We find a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies. The relationship is stronger for trust in neighbors, and when studied in more local contexts. Covariate conditioning generally changes the relationship only slightly. The review concludes by discussing avenues for future research.
Diversity isn’t a strength.
It’s anti-social. It’s dyscivic. It’s an act of war.
HBD is right, it’s almost always right. The only ‘wrong’ times are misunderstandings of term e.g. misuse of hypergamy (a marital condition) by forum fools.
Culture is genetic. Assimilation is a myth. This is Darwin, genes compete and dominate.
Might explain midwits – who often work in high-rise office jobs and get worse every year of it.
And wow, open-plan is bad.
Why hasn’t Woodley done a study on this?
It could be one factor behind modern declines discussed in At Our Wits’ End.
TLDW: CO2 levels caused by breathing (in enclosed spaces) and urban environments cause huge drops in cognitive performance. It can cause health problems down the road. Maybe working in an open-plan office with no open windows (too high up) will one day be viewed with the same disdain as coal mines.
“Yet many languages also have words that English speakers might think of as “basic” emotions — love, hate, anger, fear, sadness, happiness. Early theories, influenced by Charles Darwin and pegged to shared biological structures in humans, suggest there are certain universal emotions that serve as the source material for all others, as primary colors might be blended to create many new shades.
Universalism is bullshit. All shades. Not All ___ is a derailment, attempt to enable, dismiss or deflect or simple result of a category error.
But just as later work has suggested that different cultures do not always categorize color in the same ways,
Different rods/cones plus evolution.
there’s a growing understanding that even those supposedly “primary” emotions may hold their own meanings and nuances in different cultures that aren’t directly translatable.“
Apply Occam to this. People are not cogs, Rousseau!
Language is also genetic. Really. This is known.
Preview of what they’ll “discover” next, trying to get ahead of the net?
Humanity, as we WEIRD individualists think of it, is also non-uniform throughout the species. Diversity aka variation exists, a scale of 0-100, if you will. Basically? Some races are crueler than others, simply put. Others less sadistic, even to their own people, animals, children, elderly etc. Science is catching up. We are not, as we’ll be told, dehumanising THEM, they dehumanise themselves, they hurt one another, what better treatment can WE expect?
Civilization is a combination of simple factors and conditions inc. IQ (organism and national), honesty (low cultural corruption*), genetic individualism, K-select breeding and rearing and finally, low sadism (antisociality in the population, little pathology, especially sexual sadism). When “high trust” is required historically (the current PC code for this) the West succeeds because of its low racial sadism (and resultant bias towards justice) and tendency to punish/cull predators (civil unrest) instead of reward with money, rape victims, goats, whatever. High culture is produced by ALL these factors, you can’t make exceptions for your own hedonism.
It looks like collectivism but it isn’t – it doesn’t hide personal responsibility or agency behind Muh Group Card (like the men who marry in China and are allowed to cheat, two-faced “duty”) or the need for virtue as The Other Guy’s Problem. It isn’t cruel or cowardly in secret, it’s openly FAIR.Cruelty is the key sign of an inferior mind.
The SJWs don’t name me for that reason. The science is coming out.
m-m-m-muh appeal to authority?
*So neither China nor Russia will run jack shit. They cannot innovate in a vacuum. The kitten-crushers of Japan and China make shitty parents and military generals. Honour culture isn’t a parade, it’s bravery. It’s sacrifice.
Individualism, Culture and Entrepreneurial Opportunities*
brb altering history
The present paper evaluates the effect of living in an individualistic society on
entrepreneurial opportunities, using cross-country data from the GEDI. Individualism
is one of the five cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (2001) and it is considered by intercultural psychologists the main dimension of cultural variation. For individualism is a cultural trait that emphasizes freedom and rewards one’s own personal
achievements, it increases the propensity to open new businesses and realize own ideas,
despite the possibility of failure. So as to prevent reverse causality between individualism and entrepreneurial activity, we use the frequency of blood types and other
genetic data as instruments. The data show a positive and highly significant effect of individualism on entrepreneurship, even after controlling for education, religion, fertility, unemployment, the ease of doing business, networking, among others.
Look at ‘lil Venezuela down there, I wonder what will happen to them?
This is why Trump doing the trade war is a genius move. THIS.
In countries with more individualistic cultural characteristics, they have a predominance of individuals seeking potentially better opportunities to conduct an initial business, as well as characteristics with a greater perception of entrepreneurial opportunity. Similarly, Figure 5 suggests that countries with
more individualistic cultures often have greater opportunities to start a business. As for example, Canada, United States, Great Britain and Australia. The ten countries with the highest GEI index in 2017 were: the USA, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands.
