RSS
Back in my 2012 review of psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, I argued:
What Haidt never quite gets across is that conservatives typically define their groups concentrically, moving from their families outward to their communities, classes, religions, nations, and so forth. If Mars attacked, conservatives would be reflexively Earthist. As Ronald Reagan pointed out to the UN in 1987, “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.” (Libertarians would wait to see if the Martian invaders were free marketeers.)
In contrast, modern liberals’ defining trait is making a public spectacle of how their loyalties leapfrog over some unworthy folks relatively close to them in favor of other people they barely know (or in the case of profoundly liberal sci-fi movies such as Avatar, other 10-foot-tall blue space creatures they barely know).
Now Haidt is publishing a study that seems to confirm some of my intuitions:
Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle
Article (PDF Available) in Nature Communications 10(1) · December 2019
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-12227-0Adam Waytz, Ravi Iyer, Liane Young, Jonathan Haidt
Abstract
Do clashes between ideologies reflect policy differences or something more fundamental? The present research suggests they reflect core psychological differences such that liberals express compassion toward less structured and more encompassing entities (i.e., universalism), whereas conservatives express compassion toward more well-defined and less encompassing entities (i.e., parochialism). Here we report seven studies illustrating universalist versus parochial differences in compassion. Studies 1a-1c show that liberals, relative to conservatives, express greater moral concern toward friends relative to family, and the world relative to the nation. Studies 2a-2b demonstrate these universalist versus parochial preferences extend toward simple shapes depicted as proxies for loose versus tight social circles. Using stimuli devoid of political relevance demonstrates that the universalist-parochialist distinction does not simply reflect differing policy preferences. Studies 3a-3b indicate these universalist versus parochial tendencies extend to humans versus nonhumans more generally, demonstrating the breadth of these psychological differences.
Here’s a picture of concentric circles with a heat map: conservatives (left) feel more warmth toward the center of the circles, while liberals (right) toward the fringes.
This is absolutely spot on.
The CEO of the company I work for is a very typical case. Talks about creating “a caring corporate culture” and demonstrates this by all kind of campaigns to protect “the environment,” “indigenous people’s rights”, “assure sustainably procured goods,” etc.
Meanwhile, the company, despite making huge profits is cutting the workforce by 10-20%. Cares about people halfway around the world, but not the people in the room next to him…
For the American low-paid coffee barista, giving a few bucks to some outfit regularly to support lefty causes feels good, looks good, and is just way EASIER than DOING real charity. Helping his nephew who's got alcoholic tendencies takes too much effort perhaps and follow-up. Doing anything for the neighborhood or local schools may be seen as conservative too, which looks bad.Replies: @Realist, @Logan, @Jim Don Bob
I’ve long found Haidt interesting, but I’ve never quite gotten how he reconciles his observations that a major left-vs-right distinction is moral concern about authority and sanctity, with the fact that leftists have long demanded blasphemy laws (euphemized as “hate speech”) and are extraordinarily conformist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
It creates an inherent paradoxical tension. Conformity is necessary but comes at the expense of losing the peer status game - a very fluid and mercurial arena - so the more astute players push the envelope to climb the ladder. Worst-case scenario is denigrating your own to add nitrous oxide to your career arc. Authority has no innate gravitas, which produces endless turnover among thought leaders and the local celebrity pool. Sure both exist but the system is inherently unstable by design.
It may also be related to economic status. As John Derbyshire pointed out expressing compassion for inner city blacks is not just virtue signaling it is also status signaling since the liberal is, by doing so, showing he can afford to live far away from inner city blacks and doesn’t have to deal with the reality of them.
Whether they have to deal with the reality of slum blacks or not (and most blacks these days are distributed fairly unobtrusively outside of slum concentrations), what's notable about white liberals is that its rare to hear them advocate anything which actually addresses the palpable and measurable problems in slum neighborhoods. Years ago, Morton Kondracke interviewed a researcher who specialized in studying drug abuse and the trade in street drugs who was dead-set against any kind of legalization. The man explained the liberal mentality thus, "liberals want to give people things". People like Edward Banfield and Lawrence Mead were building the case that inner-city slum dwellers don't benefit from being given material things over and above what would commonly be provided ordinary wage earners outside the slums (e.g. old age and disability pensions or medical insurance or a berth in a state-financed school). What they have been lacking is public order and hygiene, and liberals refuse to advocate anything of the sort except as an excuse to seize privately-owned firearms or to to increase the head count of the school district or social services apparat. Leave no social worker behind.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
I think some people make this more complicated than it needs to be. How about a sports analogy. If you are a Duke Blue Devils fan your favorite team is obviously Duke and your least favorite team is the North Carolina Tar Heels. However, your second favorite team is whoever is playing North Carolina at that time. So Duke fans will favor any team from any part of the country over their neighbor, UNC( Leapfrogging Loyalties???). And vice-versa for Carolina fans.
The crux of the matter is that American liberals hate white conservatives more than any other group in the world. So they will favor literally any group over them. You can easily predict what liberals will favor once you understand what they hate. The Left is only “for” certain things to the extent they believe it will hurt the group they hate the most. Once you understand this their behavior and attitudes are completely predictable.
You might try turning it around. Typically, the people making these attacks also know nothing, and have done less, for the people they claim to champion. Emphasize that fact. (e.g. "What zip code do you live in? How many of the people you champion live there? What have you done for them lately, other than browbeat random strangers?")
CounterinsurgencyReplies: @Moses
There could be a psychological pattern in which they seek to define themselves in opposition to the near (the "cis," if you will). All adolescents do this. But some people just keep it going into adulthood.
It's like the person who moves to the big city and thereafter defines himself as a sophisticate, looking down on the rubes he left behind.Replies: @Lot, @Art Deco, @Kevin O'Keeffe
Although you gotta admit Coach K looks like a rat.
