knew it.

Every. Single. Time.

Biases are only okay if brown people have them about white people, you see.

Now, a newly published study by researchers Adam Lueke and Brian Gibson of Central Michigan University suggests another way to impact implicit assumptionsmindfulness.

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/24/1948550614559651.abstract

In their study, 72 white college students were measured on their levels of implicit bias of blacks and the elderly using the IAT.

Was it a KKK convention? How else to only include white kids? What are the odds?

Another anti-white methodology, ignore the coincidence.

Some participants then listened to a 10-minute mindfulness meditation in which they were instructed to “become aware of bodily sensations (heartbeat and breath) and fully accept these sensations and any thoughts without restriction, resistance, or judgment”;

That’s one way pedos groom kids. So it’s beyond just steady breathing, you see. It’s self-hypnosis.

They don’t assign it as homework because then they couldn’t implant various notions while the kid is suggestible.

other participants listened to a recording about natural history, voiced by the same narrator.

Why not steady breathing? That isn’t a real control.

Afterwards, the two groups of students were evaluated on their levels of mindfulness and then reassessed on their levels of implicit bias using the IAT.

IAT is BS.

Results showed that people who listened to the 10-minute mindfulness recording demonstrated less implicit bias against blacks and old people on the race and age IATs than individuals who listened to the other 10-minute recording. In other words, the mindfulness intervention decreased students’ automatic biases against blacks and older adults.

The mind is numb, they’d be less likely to associate rabbits with carrots, too! It retards the thought process.

Why no politically neutral controls? Dogs > bones? Cats > burgers?

For example, mindfulness training has been shown to help overeaters decrease the automatic attractiveness of fatty foods, allowing them to resist eating those foods when the foods are presented to them.

It literally over-rides survival, yeah.

This is like the hen-chalk thing with people, it suppresses nervous function (fear appraisal). A fox could walk right in front of them and they wouldn’t move. Non-response is not good.

They’re doing this to your kids.

One interesting consideration is that in the present study the mindfulness training was very brief and non-specific—in other words, the authors did not specifically try to train the participants in bias-reduction.

Retardation, same thing. Stop noticing studies.

With no warning of the true purpose, the subject cannot resist – just like that chicken.

This leads the authors to suggest that brief mindfulness training may be a good substitute for—or may augment—more traditional anti-bias training.

Brainwashing!

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_mindfulness_can_defeat_racial_bias

Even if we try to act adopt a colorblind view in the world, it doesn’t work because our brains don’t actually work that way.

They know what they’re doing.

In my own work, I identify, develop and examine the efficacy of a set of practices that intentionally link inner and outer work to raise awareness about race and racial experience in our lives, with a focus on personal, interpersonal, and systemic or structural levels.

The resulting “ColorInsight Practices ” combine mindfulness-based practices with teaching and learning about race and color to increase awareness of how race and color impact us all, and give rise to insight and greater understanding. They pave the way to new experiences that help us loosen our attachments to narratives and other forms of suffering that give rise to biases along the way…..

Attachments are GOOD, a human RIGHT.

The Nazis wanted to end suffering, if we’re going in that direction.

A Conversation on Mindfulness, Bias and Racial Justice

When Mindfulness and Racism Intersect

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3862075/
Discrimination hurts, but mindfulness may help: Trait mindfulness moderates the relationship between perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms
Discriminatory experiences are not only momentarily distressing, but can also increase risk for lasting physical and psychological problems. Specifically, significantly higher rates of depression and depressive symptoms are reported among people who are frequently the target of prejudice. Given the gravity of this problem, this research focuses on an individual difference, trait mindfulness, as a protective factor in the association between discrimination and depressive symptoms. In a community sample of 605 individuals, trait mindfulness dampens the relationship between perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms. Additionally, mindfulness provides benefits above and beyond those of positive emotions. Trait mindfulness may thus operate as a protective individual difference for targets of discrimination.

Discrimination is critical thought, it’s vital for cognition.

Brief Mindfulness Meditation Reduces Discrimination.
Recent research has demonstrated that mindfulness meditation reduces implicit race and age bias by weakening the associations of the target group with negative constructs. The current research examined the potential for mindfulness to also affect discriminatory behavior. Participants listened to either a 10-min mindfulness audio or a control audio before playing a game in which they interacted with partners of different races in a simulation and decided how much they trusted them with their money. Results indicated that the mindfulness condition exhibited significantly less discrimination in the Trust Game than did either of the 2 control conditions. The implications and importance of mindfulness meditation in alleviating bias are discussed.