I wonder what THEY have in common.
1950s GDP: not race (only) but cultural individualism.
Therefore, it measures the quality of entrepreneurship, as we are concerned with the quality of entrepreneurship: the entrepreneur driven by opportunities that generate commercial success. The definition of entrepreneurship that we will adopt is related to job creation and growth through innovation.
aka GDP, real ingroup gains
No, Asians can’t take over capitalism. That can literally never happen.
They’re collectivists, they get crony capitalism, they’ll fuck it up.
We just have to survive that.
I wonder what this figure indicates…
You’ve got me.
Yes, this is definitely my opinion.
My educated opinion.
As you can see, I am very jelly.
Thus, the most appropriate model for the analysis of the effect of entrepreneurial activity on individualism is that of column (5).
Considering the above-identified situation of a possible endogeneity between the variables, instrumental fractional variables were included for the econometric analysis. This process requires variables that are related to individualism, but not to entrepreneurial activity.
This hypothesis is sufficient so that the causal relation can be established in the proper direction. Thus, for individualism we use the blood distance of Mahalanobis and the pathogenic genes according to Gorodnichenko and Roland (2017). In table 2, the individualism and each possibility of instrument: distM-UK and mean of pathogens, which are, respectively, Mahalanobis blood distance between the country in England and the mean of the presence of the nine genes pathogens considered relevant to Murray’s individualist collectivist analysis: leishmaniasis, trypanosomes, malaria, schistosomiasis, filaria, leprosy,dengue, typhus and tuberculosis.
My opinion, clearly.
I magically altered their blood, to lie.
I can do that.
The relationship is negative, because it suggests that the closer to the entrepreneurial country, the more individualistic the culture will be.
Table 3 includes some more control variables, particularly related to institutions and their long-run effect on development. Precisely due to their persistence, it is important to separate the effect of culture from institutions as good as possible, although this it is a difficult matter and still an ample field of research (Gorodnichenko and Roland 2017; Spolaore and Wacziarg 2013)
Muh opinion, clearly.
I’m just jealous of cultures that enslave their children to make my phone.
Table 4 repeats our preferred estimation, the fractional probit instrumental variable model,
for a number of subsamples. On the one hand, the sample is divided into countries that
experienced European colonization and those that did not. The former may have suffered a mixture of cultures that is not captured by the genetic data. Therefore, if any, we expect
the effect of individualism to be stronger and more precise in the latter subsample.
To sum up, we find remarkably few differences in the magnitude of the individualism index
across the estimations in tables 3 and 4. In fact, the point estimate is not statistically
different from the baseline regressions in table 2 and in all of the seven estimation do we obtain a positive and significant effect of individualism on the opportunity to start a business.
The argument for muh civic nationalism, muh brain drain immigration is a pack of lies.
They are not the same as us.
The present paper evaluated the hypothesis that individualism can influence the entrepreneurial activity, accounting for cross-country differences in education, religion, fertility, unemployment, ease of opening a company and networking. The data shows a strong and remarkably robust relationship between living in an individualistic culture and entrepreneurship.
Things libertarians pretend to give a shit about.
The West is WEIRD – nobody else.
Although one should be careful in interpreting our results as causal, our estimates of fractional probit instrumental variable approach suggests a plausible interpretation of this relationship. We explored other potentially important channels in determining entrepreneurial activity.
The effect may potentially be confounded by geography, climate conditions, or through European colonization, as well as through persistent institutions, such as the risk of expropriation. In addition, the influence of the culture dimension of individualism was tested separately for each group of countries belonging to the OECD or not. It was concluded that the effects remained positive and significant, confirming the validity of the results and of the instruments.
Finally, the perceptions of the opportunity to start a business are different from society
to society, so the origin of these differences and their influences is important. Thus, this
article thus complements the studies on entrepreneurship (Pinillos and Reyes (2011), Liñán
and Fernandez-Serrano (2014), Dheer (2017), Doepke and Zilibotti (2014), Laskovaia et al.
(2017) and Nikolaev et al. (2018).
The Beige People are promoted, and there is much mainstream media extolling of their imagined virtues, contrary to… evidence.
Wrong on so many levels. First of all, blondes would be dead as the dodo. Her eyes would be dark brown. Look up the female fertility rate by nation, she’d be practically entirely black. Read some Mendel for how that would work out.
There are people who salivate over this prospect: ” “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” Sickeningly racist.