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-019-12227-0/MediaObjects/41467_2019_12227_Fig5_HTML.pngP.S. That's a nice analogy. Any alternative explanations?Replies: @James N. Kennett
Another way of looking at it. People we know are close to us. Liberals don’t like people who are close to them. People we don’t know are far from us, somewhat abstract. Liberal prefer people far from them. Liberals dislike people, they prefer abstractions.
Put them in prolonged close contact with their favorite oppressed group, and attitudes change. I have a number of friends who moved to DC and Baltimore in the 90s and early 00s and after a few beers would quietly confess that since moving there they had grown to have some thoughts that some might consider racist. Likewise, people who work in the property management industry quickly learn that contra Alena Samuels (of the Atlantic), most lower income tenants are not hapless victims of an unjust system but not very bright people who make bad life choices again and again.Replies: @Logan
I recall hearing this before, and on the surface it sounds good. But I think in reality if such a thing happened, we would not forget our differences and come together in common cause. Rather some groups would seek to use the aliens to put down their domestic rivals. And inevitably those turncoats would face the same fate once their domestic rivals were eliminated.
This has happened in the past with various groups inviting foreigners into their nations to subdue their rivals only to find they themselves being subdued in turn. E.g. the Irish.
Were these studies conducted on just White liberals in the European world? Or were they conducted on what passes for liberals in the non-European world? I have a hard time believing that there is a material number of Japanese, Chinese, Arabs of various stripes and anyone not of the post-WW2 cucked, White world who would would not put their family first, or their nation.
The reason I think this needs clarification is that modern, White liberals really seem to be an oddity. Rush has said before that liberalism is a mental disorder. And if White liberals are the only ones who routinely place their family and nation behind others, then it would make them stand out as freaks of nature.
But to suggest that this is a view shared by liberals worldwide, so that the reader assumes there are similar types in China, Japan, etc., gives this point of view more credibility than it would have received if it were known that just post WW2 Whites suffer from it.
Since the Chinese have even coined a term for it, Baizuo, this would suggest that this disorder is confined to the White, European world.
Hard to separate “leap-frogging loyalty” and antipathy to white people for a typical white liberal as their family, immediate neighbors, and nation are all mostly white.
But for others on the left, is there any sign of leapfrog loyalty? How about Ilhan Omar and AOC? The only example I can think of are the NE Asian leftists who are on board with, e.g., DeBlasio’s anti-Asian “reforms” of public schools.
Thus, I think the better way to think of things is our woke culture is almost entirely about hating white people. The parallel to Nazi antisemitic propaganda from the 20s and 30s is huge. Most woke intellectual activity is nothing more than creating elaborate theories of white responsibility for every possible problem.
Imagine if the alien invaders--if I may use that term alien which is so "alien" to progressive ears--provided a financial incentive to ally with them similar to the incentives provided by the Han Chinese to xfer jobs and technology to them for short term profits.
If the Han, not necessarily the most sophisticated marketers, can pull it off then why not say a Sulfur-based lifeform?Replies: @black sea
https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CNNVoteByMaritalStatus2012-1.png
The good news is that these universalist, overly open to experience preferences are moderately to highly heritable and being bred out of the population quickly. (But not quickly enough to prevent destroying most of the West in the interim.)Replies: @Aft, @Aft
Now the leftist establishment has gone so in hock to corporations, and is so viciously anti white, that I have too much self respect to go anywhere near them. Any white person who stays is either a vicious profiteer, PR mentally ill.
C.S. Lewis “Screwtape Letters” makes a point about this – by concerning ourselves about distant problems, we can avoid having to do anything ourselves, or at our personal expense.
What this can boil down to is that conservatives tend to be bastards in principle but nice guys in practice, while leftists tend to be nice guys in principle but bastards in practice.
Obviously, this isn’t invariably the case, but it seems to be the rule.
The CEO of the company I work for is a very typical case. Talks about creating “a caring corporate culture” and demonstrates this by all kind of campaigns to protect “the environment,” “indigenous people’s rights”, “assure sustainably procured goods,” etc.
Meanwhile, the company, despite making huge profits is cutting the workforce by 10-20%. Cares about people halfway around the world, but not the people in the room next to him...Replies: @Hail, @South Texas Guy, @Achmed E. Newman, @Karl, @TTSSYF, @Ancient Briton
Worth saying: This is not limited to the Left.
There is US right-wing version of this, too,with us since the mid-20th century (Vietnam is a cliche example but really one of very many). It remains largely dominant today.
Trump stumblebummed onto the scene in mid 2015 and exposed it as a giant with feet of clay, but the enforcement apparatus it runs remains strong. Tucker Carlson is a system dissident on this.
Neither Mr. Reality TV President nor Tucker ever touch a big example of right-wing concerns/loyalties that leapfrog over their own people.
As far as the foreign wars go, with your Vietnam example, it's not the same thing. Going backwards, the last 30 years of foreign wars have been arranged and promoted by Neocons for reasons that we all know about. They have never been real conservatives and on the right. They just jumped into positions in government and punditry that were formerly held by actual conservatives fighting the Cold War. This "protect the Iraqi people from madman Saddam" business was a way to get actual Conservatives to come on board, but I think the Conservative American's doing that (using that excuse) is just a holdover from the anti-Communism of the Cold War.
The N. Korea as part of the axis-of-evil bit is a direct holdover from the Cold War. I don't think many conservatives give that much of a damn about the people of N. Korea. It's just a reflexive thing to want another Commie taken down or at least lose his ability to strike at the west.
