One idea of God is the consolation provided. You can also offload all the anxiety onto Jesus or whatever.

I also like the bell curve meme on this.

Stupid drooling people think God is real, misfits and midwits think it’s bogus, while crazily intelligent people just take God as a given and get on with doing creative things.

Maybe chess is easy, but checkers is easier still. And then there are whatever games they’re always playing in the streets.

My solution? To start, prevent them from owning or carrying firearms. Racist? Maybe. Is being racist or “racial” so very much worse than the carnage we have from coast to coast now?

Couple this with stop-and-frisk, apply it only to groups who have proven that they are not able to handle responsibility, and we might be able to take some baby steps back to the civilized society we once enjoyed.

Panta rhea, my good man! All things flow! I am reading Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy and he takes a very dim view of Hereclitus, for some reason. I must verify this to make sure I am correct.

gaedhal: “To concede a true Christianity would also be to concede a form of Platonism. Now, I, personally, have no objection to this: I neither affirm nor deny Platonism, however you are an eliminative materialist. In eliminative materialism, there is no place for a realm of ideas where a true Christianity exists in its ideal form. To an eliminative materialist, Christianity would only exist in its concrete instantiations. ”

I’m not sure that even that would save a “true Christianity”. Wouldn’t it just yield a multiplicity of “true” Christianities — “true” Matthean Christianity, “true” Marcan Christianity, “true” Sauline Christianity, and so on? Platonism decomposes itself.

This recalls the nominalist/idealist controversy in philosophy. There are various instances of three, but where is the pure, essential, Platonic form of “three” to be found? Nowhere, except, perhaps, in the mind.

What a pathetic creature is man! Born into a world of illusions in which he is forced to participate to stay alive! But as Heraclitus said twenty-five centuries ago, we never dip our toes into the same river twice. Everything is always in a constant state of flux. You are not the same gaedhal you were five minutes ago, nor I the same Morgan. A few of our bodies’ cells may have died and others been born; even if not, our atoms have relocated in time and space. Yet, the exigencies of life force us to pretend it’s not so. We either are forced to assume things have an essence and participate in an illusion, or we must re-discover the world anew with each passing millisecond.

If it exists at all, “true” Christianity is like Schrödinger’s cat, both alive and dead until someone looks at it. Until someone decides what form it will take, the term is meaningless.

To admit a “true Christianity�, even though no version of Christianity is true would be problematic for several reasons.

Firstly, it would concede univocality to the mass of Jewish and Christian scribblings over the centuries in which Christianity was inchoate. Part of the problem is that the Biblical Authors do not even agree with themselves. Marcan, Matthean, Sauline, Jacobine and Johannine Christianities are all distinct Christianities unto themselves. Matthew says that the slightest stroke of the pen shall not depart from the Law, and Saul, on the contrary calls the Law a curse that can simply be discarded. James says that Faith without works is dead, whereas Saul says that if we were saved by works, then this is no more grace, and thus we are saved by faith without works.

This is why I have some sneaking respect for hyper-dispensationalists. They recognise that the books of the Bible are essentially advocating for totally different religions. Each of these religions is a “dispensationâ€�. The hyper-dispensationalist effectively rejects everything but the Sauline Epistles. Everything else in the Bible is not for our time and place. Yes, all 66 books continue to be inspired… but only the epsitles of Saul are applicable in “the Church ageâ€�.

Now, as regards Ancient Jewish and Christian texts, in a sane world, all of these petty theological squabblings and wranglings amongst ancient Asian psychotics and conmen would be totally beneath our contempt. Lamentably, though, this is an insane world, where Christianity continues to be the majority religion of White people.

To concede a true Christianity would also be to concede a form of Platonism. Now, I, personally, have no objection to this: I neither affirm nor deny Platonism, however you are an eliminative materialist. In eliminative materialism, there is no place for a realm of ideas where a true Christianity exists in its ideal form. To an eliminative materialist, Christianity would only exist in its concrete instantiations.

Adûnâi: “I wonder why you oscillate between two opposite positions on Christianity, in one post calling it the axiological root of the universalist malaise, yet in the other dismissing it as meaningless.”

Both statements are true. “Christianity” is meaningless to the non-Christian because, depending on the time and place and/or the person you’re talking to, it can mean anything. However, the Christian, under the mistaken impression that there’s such a thing as “real” Christianity, always believes it has meaning, perhaps unaware that there are many people who call themselves Christians who don’t believe as he does and would define the doctrine differently. I think it’s bad to play along with the delusion of such people that a “real” Christianity exists. It only encourages them.

Adûnâi: “Christianity is not even good for the technological civilisation as it tends to kill its host race, in this case – the progenitor and upholder of said civ.”

It’s technological civilization that doesn’t care about preserving distinct races. It wants to replace the natural world with artificial constructions of its own. Because Christianity doesn’t care about racial differences either, that fits it perfectly; it’s the perfect religion for such a civilization. Christianity helps “Progress” along.

Adûnâi: “P.S. I’m not sure if you get notified of comments in older threads, so will write it here – I’m surprised you’re denying that people are kept alive against their will, suicide has a tremendous taboo in all societies, especially under Christianity (which spends ungodly sums of money on supporting the deranged and the feeble). ”

I don’t recall writing that people are kept alive against their will. As I see it, all creatures want to live, and are usually willing to do just about anything to avoid death. But I also disagree that suicide is taboo in all societies. The Greek and Roman Stoics, for example, referred to it as “the open door”, through which they could walk through at any time without disgrace. One might also mention the Japanese. As I understand it, a warrior who had failed his lord was expected to commit hare-kari. In that case, NOT committing suicide would be the disgrace.

> “Germany did have a slight tradition of anti-semitism due to Luther, so it may have been a bit more acceptable there.”

The question as to why the Anglo lands underwent a neo-Christian revolution, whereas Germany, a pagan revival, mystifies me, too, and I wish actual historians delved into this most puzzling and outstanding of issues. I will say, however, that back in the early 20th century, many of Eastern European ideologies were fascist and in many regards indistinguishable from German Hitlerianism (hence the modern Russian penchant for seeing Nazism everywhere, most recently Armenia). I’d wager to say that nationalism, the battle of ethnicities in the Russian and Austrian Empires, might have played a role, too – the Americans didn’t have to deal with it at all (although wouldn’t apply to Britain? So confusing).

Then again, there are folks claiming that without Hitler’s WW2, America would not have had the hippies. Which could be the case, as even Soviet Russia was not rejecting the differences between races and sexes? And it all compounded only in the more recent decades? So without 1945, the more centrist strains might have won out in the West? Or at least would have taken longer to decompose?

Culture war is such a befuddling activity. Just to think that the liberals were allies of nationalists in the revolutions of 1848! Whereas the monarchists of the 20th century were all pro-liberal. A kaleidoscope of mirages…

> “The fact that some Christians in some previous time saw it as compatible with slavery or later, segregation, is only more proof of the essential meaninglessness of Christianity.”

I wonder why you oscillate between two opposite positions on Christianity, in one post calling it the axiological root of the universalist malaise, yet in the other dismissing it as meaningless. Christianity is not even good for the technological civilisation as it tends to kill its host race, in this case – the progenitor and upholder of said civ. Any efficient modes of operation are “pagan” in nature anyway – if Trump goes to WW3 to preserve Jewish gold, it will be a healthy, “pagan” instinct of the Jewish race, not some imaginary benefits of Christendom.

P.S. I’m not sure if you get notified of comments in older threads, so will write it here – I’m surprised you’re denying that people are kept alive against their will, suicide has a tremendous taboo in all societies, especially under Christianity (which spends ungodly sums of money on supporting the deranged and the feeble).

You are begging the question that this god, a Christian Omni god, exists. I, on the other hand, am entertaining the hypothesis that this god exists and exploring what would follow if this hypothesis were in fact true. Scientific thinking consists in formulating hypotheses and then trying to disprove them. A theory, in Science, is a hypothesis that has so far resisted attempts to disprove it. Asking questions, formulating hypotheses, and testing hypotheses is a key part of scientific thinking. It is also a key part of philosophical thinking… which is why, to repeat myself, most PhD philosophers and scientists are atheists. Also, the higher the prestige of the PhD scientist, the more likely he is to be an atheist. About 90% of PhD scientists in the Academy of Sciences are atheist. To repeat myself: why would a Christian Omni god set up the world in such a way that the best scientists and philosophers don’t even believe He exists? As per Okham’s razor, the most parsimonious explanation as to why the best scientists and philosophers are atheists is that the Christian Omni god does not exist.