This also flies in the face of recent genetic evolution, that clearly shows a divergence: “Human races are evolving away from each other,” Harpending says. “Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity.” Further, “We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups.”
The myth of so-called hybrid vigour flies in the face of the most probable causes of desirable characteristics such as intelligence, for example low genetic load. Exactly what it sounds like. If you divide rocks between barrels, you’re still carrying rocks, the same load of rocks and this is why the latest developments in healthcare are refining treatments based on the common ailments of the patient’s demographic (race). Paying attention to this stuff is literally saving lives.
Hybrid vigour has been given the PC name ‘heterosis’ but its origins lie in the racism of claiming slaves are hardier when bred like prize animals. It is quite literally Scientific Racism to claim we must breed out the evolved diversity of innate differences of humans as if we’re cattle. Most people have a confirmed tendency toward genophilia and prefer to date and reproduce within their own race, what if this majority refuse? As we all know from LGBT+ campaigning, who you are sexually attracted to (and not to) can never be a choice.
“We intend to create in Europe a mixed race of Asiatic and Negroid people” source
However, The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study found Whites scored the highest at IQ106 and the mixed race IQ99, slightly below average. At best, the studies in this area have shown the mixed child averages between their parents, much like the inherited finding for height. The ‘magic dirt’ hypothesis of immigration is groundless and fell prey to the Sociologist’s Fallacy: “The evolutionary theory does however predict that when different races occupy approximately similar environments, such as for instance in the United States, Britain and the Netherlands, the intelligence differences will remain. This prediction has been examined in twenty three societies worldwide in Lynn (2008) and has been confirmed in every case.” – Lynn in 2010.
This bodes well for a global high IQ future.
Which leads to a healthy, growing economy.
There is no other way to do this but encourage WEIRD IQ levels.
Which are inherited.
The Flynn Effect has tailed off since nutrition has been resolved for children, the factor is finished and the formula/data tinkered with to follow its projections for publication (sounds familiar) but in all likelihood it is a demonstration of measurement error writ large, as modern supposedly more intelligent people struggle even with the language of previous generations, let alone their testing standards. This should not be possible [black swan/negative evidence]
Mixed studies are rarely done and beg the question – a mix of whom? A mixed children of European races, further subdivided into Northern/South territories could present IQ gains as the nations are high IQ, high technology societies already. A parent from these combined with a parent from a low IQ undeveloped nation could not. Furthermore, it is remiss to ignore the validity of genetic ties to native homeland, bound up in human rights. Globally, White people are a strict minority and such experimentation would clearly violate the UN conditions for genocide. Moreover, the recessive genomic nature of White traits, compared to and unlike all other races, mark it as unsuitable for such experiments intending to knowingly dominate and replace such natives with outgroup gene sequences, and would make it a form of institutional ethnic cleansing. Legally, these recessive races should deserve protections from such interference in much the same way as we protect endangered species. Or is a bird’s life worth more than that of a human? Reservations now or reservations later.
Altogether, mixed race children have poorer environmental outcomes (such as higher homicide rates) and it would be unethical to encourage this. One-drop theory refers to the dominance of certain racial sequences down the centuries, where unexpected baby skin coloration might arise for example. Considering Dawkin’s work, we do not truly own our genes to make this irresponsible choice, our responsibility as a carrier for them as meme will be to pass on as many of them as purely as possible into the future and this cannot be done by becoming the Mendelian cuckoldry party. Forensic anthropology have proven racial taxonomy goes down to the bone, whatever you call it. Ignoring the differences won’t stop Asia from researching them, it’s coming out eventually. You can be there or you can be on the wrong side of history. We can view these differences under a microscope, they are not imaginary. We have a duty to protect this natural diversity of Homo Sapiens into the future. Every race has a right to exist, live in their homeland and self-determine. Hybrid vigour is a dangerous myth. There are strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages, within every single race and genetic diaspora. These are not a bad thing. They are natural. All of them. Evolution has formed them as adaptive. We cannot understand the full relevance of these varied profiles and we are ethically bound to leave them alone before meddling in the very blueprint of life.
Finally, we already know the genetic sweet spot for health when it comes to Inbreeding and Outbreeding. We would know this evolutionary boon by its natural super-fertility. It’s third-cousins that provide the perfect blend.
In a paper published today deCODE scientists establish a substantial and consistent positive correlation between the kinship of couples and the number of children and grandchildren they have. The study, which analyzes more than 200 years of deCODE’s comprehensive genalogical data on the population of Iceland, shows that couples related at the level of third cousins have the greatest number of offspring….