On Vietnam, it was the same thing. Conservatives did not particularly care about the people of Vietnam, though they didn't hate them, as the left would claim. Hail, remember, from 1944 to 1950 (only 6 years), Communism had gone from just a problem with Russia to controlling all of Eastern Europe including the eastern 1/3 of Germany, the huge area and population of China, then 1/2 of Korea (with the loss of 30-something thousand Americans fighting over it) and now it was gonna be southeast Asia. Cuba and Latin America were another story
The Domino theory was no joke. It wasn't all about saving these poor souls. It was about the world being so dominated by Communism that western Europe and America were going to be next. Normal conservative Americans (it was most of us back then) would have had no problem with Communism being contained in Russia, China, and even E. Europe (they served as great example of what not to do). so long as that was it. The policy was called just that, "containment".Replies: @Jesse, @Redneck farmer
I didn't want to answer your comment for a while, as just in case anyone thought that graphic was a photoshop job, they could check it on the site itself.
(I had to put a comment into Audacious E.'s site, where I can see them immediately, to get the site to say "10,000 comments/ 1,000,000 words", screen capture it, then edit that comment out, in order to past it where I did. Too much time on my hand? Nah!)
OT:
That staple of fifties naughtiness, the panty raid, is back;
https://fox4kc.com/2019/09/27/former-ku-assistant-volleyball-coach-sentenced-for-stealing-female-players-underwear/
“These women showed incredible courage and strength during this process,” District Attorney Charles Branson said.
Charles Branson is ridiculous.Replies: @res
So in other words, liberals are by nature treasonous and opportunistic. The more profound critics of modernity have all been saying this for the last several centuries. There have always been disaffected people who were willing to side with their nation’s enemies as a way of improving their personal lot, but only since the Enlightenment, with its great universalist ideas, have such people been able to dignify their treason in the name of social advancement.
This wrought a sea change that affected the whole ordering of society. Now the traitors no longer needed to confine their conspiracies to dark alleys and smokey back rooms, but could proclaim them out in the open and be proud of them. They were serving the greater good! With that change, the Right was already defeated. All the energy and good conscience was on the side of the Leftists.
If the Right wants to start winning again, it needs to directly attack those Enlightenment ideals and stop trying to be the reasonable branch 0f liberalism
There can be no reasonable branch 0f liberalism. There is no such thing as moderate liberalism. Liberalism is by its very nature socially radical. Right from the start liberalism was intended to destroy all traditional values and beliefs and institutions.
Conservatives can only become useful by utterly renouncing liberalism. But they won't because liberalism is the very core of their being.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Logan
I think the Enlightenment types, no friends of Christianity as such, would welcome the ability to say "See, our ideas are not so different," while on the other hand, this is exactly what disturbed the Greeks/Romans about Christians. (Most of the so-called "persecutions" were just judicial procedures against Christians who refused to swear allegiance to the Emperor).
OT
#BlackMenInMedicine was on my list of worldwide trends on Twitter.
It’s because of @ICREConf, the 2019 International Conference on Residency Education by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
White man:
White woman:
White male with gay face:
Is there a doctor in the house?
"Take two #diversity and call me in the morning."
The assumption in your thought experiment is that the Martians are attacking Earth and thus conservatives. That’s also the assumption in Reagan’s statement. But nobody has or behaves as if they have concentric loyalties. People simply have different levels or groups they favor and act accordingly. If the aliens were freedom loving capitalists who just really hated communism and the USSR, and wanted to help the US win the Cold War, Reagan wouldn’t oppose them just because they’re aliens and submit to global communism instead. And conservatives today would be the same way with respect to Muslims, China, immigrants, and others they regard as enemies.
The history of the Dutch and the Portuguese in Japan is instructive--not simple as regards politics and psychology, but instructive.
OT but of interest: Dismissed Cambridge researcher is suing the university. His research topics include connections between cousin marriage and electoral fraud, as well as the links between genes and intelligence.
https://quillette.com/2019/05/28/noah-carl-an-update-on-the-young-scholar-fired-by-a-cambridge-college-for-thoughtcrime/
This has happened in the past with various groups inviting foreigners into their nations to subdue their rivals only to find they themselves being subdued in turn. E.g. the Irish.Were these studies conducted on just White liberals in the European world? Or were they conducted on what passes for liberals in the non-European world? I have a hard time believing that there is a material number of Japanese, Chinese, Arabs of various stripes and anyone not of the post-WW2 cucked, White world who would would not put their family first, or their nation.
The reason I think this needs clarification is that modern, White liberals really seem to be an oddity. Rush has said before that liberalism is a mental disorder. And if White liberals are the only ones who routinely place their family and nation behind others, then it would make them stand out as freaks of nature.
But to suggest that this is a view shared by liberals worldwide, so that the reader assumes there are similar types in China, Japan, etc., gives this point of view more credibility than it would have received if it were known that just post WW2 Whites suffer from it.
Since the Chinese have even coined a term for it, Baizuo, this would suggest that this disorder is confined to the White, European world.Replies: @Louis Renault, @Lot, @houston 1992, @Aft, @Jesse, @Desiderius, @res, @AndrewR
Montezuma’s enemies did the same thing.
The study suggests that people vary in the scope of their preferences, but it doesn’t follow from this that concentrism holds.
The Nazis certainly had what would be called “parochial preferences”, but they wouldn’t have rejected alien support to defeat their earthling enemies outside of their parochial sphere, especially if they were Nordic aliens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_aliens
The desire to fix the world is by its nature a totalitarian impulse. How can you fix the world without first taking control of it?
Its a lot easier to imagine that such a project is possible with billions of malleable souls in far away places than with your own kids barricaded in their bedrooms, whom you can’t even get to do their homework or load the dishwasher.
I think about the French and their Mission Civilisatrice. Some this seems to have to do with indulging a dream of grandeur.