As thought control, it’s more effective than regular placebo!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151110171600.htm

Because it’s more involved placebo.

https://www.quora.com/Does-meditation-really-help-or-is-just-a-placebo?share=1

Transcendental meditation, mindfulness, and longevity: an experimental study with the elderly.

Abstract

Can direct change in state of consciousness through specific mental techniques extend human life and reverse age-related declines? To address this question, 73 residents of 8 homes for the elderly (mean age = 81 years) were randomly assigned among no treatment and 3 treatments highly similar in external structure and expectations: the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program, mindfulness training (MF) in active distinction making, or a relaxation (low mindfulness) program. A planned comparison indicated that the “restful alert” TM group improved most, followed by MF, in contrast to relaxation and no-treatment groups, on paired associate learning; 2 measures of cognitive flexibility; mental health; systolic blood pressure; and ratings of behavioral flexibility, aging, and treatment efficacy. The MF group improved most, followed by TM, on perceived control and word fluency. After 3 years, survival rate was 100% for TM and 87.5% for MF in contrast to lower rates for other groups.

Notice that this is one of only a handful of meditation studies that carefully tries to control for expectation — the placebo effect — so it is a more robust study-design than most people are used to seeing and the findings should therefore be that much more reliable.

I cannot find a straight placebo study.

Almost like they’re the same, at differing intensity.

Why not do a study with a control that just counts their breath to 100 again and again?

When we walk slower in parks, our breathing unconsciously adjusts down to our walking pace, it isn’t woo woo magical thinking bullshit.

In a pre-industrial West, we had no problem relaxing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_societies

Why would the Marxists push this now?

decrease ‘stress’, an evolved response to dangerous conditions?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208490

# An association between multiculturalism and psychological distress

Amidst increasing focus on rising rates of substance abuse and suicide among white Americans and extending prior research on intergroup attitudes and health, this study examines a novel factor associated with psychological distress: disagreement with multiculturalism. Using the Portraits of American Life Study (N = 2,292), logistic regressions indicate that for Whites and Hispanics, increased likelihood of psychological distress (depression, hopelessness and worthlessness) is associated with stronger disagreement with multiculturalism, measured as “If we want to create a society where people get along, we must recognize that each ethnic group has the right to maintain its own unique traditions.” For Blacks, however, attitudes toward multiculturalism are not associated with psychological distress. Future research might determine if these results can be replicated, and if so, identify the causal mechanism(s) at work

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/menticide

the systematic effort to undermine and destroy a person’s values and beliefs, as by the use of prolonged interrogation, drugs, torture, etc., and to induce radically different ideas.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/menticide

Medical definition of menticide: a systematic and intentional undermining of a person’s conscious mind : brainwashing.

systemic – check

intentional – check

undermining – check

of the MIND – check

It’s thought police censorship, a violation of human development.

Really it should be mentacide but that’s just English.*

That’s what my books say. I guess either works.

The concept of “menticide” indicates an organized system of judicial perversion and psychological intervention, in which a powerful tyrant transfers his own thoughts and words into the minds and mouths of the victims he plans to destroy or to use for his own propaganda. Modern psychiatry may deliver him several tools for this perversion. Our psychiatric standpoint toward this challenge has to be formulated. Examples of menticide are described and ways of protection indicated.

Reference Meerlo 1956 The rape of the mind

# Tumblr proves to be mostly cancer once again

I have PROOF.

They look ridiculous. And most of this has nothing to do with academia.

They’ve watched every Youtube video saying how to ‘look expensive’ and it’s pure cringe. Like, rich people can afford to put down the Oreos. Rich people don’t eat their feelings.

Yes, the bow makes you feminine and you’ll definitely get a rich white husband…..

I love the way the turtleneck makes the manjaw really POP and the piggy looking nose from that angle, adorable.

Was all on that tag.

When non-whites try to dress in a white supremacist sort of way, it looks ridiculous.

They’re trying to deconstruct the aesthetic to rewrite the history associated with it (see their BS below).

^From the good part of tumblr.

It’s like Halloween costumes for some Tim Burton shit.