“Why would a Christian Omni god allow intelligence and educational attainment to be correlated to the rejection of the proposition that He exists?”

For an IQ snob, you seem weirdly unaware of the commonplace that a sure sign of low IQ and thin reading, is asking a lot of smart-ass juvenile questions about the intentions and capabilities of God. As if He has to explain anything to *you*.

What are you, George Carlin? “Hey Faddah! If God can do anything, can He make a rock so big that even He can’t lift it? Eh? We got him now!”

Hmm, it’s almost as if you are… low IQ.

NEETzschean: “I’m not an expert but I think the pivotal factor was Germany’s post-war and post-great depression economic collapse.”

But the collapse was not an artifact of propaganda. In explaining to Hitler’s rise we also should keep in mind some other important events that weren’t a result of propaganda — the Reichstag fire, for example, which resulted in the abolition of civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and due process, and Hindenburg’s death, which enabled him to consolidate power. Had all of these things not happened, history would likely have been quite different.

I think it would be very difficult to assess the results of anti-semitic propaganda even at that time in Germany. In 1933, the Nazi party claimed only about 2 million members out of a total population of 65 million, and some of the members were even Jews themselves! So it seems clear that people who joined the party could have had a variety of motivations. Anti-semitism incited by Nazi propaganda had hardly taken the country by storm. It might be argued that it could even have been a net negative. Hitler alienated the churches, perhaps needlessly. His Jewish obsession caused top physicists to emigrate, and if they had stayed it might have been Germany, not the United States, that developed the atomic bomb. However that may be, propaganda doesn’t appear to have made the crucial difference in his accession to power. Fortuitous events counted for more.

NEETzschean: “At the very least, the German people of the early 20th century were not allergic to Hitler’s anti-Jewish and pro-racialist message, despite the heavy historical and contemporary influence of Christianity. ”

Germany did have a slight tradition of anti-semitism due to Luther, so it may have been a bit more acceptable there. It’s a tradition that didn’t exist in America, which was at that time, and remains, the most Christian country in the world. As a result of this mad Christian worldview, negro slavery was abolished and negroes were made equal citizens de jure in the previous century. As the Christians say of themselves, their boss is a Jewish carpenter. It’s as true of America as a whole as it is of them.

Christianity evolves, as we’ve discussed on many previous occasions. The fact that some Christians in some previous time saw it as compatible with slavery or later, segregation, is only more proof of the essential meaninglessness of Christianity. You can find Bible verses to justify anything, even rape or murder. In the final analysis, it’s an empty doctrine. The essential question is what causes the changes to the consensus values that characterize it at any given time. Anti-semitic conspiracy theorists answer with one voice: “It’s the Jews!” I have an alternative theory, which we’ve also discussed: technological change causes it; “Progress”. I find that a lot more credible than the idea that the Jews control what white people think via their propaganda in mass media. Jews influence, yes, but control, no. There’s an unfortunate tendency on the right, which we see reflected in this very comments thread, to think that Jews have established such absolute control — that the public can be regimented by propaganda to march in any direction whatsoever. But we have just witnessed a disproof. Again, we must reflect that Donald Trump was elected despite all the fierce propaganda against him. If propaganda could really control what people think, that wouldn’t have happened.

As conflict-thesists point out: the Catholic University System was a poor replacement for the temples, libraries and academies destroyed by Christianity. Forgery in Christianity discusses this, by Joseph Wheless. Richard Carrier is an up-to-date writer on the negative effects that Christianity has had, historically, and continues to have on education. Jerry Coyne another. Of course you cannot argue against the fact that there is a correlation between atheism and intelligence and educational attainment; and a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence and educational attainment. Even the insufferable Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy admits to these correlations. Contra facta non sunt argumenta. Against facts, there are no arguments. Why would a Christian Omni god allow intelligence and educational attainment to be correlated to the rejection of the proposition that He exists?

The chess stat is quite damning. Chess is not that difficult.

“Was propaganda, and specifically, anti-semitic propaganda, the pivotal factor in Hitler’s rise?”

I’m not an expert but I think the pivotal factor was Germany’s post-war and post-great depression economic collapse. The democratic system had failed to solve this problem and Hitler was seen as the answer by a plurality. Nazi ideology was appealing in this context: many wanted Germany restored to its former glory after its humiliating defeat in the first war, they opposed the decadence of the Weimar era, they feared the rise of communism and Jews were primarily assigned the blame for these problems, which must have resonated significantly. Without propaganda I don’t think any political party can be effective, it needs to spread its message and convince people to build and maintain its power.

At the very least, the German people of the early 20th century were not allergic to Hitler’s anti-Jewish and pro-racialist message, despite the heavy historical and contemporary influence of Christianity.

>Education and Christianity are as opposite to each other as fire and water.

Actually, monasteries were centers of learning and erudition for centuries — even today there are almost 900 religiously affiliated colleges and universities in the US, many of them very selective and highly regarded academically.

You post a lot of pretentious pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

It’s not testosterone – it’s stupidity. Blacks are mentally inferior and can’t plan ahead and can’t get good jobs. Few blacks can read or do arithmetic beyond grade 6 level. Crime and welfare is all they have.

1. Black-americans come in last in all standardized tests. Asian-americans do fine on all the tests so it’s not due to cultural bias in the tests.

2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it’s not due to racism.

3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.

4. Out of 1725 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.

5. 50 years of affirmative action special treatment and blacks have fallen even further behind. What does that tell you?

It’s difficult to appreciate in real-time the wider cultural impact, including how enduring it will be, of a phenomenon (it was very popular, rated #1 in its time slot 5 years in a row) like All in the Family — but yes, TV has been extraordinarily influential, particularly in matters of race — looking back, All in the Family was essentially deceitful racial egalitarian propaganda packaged as humorous entertainment — as another example, during the controversy about busing and school integration, TV news showed low SES Whites protesting, often boorishly, against it — they never showed what conditions were like in an integrated school so people could see why the white parents were concerned about the future of their children — the coverage was designed to show Blacks as innocent victims of crude prejudice, and bias middle and upper class Whites against lower class Whites — per Murray’s book Coming Apart, regarding the latter it was largely successful in doing that.

Taylor knows racial differences are both substantial and irremediable — this means multiracial societies don’t work and can’t work
***************************************

Evolutionary biologist william hamilton created the theory of kin selection in the early 1960s. Animals help animals that are related to them. Makes perfect evolutionary sense since relatives share many genes. Same with people. When someone looks different or talks different we instinctively know they are not a relative and are not to be trusted. Mixing races and languages and cultures always leads to trouble.

There are far, far more men than women in prison for violent crimes.

**********************************************************

Prisons are 95% male. Looks like extreme discrimination to me but the press won’t let anyone talk about it. What happened to disparate impact?

Thomasina: “Of course, they made Archie out to be a complete idiot and the show outright implied that if people thought like Archie did, even a little bit, they were racists, homophobes … all of it was designed to make you feel guilt and shame.”

That’s the tip off that what’s really at work here is the moral framework of Christianity. Guilt and shame over not being inclusive enough, not being loving enough, not having enough regard for one’s “fellow man”, are its trademarks. I’d have to disagree with you though that this began with the “All in the Family” TV program. You can find that sort of thing in Lincoln’s first and second inaugurals, which contain so many references to God and America’s “original sin” of enslaving negroes that those speeches might be mistaken for sermons. Even beyond that, this attitude existed at the country’s founding, most prominently in Jefferson’s famous words about “all men” being “created equal”. Sadly, no one back then ever doubted that negroes were men (though they probably should have). The “equal” part was settled in the affirmative after the Civil War, when white Christian men, in a fit of religious frenzy, decided to make the freed slaves equal citizens and give them the vote. Sitcoms like “All in the Family”, and the rest of the shows you note were just an attempt to make America actually live up to what it claimed were its ideals; to make the white man give the negro and other minorities what Christianity demands.