The findings hold for every 25-year interval studied, beginning with those born in the year 1800 up to the present day. Because of the strength and consistency of the association, even between couples with very subtle differences in kinship, the authors conclude that the effect very likely has a biological basis, one which has yet to be elucidated.
Do not click: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim <SEO>
I waited almost a year to go on about this. I wanted to see if anything would come of it. This is going to be as short as I can make it, so yes, I will miss things out. You can add things yourself and link them in the comments. I’m broadening out the topic too, for a laugh. Technically way OT in places but funny with it. Fun with it. Hopefully.
Welcome to The Magical Mystery Tour of Cultural Marxism.
<joke about holes>
Child Molester? Chief Manager?
Acronyms can mean many things. The usual meaning for CM online in these times, thanks to gg truthers, is Cultural Marxism. What is Cultural Marxism? It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. Because pop culture never gets stuck in your head, that’s just crazy.
But never throw away your TV because reasons.
Why is advertising so expensive, eh? The limited number of channels excuse doesn’t fly anymore.
n.b. This is uncannily similar to the notion of the Cathedral btw: comprised of Academia, Media and Government, who often tend to mimic one another somehow in a harmonizing array of vacuous lies to keep you docile and arguably, falsely conscious.
Hey, if they’re going to mock us….
Despite all the studies on how subliminal messaging is BS yet its brother priming is totally real, and the effect of barrages of propaganda on real populations, somehow this is still considered a conspiracy. In a world where adverts blare over loudspeaker in public and your phone is watching you. As if the sociopaths with power (pick a Poison) were to look at those findings, shrug them off and proceed to do nothing with them. Sounds legit.
If you were to ask 100 people: do you believe in conspiracy theories, most would say No. When pressed, they’d evoke a media image: with an aluminium hat. Hmm. Whereas if you asked: do you believe in abuse of power, the underlying premise of every single conspiracy theory, you’d achieve astronomical amounts of agreement. Same people, same topic, different questions. Different words. It’s almost like the media output shapes our ability to consider certain subjects. Restricts us to talking points from cognitive load. Like a mild version of PTSD, engrained from a young age, we have visceral visual responses (flashbacks) to something we have seen, not in real life, but on a screen.
Aawww yeah, that’s the stuff. Mock me baby, mock me, you can’t satire a satire!
But sitting your kid in front of the TV is good for them, despite that pesky evidence. Kid’s shows never have any subtle political points, memory tactics or adult humour. We freely admit to flashbacks of pleasant things, like beloved cartoons. Remember when…? That reminds me… Who else saw…?
It’s become the new cultural touchstone, above national heritage symbols and stories. It has replaced history. As a friend of mine said: We are all Americans now.
If it’s illusory, it begs the question, what’s the harm in discussing it? Like the sociopolitical implications of Elrond’s Rivendell.
The usual ad hominem ensued in the up-top article. You don’t debate AH (rhetoric) with dialectic (logos). That isn’t the way to kill it. You must mock it. I can do both so… fuck it.
You see, every time these words are now spoken, even in jest, the SJWs can link to that article, and remain oblivious to what the theory is about. Think about that – a group obsessed with definitions. So I’m here to fuck their shit up, 9 months later, like the demonic spawn of their critical ideology, since who TF is going to check for feedback on that article this late? Let alone mess up its SEO? We know most of their interns probably studied English, right?
First, note: They keep referring to the ‘conspiracy’ as CM, instead of how it is commonly referred to: The Frankfurt School. Because if they called it that, their readers might think, wait, does that school exist? Did it ever exist? We could easily disprove these obvious hateful bigoted xeno-Nazis!
The title alone is intellectually dishonest. I haven’t seen anyone pick up on that for starters.
This is why I speak last.
CM is actually a division of The Frankfurt School’s works. A sub-division. Lesser than the whole of their theory.
Visual AIDs. Made with ecoterrorist Green, Commie Red and Lib Dem yellow. I really wanna get this cited. The black was being inclusive. It hurts my eyes.
When the thicko Guardian reader would care to look up the term “Frankfurt School building” on image search in rabid anticipation of finding precisely FA, the first hit is…
That doesn’t prove anything! We don’t know who occupied these buildings during that time!
Thankfully these people liked to brag about their involvement.
Here’s what comes up from the same Marxists’ site under, I shit you not, group photo:
Let’s look at the wikipedia page currently headed Cultural Marxism (the subject was almost deleted previously from the entire site but in Reddit uproar was reinstated).
“Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists spoke with a common paradigm in mind, thus sharing the same assumptions and being preoccupied with similar questions.…The school’s main figures sought to learn from and synthesize the works of such varied thinkers as Kant, Hegel,Marx,Freud, Weber, and Lukács.
Yet under Early Influences, Marx is clearly listed. Making them Marxists.
“The Institute made major contributions in two areas relating to the possibility of human subjects to be rational, i.e., individuals who could act rationally to take charge of their own society and their own history. The first consisted of social phenomena previously considered in Marxism as part of the “superstructure” or asideology: personality, family and authority structures (one of the earliest works published bore the title Studies of Authority and the Family), and the realm of aesthetics and mass culture. Studies saw a common concern here in the ability of capitalism to destroy the preconditions of critical, revolutionary political consciousness. This meant arriving at a sophisticated awareness of the depth dimension in which social oppression sustains itself. It also meant the beginning of critical theory‘s recognition of ideology as part of the foundations of social structure.”
And what did they wish to do with that structure, pray tell? Lower down;
“During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the left wing and leftist thought, particularly the New Left. …Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies.”
And they tried the Stalinist tactic of dismissing criticism by calling their opponents crazy: “criticized the Frankfurt School’s initial tendencies towards “automatically” rejecting opposing political criticisms on “psychiatric” grounds:” If you see anything wrong with this in Government-funded academia, I guess you’re a crazy conspiracy nutjob. As if to describe all champagne socialists in one fell swoop, the ‘academics’ were said to suffer from “bourgeois idealism” by people who knew what the hell they were talking about.
We’d never see anything like that today: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/
At the bottom, way down the page, it tries to be balanced;
The history of the Frankfurt School cannot be fully told without examining the relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish family backgrounds. Jewish matters had significant effects on key figures in the Frankfurt School, including Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse. At some points, their Jewish family backgrounds clarify their life paths; at others, these backgrounds help to explain why the leaders of the School stressed the significance of antisemitism. In the post-Second World War era, the differing relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish origins illuminate their distinctive stances toward Israel. This book investigates how the Jewish backgrounds of major Critical Theorists, and the ways in which they related to their origins, impacted upon their work, the history of the Frankfurt School, and differences that emerged among them over time.
Why might this concern people? It isn’t as if they wish to control us or cause us harm in our homeland. After all, we wouldn’t dream of bossing around Israel or hurting their way of life. Take it away, the adroitly named Barbara Spectre!
Narrator: She believes Jews have an important role to play in a country undergoing profound change.
BS: I think there’s a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned to be multicultural. And I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that, of that transformation, which must take place, Europe is not gonna be (smiles) the monolithic, uh, uh, societies that they once were in the last century. (brief cut) Jews are gonna be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make, they are now going into a multicultural mode – and Jews will be resented because of our leading role (nose in the air) but without that leading role and without that transformation Europe will not survive. (a small nod of approval, as camera cuts)
You know you can tell a lot about a person’s inner world by their body language. Micro-expressions in particular. When I said nose in the air…
Face of a leader.
Lest you think I’m being unfair, many non-Jews are supporting this goal to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” with multiculturalism and mass immigration. source In Europe only, of course. The rest of the world doesn’t require ‘enrichment’ for some strange reason.
There are many accusations along the lines of a ‘Master Race’ levied at Jews (calling yourselves the Chosen People doesn’t help) but I’m sure the passages stating for example, that non-Jews aren’t human? I’m sure that sort of thing is just a misunderstanding, a mistranslation: http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/man.html “There are those who infer from these passages that the Talmud considers gentiles to be sub-human. After all, if the Talmud says that gentiles are not called man they must be considered sub-human” that does seem rather logical though. Given the context of the Chosen People bit? It isn’t as if they want to lead us like a flock of sheep, wherever did you get that idea?
Marx himself heard so little on the front of Jews in academia that he wrote this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
That’s right, the so-called Jewish Question is a Marxist invention! It’s so post-modern! We may only wonder at what he’d have had to say to the German Jews of the Frankfurt School.
“…You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule….”
“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world?” Marx asks. “Usury. What is his worldly god? Money…. What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage…. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.”
It is ironic that the most acceptable white male in the curriculum for “diversity” on many campuses is Karl Marx, a world-class bigot. At one time, Marx referred to a Creole man who married his niece as a “gorilla offspring.”
Imagine the letters if he’d been pen-pals with Che G.
Other Marx/Engels quotes are to be found here, and they are well-sourced from the materials open to correction.