The crux of the matter is that American liberals hate white conservatives more than any other group in the world. So they will favor literally any group over them. You can easily predict what liberals will favor once you understand what they hate. The Left is only "for" certain things to the extent they believe it will hurt the group they hate the most. Once you understand this their behavior and attitudes are completely predictable.Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @Hypnotoad666, @Mr McKenna, @Hhsiii, @res, @I Have Scinde, @Jim Given, @TTSSYF
It’s also easier to fabricate vicious attacks involving groups that the victim has never heard of or had anything to do with. As you would expect, the whole thing fits together into a workable system of aggression. Note that I’m not talking only about adherents of Judaism here; Yankees do exactly the same thing.
You might try turning it around. Typically, the people making these attacks also know nothing, and have done less, for the people they claim to champion. Emphasize that fact. (e.g. “What zip code do you live in? How many of the people you champion live there? What have you done for them lately, other than browbeat random strangers?”)
Counterinsurgency
The crux of the matter is that American liberals hate white conservatives more than any other group in the world. So they will favor literally any group over them. You can easily predict what liberals will favor once you understand what they hate. The Left is only "for" certain things to the extent they believe it will hurt the group they hate the most. Once you understand this their behavior and attitudes are completely predictable.Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @Hypnotoad666, @Mr McKenna, @Hhsiii, @res, @I Have Scinde, @Jim Given, @TTSSYF
I wonder if liberals have more sibling rivalries and dislike their parents and hometowns more than conservatives.
There could be a psychological pattern in which they seek to define themselves in opposition to the near (the “cis,” if you will). All adolescents do this. But some people just keep it going into adulthood.
It’s like the person who moves to the big city and thereafter defines himself as a sophisticate, looking down on the rubes he left behind.
Probably not since liberals are more likely to be only children.
If my own personal experience is any guide, yes. What's notable about the vast majority of liberals these days is that they think of themselves as visitors from a superior neighborhood or refugees from an inferior one (though you do get the odd soi-disant conservative who has the same mentality - e.g. Kevin Williamson). I'll wager also that people who value palpable human associations and the world-as-it-is tend to see the political world as an aspect of social life generally, not something that should act like an invasive species in other venues within social life.
This has happened in the past with various groups inviting foreigners into their nations to subdue their rivals only to find they themselves being subdued in turn. E.g. the Irish.Were these studies conducted on just White liberals in the European world? Or were they conducted on what passes for liberals in the non-European world? I have a hard time believing that there is a material number of Japanese, Chinese, Arabs of various stripes and anyone not of the post-WW2 cucked, White world who would would not put their family first, or their nation.
The reason I think this needs clarification is that modern, White liberals really seem to be an oddity. Rush has said before that liberalism is a mental disorder. And if White liberals are the only ones who routinely place their family and nation behind others, then it would make them stand out as freaks of nature.
But to suggest that this is a view shared by liberals worldwide, so that the reader assumes there are similar types in China, Japan, etc., gives this point of view more credibility than it would have received if it were known that just post WW2 Whites suffer from it.
Since the Chinese have even coined a term for it, Baizuo, this would suggest that this disorder is confined to the White, European world.Replies: @Louis Renault, @Lot, @houston 1992, @Aft, @Jesse, @Desiderius, @res, @AndrewR
You are correct.
Hard to separate “leap-frogging loyalty” and antipathy to white people for a typical white liberal as their family, immediate neighbors, and nation are all mostly white.
But for others on the left, is there any sign of leapfrog loyalty? How about Ilhan Omar and AOC? The only example I can think of are the NE Asian leftists who are on board with, e.g., DeBlasio’s anti-Asian “reforms” of public schools.
Thus, I think the better way to think of things is our woke culture is almost entirely about hating white people. The parallel to Nazi antisemitic propaganda from the 20s and 30s is huge. Most woke intellectual activity is nothing more than creating elaborate theories of white responsibility for every possible problem.
There could be a psychological pattern in which they seek to define themselves in opposition to the near (the "cis," if you will). All adolescents do this. But some people just keep it going into adulthood.
It's like the person who moves to the big city and thereafter defines himself as a sophisticate, looking down on the rubes he left behind.Replies: @Lot, @Art Deco, @Kevin O'Keeffe
“ I wonder if liberals have more sibling rivalries and dislike their parents and hometowns more than conservatives.”
Probably not since liberals are more likely to be only children.
This wrought a sea change that affected the whole ordering of society. Now the traitors no longer needed to confine their conspiracies to dark alleys and smokey back rooms, but could proclaim them out in the open and be proud of them. They were serving the greater good! With that change, the Right was already defeated. All the energy and good conscience was on the side of the Leftists.
If the Right wants to start winning again, it needs to directly attack those Enlightenment ideals and stop trying to be the reasonable branch 0f liberalismReplies: @Mister.Baseball, @dfordoom, @James J. O'Meara
In any mature democracy there are but two parties, the friends of corruption and the sowers of sedition.
The crux of the matter is that American liberals hate white conservatives more than any other group in the world. So they will favor literally any group over them. You can easily predict what liberals will favor once you understand what they hate. The Left is only "for" certain things to the extent they believe it will hurt the group they hate the most. Once you understand this their behavior and attitudes are completely predictable.Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @Hypnotoad666, @Mr McKenna, @Hhsiii, @res, @I Have Scinde, @Jim Given, @TTSSYF
Honestly, one of the better sports analogies I’ve read.
This wrought a sea change that affected the whole ordering of society. Now the traitors no longer needed to confine their conspiracies to dark alleys and smokey back rooms, but could proclaim them out in the open and be proud of them. They were serving the greater good! With that change, the Right was already defeated. All the energy and good conscience was on the side of the Leftists.