You say plenty of stupid things around here, but this is a whole brand new flavor of stupid even by your standards:

Gee, thanks Germ, that means a lot, you have no idea how hard I work at it.

“I said ‘you could draw a straight line from the early ’70s sitcom All in the Family.”

I remember doing my homework and looking up from it in utter shock the first time I heard “All in the Family” playing in the background. It played a pivotal role in the dismantling of America, but nobody realized it at the time. Of course, they made Archie out to be a complete idiot and the show outright implied that if people thought like Archie did, even a little bit, they were racists, homophobes…..fill in the blank.

Then came Phil Donahue who flit through his audience asking, “Why not? What’s wrong with that?” Then Oprah. Further dismantling, and all of it was designed to make you feel guilt and shame.

Imagine a new sitcom called “The Consequences” or “Snakes in the House”. Imagine calling out the Jews for their paramount role in the dismantling of America. Yeah, that would go over well, wouldn’t it? Like that would ever see the light of day! If you dare criticize them, even inadvertently, you are destroyed.

Americans have been bombarded with propaganda, steered. Is it any wonder they can’t move? They have been paralyzed, and will continue to be paralyzed until they realize that putting everyone else’s wishes before their own, bending over backwards to please others leads to the loss of self, the loss of your own country.

NEETzschean: “You’ve mentioned “20 centuries of Christianity rotting European man’s mind/eliminating his racial consciousnessâ€� and the need for propaganda to be in accord with the collective myths and cultural presuppositions to be effective. How then did National Socialism become the dominant force in Germany after 19 centuries of Christianity and 170-ish years since the Industrial revolution? ”

Was propaganda, and specifically, anti-semitic propaganda, the pivotal factor in Hitler’s rise? It would be interesting to see you make a case for that. My first impulse would be to say that it didn’t. Hitler, as you probably know, wasn’t elected. He ran for the Presidency in 1932 and was defeated. The Nazi party itself had more success, but by 1932, although it had become the largest party in the Reichstag, even it hadn’t become a majority. Because of this, Hitler had to be appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg.

Chemical castration was a nonsensical term invented by a liberal. Violent sexual offenders should be emasculated, or complete removal of the genitals, creating a eunuch. Muslim sultans knew eunuchs weren’t interested in their harems, so they used them to guard them. Eunuchs are probably a lot calmer than normal young males of color and would probably be pretty popular in prison, having a full dance card every week.

It is highly likely that Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), who set up the German education system, was a Freemason. The German education system was the best in the world. Education and Christianity are as opposite to each other as fire and water. Where one exists, the other is not likely to be found, which is why, today, most PhD scientists and philosophers are atheists. As Sean Carroll points out: most PhD Cosmologists are atheists. Even today “German Scholarshipâ€� is talked of. One must learn German when studying Biblical Studies, Ancient History or the Classics. Germany swiftly grew less Christian, acceleratedly, from Melanchthon to when Adolf Hitler took power. German Criticism of the Bible exposed it as a tissue of myths and fictions. Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768) and David Strauss (1808–1874) were Germans. “German Idealismâ€� was a thing. By the time of Adolf Hitler’s accession, the educated classes were already unChristian. Celebratedly, Goethe (1749–1832) was not a Christian. Beethoven, the greatest German composer was a pantheist who put Schiller’s deistic Ode to Joy to song. Mozart was a Freemason, as was Haydn. Freemasonry is a form of deism. In the 1920s, the German elites were scarcely Christian at all, however the German yokels and commonfolk were still largely Catholic and Protestant.

You’ve mentioned “20 centuries of Christianity rotting European man’s mind/eliminating his racial consciousness” and the need for propaganda to be in accord with the collective myths and cultural presuppositions to be effective. How then did National Socialism become the dominant force in Germany after 19 centuries of Christianity and 170-ish years since the Industrial revolution?

You say plenty of stupid things around here, but this is a whole brand new flavor of stupid even by your standards: sort of coconut-mango-turmeric-mint-chip-uranium-fried shrimp stupid. Congrats. I think. After all there could be royalties in a thing like this, or T-shirts or something.

Good answer.

Abbreviated: Pre-Civil Rights negroes were stuck in a nation of white conquistadors who DEMANDED conformity to white standards or they were left to starve, panhandle, get jailed, or grift among their own kind.

When white guys stopped being conquistadors and their demand evaporated, the intrinsic nature of the African was reignited.

It did them no good. And it was worse for us

As likely the oldest one here, I will try to contribute something observational, from “back in the day.� Blacks tended much more to control their impulses, because they had jobs; = a life. They were not dentists, but it was a job, and they respected themselves for it. And, whites respected them… why not …after all, the black guy was doing a better job at the repetitious, low IQ job than the white guy would ever be able to do himself. Well, we all know what happened to the jobs; and we all know that militants convinced the blacks that they deserved to be dentists, which really ticked them off, and so they didn’t want to be a busboy after that.

Jamal Leroy Brown has been largely rehabilitated by his Jewish therapist Aya Katz and now only commits only one robbery a week. As part of the program, he has been assigned a monkey who considers him his own kind. Dr. Katz has the very best personal experience with this. Bonding with the monkey causes a substantial reduction in JL’s adrenaline and testosterone levels, while at the same time releasing the cuddle hormone oxytocin. The smacking monkey “Lil’ King” spends hours picking the parasites out of the former gang member’s matted fur (see channel)

Patient

Video Link

Dr. Katz

Video Link

Homo Erectus me thinks.

eah: “See how simple that is?”

Yes, almost as simple as you, simpleton.

eah: ” … speaking of being a ‘dimwit’, why do you imagine that’s so? ”

I think you’re a dimwit because you prove it with every post. As for WLP, he wasn’t a dimwit like you, but also unlike you, he at least would have been capable of understanding and responding to the arguments I make above.

eah: “… he talked about Jews using the media as ‘a weapon to destroy America’ — while he was clearly not a fan of Christianity, I never heard him say anything like that about Christians and Christianity.”

WLP hated Christianity and didn’t give two fucks about America, and if you were able to understand him, that is something else that would also be clear to you. His concerns were for the white race, not the USA. He was a revolutionary, not a patriot.

It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land.
– William Pierce

What did he mean by saying that Christianity was preeminent in causing the failure of white people to resist? Let’s consult a dictionary, dimwit.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preeminent

preeminent
adjective
: having paramount rank, dignity, or importance : outstanding, supreme

Consequently, it’s clear that WLP realized Christianity was even a more important factor than Jews in destroying the white race. It would even be fair to say that Jews only have the power over whites that Christianity has given them. If he didn’t emphasize his opposition to Christianity as much as his opposition to Jews, it’s also clear it was for practical reasons of fundraising and building his organization.

The Jewish obsession comes from his attempt to emulate Hitler’s path to power. The fact that he failed so miserably to do so should tell you something about the soundness of that idea. But of course, you are far, far too stupid to acknowledge any of this.

I see you’re still paranoid about JavaScript and using the reply function here — do you also go around wearing a mask? — fucking nutjob.

WLP’s opinions on Christianity is a completely separate subject — my comment was about his views on the harmful influence of the media and Jewish control over the media — in that context, there was no reason to mention his views on Christianity — I’m familiar with Pierce’s views on Christianity, and the reasons he promoted Cosmotheism as an alternative to Christianity — if there had been a rhetorical reason to do so, I would have mentioned them in my comment.

See how simple that is?

But speaking of ‘malign influence’, if you listen to his old ADV broadcasts, or read what he wrote, WLP spent a lot more time talking and writing about Jews and the media than he did about Christianity — a lot more — in fact, there is no comparison — and speaking of being a ‘dimwit’, why do you imagine that’s so? — could it be he felt the influence of Jews and the media were far more important? — he talked about Jews using the media as ‘a weapon to destroy America’ — while he was clearly not a fan of Christianity, I never heard him say anything like that about Christians and Christianity.

Practically speaking, the influence of the media is secular — it really has nothing to do with Christianity.

>I stand corrected.

It’s a minor point — you may be interested in what a search of Oxford reference works has to say about the etymology of cretin — as you originally suggested, there is some mention of Christians, as there was at the link I provided earlier — it seems to be secondary.

More important is that you may want to reconsider your opinion of the influence of Christianity on Western civilization.