Bear in mind, we see many example of Marxist thought in everyday language. Objectification, for instance, is a Marxist idea borrowed by feminism. Originally called reification, it encompasses the process of a subject becoming an object.
“But what is most important in the music of the Gang of Four, and those groups who share their approach, is that for the first time since Brecht’s plays received wide attention in the 1920s, we are seeing a conscious intervention by socialists to fuse advanced Marxist theory with widely popular culture.”
“All such Marxists fail to see that potential exists to channel such expressions in a progressive direction.”
Point scored, I think.
Why multiculturalism, you ask? Why is that a social policy weapon? It’s a polite term for multi-racialism. It oppresses the working class (in revenge for not rising up before, the reason the school was founded) by driving down wages, living standards and outnumbers them for State assistance a la Cloward-Piven Strategy. Divide and conquer.
Public incitement of such genocide is also a crime.
Could this be Exhibit A at your trial for treason?
Moving on, Standpoint theory is a post-modern theory also used in feminism (this is a lot of coincidence) to lend credence to the opinion that minorities have the most or only valid perspectives, their word is always true (as their experience is never false) and a literal majority of people are probably wrong, because the density of their sheer numbers blind them with power or some vague excuse like ‘privilege’. It’s as silly as Magic Dirt and completely undemocratic, as a point of fact, it’s anti-democracy. Whenever you see these people trying something like the Progressive Stack and banging on like their opinions are important and can never be questioned because of what they were born, you see Standpoint Theory in action. It’s their pass to everything. They can do no wrong. The theory is also complete tosh. Applying it to Africa aka the most densely populated continent, white Africans would have more legitimate opinions on the structure of Government. They aren’t willing to apply this theory against anyone other than white, straight normal people who just want to be left alone by this PC stuff. Ironically, white people are a global minority, making them the most important people if we apply it …fairly. It gives rise to infographics like this.
[they took it down, fuck’s sake…] But whites are a minority!
It’s alright to exist, yes. To continue to live. In peace.
When name-calling is all you’ve got, you’ve lost the argument.
Critical theory (also used in feminism) is a similarly flawless means of derailing and dissembling a possibly productive conversation. It is defined in practice by never listening to evidence and never offering a solution to the social problems, and they’re always social problems (never quantifiable). ALL IT DOES IS COMPLAIN. It’s a license to nag you under the guise of the credentialism’s overeducated moral authority.
The only solution to social problems on the Left? Government spending! Despite national debt.
Let’s go with the Frankfurt School theory for a second. HYPOTHETICALLY.
How would you hide it?
Cultural as this consolidation of ideological power is, it requires cultural defense of itself. As it is undemocratic (so the idea goes) it must hide this institutionalized power structure from the populace by cultural denial. Deny or die. In the same way it suppresses other ideas. Ideally, it should blame its enemies for everything evil in the world. It must find a scapegoat for the hegemony, something easily recognizable as cultural shorthand for evil, especially when those people are dead and can’t argue or sue. If they fail to deny any truth to the matter, the whole house of cards will collapse. Elsewhere, there must be a dumbing down of culture, to the lowest common denominator.
Hm, what does the media see as shorthand for evil? We know from lab experiments that uniform carries a number of social role implications, which uniform could possibly become the trope for unquestionable evil baddie?
Naturally, if you repeat these cultural memes enough, you will run out of novelty. After a few decades. It will seem as if the main peddlers of this media are running out of original ideas. Hey, you could even make a meme out of it. Parodies and gags. Trope inversions. Make it self-aware. That’ll work for a while. However, you couldn’t possibly do anything about it, because that would be off-message. You must stick to the Party Line. The official Narrative. The Politically Correct version of the truth in this subjective postmodern reality, where all perspectives are theoretically true simultaneously. Don’t let them take that to the logical conclusion and side with your diametric enemies, better to outgroup them for the crime of… rejecting the outgroup? …What does the PC line do, exactly? Why follow it? Why must we? What does it accomplish for us? Who decided and told us to? Where does it even come from? We must never ask this question, Comrade. Sign this petition. Go to this demo. Buy this t-shirt. What question? There is no question, I thought we all agreed?
After all, it’s called Public Relations, not Public Information.
Gee, that Guardian article is looking like a real shoot in the foot, ain’t it?
It might as well have been titled;
Cultural Marxism: a uniting theory to explain why left-wingers love to play victim
Deny this because it’s stupid and lies but also dangerous enough to us somehow to cover in the first place and we need rhetorical excuses, enclosed.