If the Right wants to start winning again, it needs to directly attack those Enlightenment ideals and stop trying to be the reasonable branch 0f liberalismReplies: @Mister.Baseball, @dfordoom, @James J. O'Meara
The Right just offers a nastier version of liberalism. Because conservatives are liberals. What they want to conserve is liberalism.
There can be no reasonable branch 0f liberalism. There is no such thing as moderate liberalism. Liberalism is by its very nature socially radical. Right from the start liberalism was intended to destroy all traditional values and beliefs and institutions.
Conservatives can only become useful by utterly renouncing liberalism. But they won’t because liberalism is the very core of their being.
At least you'll be ready for the death of Sorokin's "sensate" era and the return to medieval "ideationalism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory#19th_and_20th_century_theories
Most all revolutions before and since have been over which subset of the population will get to domineer and stomp all over the other subsets. The American Revolution, with uncomfortable exceptions such as slavery, was intended to keep any subset from stomping on the others, allowing people to lead their own lives as they saw fit.
Conservatism, in the American context, if it means anything logical, means devotion to this ideal.
It’s really good to see this catching on. My hope is that the political center will be redefined as this perfectly natural and traditional concentric loyalty thing, with the left defined as the Communist ideal of mass global egalitarianism, and the right as radical individualism devoid of higher loyalties. The current left-right paradigm is becoming increasingly incoherent, and I think this is the obvious successor. I guess the current names for the natural political center are “populism”, “right-wing extremism” or “fascism”, so we have our work cut out for us.
People far away from you make no demands of you.
Hmm, if Prof Haidt’s research is ongoing, I wonder if he will study how in the case of some liberals, when their personal loyalty leapfrogs a certain prominent political couple’s political and financial self-interests, one of the universalist tendencies is for the said liberal to wind up dead under mysterious/unsolved circumstances.
This has happened in the past with various groups inviting foreigners into their nations to subdue their rivals only to find they themselves being subdued in turn. E.g. the Irish.Were these studies conducted on just White liberals in the European world? Or were they conducted on what passes for liberals in the non-European world? I have a hard time believing that there is a material number of Japanese, Chinese, Arabs of various stripes and anyone not of the post-WW2 cucked, White world who would would not put their family first, or their nation.
The reason I think this needs clarification is that modern, White liberals really seem to be an oddity. Rush has said before that liberalism is a mental disorder. And if White liberals are the only ones who routinely place their family and nation behind others, then it would make them stand out as freaks of nature.
But to suggest that this is a view shared by liberals worldwide, so that the reader assumes there are similar types in China, Japan, etc., gives this point of view more credibility than it would have received if it were known that just post WW2 Whites suffer from it.
Since the Chinese have even coined a term for it, Baizuo, this would suggest that this disorder is confined to the White, European world.Replies: @Louis Renault, @Lot, @houston 1992, @Aft, @Jesse, @Desiderius, @res, @AndrewR
istevefan: I agree. Reagan’s thinking was simplistic( again.)
Imagine if the alien invaders–if I may use that term alien which is so “alien” to progressive ears–provided a financial incentive to ally with them similar to the incentives provided by the Han Chinese to xfer jobs and technology to them for short term profits.
If the Han, not necessarily the most sophisticated marketers, can pull it off then why not say a Sulfur-based lifeform?
This has happened in the past with various groups inviting foreigners into their nations to subdue their rivals only to find they themselves being subdued in turn. E.g. the Irish.Were these studies conducted on just White liberals in the European world? Or were they conducted on what passes for liberals in the non-European world? I have a hard time believing that there is a material number of Japanese, Chinese, Arabs of various stripes and anyone not of the post-WW2 cucked, White world who would would not put their family first, or their nation.
The reason I think this needs clarification is that modern, White liberals really seem to be an oddity. Rush has said before that liberalism is a mental disorder. And if White liberals are the only ones who routinely place their family and nation behind others, then it would make them stand out as freaks of nature.
But to suggest that this is a view shared by liberals worldwide, so that the reader assumes there are similar types in China, Japan, etc., gives this point of view more credibility than it would have received if it were known that just post WW2 Whites suffer from it.
Since the Chinese have even coined a term for it, Baizuo, this would suggest that this disorder is confined to the White, European world.Replies: @Louis Renault, @Lot, @houston 1992, @Aft, @Jesse, @Desiderius, @res, @AndrewR
The reality is many white liberals (target demographic: single white women) don’t have families.
The good news is that these universalist, overly open to experience preferences are moderately to highly heritable and being bred out of the population quickly. (But not quickly enough to prevent destroying most of the West in the interim.)
https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CNNVoteByMaritalStatus2012-1.png
The good news is that these universalist, overly open to experience preferences are moderately to highly heritable and being bred out of the population quickly. (But not quickly enough to prevent destroying most of the West in the interim.)Replies: @Aft, @Aft
Further to that, these women (often old, ugly, and childless, or at best disagreeable feminist harpies) are importing low quality men to give them attention, partially as their way of punishing the white men who didn’t find them to be of wife quality but mostly because lots of brown men means someone will notice them at 40 (or a BMI >40).
https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CNNVoteByMaritalStatus2012-1.png
The good news is that these universalist, overly open to experience preferences are moderately to highly heritable and being bred out of the population quickly. (But not quickly enough to prevent destroying most of the West in the interim.)Replies: @Aft, @Aft
More:
https://vdare.com/posts/audacious-epigone-gender-doesn-t-matter-marriage-does
http://heartistelives.com/2017/03/28/single-white-women-are-the-undertow-of-heritage-america/amp/
Imagine if the alien invaders--if I may use that term alien which is so "alien" to progressive ears--provided a financial incentive to ally with them similar to the incentives provided by the Han Chinese to xfer jobs and technology to them for short term profits.
