Haidt: Thinking you’re right, everyone else is wrong

There’s a signalling competition with the fake right, where if you don’t endorse disproven/baseless, stupid ideas A B and C, you must be a faker and immediately abused, disowned and cast out to die. It’s classic projection. Every now and then, there’s someone shocked I can hold a subtle, more consistent opinion containing more than one controversial piece of information connected by logic e.g. Asians have interesting IQ data but they aren’t superior intellectually because to run any major society you can’t be corrupt or Yellow Fever is just as bad as White Fever or cultural appropriation is a good concept and applies mostly to White cultural products like language, technology and art or Europeans aren’t automatically moral especially the useless majorities in places like Southern and Eastern Europe, whose best days are centuries/millennia ago. Sorry for having standards.

God forbid someone actually think, right?

Let’s stick to echo chamber stereotypes and never step out of the imaginary pigeonhole your enemies drew. Smart career move, definitely won’t backfire.

Haidt needs to be more famous, he should be up there with Peterson but he doesn’t really pander to the angry internet men blaming Teh Matriarchy, (because The Man is too mainstream) let alone suck up with trite but poor analogies intended to make the listener nod, agree and never understand anything more complex than baking a potato.

Comic: Everyone’s unwarranted opinions

Tbf, super-rare Sharia-compliant meme.

Youtube conspiracy truthers.

The meme about the manosphere and Gamergate that somehow fails to mention the bad t-shirt, poor posture, premature baldness and speech impediment.

The truth about human connection.

The fact about moderates and centrists and any fucker claiming to be independent.

The one about the other timeline.

The one about blogs.

The one about state schools and academia, generally.

The one about people with White Fever who literally can’t see us.

SJW on expertise, entitlement to opinions and bullying


There is a chasm of difference between a subjective opinion;

I like chocolate ice cream

and a claim to/of (objective) fact;

Chocolate ice cream is better.

Verbally abusing people for disagreeing with you is wrong.
Name-calling is included in this. Ad hominem all the way up to Godwin’s Law is an automatic loss. If you have to call your opponent “a bigot who’s worse than Hitler”, then you lose the argument. That isn’t an argument. That’s an opinion, and defamation, and you’ve broken the rules of engagement in polite society (where debate occurs, not a slanging match on campus).

I actually commented on this because this vindictive little cunt is going around forcing her company on people, so much so the frail and elderly back away in fear, and someone needed to tell her the truth, here it is;


They’re actually trying 3 prongs.

  1. Coward’s method: “I’m entitled/I have a right to my opinion” to force a conversation (they’re meant to be consensual) to begin or end. When what they state is NOT an opinion, but a CLAIM. Response: We have a right to tell you it’s stupid and to Go to Hell.
  2. Appeal to their own authority: I’m an expert because I did XYZ. Addressed in comment, expertise is PROVEN. I’ve seen these people disagree with basic logic, no, you don’t know better than maths.
  3. Appeal to other authority: as if science all says the same thing when these people refuse to take seriously any data that proves them wrong (most of it). These are the I Fucking Love Science retards, when we all know they took liberal arts because they can’t pass Calc 1. Consensus proves precisely FA. We used to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth by consensus and in the very-real study of horoscopes and the expertise of astrologers, if you want a better parallel to climatologists who support AGW.

Keep that K shift going, they’re holding on by their toenails.
Spiteful little tarts verbally abusing old men in public for activism should be treated exactly the same at their Slut Walks. A fascist is someone who hates all dissenting opinions so much they try to ban, otherwise censor, or abuse (physically OR verbally) those who dare to disagree with their precious selves.

Video: My love of the Victorian Age

I’m going back through MW videos because I saw a TRS interview and did a doubletake. He’s been on a posting binge and I missed a lot, he’s doing a HUGE Rotherham series which should be epic. Like, 100 videos. Hope not Hate will lose their minds.

I had been meaning to cover this topic, Victorian romanticism I suppose, with my own 2 shiny copper pennies but life intervened. I know it appears somewhat random when I reference the time period with more warmth than this one and sadly I am not a time traveler. I do believe an explanation is required of me and a few of you have asked me about it.

Now is good. General content warning, semi-coherent rant incoming:–

incredible shit bridget jones

red dwarf looking searching investigation I am not drunk enough for this.