He’s standing near books, therefore r smart.

The thots and the fatties are using it, this is an optics issue whether y’all like it or no.

Imagine being that thirsty you stand in front of the ocean with your Third World starving Ethiopian aesthetic.

You are never going to look like this.

Compare. Never ever.

It’s like competing with a god. You can’t win.

There is an appeal unique to our flesh that cannot be stolen.

First they stole our TVs, now they steal aesthetics.

Ho no.

Next they’re doing WE WUZ KEATS

“I would just like to say that I am a (decently) large dark academia blog and am also a woman of colour, the idea that dark academia is created for/by white people (particularly white men) is absolutely hilarious to me. I know for a fact that my ancestors wrote some of the best poetry, music, made some of the most groundbreaking discoveries, which were later copied by European men who received all the praise.

We are academia and anyone who says otherwise can kiss my pretentious ass, don’t let these little moodboards fool you.” – theparistimes

Look at the WAP song, now back to me. The WAP song, now back to me. Your ‘culture’ is pure whore.

https://www.metrolyrics.com/wap-lyrics-cardi-b.html

It’s a culture of STDs and baby momma crotchfruit.

Shit group IQ, shitty artistic production. Sucks to be you, wap-wap.

POC is still really funny because in optics (the academic study) black is NOT a colour, but a shade.
White people are the coloured ones, with the widest phenotype too. (Biology is also a study, like Darwin).

It’s like the hipster glasses “I’m such a nerd” thing plus cheap 80s romantic goth.
Please make it stop. It’s the new rawr. Proof enclosed:

You might say this ‘doesn’t matter’ but aesthetic is ours, that’s our culture swirling down the toilet of crap appropriation.

Should take the manosphere and alt whatever about five years to catch up to my sentiments again.

# If I did Operation Evil

IF I did….

This job, this acceleration, calls for mid-00s Paris Hilton energy (drip).

Imagine the MSM’s confusion if all right-wingers started sporting this and chanting it when white ‘liberals’ spout their opinions. We can produce our own thought-terminating cliches or we’ll never defeat theirs.

There is literally no way for them to counter this.

Read Thought Prison for how their signals escalate anyway. Pip them to the post.

# The new kangz narrative

https://www.instagram.com/kyesone/?hl=en

This is how important optics are.
They steal the aesthetic, it dilutes it.

I’ve seen a lot of that gatekeeping re feminine hobbies like sewing, like that born Jewess now witch “Bernadette” Banner. In the Victorian era, she’d have been living in the slums. Or on the street for being quite an obvious lesbian. But muh white women capes, right? Weird her interest in (white) history never discusses her own family, right? They don’t buy followers at all, their traction is utterly organic….

They want everyone else to take the culture, but we can’t ‘borrow’ theirs.

It isn’t ‘fantasy’ (that’s our medieval history) nor is it a costume for your LARPing.

SJW entryism into white culture – just say no.

Embrace culture, reject Marxism.

Don’t let them get the good rags.

The ‘dark academia’ thing (they stole) is non-whites dressing like self-respecting white people to steal our jobs. It’s literal white supremacy, sartorially. But – it’s okay when they do it.

My rural grandparents dressed “properly”, everybody did. White people are least likely to dress like thots and manwhores. The Jewess thing about ‘looking expensive’ must be ridiculed, please. It’s like the fags of datalounge creaming over looking WASPy while citing plain Catholics like frog-face Jackie. This bitch thinks tweed is fancy academia garb when it’s actually rural ‘bumpkin’ in England, it’s how gardeners dress!

Y’all dress like the help!

Tweed had a rep for smelling like piss, how fancy!

It’s the “please think I’m intellectual” thot. Minus nerd glasses. They pretend they’re superior to gold digger skin-showing thots. Can we make this like new fedora guy? But for sad SJW women?

They’re aged Harry Potter cosplayers who moved on from school uniforms and the manosphere needs to start a shaming effort of such a womanchild. HP isn’t even original, it ripped off the Worst Witch.

It reminds me of the tryhard goths who try to scare little kids in graveyards but you know they get offended by pronouns.

If you’re dressing modestly, people read you as Christian. We really need to drill that home.

It’s like thots wearing crosses, they must be stopped.

Bullshit Wiccans wore Celtic stuff long before the Maori bullshit they deride, when the Celtic swirl is actually a swastika.