There is some reason for hope, however. Recent polling data demonstrates that trust and confidence in the Jewish controlled mass media is plumbing depths not previously seen, and many cerebral people now measure what the see or hear in the legacy mass media against what they seek out and view online, and not the other way around. Still, the Jewish domination of the mass media, including newer media conglomerates such as Meta and Alphabet) i.e., Google) remains formidable. I would hope that the new Trump administration would turn its attention to utilizing the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up the larger media conglomerates into a myriad of entities with more expansive ownership and management.

As an advocate for white people, Taylor should not be promoting half measures — chemical castration is no more a solution than white flight has been — Taylor knows racial differences are both substantial and irremediable — this means multiracial societies don’t work and can’t work — for their own long term well-being,

The multiracial Honkee-Khazar society has worked quite well for Jed’s long-term well-being.

eah: “William Luther Pierce talked very convincingly and very often about the malign influence of the media …”

He also talked very often about the malign influence of Christianity, dimwit, but you failed to understand him.

https://williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com/2015/04/on-christianity-censored-section-of.html

I stand corrected. I usually go with the etymology section on Wiktionary. It was Wiktionary who suggested a probable link between ‘chretien’ and ‘cretin’.

Yes — it’s amazing to me how still today many people cannot see this: the media has been the dominant influence in America for more than a century now; it determines public attitudes on pretty much every important issue — William Luther Pierce talked very convincingly and very often about the malign influence of the media (and the Jews who control it), and how this meant modern mass democracy was a farce: those who control the media largely control the outcome of elections, which is one reason Jews and their allies extol democracy (it ‘dies in darkness’) in such an unctuous, infantile way.

As one example: in a previous comment, I said ‘you could draw a straight line from the early ’70s sitcom All in the Family to the Charles Murray book Coming Apart, which portrays the class divide among Whites in America that started growing around that time.’

eah: “No, it’s not.”

From your link: “The word [cretin] is of uncertain origin. By many it has been identified with Vulgar Latin *christianus “a Christian,” …”

Severe reading comprehension difficulties continue to plague this Christian. It’s as gaedhal said: cretins and Christians are one and the same! LOL

eah: “If you want to name ‘the worst misfortune ever to have befallen us’, the modern mass media would be a much better candidate — propaganda promulgated via the mass media of news/information and entertainment has enormous influence on the average person — so much so it would be difficult to overstate its impact. ”

Make up your mind, dimwit. Is it “modern mass media” or only the “propaganda” uses to which it’s put that you’re complaining about. If it’s the mere existence of mass media you think is the worst misfortune, then it should be pointed out that from Gutenberg to the internet, it consists largely of the inventions of white men, and so this misfortune, if it is one, is self-inflicted. But if, as I suspect, you mean only the “propaganda”, then it should be pointed out that the propaganda only reflects, and can only reflect, if it is to be effective, the values of society at large. In the West, it’s clear that those values were derived from Christianity. As Jacques Ellul says in his book on this topic:

Propaganda must not only attach itself to what already exists in the individual, but also express the fundamental currents of the society it seeks to influence. Propaganda must be familiar with collective sociological presuppositions, spontaneous myths, and broad ideologies- By this we do not mean political currents or temporary opinions that will change in a few months, but the fundamental psycho-sociological bases on which a whole society rests, the presuppositions and myths not just of individuals or of particular groups but those shared by all individuals in a society including men of opposite political inclinations and class loyalties. A propaganda pitting itself against this fundamental and accepted structure would have no chance of success. Rather, all effective propaganda is based on these fundamental currents and expresses them. Only if it rests on the proper collective belief will it be understood and accepted. It is part of a complex of civilization, consisting of material elements, beliefs, ideas, and institutions, and it cannot be separated from them. No propaganda could succeed by going against these structural elements of society. But propaganda’s main task clearly is the psychological reflection of these structures.

– Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, pp. 38-9

Here in this single paragraph, Ellul solves the mystery for both you and Jared Taylor. What accounts for the utter failure of “white nationalism”? From the American Civil War to our own times, it’s now been over a century and a half of failure. Why does all your stupid propaganda for a return to segregation fail? Ellul’s answer here: It fails because it goes against the fundamental, Christianity-derived moral framework that characterizes the West in general, and America in particular. Of course, there are other, practical reasons for its failure as a project, but considered only as propaganda, it fails because the moral framework set up by twenty centuries of Christianity, reflected now in all the “structural elements of society”, is diametrically opposed to it.

Cultural Marxist degeneracy as peddled by the Jewish controlled mass media has supplanted Christianity as a new faith, even in the churches. The virtues of altruism and fairness have been perverted by the churches to work against white Americans and Europeans. In many cases, non-white effluent from the Third World are recruited and facilitated into white majority nations by explicitly Christian nonprofit organizations.

Put a permanent end to racial hatred – and separate.

>Thus “cretin� is in all likelihood derived from: ‘chretién’, which means: ‘Christian’.

No, it’s not.

>Christianity is the worst misfortune ever to have befallen us.

No sensible person who has seen the magnificent cultural heritage of Christianity visible throughout Europe would say ‘Christianity is the worst misfortune ever to have befallen us.’

Western civilization developed under Christianity and its moral framework — also in some ways despite Christian influence, e.g. The Age of Enlightenment, science, etc.

If you want to name ‘the worst misfortune ever to have befallen us’, the modern mass media would be a much better candidate — propaganda promulgated via the mass media of news/information and entertainment has enormous influence on the average person — so much so it would be difficult to overstate its impact.

Not sure what to say — Taylor seems to bemoan that we cannot be entirely rational in handling crime and e.g. chemically castrate hardened criminals with high T levels, a measure that has zero chance of ever becoming policy.

Evidence shows children of high SES Blacks are more likely to be incarcerated than children of low SES Whites — so higher crime rates among Blacks is not a matter of being ‘disadvantaged.’

There is also a relatively strong association between low IQ and crime, and there’s absolutely nothing we can do about the fact Blacks have, on average, a significantly lower IQ compared to Whites, which is the source of (what’s seen as) serious social pathology, e.g. a huge difference in average SES.

As an advocate for white people, Taylor should not be promoting half measures — chemical castration is no more a solution than white flight has been — Taylor knows racial differences are both substantial and irremediable — this means multiracial societies don’t work and can’t work — for their own long term well-being, Whites should not share a polity with other races, especially Blacks — this must be the consistent message.

Hmmm, seems the bull shark 🦈 has the highest levels of testosterone in the animal kingdom according to “scientific studies.� They are one mean fish no doubt. One “study� cited Mexican males as having the highest testosterone levels. ROTFLMMFWAO. Have you checked out the average Beaner male. Now they do have aggression, they do have Yellow Fever aka Chino Fever 🥵, they are into the machismo thing with their boxing, but if body fat is any sort of gauge of testosterone levels than the average Beaner isn’t walking around with the testosterone levels of an African bull elephant � in heat. These “scientific “ studies change every time you read one. According to past “scientific “ studies high testosterone levels were responsible for Black males maturing faster, what happened, now we are told the opposite?

“The reason why Blacks and Browns are more violent and are more prone to be rapists is poor upbringing, culture, morality, impulse control, etc.not high testosterone levels.”

I think your reasons might account for half of the problem, but genetics accounts for the other half (higher testosterone, more muscular, etc.) And maybe it’s one big circle jerk? Maybe genetics contributes to their impulsivity, and then the impulsivity contributes to a poor upbringing. Mix that combination with higher testosterone and you’ve got yourself a predator.

All you’ve got to do is study nature or study the dog world. It’s all in the breed. I don’t know why we’d be so different. A Blue Heeler will instinctively herd cattle. They do this without being taught by anyone. It’s in the DNA. Border Collies? Some dogs guard, some are ratters, some are herders, and some are hunters/predators. Some just shouldn’t be around small children.

What are the instincts of a particular human breed? What have they learned to do to survive over thousands and thousands of years?

The article above is giving me a run for the money though. 😵�💫🥴

The chart of testosterone levels for different races at different ages isn’t showing one cohort of men through their lives, but is a snapshot of these men during a 3-year period. (please correct me if this assumption is wrong.) If it’s true, it brings up the question of why, indeed, white men in their fifties and sixties would have such high testosterone. Could SSRI use among younger men be lowering their testosterone? Are the older white men taking Cialis and thereby improving circulation to their testicles as a beneficial side effect? A serious question.