It could easily seem naive and nostalgic to contemplate the romance of a previous era and attribute to it higher virtues than one’s own time period. In any other time period, where there were some virtues, I could agree with this. If you want a really explicit take on the premise with a SFF twist, watch Midnight in Paris. It’s highly quotable.

It’s so pretentious and knowingly so that it rolls back around full circle into being sincere. ANY-WAY.

When you ask a person certain questions, it clues you into their values system and their learned status.
It’s kinda like asking someone who they’d want to have dinner with or who they think they were in a past life. Our notions of glamour betray a private sense of luxury above the common cloth. There are many myths about the Victorians and I can assure you I fall for none of them. I’m so well-read I have to hide my power level (or I get responses like “omg why did you read about cotton mills wtf”) It is a simple matter of comparison and concluding that, on the whole, those were the best of times. The quality of writing and the many nascent scientific fields seal the deal for me. It was the start of something special, the potential West. I’m overjoyed how many books from the time are available for free on PG. 
I don’t refer to the Ripper fetishists. I don’t refer to the poverty pornographers salivating over the privations of the working poor. Intriguing as those may be. I refer to a golden mindset we have lost. It built an Empire and forged new trading routes and without getting too detailed, most of our “modern” belief sets are implicitly founded in this time period.
You could think of the Industrial Revolution as the time man awoke to his mechanical potential or K-shifted or grew its C temperament (biohistory). To this day, nobody is 100% sure how it happened.
What I find curious is the bookend to it as well. You have the r-selection of whorish 18th century women for the first time, the demure Regency then this boom in education and quality of life thanks to outsourcing to really simple, rugged robotics. Both sexes worked together and girls were given a chance to prove themselves and everyone benefited. This is how a First World Society should work. Certain attitudes were crucial to keeping everyone in line away from the opium before the decadence of the latter period kicked in with Wilde (pre-dated by wildcard Byron’s limited effect on upper class totty). On the other side, the death of the Empire with Vicky, Georgian/Edwardian drama as the digital age gains ground with normal people and two World Wars in quick succession won by innovative fluke and suddenly we have computers, flying literally everywhere and we’re up to approximately… now. It’s amazing. This is all magic.

I know how simple that sounded. Give me a time machine and I’d show them these things. The celebrity of the tabloids, the technics of the Great Exhibition and a patriotic fire which led them to stamp their signature on everything.

There is no proper means to distill this topic without losing something essential. I can’t do it justice. Just read around from the time and you’ll begin to feel it. They have a wonderful sense of imagination, you can see this with science fiction. Their hopes for the future are radical, and the best part is, that it is matched by their tireless work ethic. Scotland, for example, had a steady stream of innovators compared to the present, where they appear to be lackadaisical lushes on the Statist teat. Their curiosity was insatiable, I really respect it.

Quick fire round to provide an overview.

They had new forms of transportation – we have slightly tweaked iphone designs.
They had children who respected their parents and worked hard – need I, really?
They prized virtue and believed good people existed – now nobody is good and nobody can judge anything and vice is pushed for advertising money.
They had classics coming out on a regular basis, books people still read – we have pulp fictions which are entirely time-imprisoned. In 5 years, they’ll be cheap and dated and they follow the same tired scripts.
They had a concentration of geniuses which made it a Renaissance of science, with the Enlightenment values of the Scientific Method. We think feelings trump facts and there’s such a thing as subjective reality. Really? OK. Quit believing in gravity and go jump off a cliff.

They prized the innovators, the smart people, and rewarded those who took risks. We’re…. practically the reverse. We commend the bravery of people who make stupid decisions.
They understood there is a deserving poor and an undeserving poor and only helped the latter. We think everyone is the same, damn the varying potential thing we learn as soon as the grades roll in at school.
Their architecture was the perfect blend of form and function, harmony and detail. We use…. too much glass. Twisted metals for twisted morals. The buildings actually look menacing and we think this is a good thing. Massive phallic symbols for massive dicks.
Their art depicted something real. Real feeling. They showed the poor and the rich and the common and the divine. We show random objet and the term art in this time period has lost its meaning. Everything is art, which means nothing is.
They allowed you to earn respect. We don’t know how to show respect anymore.
They valued the family unit, who cared for them when they were sick. We value Nanny State, who’ll kill us by euthanasia when they’ve drained us dry and wasted our one life.