If the Han, not necessarily the most sophisticated marketers, can pull it off then why not say a Sulfur-based lifeform?Replies: @black sea
American Indian tribes faced alien invaders from the outside world, but despite the efforts of leaders such as Tecumseh, they didn’t forget their differences at all.
I had never given Reagan's comment much thought, but the commentors here are correct, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We would only unite against the aliens if it was obvious they were going to kill us all, but what does that prove? It's not a matter of concentric loyalties but simple survival.
The idea of aliens coming and forming alliances and playing us off against each other before picking us all off is such a good one I'm surprised I can't think of it being done before.
The CEO of the company I work for is a very typical case. Talks about creating “a caring corporate culture” and demonstrates this by all kind of campaigns to protect “the environment,” “indigenous people’s rights”, “assure sustainably procured goods,” etc.
Meanwhile, the company, despite making huge profits is cutting the workforce by 10-20%. Cares about people halfway around the world, but not the people in the room next to him...Replies: @Hail, @South Texas Guy, @Achmed E. Newman, @Karl, @TTSSYF, @Ancient Briton
I forget the story, but Charles Dickens called it ‘telescopic philanthropy,’ about people who would send money to primitives half the world away but wouldn’t part with a shilling for a charity to help London street urchins.
Mrs. Jellyby is described in Brittanica.com as a "satiric character in the novel Bleak House (1852–53) by Charles Dickens, one of his memorable caricatures. Matronly Mrs. Jellyby is a philanthropist who devotes her time and energy to setting up a mission in Africa while ignoring the needy in her own family and neighbourhood."
A thoroughly contemptible creature. Typical leftist.
Does anyone know more about how this played out in Victorian England (which is what Dickens was satirizing)?
Its a lot easier to imagine that such a project is possible with billions of malleable souls in far away places than with your own kids barricaded in their bedrooms, whom you can't even get to do their homework or load the dishwasher.
I think about the French and their Mission Civilisatrice. Some this seems to have to do with indulging a dream of grandeur.Replies: @Digital Samizdat
Yup. Tikkun Olaam.
Dear Ano, there’s no way to put this delicately: your username means “anus” in Latin, Spanish and Italian.
I don’t agree with your idea of the same thing going on with the right as with the left, Hail. Like the “Dems are the real racists” bit, I do think that the right tries to justify its actions to the left in this way. They just don’t really believe in helping far-away peoples over helping their own.
As far as the foreign wars go, with your Vietnam example, it’s not the same thing. Going backwards, the last 30 years of foreign wars have been arranged and promoted by Neocons for reasons that we all know about. They have never been real conservatives and on the right. They just jumped into positions in government and punditry that were formerly held by actual conservatives fighting the Cold War. This “protect the Iraqi people from madman Saddam” business was a way to get actual Conservatives to come on board, but I think the Conservative American’s doing that (using that excuse) is just a holdover from the anti-Communism of the Cold War.
The N. Korea as part of the axis-of-evil bit is a direct holdover from the Cold War. I don’t think many conservatives give that much of a damn about the people of N. Korea. It’s just a reflexive thing to want another Commie taken down or at least lose his ability to strike at the west.
On Vietnam, it was the same thing. Conservatives did not particularly care about the people of Vietnam, though they didn’t hate them, as the left would claim. Hail, remember, from 1944 to 1950 (only 6 years), Communism had gone from just a problem with Russia to controlling all of Eastern Europe including the eastern 1/3 of Germany, the huge area and population of China, then 1/2 of Korea (with the loss of 30-something thousand Americans fighting over it) and now it was gonna be southeast Asia. Cuba and Latin America were another story
The Domino theory was no joke. It wasn’t all about saving these poor souls. It was about the world being so dominated by Communism that western Europe and America were going to be next. Normal conservative Americans (it was most of us back then) would have had no problem with Communism being contained in Russia, China, and even E. Europe (they served as great example of what not to do). so long as that was it. The policy was called just that, “containment”.
I really don't know where Haidt got this image of conservatives being loyal.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
The crux of the matter is that American liberals hate white conservatives more than any other group in the world. So they will favor literally any group over them. You can easily predict what liberals will favor once you understand what they hate. The Left is only "for" certain things to the extent they believe it will hurt the group they hate the most. Once you understand this their behavior and attitudes are completely predictable.Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @Hypnotoad666, @Mr McKenna, @Hhsiii, @res, @I Have Scinde, @Jim Given, @TTSSYF
I went to UNC but will root for Duke if they play Kentucky, or, back when they were good, UNLV. But that’s rare. I’m old enough to remember when Duke stunk and NC State was our biggest rival.
Although you gotta admit Coach K looks like a rat.
BTW, after that wordy comment, let me answer your question from the other day, Hail. No, it was not just coincidence. At about 7-8 thousand comments in, I noticed the ratio was 110 – 120 words/comment. I didn’t pay too much attention, but after 9,000 or so I actively tried to bring it down to 100. Why? Cause I like round numbers, or something. At the end there it took a decent amount of playing around with.
I didn’t want to answer your comment for a while, as just in case anyone thought that graphic was a photoshop job, they could check it on the site itself.
(I had to put a comment into Audacious E.’s site, where I can see them immediately, to get the site to say “10,000 comments/ 1,000,000 words”, screen capture it, then edit that comment out, in order to past it where I did. Too much time on my hand? Nah!)
The CEO of the company I work for is a very typical case. Talks about creating “a caring corporate culture” and demonstrates this by all kind of campaigns to protect “the environment,” “indigenous people’s rights”, “assure sustainably procured goods,” etc.
Meanwhile, the company, despite making huge profits is cutting the workforce by 10-20%. Cares about people halfway around the world, but not the people in the room next to him...Replies: @Hail, @South Texas Guy, @Achmed E. Newman, @Karl, @TTSSYF, @Ancient Briton
I’ve seen the same, NJTC. I am going through my mind trying to think of the real explanation for this behavior. For the CEO types, it’s a status thing, along with all this lefty corporate culture being important in the Crony Capitalist economy we have now. If it looks good to The State, they will do it, as lowly employees don’t matter that much – they are not visible.