You’re in competition for the single dumbest comment on Unz. No mean feat.

Etymology, as with all sciences, in the broad sense, is probablistic. Thus “cretin� is in all likelihood derived from: ‘chretién’, which means: ‘Christian’. this is a point made by Celsus and Porphyry: the stupidity of the typical Christian convert. There were few philosophers or noblemen who joined the early crucified-rabbi cult, however such as were Christians—there weren’t too many of ’em when Christianity was optional!—were much oftener hysterical women, hucksters, children and other ne’erdowells. Even Rabbi Saul calls science false, philosophy a snare, the Elements of Euclid, i.e. Mathematics, something to be avoided—the ‘stoichea’ or ‘rudiments of this world’—. Saul likewise condemns the Ionic crypto-atheistic/epicurean rationalism of the “Greeks� etc. Not many wise are Christians, sayeth conman Paul himself. Christianity is “moreia� or foolishness. The cult handbook itself says this! Only those too lacking in manhood to be adressed as “sheep� and “little children� are to be found in the Christ cult. To those of us who are perishing—and we disbelievers freely confess our mortality—the preaching of the cross is utter “moreia� or foolishness, or moronicness. The cult-handbook itself says this. Yahweh has chosen the things that are not so as to nullify the things that are. See 1st Corinthians. This is our biggest criticism against Christianity: it is a sickly and delusional and childish and unmanly obsession with the things that are not. As the Austrian painter said in his table talks: Christianity is the worst misfortune ever to have befallen us.

“The suppression of Darwinism and eugenics was done by Christians, largely because the moral implications of those doctrines conflicted with Christian teachings.”

Today this continues though under different labeling.

Virtually every “liberal”, “left leaning” person I know is or was the child of very Christian-believing parents. They themselves have purged their minds of God as a heaven-dwelling bearded Giant, but the morality dwells within their psyches yet. Recently I visited my ex-wife’s Facebook page and she had posted the “Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten” meme of insufferable, cloying injunctions. Truly, as the divorce papers said, we were “incompatible”. As a compliant child, she went to church twice a week with her family while I couldn’t stand the nonsense even as an eleven year old.

Recently I read the Wikipedia page on the Sabbath. A bigger bunch of hogwash and self-serving deception I’ve never encountered. Apparently, the purpose of many Jewish rituals consists in tricking God with subtle evasions of the Spirit if not the Letter of their bizarre Laws. Simply Hogwash. I was right about all that, in rejecting it, even as a kid.

Liberals are insufferable. And duplicitous. And intrusive. And guilty. And unapologetic.

In whites, T levels keep rising into their 60s, when testosterone is even higher than in their 20s. I have never seen such findings before. It doesn’t seem plausible that whites in their 60s have so much testosterone or that Hispanic should have their highest T levels in their 50s

It’s not that testosterone rises with age, it’s that we’re in a historical period in which every newer generation has lower testosterone than the one before it. Not an individual’s testosterone rising as they get older, but their son having less testosterone to begin with, and their grandson wearing a cock-cage and fluffy cat ears and a skirt.

https://blog.fountaintrt.com/why-are-average-testosterone-levels-dropping-in-men-every-generation/
https://andrewhhousley.medium.com/the-silent-decline-understanding-the-generational-drop-in-mens-testosterone-levels-c288d43d0a0f
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/
https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20120325/generational-decline-in-testosterone-levels-observed

Why didn’t the constitution mention hey zues, or the money say hey zues, or the people fleeing the hey zues persecutions of the church? What is with all the God stuff?

Maybe you people should study facts instead of faith, reality instead of belief, and other books instead of the one faxed from heaven?

Wake up. Or is death what you worship?

That’s their natural behaviour.

No, technically they are “hue-man.” That was the origination of the word. Those furrners from a place called “Yurup” were considered “in-hue-man.”

eah: “As I demonstrated to you before …”

LOL! As if you did! As if you could! As if you were even capable of engaging with the argument! Apparently you are simply too stupid to understand what is meant by “Christianity-derived culture”. In your moronic opinion, Christianity may have had no influence on the culture, but that is transparently false. Moreover, you have completely ignored that the most dramatic change in race relations between whites and negroes that ever took place occurred during the 19th century, when white Christian men, rendered stupid by their church-going and abolitionism and Christianity-inspired visions of racial equality, decided to grant citizenship and the vote to freed negro slaves. This, my dear idiot, was the indispensable sine qua non that set in train the racial catastrophe that is still working out its consequences today. The suppression of Darwinism and eugenics was done by Christians, largely because the moral implications of those doctrines conflicted with Christian teachings. Racial and sexual egalitarianism have triumphed because they are implied by Christianity’s basic moral precepts, as most Americans understood them, both then and now. And note well that all of this was done long before the advent of mass media, mass education, big government, or the Jewish boogeymen that are causing you to pee your panties.

eah: “… you are willfully and belligerently obtuse — a real fucking cretin.”

Projection.

>People need their Christianity-derived culture of lies.

As I demonstrated to you before, race realism, i.e. the belief in irremediable racial differences, also belief in the necessity of racial segregation, even belief in the value of eugenics, were all widespread in the US when it was predominantly a Christian nation of churchgoers — none of those things were seen as morally incompatible with Christianity.

The rise of racial egalitarianism as dogma, the downfall of segregation, and the condemnation of anything related to eugenics as evil ‘Social Darwinism’, were all explicitly secular phenomena, exemplified by the influence on social policy of both academia (including many Jewish academics), as well as a growing, educated, largely agnostic or even atheist urban elite — this transformation of American society was abetted by the increasing power of centralized government, plus an activist judiciary.

But you just won’t let it go.

About this you are willfully and belligerently obtuse — a real fucking cretin.

Jared Taylor: “Of course, in the United States, there is hardly any public debate even on the association between testosterone and crime, much less the possible connection to race differences in crime rates.”

Forget, for the moment, the racial disparity. What about the sexual disparity? There are far, far more men than women in prison for violent crimes. Obviously, T levels have something to do with this. There’s no debate on it because discussing it would lead to the unavoidable conclusion that biology is vitally important, and despite the political mythology to the contrary, we are not all “equal”. Debate would call into question some of the most fundamental premises of Western civilization: the existence of so-called “free will”, the putative “equality” of the sexes and the races, and even whether human beings are anything more than animals.

Jared Taylor: “Here is an article from the NIH library reporting that chemical castration “reduc[es] recidivism rates to 2% to 5% compared with expected rates of 50%. … So far as I know, there is no state or country that chemically castrates violent non-sexual offenders.”

That’s the obvious solution, but it can’t be applied because of the problem I just mentioned. People need their Christianity-derived culture of lies. Reality is just too harsh for them.

Go to any Brown or Black area, watch and observe. Learned behavior. No value on human life.They live in the moment.

Hispanic category isn’t helpful.

There are so many races within the so-called Hispanic community. Some are white, some are brown, some are black, some are a mix of those.

‘Hispanic’ is like lumping all English-speaking together as ‘Anglo’.

We separate English-speaking whites from English-speaking blacks.

Same should be done with Hispanics, an utterly useless category.

Mexicans are so different from Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and Venezuelans.

How do you explain low levels of morality and impulse control?

They are not human.

Heard that Elon allowed Jared back on X. What part of his soul did he sign away this time?

So this means that Barry White had higher testosterone levels than Mike Tyson and that 60 something year old White dude that pops Viagra has higher levels of testosterone than he had 40 years ago. This article belongs in the 🗑�. Lol.

The reason why Blacks and Browns are more violent and are more prone to be rapists is poor upbringing, culture, morality, impulse control, etc.not high testosterone levels.

I met if the blood or intercellular estrogen levels were tested in these groups , it would be high. There is more evidence that testosterone, alone, does not drive aggression.

I don’t think that the correlation between testosterone and aggression is so cut and dry. I’ve seen evidence that it is high testosterone with high estrogen that causes aggression.

This article is missing that point. Drugs and alcohol increase estrogen levels…so the combination is really the key.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/governing-behavior/202208/don-t-blame-the-testes-all-aggression

Did you know?