I guess what I’m trying to say is…
They had standards.

If only we had some standards, I would like this time period. I agree with Tesla when he said he worked for future generations. I don’t like this generation, the living one, but I don’t want to screw over Future Person who doesn’t deserve it. There is hope for them. It’s also the reason I write, so maybe they’ll find it and think hmm, they weren’t all bad. Some people saw it. Some people worked hard to correct it.

Link: Right-wing trolls can win


I’m not surprised, it reminds me of the woeful failure that was the tumblr 4chan raid.

These people don’t have a sense of humour and can’t process dissent without internalizing it.

Study link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150625131142.htm

A recent study found that exposure to prejudiced online comments can increase people’s own prejudice, and increase the likelihood that they leave prejudiced comments themselves

– you mean, honesty?
– calling a spade a spade, so to speak?

Society is a consensual agreement to be nice to one another. We are naturally a terrible species. You don’t become the dominant species on a planet by being self-hating.

Conservatives have been losing because they’re the only ones playing by Queensberry rules. They lose the culture war because they refuse to “sink” to the level of WINNING tactics.

The left-wing co-opted the internet from the right-veering nerds, they are interlopers and should be treated as such. If they cry it’s unfair, go build your own. Go and build your own internet, and see how many people use it.

My readership is diverse


I don’t understand it.

why are you even here damon ian wtf
e.g. Some non-white countries really love reading about the race, race realist perspectives and ‘white people’ material (with the last, especially black people). I accommodate the needs of my readers when choosing subjects to cover. They take a genuine interest in those taboo subjects, since most whites won’t touch them with a bargepole from fear and I sincerely appreciate that and try to balance it when I report stuff. Non-whites aren’t the enemy by default unless they’re doing something they shouldn’t be doing (mostly those are plain crimes), kinda like hate the sin not the sinner, except that notion is wrong when applied to religion. Some terrible people are white, every race has its fuck-ups and I wouldn’t like to be pre-judged because of them (cough Jack the Ripper cough). We need balance and perspective to have these discussions. I believe they have the right to self-determination of their race within their native homelands, the same with every race, including white people. We shouldn’t be pushing groups to mingle against their will (freedom of association) or when it’s bad for them (outbreeding depression, multiculturalism social problems). I’m quite rare in this regard, not wishing harm or punishment for some grand revenge fantasy’s sake. ideally live and let live. I think that’s why some of you are here.

My sentiment on the tide against PC.

We agree on certain basics, like the existence of difference. We have the best odds of figuring out these bigger problems, like SJW entryism, (one of my most popular topics) with a cross-cultural perspective, up to the global population. Power-trip ranting won’t get us anywhere.

When I started out, I figured I’d get mostly UK people and a smattering of US thanks to the cultural venn diagram. I guess the truth does transcend boundaries, or some other Polyanna platitude. The full list (these are weekly) often features a remarkably high showing from Arabic countries, especially properly Muslim ones like Saudi Arabia. They like the sex subject advice best…. and coverage of Western decline.

glare glaring stare no stop please wtf drinking tea disapproval forever

Whatever floats your boat, chaps.
Frankly, if we over here keep fucking up much longer, I’m right there with you. Let it burn. It’s easier to rebuild from ash than cut rot from living tissue. I’m too nerdy to come up with cooler metaphor.

Still, one could never accuse this site of being “white supremacist” although the topic(s) is discussed. I feel this is important to note. It is possible to discuss and share. If we’re only sharing what we believe to be true based on the available evidence, anthropologically or psychologically, what is there to hide from one another? The truth converges over time.

I shan’t attempt to understand Malaysia or certain islands, but rest assured, I see and appreciate you!

Video: A word to left-wing students

in the model of Stepford Students.


Have you met the Stepford students? They’re everywhere. On campuses across the land. Sitting stony-eyed in lecture halls or surreptitiously policing beer-fuelled banter in the uni bar. They look like students, dress like students, smell like students. But their student brains have been replaced by brains bereft of critical faculties and programmed to conform. To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned youth, but anyone who’s spent more than five minutes in their company will know that these students are far more interested in shutting debate down than opening it up.

When is it worth saying something controversial?


Here are 11 things that many people think but don’t say. As a thought experiment, ask yourself whether and under what circumstances you might want to let ‘er rip?