For the American low-paid coffee barista, giving a few bucks to some outfit regularly to support lefty causes feels good, looks good, and is just way EASIER than DOING real charity. Helping his nephew who’s got alcoholic tendencies takes too much effort perhaps and follow-up. Doing anything for the neighborhood or local schools may be seen as conservative too, which looks bad.
I've always seen something along the same lines, though at a much higher status level, as pretty disgusting.
Many rich people spend a lot of time on philanthropy, much of which consists of throwing fabulous (and deductible) parties for themselves and their friends to raise money to help the poor. Those funds are then used to pay much, much lower status people to actually, at least in theory, provide the help.
God forbid the rich and powerful should get their hands dirty by actually coming into contact with those for whom they claim to have such great compassion .
I read a book quite some time ago about how during the later 19th this was not nearly so much the case. Wealthy high-status women actually went into slums and worked directly with the poor, demonstrating in the most profound way possible that they considered them human and worth of direct compassion. According to the author, whose name I unfortunately can't remember, such initiatives were generally more effective than today's "pay low-status people to help the poor" approach.
“I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”
Or,
how to manuever or leverage those differences if their survival was at stake, even to the point of selling out their fellow humans.
Think: “X-Files” of “The Invaders”
It was a nice thought that Reagan had but if given the choice he probably would have voted for Kang.
Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12227-0
Key Image:
I have not yet read the article, Aft.
The CEO of the company I work for is a very typical case. Talks about creating “a caring corporate culture” and demonstrates this by all kind of campaigns to protect “the environment,” “indigenous people’s rights”, “assure sustainably procured goods,” etc.
Meanwhile, the company, despite making huge profits is cutting the workforce by 10-20%. Cares about people halfway around the world, but not the people in the room next to him...Replies: @Hail, @South Texas Guy, @Achmed E. Newman, @Karl, @TTSSYF, @Ancient Briton
What makes you believe that this CEO cares and isn’t just lying?
For the American low-paid coffee barista, giving a few bucks to some outfit regularly to support lefty causes feels good, looks good, and is just way EASIER than DOING real charity. Helping his nephew who's got alcoholic tendencies takes too much effort perhaps and follow-up. Doing anything for the neighborhood or local schools may be seen as conservative too, which looks bad.Replies: @Realist, @Logan, @Jim Don Bob
This started at least in the 80’s. I worked for a large pharmaceutical company and it was sad to see the company take a definite left turn. It is now not near the great company it use to be.
There’s an element of that in characters like Arthur Garrity, or the federal judge who jailed the city council of Yonkers, NY because he objected to where they had placed public housing in Yonkers. That judge lived in Pound Ridge, NY, which had no public housing at all.
Whether they have to deal with the reality of slum blacks or not (and most blacks these days are distributed fairly unobtrusively outside of slum concentrations), what’s notable about white liberals is that its rare to hear them advocate anything which actually addresses the palpable and measurable problems in slum neighborhoods. Years ago, Morton Kondracke interviewed a researcher who specialized in studying drug abuse and the trade in street drugs who was dead-set against any kind of legalization. The man explained the liberal mentality thus, “liberals want to give people things”. People like Edward Banfield and Lawrence Mead were building the case that inner-city slum dwellers don’t benefit from being given material things over and above what would commonly be provided ordinary wage earners outside the slums (e.g. old age and disability pensions or medical insurance or a berth in a state-financed school). What they have been lacking is public order and hygiene, and liberals refuse to advocate anything of the sort except as an excuse to seize privately-owned firearms or to to increase the head count of the school district or social services apparat. Leave no social worker behind.
https://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/12/09/lawyer-yonkers-desegregation-case-reflects-judge-sands-legacy/95190544/
There could be a psychological pattern in which they seek to define themselves in opposition to the near (the "cis," if you will). All adolescents do this. But some people just keep it going into adulthood.
It's like the person who moves to the big city and thereafter defines himself as a sophisticate, looking down on the rubes he left behind.Replies: @Lot, @Art Deco, @Kevin O'Keeffe
I wonder if liberals have more sibling rivalries and dislike their parents and hometowns more than conservatives.
If my own personal experience is any guide, yes. What’s notable about the vast majority of liberals these days is that they think of themselves as visitors from a superior neighborhood or refugees from an inferior one (though you do get the odd soi-disant conservative who has the same mentality – e.g. Kevin Williamson). I’ll wager also that people who value palpable human associations and the world-as-it-is tend to see the political world as an aspect of social life generally, not something that should act like an invasive species in other venues within social life.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Mrs. Jellyby is described in Brittanica.com as a “satiric character in the novel Bleak House (1852–53) by Charles Dickens, one of his memorable caricatures. Matronly Mrs. Jellyby is a philanthropist who devotes her time and energy to setting up a mission in Africa while ignoring the needy in her own family and neighbourhood.”
A thoroughly contemptible creature. Typical leftist.
What about for female Conservatives vs. Liberals?
I have not yet read the article, Aft.
Machiavelli had a whole section on using foreign troops against your local enemies, no? Said it was a bad idea.
Plenty of European nations were willing to side with the Ottoman empire against their fellow Christian Europeans, too.
I had never given Reagan’s comment much thought, but the commentors here are correct, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. We would only unite against the aliens if it was obvious they were going to kill us all, but what does that prove? It’s not a matter of concentric loyalties but simple survival.
The idea of aliens coming and forming alliances and playing us off against each other before picking us all off is such a good one I’m surprised I can’t think of it being done before.