One way to spot “Low T” in men is this – without thinking, while at home, with access to their own personal shithouse (this doesn’t operate in public shithouses where urination posture is under a fixed cortical influence) low T men will reflexively sit down on the pot just to pee.

I believe it is a thalamic (sub cortical) based behavior. Parts of the thalamus are sensitive to levels of certain hormones and in fact, the thalamus to a large degree regulates the regulation of those hormones via the hypothalmus (which sits right next to it).

Old guys commonly do this. And since the prevailing T level in men varies greatly from one to another no particular number determines this, it is a decrease in T levels that foster this behavior.

Except, joker, is it really true that the East Asian will maintain a modern post-industrial (electromechanical, cybernetic and biotechnic) civilization over tue long haul without the spur of the West? That’s a question. Not, can they? Will they?

People don’t understand, things something change in pieces and by degree, not in one apocalyptic event. Right now, in modern countries, the thought of no rural electrification is anathema, At sometime in the future, it could become the new normal again. In a metropolitan community, no or limited public transportation could become the new normal. Limited availability of person computers could become the new normal, then none.

Worldwide feudalism and warlord rule is the natural state of the human race. The quality of the work of some particular thinker or prognosticator qua thinker is not the arbiter of an idea’s validity,

Why no dairy? The mongols of the steppes had high dairy diets and those mo-fos are huge badasses.

Rushton theory: high testosterone associated with low IQ in human.

Most of what you say is nonsensical opinion colored by your biases. Your elites are Jews, who pull most of the strings in western society. They got into power through subterfuge, and intense networking toward a common cause. It was relatively easy for a group (Jews) that was strongly organized, devoted to a common cause and with an intense group loyalty to take over a society where most of the people who ran things were all looking out for number one. To win over the elites (all the Jews needed was sympathy) so they created the Holocaust which made them untouchable. To win over the religious masses, all they needed was to create a Bible (the Scofield Bible) that said that the Jews were special over all other people and that it was the will of the creator that they be given Israel at any cost. Other tactics that the Jews have used in the past 100 years are boycotting, assassination, bribery, and blackmail to control business leaders, celebrities, religious leaders and politicians. The so called (liberal elites) that you mentioned are just trendy’s and phony’s that let it be known that they are liberals so that the Jews will leave them alone.

RooshV was a classic example of someone who turned more conservative as his T-levels went down. Today he declares himself an Orthodox Christian and insists on marriage as the only way to go. When his T-level was up, it was a different story.

The very term “Leftist” as used here is meaningless, since it involves little that would have any relation to the actual Left of a century ago. The change here came about after stagflation hit in 1971. The Democrats stopped trying to act as a labor party and began substituting issues of “prejudice” as a way of maintaining appearances while they shifted to the Right on economic issues where Eisenhower and Nixon would have been to their Left. From an actual classic Leftist viewpoint, issues such as racial discrimination were seen as a way of rounding a viewpoint which was fundamentally centered on the labor movement. The stance promoted by Democrats and their backers after the stagflation crisis hit in 1971 sought to use talk about “racism” to erase any labor movement and shift over to concern about getting more Hollywood contracts for blacks. Hardly a Leftist stance at all.

I’m insane

Yes. Narcissism specifically.

And you’re super pissed that I won’t pretend you’re not insane, which would be the keystone symptom of all narcissists.

Soft-Leftism is the path of least resistance for people born into contemporary Western society. So-called “wokism” intrudes into Soft-Leftism but “wokists” who aren’t rich are by necessity highly discontented people. Hard to see them as being well-adjusted.

It’s hard to know what Dutton actually means when he speaks about “Left” and “Right.”

People who feel they are in control going to feel more content with the current system, but may worry that “the Left” (like Biden letting in huge numbers of migrants one of whom rear-ended Hunter Wallace’s car) is going to interfere in their lifestyle.

Other “highly successful” people may be totally socialized into a milieu where left-wing ideas are completely taken for granted and the opposition is considered beneath them.

One thing is for sure: the promotion of androgenic injections in the popular culture is intended to atrophy the testicles of the white race. That’s the PURPOSE.

you’re insane

Buh Bye.

“When my lies are exposed, I make a virtue of necessity.” Social posturing in lieu of, like, argument. Classic cluster B gaslighting.

I want to explore Scientology, I would feel right at home there.

That’s nice, I don’t care.

I’m not praising Communism

“I’m not a Communist, I’m just an anti-anti-Communist.” Uh huh.
Is that you, Noam Chomsky?

I feel they tried real communism and found it wanting since actual communism has actual limits.

Ah yes, “Communism works on paper.” lool
“Not paying for stuff is a great idea, but it turns out real life has scarcity…”

Realize these characters are clowns. You’re supposed to laugh. Sure they killed tens of millions of slavs (the bulk of them Ukrainian…sound familiar?) but if Russians couldn’t fight back, didn’t they deserve it?
Darwin awards the best rewards.

I feel if life gives you lemons you make lemonade-societies sometimes get lemons but societies don’t just curl up and die

Oh, it’s you, Walter Duranty! Can’t make omelets without breaking a few eggs, lmao.

Ann Rand was right about a few things, such as the fact that Communists are anti-life, and all the death makes them like Communism more, not less.

Oh get off it-I’m not praising Communism I’m saying life is complicated with societies and cultures basically adapting to the conditions they are historically dealt with. That is different from “real communism hasn’t been tried”. This I do not agree with, I feel they tried real communism and found it wanting since actual communism has actual limits. And no, you ain’t gonna get a better communism next time you try.

Nevertheless, I feel if life gives you lemons you make lemonade-societies sometimes get lemons but societies don’t just curl up and die, they adapt to conditions the best they can, although, for some reason, that is a point that you can’t comprehend.

To this I’m just going to point out one thing you said; communism is internationalist, in practice communist regimes were highly nationalistic, that is why Eastern European states are largely monoethnic today unlike Western European states. The Eastern Euro states paid lip service to internationalism but underneath they thought Africans and Asians were beneath them, while the North Koreans, the craziest commies are ultra, ultra, ultra-nationalistic. Oh jeez if we can’t agree on this there is no point to continue.

Another things that the USSR was a giant Potemkin village is Western propaganda, they really did build large factories, shipyards etc. that did put out products, real products, although they always had shortages due to the inherent limitations of the communist system. The shortages are a real world fact but that doesn’t mean commie products like trains, ships, truck, fridges, typewriters etc. didn’t exist. I can point out that they beat us to space with real rockets, satellites and space capsules and you’ll say it was filmed in a studio. Oh jeez if we can’t agree on this there is no point to continue.

Another thing…well I skimmed some of your diatribe and you basically are a fanatic, no need to continue. I will say one logical thing and you’ll say it was an illusion. Historically it is a fact the commies were tough on slackers, often tougher than the West and you’ll say no. In fact, bizarrely you for some reason keep insisting on this. Oh jeez if we can’t agree on this there is no point to continue.

Look this debate will not go anywhere, yes, you are a Libertarian fanatic. One can talk to Libertarian and indeed learn some things but not to a fanatic. It’s like talking to a Mormon; me: no God was not a man and Jesus Christ and Lucifer were not brothers and when you die you don’t get a planet to rule overs as god with several ever-pregnant wives at your side. Him: but what if you do? me: no you don’t, him: but what if you do? Will a Mormon and a normal person ever come to an agreement in a theological debate? No, see it’s no use.

There is no point in debating a man who thinks Ayn Rand was a crypto-communist send out to destroy Libertarianism. That is the very definition of being a fanatic. In real life, Ayn Rand was a Libertarian and an anti-communist but a nut, you can be several things at once-she was two nice things but still f…ed up as a person as well as a lazy-assed slacker who avoided real work. If you think she was a communist agent you are a fanatic. No she wasn’t and your interpretation of her is strange but then again most of your interpretations are strange. Feel free to explore Scientology, you’ll feel right at home there.

Buh Bye.

You can prove Communism is about riding free in two steps. Money was invented so long ago it’s evolutionarily relevant; written into the human genome. https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/shelling-out/ If you’re okay with getting stuff without free riding, you can just pay for it like a normal person. “To each according to his willingness to pay,” doesn’t have a ring to it because it’s like explaining that the sun rises in the morning. Many true things are obvious, which stops them from sounding profound. Conversely, it is sufficiently easy to sound profound if you start by lying. “There must be some deep reason black is white, up is down, and slavery is freedom.”