  • You’re so rude. You don’t answer my emails or phone calls.
  • Boss (or supervisee), you’re the worst! You’re (choose one or more: stupid, lazy, dishonest.)
  • What in the world are we going to do with the 175 million people with an IQ under 100 in our information-age global economy in which ever more jobs are going to require high-level reasoning and learning ability? I see The Revolution coming.
  • You’re a hypocrite. You call yourself an environmentalist but live in a big environmentally wasteful house and drive a gas guzzler.  Or you claim to celebrate diversity but live in a neighborhood and send your kids to a school with few African-Americans and Latinos.
  • America is driven by marketing, dishonest politicians, and biased media. Ugh.
  • I applied for a job and you didn’t even give me the dignity of a rejection letter?! You left me hanging forever?! You disgust me.
  • I’m tired of people who play victim.
  • I’m tired of people who call for teamwork so they can slack.
  • You stupid materialist: You work at a job you don’t like just so you can have a fancy address, drive a Mercedes that’s three times as expensive as a Toyota and requires more service and repair, and you wear designer-label clothes that make you a walking billboard for a corporation and for conspicuous consumption.
  • You’re going to an art or music college? That’s a bizarrely priced four-to-six-year summer camp pretending to be a college that prepares you to make a living in an artistic career. Besides, you have no talent.
  • I’m tired of all the taxes and societal focus on those with the greatest deficits rather than on the best and brightest, who have far greater potential to contribute to humankind.
  • Life has no meaning. We’re insignificant specks unable to move the needle. So let’s just break out the booze.

The bolded are the ones that stand out to me, good topic material. We can do something about those.

Reading: Global Strategic Trends 2007-2036 document

Click to access strat_trends_23jan07.pdf


Page 42;

“The US position as the world’s most indebted nation makes it vulnerable to stock market collapse, currency runs and economic crisis, as well as global currency manipulation.”

Page 43;

“A major pandemic may be the instrument that causes a reverse in the process of globalization as national responses to contain infection will involve significant restrictions on personal mobility and interaction over a lengthy period. Some states may even be destabilized by the effort and resources required to address the situation”

“The declining size of working populations and rising social, health and pension costs in developed countries, financed through taxation, will increase the financial burden on the younger elements of society. Further exacerbation by unaffordable house prices, student debt and unemployment, contrasted with the wealth locked up in older generations, may lead to protests on a wide scale, resulting in instability and social unrest.”

Page 44;

“A large city in a developing region (or a number of large cities in more than one region) may fail before 2035. The effects will be equivalent in character, if not in scale, to state failure, which city failure may, in turn, precipitate.”

Page 45;

“It is likely that unregulated urbanization will result in future adversaries who have highly-developed urban survival and combat skills. They may consequently choose to pursue their objectives and conduct operations in sprawling towns and cities which will already have experienced endemic lawlessness and high levels of violence.”

Page 50;

“Conflict and crises will continue to trigger the displacement of large numbers of people, mainly into proximate regions, which may themselves be at risk of instability. Recent conflicts have also demonstrated the potential for sudden movements of people over longer distances, with the potential for related shocks and knock-on effects. This instability is likely to fuel extremist politics in some societies, possibly based on a beleaguered middle class, which may result in resurgent nationalism and authoritarianism.”

Basically, almost everything I’ve been saying for years is in this paper, more or less.
There’s also a 2010 edition I haven’t read yet.

Click to access GST4_v9_Feb10.pdf

Have fun with it.

I'm smarter than anyone else you'll ever meetNB: Still cannot tell you how I know all of this, or who I am, I hope you understand.

Why do humans argue?

Because there’s a wrong way to do things and we need to defend it.

paper pdf, here’s select from the abstract section ;

“Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.” [DS: good]

“Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.” [ehh, sorta]

“Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. [that’s poor reasoning and should be discounted from pure theory]

Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion … favour conclusions for which arguments can be found.”

I like cogpsych papers, but they tend to miss the wider picture and the subtlety of linguistics in rhetoric e.g. emphasis.
Social signalling, in short. If your social reputation depends on empirical truth, suddenly it becomes the primary priority. This is why politicians don’t have lifelong careers at the top. Ownership is separate from outcome.
A theme that could be applied to this blog: smug