You know the easiest way you can tell you’re being brainwashed? [aside from blatant over-reliance on logical fallacies]
When the person talking to you tells you to never look up the other side. You must never go there, Simba. Never read their materials. Never listen to their arguments. Close your ears, Sweet Summer Child, because you have no mind of your own and your uncritical thinking abilities will be overwhelmed by their Satanic silvertongue! We’d never hide anything from you! We love you! We’re all about the love! Gee, this is beginning to sound like a church sermon.
Frankfurt School Denialists, continue. The Streisand Effect means all your work are belong to us.
This requires a hegemony of culture to work – what would this look like? Liberal privilege in academia, an overwhelming bias in the humanities and social research, upon which government policy is based? Media suppression of conservative ideas, even in comedy, as hateful? How many right-wing comedians are there to left, as a ratio? The Government supporting public sector workers in their partisan causes e.g. SWP?
Naturally, we’d never see this type of propaganda launched at children, in media aimed at children, say, in comics. That would really screw them when it comes to the people saying they’re undemocratic, by targeting future voters and influencing them before critical thinking kicks in.We’d never see the Modern Left target comics. Never at all: http://www.captaineuro.eu/ Actual quote: “Europe without Britain is incomplete. Like a pizza without tomato sauce.” – Captain Euro, source How am I supposed to parody that? In light of recent events, this one is my fave: http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/angela-merkel-learns-to-bluff/ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/euroscola/en/how_to_prepare/classroom.html http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/01/creating-a-feminist-classroom/
In the Long March Through the Institutions, there was an emphasis on New = Good, which is very convenient when you’re the new kid on the scene. When the right wing were dominant in these fields (and we got many classics out of it) they said to them ‘be open’ as the appeal to get their ideas in, and once they were out of power they seemed to dance with joy about how ‘out’ those notions were and remain. It’s disturbing how they fully believe they have an exclusive claim to moral authority imparted by this power and taxpayer cash. The rise of obstructive fascism (a left-wing invention uniting Stalin up to the National Socialists) currently uses suppression techniques at Universities that are beginning to be used for in-fighting (such as TERFs vs. other feminists) as the Left eats itself. They’re also taking steps of questionable legality by ‘no-platform’-ing a public space, a Government-funded public institution. Rules for Radicals would condone these type of acts. There are extremist factions wishing for trouble, like the UAF, hoping their Communist utopia will rise from the ashes. I haven’t seen them comment on Holodomor.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/jay/ch01.htm “How problematical that goal…”
The linguistic use of domination-suppression techniques can be expert by CMs, and they use the excuse of teaching how to avoid it to simply… teach it: https://organizingforpower.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/forms-of-domination.pdf As reliable as crying wolf and crocodile tears when you doubt their sob story.
There’s the Diamond technique for swaying opinion at public gatherings without public consensus, because what democracy? https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/the-communist-diamond-tactic-at-public-debates/
The ‘spiral of silence’ and ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression (look them up yourself) exert effects too.
What’s all this mean combined? Self-censorship is the goal, if they can get you to lie to yourself, it’s over and they can gain control over personal, private relationships with it. We see this already with various judgements of personal relationships beginning with sexuality and now moving into preference. Sexual tastes are immutable by their doctrines (LGB+) yet men are being shamed for rejecting fat women (fat acceptance) and white men for finding non-white women less desirable: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/racial-preferences-are-racist/ Slowly it creeps and intrudes further and further into the most intimate parts of our life. Who do these people think they are? No wonder there’s a pushback forming to the Little Hitlers. Stay out of our bedrooms, you nutjobs.
Subverting democracy (by direct action and monstering mobs) like this are within the range of tactics admissable in a culture war.
Recall, Marx himself said “the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.” The technological censorship comprises partisan community guidelines, surveillance, monitoring and includes Twitter block lists – and suddenly the user base of normal people (non-SJWs) is leaving in droves.
The very phrase “Political Correctness” is no longer PC, Kosher or ‘polite’ – because people are asking too many questions about it. The historical revisionism into an identity politics lens is blatantly dishonest i.e. (group) in (time period) rather than studying (time period). In context, demographic division is an IRL distraction from these moderated influences over decades, drip-fed through the media machine every day like soap operas and we usually pay them to do it. They say “___ is a myth” in reply as if their mere pronouncements ended all debate, as insanity only need occur once (based on cognitive dissonance) before it becomes permanent. If you ignore the reality of a situation once, that’s it. If you take up the doublethink or crimestop or Narrative, they’ve won. You aren’t questioning them because you gave them the authority of acceptable thoughts they presumed to have. And people wonder why print is dying and Alternative Media is picking up….