Communism is particular is such an obviously bad idea that the Owenites couldn’t convince the famously gullible American public to buy into it. Everyone since Robert Owen learned from his mistakes. They know that you have to lie about Communism to get anywhere. Lying works great, as it turns out. Ref: Jaques Ellul.

Thinking about this where Libertarians (who are in the main an honorable bunch if we discard the Rand worshippers) are a bit confused about that the commies encouraged freeloading is that they remember the Cold War reports of Soviet factories being idle and full of workers doing nothing.

How did these reports come about in the first place? In these reports, a Western journalist visits a factory and sees workers just doing nothing. Fair enough but seriously do you think any Soviet factory manager would allow Western journalists to actually visit his factory? It’s not like being a Michigan journalist and just calling Ford and asking for a tour of the Edsel factory. It’s 1965 the height of the Cold War and you are the manager of the Moscow Zil plant and you get a phone call from the resident Washington Post journo asking for a tour. Hell no! The guy is a westerner so working for the CIA and your factory is half civilian and half military production.

Evan today imagine this situation-you are the head of a Apple software lab and a Tass reporter calls up “hello comradski, I from Tass, I want tu si yur lab., I be by on Friday” Hell no! The guy is from the KGB and he’ll place bugs in the lab.

Yet weirdly enough, throughout the Cold War we have reports of western journos touring Soviet factories and seeing idleness. On principle this would have never happened. No manager would allow westerners who are likely spies to tour a factory that makes armed forces things (like almost all large factories in Russia did). Even if you wanted to, you knew that if the news that you allowed a westerner to tour your factory came to your superiors they would fire you.

Remember also throughout the Cold War these same journalists who got to go on impossible tours of factories also reported that Russian women were man-like and ugly. Now these journos lived in Russia and obviously knew this wasn’t true yet they reported a falsity.

No actually the commies were very rigid in penalizing people who were lazy and tried to live off the dole or not work. Yeah the commies were notorious having laws on the books that were not enforced but parasitism was not in the same league as human rights laws. Communist human rights laws were there for cosmetic reasons to impress Western intellectuals but parasitism laws were strictly enforced.

Factory managers had incentive to enforce these laws since if their factory did not meet a quota, their jobs were on the line or, in Stalin’s time, worse.

Now in every society, people figure out how to game the system. I mentioned the Soviet film industry-thousands of scriptwriters, costume makers etc. who were not doing anything but still getting payed monthly. Interestingly, yes Ayn Rand gravitated towards scriptwriting knowing fully well that that’s any easy job.

Now why was the Soviet film industry like this- it being a giant dole? Hmmm which ethnic group predominated in the Soviet film industry?….hmmm the same ethnic group known for its high literacy rate and historic ability to game the system, no factory labor for them.

Look when the Eastern European countries joined the EU they all had to change their approach to Gypsies. They all had the old commie system where gypsies were send to dig ditches or harvest potatoes in order to qualify for family support. The EU was shocked by this and often sued the East Euros with the result is the East European gypsies now live off welfare just like in the West.

Modern Western communists since the sixties (people like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman) were indeed lazy drugged-up bastards who liked talking instead of working but in actual commie countries welfare leeches were actively persecuted much more than in Western countries where welfare leeches are seen as a source of votes. The point is that Western leftism and Eastern leftism were culturally different in their approach to freeloading the system.

Look we can debate this forever but the point is that historically commie countries actively persecuted freeloaders much more than in the West. The point of confusion is that in the West freeloading is associated with crazy left-wing causes which is true enough but all societies are different-commies in power put the boot on freeloaders. That might be surprising due to a cultural misunderstanding of seeing what Western lefties campaign for, but its the truth.

communist countries were extremely intolerant of freeloaders

This is taking Communist propaganda at face value. They claimed to have penalties, yes, but did not apply them. Strategic credulity, or genuinely this gullible?

They provided employment but the person who was employed was expected to [pretend to] work

is a bizarre libertarian myth

Ah, strategic credulity. Just liar things.

In fact if you look at the lives of Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden

Two Communists pretending to be libertarian.
Projection: Communist deliberately misunderstands libertarianism, so that they can present strategic misunderstanding as normal, so there’s nothing unusual about lying about Communism.

My research group has found that when you control for a nation’s average IQ — and no matter what the critics say, national IQs strongly correlate with other national level indicators of intelligence — then the big predictor of per capita science Nobel Prizes — major, boat-rocking, vested-interests-shattering innovations — is national-level testosterone

So if IQ were equalized across the world then SS Africa should be full of Nobel Prize winners

There seems to be truth in the meme, but I don’t find this method convincing at all as it’s laid out here.

The obvious question is, isn’t there direct data on this ? I’m sure there is somewhere. At least for Western countries about T levels. It would be a lot more impressive than a bunch of stupid ‘indicators’, but still the question being answered is incredibly tangential, really very divergent actually, to the proposition Dutton starts with.

Instead of getting to the truth of the soy meme, this appears as a way of flattering scientists who probably don’t have particularly high T themselves, by pointing to populations they may or may not have sprung from. It’s very misleading nonsense and tells us nothing at all.

And I would certainly guess a proportion of Nobel Prizes are for incredibly boring things that don’t require so much risk taking as a relentless plodding interest in the subject.

No, no, no, communist countries were extremely intolerant of freeloaders-they had hard criminal penalties for parasites who loafed and did not work. There was welfare but it was largely limited to handicapped or expectant/young mothers with the mom expected to return to work. They provided employment but the person who was employed was expected to work, if not one could end up in jail or an actual work colony where…you had to work or starve. Communist countries were actually much harder on welfare leeches than capitalist countries.

That communist countries were somehow tolerant of freeloaders and that communism encouraged freeloading and that the whole system was developed by freeloaders is a bizarre libertarian myth that developed due to fact libertarians had no idea how communist countries actually functioned day-to-day and thus created artificial mind worlds as is the case of most libertarian thinking.

In fact if you look at the lives of Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden for example you are struck by the fact that these people never actually ran a business or produced a material good. They wrote books and film scripts about fictional happenings or wrote stupid essays creating artificial worlds. They more less loafed living off residuals or speaker fees with transportation provided, a nice gig if you are smart enough to game the system.

Branden chose to be a psychotherapist thus a non-productive pseudoscientist leech and Ayn Rand was a script writer which is nothing really productive, at most slightly interesting and at worst again a leech. Interestingly enough Rand was a script writer back in Soviet Russia. The film industry in Soviet Russia being an exception to the general rule (in the real world there are always exceptions). The Soviet film industry being notorious as highly unproductive utilizing thousands of scriptwriters, laborers etc. with an actual small output of films to the resources utilized compared to almost every other film industry.

Ayn Rand was a smartie able to game the system in any society to support her lazy ass.

“Are Liberal Males Low in Testosterone?”

I don’t think that you can explain the sociopathic, callous, unethical beliefs and behaviors of conservative males on high testosterone levels. There are plenty of highly masculine men that are good peoplel What is wrong with conservatives is in their hearts, not necessarily in their testicles.

In all seriousnes, your saltiness is understandable. You have insulted liberals/progressives multiple times, calling them mutants and now soy boys. At the heart of your spite is your realization that liberals far outnumber conservatives among elites: among the higher socioeconoic classes, among professsionals and intellectuals. At the core, your hate comes from the fact that you realize that liberals hold power over you, and that you are powerless to change it.

The “coming conservative revolution”? Please…conservatives can’t organize even a caucus properly, let alone a country. A country where conservatives dominate will basically be Mexico that speaks(broken) English.

Liberals, for the most part, are just flat out smarter and more competent than conservatives. And this is why you hate them so much.

Except Kanazawa is a bit like Dutton; poses an interesting question but then he finds affirmation almost immediately by cherry picking research and then he moves on to an another question, finds affirmation by finding something in the tons of social research that is done and moves on…and on…and on.

This kind of research has been done before by Freud et al. and is pretty much useless. Furthermore, even quite rigorous social science research has trouble being replicated. The validity of anything Dutton and Kanazawa state is really in doubt even though readers of Unz, by the very nature of being Unz readers, have a certain sympathy to what they say. I certainly do even if I think Dutton and Kanazawa are going about it the wrong way.