There is the feminist link to Communism and overlap naturally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/31/marxism-feminism-and-womens-liberation http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/103231/marxist-roots-feminism-spyridon-mitsotakis
Social Justice (a recent branch of feminism) also takes its origins from Communism and its torrid history: www.jstor.org/stable/591359
The post-war economy needed more workers, including women, to carry on growth patterns (and suppress average wages by sudden booms in supply) and telling women it was more fun to work than stay home contributed to the novelty of low happiness scores ever since:
The active propaganda of polls (see: groupthink, minority influence, Asch’s Lines etc) is leading to a sharp disconnect between what we see predicted pre-GE and the real result (see the past two General Elections in the UK). The democratic mandate for the unions and other Reds or their lackeys to call themselves the instrument of the People has dissipated with it. Given their hegemony, we see them neutrally deride this as a Rise of the Right.
Who came up with ‘culture war’? Kulturkampf. It’s as German as the Frankfurt School academics. Then why is it false to discuss the notion, according to CM denialists? It predates the place by some decades. If it isn’t real, why is their fear of the topic very real?
In this century, most Marxists are middle class Champagne socialists waiting for Mumsy and Daddy to snuff it so they can collect the inheritance they believe is evil when right-wingers claim it (in all forms, including cultural inheritance) and the common suspects pushing a CM Narrative are rarely exceptions to this rule. As quoted above, they are idealists – what they expect is unrealistic. As for family money, their Boomers parents have probably spent it all regardless, going by the trends I covered for excessive debt and cruising.
It’s funny they push a Hollywood image of battle, good vs. evil despite rejecting religion, as Horseshoe theory in the face of moral relativism has produced the philosophically novel outcome: nobody is evil. They’ll blame anyone but the human being who did the thing. It was society! It was his background! He was forced! The agent? Barely a whisper. Where were the feminists after Rotherham came out? Councils and other governmental bodies are shredding abuse documentation to prevent this embarrassment again, the feminists don’t give a shit about children or girls. Sacrifices for the Narrative. Ignore the MAO genes’ link to aggression and other behavioral genetics coming out.
As leaps into subjects like a unified crime theory have posited, r/K selection explains much of this partisan behaviour; evolutionary theories make liars uneasy because it’s hard to argue with Darwin or testable hypotheses without seeming like an anti-science bigot. There is also suppression of social studies that make Conservatives look good or skewing of results (what hegemony?) in favour of the Left wing when covered by MSM e.g.: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/rk-mindsets-in-psychology-liberals-more-weird-than-conservatives/ https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/study-conservatives-are-smarter-than-liberals/
Terrified of true opposition as they are (even in the form of Trump) they are already falling back on Godwin’s Law and crying Nazi simply for being the opposition to the dominant Narrative. Without real opposition, what is the point of elections again? Which means they lose the argument (the lesser known meaning of Godwin’s Law). http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-90s-pop-band-secretly-sold-nazism-to-america_p2/
If we assume this were true, it begs questions. Doesn’t brainwashing work? How many musicians were Communist again? What about the Holodomor, worse statistically than any fanciful evaluation of the Holocaust? Why don’t these cultural outlets ever turn on the Left? Why don’t we use other figures like Stalin too? No enemies to the Left? They gloat about Overton Window shifts like gay marriage (the we’ve won/we’re winning articles like they’re trying to convince themselves laws can’t be repealed) but it’s never enough (‘there is more work to be done’ robots). It’s bizarre to watch from outside the media bubble. I guess from that Far Left, everyone else does look like a Nazi by comparison?
As Carlin said, we’re ‘circling the drain’ of their BS, the pendulum is swinging rightward overdue. They understand and acknowledge the Slippery Slope, it isn’t a political fallacy, especially when applied to moral trends (‘gay marriage’ polls taken in urban areas, anyone?) or any of the ‘changing attitudes’ that always seem to work in the Prog’s direction. We must be imagining it.
They forsake quality to chase equality. They’ll never get it, it would be as futile as stumping tall people and giving short people stilts. The result is ridiculous and forced.
Irony is a hip response to PC. We might follow it in public, because we don’t believe it. The act of submission becomes one of rebellion. An object of mockery ceases to be an object of fear. Trust nothing from the machine and it loses power. This is building.
You can deny some of this, but you can’t deny all of it.
What does this all mean?
I don’t know. You don’t either. I guess we’re equal.
Why else would the internet be talking about it, dipshit?
Since when do we agree on anything?