The type of woman I’m attracted to is: the blue-haired “I’m happier when I’m sad” whom the Right calls a ‘harpie’.

That’s because my brain leans Left-Wing (although, not extremely).

My brain is full of those mental illnesses that allow me to “think outside-the-box”, as E. O. W. Kirkegaard has corroborated: That has helped Jews to be overrepresented amongst geniuses.

P.S.: I happen not to be Jewish.
.
.
.

Having such a brain makes me a preservationist (which’s a Left-Wing value), hence I want to preserve every Race of Man, including the White Race.
Also, it’s just logical and rational to support the White Race preserved: if Whites wane, Asians won’t be their equals, as Asians are less creative.
In fact, Satoshi Kanazawa concoct this argument above. He is right. Even if he is wrong, that merits attention and inspection, as the mere fact of such an argument being able to be cogently stated (with so much evidence to substantiate it) is omninous for the future of Civilisation.

Paper on Kanazawa-Miller’s ‘Asian Creativity’ Debate: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00547/full

In women, higher oestrogen is associated with greater right-wing behaviour.

For numerous reasons, surveying a woman’s beliefs – especially by verbally asking her about it – is an exercise in futility.

It’s not really about reductive chemical markers, but health wholistically. Eating better and sleeping better are also anti-leftism agents.

The primary cause of communist rhetoric is being unable to work for one’s dinner. Stalin and Lenin quoted [don’t work, neither shall he eat] precisely because communism is about eating, less the working.
Wokists foment communism because they genuinely cannot survive without it. (And think they’ll be best buddies with Lenin or Stalin 2.0.) The more capable an individual is of supporting himself or snagging a supporting man on her own merits, the less susceptible and supportive they are communist ideas and policies.

This kind of article may appear extremely insightful, but in fact it simply leaves out what matters most. If woke men are socially conformist, what are they conforming to? If they are submissive, who are they submitting to? Are there woke masters and woke slaves, so to speak? Are the woke masters high on testosterone? Are they “rightwing”? Does that terminology even make sense?

Thanks for your informative ” review “. Another point about this author : the habit to never point to the real ((culprits)) but to point instead to highly fantasist subjects such as : testosterone, fluor in the water, color of your pillow, etc..
Ok, there is some truth in this, but… How convenient for this low testosterone cuck…
( Accusatory inversion as usual )

I love reading Dutton; some silly albeit common-sense question then a whole bunch of buckshot scattered research (some of it by his friends and very probably peer reviewed by him) and finally a confirmation of his thesis.

Look I am a right-wing conservative thus sympathetic but, unfortunately social science research is not quite that simple. Usually, in social science when you find that everything fits (and with Dutton everything does indeed fit every single time) that only means you’re doing something wrong. Life is complicated. When you find what you want to find you get Freud and Mead and Wilhelm Reich and Jung and… and look where that got us.

Furthermore, this time the article was barely readable. He really needs to work on clarity (among other things). He writes a lot of books and writes a lot of articles, thinking that by sheer quantity he’s going to be acknowledged as some sort of expert on something but the problem is that this article is the result of writing a lot.

I don’t think so, at all. But it’s only a hunch.
I’ll explain:

I’ve read papers on Feminism (digit ratio studies) and nowadays being a left-wing woman and a feminist are very much strong correlates.

Feminists are strongly masculinised women. Just like lesbians.
(Being a lesbian and a feminist are positive correlates, as well.)

Yes! Irony of ironies!

Feminists, the women who claim to know what women really should do, want and need… in fact, do not think like women do – but rather like men more-or-less would!

Left-wing men have less testosterone and are less masculine than their right-wing counterparts. To right-wingers, this is a pleasing truth, since it discredits the other side.
But it’s just as true that right-wing women are less feminine than their counterparts. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had lower estrogen levels. Now this is not so pleasing to right-wing ears, is it?
In truth, the same principle applies across the board.
Masculinity is right-wing, femininity is left-wing.
Left-wing men and right-wing women are a little androgynous.

Zealous leftism is motivated by sadism and a desire to dominate. That they have such feelings so strongly without testosterone is weird, but boosting test will only make these feelings stronger.

There might also be a bimodal distribution, with very low testosterone leading to very high leftism, and a second population of psychopaths. The first brings down the test average, the second responds to more test by going even further left, erasing the [average] red shift.
Put another way, the weak demoncrats are true believers, while the devout leftists are just lying. The greater test makes wokism less credible, but they already didn’t believe in it.

Finally there might be reverse threshold effects. There’s a level of [enough] testosterone beyond which nothing much happens except an increase in prostate cancer. Likewise there might be a minimum threshold. A partial one at least, knowing that even trace test can uncomfortably masculinize a woman.

—

Wokism is extremely feminine and functional males cannot believe in it. Lift weights, get reasonably levels of test, and several woke tenets simply vanish, as the host is no longer a viable environment for them.

With all the shit in our water, air and food, it is surprising that Western males have any testosterone at all.

Okay, I’ve only glanced at this, but that’s enough to tell me it’s all nonsense. Post-weaning, stay off anything dairy. Be a soy boy or soy girl. Be a dairy-free vegetarian with iron supplement or just dairy-free meat eater with no need for iron supplement.

To top it off, this article insults masculinity with this conclusion: “nothing completes a man and makes a man as woman.�

That statement by Ilana somehow doesn’t fit in with the rest of her article. I am not sure that men need to be “completed” by a woman, or that women need to be “completed” by a man. There are other ways. There are individuals in this world (always have been) who are not suited to sexual-romantic-marriage-type relationships. They can make their contributions in other ways and still be real men or real women. (For the record, I am married with offspring.)

When my son was at day camp one summer at the age of about 6, a boy just marched up to him and threw a bucket of water at him (they were at the beach). So my son, according to report, ran after the little perp and yelled at him, though according to reports didn’t do him much damage. WELL. The females in charge of the day camp contacted us about the horrible crime committed by our boy. I never scolded him; indeed, I was rather proud of him for sticking up for himself. Why can’t they let boys fight a little bit if they want instead of acting like pansies.

OT: the term [harm avoidance] should be instead self-absorption. It’s only harm to the self that’s relevant to individuals and subcultures which are high in [harm avoidance].

E.g.
“Letting homosexuals out of the closet does great harm to male friendship in general.”
“So what? I’m not straight.”
“I am straight, and still: so what? I’m not a friendship.”
“I’m straight, and I care about friends, but so what? It won’t harm my already-established friendships.”

P.S. You can’t use [selfishness] because psychological egoism is true. Everyone is sublimely selfish.

Buck Owens wrote “Act Naturally.� Beatles were fans. Later Buck and the Buckaroos covered “Twist and Shout.� Not so far, Bakersfield to Liverpool. At least, not back in them days.

The analysis here showed that weakly-affiliated Democrats were persuadable physiologically while strong Democrats and all Republicans were not…

Among weak Democrats, T [testosterone] also reduced the strength of party affiliation and cooled their feelings toward Democratic presidential candidates.

Just what should be expected. Testosterone increases confidence. The entrenched Democrat males remained Democrats. The less attached Democrats became less self-hating, and moved to the political right.

Thus, as a man’s Leftism decreases, his mood improves.

Sounds like a journalism.
As a man’s mood improves, his Leftism decreases.

although the causal nature of the relationship between testosterone and depression is unclear

It’s very clear.Testosterone is extremely sensitive to the placebo effect. Take a testosterone placebo and watch the extremely obvious difference it makes to your mood. n=1 is more than sensitive enough to pick it up.

This result doesn’t make sense, if one assumes that testosterone makes someone more right-wing in a linear fashion.

Makes perfect sense if you assume there are threshold effects.
E.g. the weak Democrats have a testosterone disorder and aren’t testosterone replete. The hard Rs are testosterone replete so giving them more does a great fat zip. The hard Ds have something else going on, probably orthogonal to testosterone. They’re over the threshold for some other mechanic.

P.S. lifting heavy things raises testosterone and likewise leads to rightward shifts. The voter starts feeling like he can take care of himself and doesn’t need mommy-government to do it for him.