Drilling down and looking at the fine print in the paper (the subgraphs) gives you all kinds of neat additional insights.
Very liberal and liberal people have the same order of everyone=friends >> family, so they seem mostly to dislike their family and be closest to their friends. (Thus the ‘chosen family’ trope on the left you see, starting with all the LGBTQ people who got tossed out of home for being gay and catching on with lefties who want to rebel.) Looking at slightly liberal and moderate, friends > all others >> family, people are still annoyed at their families but are at least willing to favor their friends.At ‘slightly conservative’ all the trend lines intersect. Finally, conservative and very conservative people favor friends and family over all others–and even very conservative people favor friends over family! I wonder if the real story here is the collapse of family ties.
Figure 2 shows the expected trend lines with nationalism going up and universalism going down as you move right. Nationalism finally crosses universalism at the ‘slightly conservative’ point, showing just how bad a word it’s gotten to be.
Figure 3, ID with all humanity decreases left to right, and country and community increase left to right, as you’d expect. Everyone from ‘slightly liberal’ on left prefers humanity to country and community. At ‘moderate’ country pulls out ahead, and all the conservatives go country > community > humanity. Community feeling is pretty weak, probably because people move around a lot.
Figure 4, humans versus nonhumans–conservatives care more about humans, though the gap favors humans in all except the very liberal. (Cat ladies?)
Oh, and here’s this text accompanying Figure 5 (the heat map):
Overall, these results suggest conservatives’ moral circles are more likely to encompass human beings, but not other animals or lifeforms whereas liberals’ moral circles are more likely to include nonhumans (even aliens and rocks) as well.
Someone needs to meme that.
Works on so many levels.
If you say so. Not true in our house, especially when someone needs money.Replies: @SFG
“If Mars attacked, conservatives would be reflexively Earthist.”
LOL, this was one of your most silliest comments. If our world was clearly facing mass extinction at the hands of hostile aliens**, the human race collectively and reflexively regardless of race or ideology would seek to take out that threat. Our entire civilization would be at risk. Didn’t you see “Independence Day”?
**Preemptive strike alert–And, no, the “invasion” of America by Pakistanis and Kenyans is NOT an apt comparison.
“Now Haidt is publishing a study that seems to confirm some of my intuitions…”
Of course, there is proper context that you conveniently ignore. But I will leave it up to your alleged superior NOTICING skills to figure that out for yourself. Why spoil your surprise as a giddy school boy?
http://www.ethicsdefined.org/the-problem-with-morality/conservatives-vs-liberals/
The conservative mindset can be summed to:
“if everyone cleans his own yard, everyone will be better”
The CEO of the company I work for is a very typical case. Talks about creating “a caring corporate culture” and demonstrates this by all kind of campaigns to protect “the environment,” “indigenous people’s rights”, “assure sustainably procured goods,” etc.
Meanwhile, the company, despite making huge profits is cutting the workforce by 10-20%. Cares about people halfway around the world, but not the people in the room next to him...Replies: @Hail, @South Texas Guy, @Achmed E. Newman, @Karl, @TTSSYF, @Ancient Briton
I’ve noticed the same thing as relates to social status. I work with several people who have great compassion for the downtrodden, donating time and money to various charitable causes, but who draw their skirts up in disgust if anyone of a lower social class shows up at a company gathering.
Great point – progressives have an idealized view of immigrants, minorities, Muslims, you name it that causes them to champion them over the people they actual know and live with. They are quite happy to signal their solidarity with yard signs, tweets, maybe a march or whatever, but not too many of them can be found downtown working at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen at night – instead they are watching Maddow.
Put them in prolonged close contact with their favorite oppressed group, and attitudes change. I have a number of friends who moved to DC and Baltimore in the 90s and early 00s and after a few beers would quietly confess that since moving there they had grown to have some thoughts that some might consider racist. Likewise, people who work in the property management industry quickly learn that contra Alena Samuels (of the Atlantic), most lower income tenants are not hapless victims of an unjust system but not very bright people who make bad life choices again and again.
I’ve been a fan of Haidt since well before the SJW thing blew up in or around 2014/15.
One of the things that intrigues me about him is that much of what he says is very similar to what J. Peterson and other bugbears of the Left say, yet JH seems to draw a great deal less hostility than they do. I am, for instance, unaware of any attempts to deplatform Haidt.
Haidt spends a lot of time decrying the breakdown of civility and respect between Americans of difference ideological bent, quite reasonably. But I think he misses an absolute key point.
That is which side is the aggressor. With possible rare exceptions, the Left has been the aggressor, with the Right simply trying, usually ineffectively, to defend the values and beliefs it holds dear.
The reason Haidt views this as a more or less equal breakdown in civility and tolerance for those of differing views is, I suspect, that he unconsciously buys into the Leftist notion that anyone who fights back against their aggression is “attacking” them. Hence attempts to simply defend the traditional definition of marriage, and for that matter of male/female, is viewed as despicable attacks on the “rights” of “marginalized groups.”
That nobody had heard of these rights before a week ago seems to go right over their heads.
This leads to the reason compromise with the Left does not work. Let’s think of the issue geographically. I’m conservative and you are liberal. We’re in Kansas City. You want to go to Denver, 600 miles west. I want to go to Cincinnati, 600 miles east.
A true compromise would simply result in us staying in KC. But Leftists define a compromise as going halfway to meet them, which means we wind up in Oakley, KS where nobody at all wants to go.
Any struggle where one side always falls back, no matter how slowly, can only end one way.
That staple of fifties naughtiness, the panty raid, is back;
https://fox4kc.com/2019/09/27/former-ku-assistant-volleyball-coach-sentenced-for-stealing-female-players-underwear/Replies: @Peterike, @Logan
Skyler Yee: panty thief and model Asian immigrant!
“These women showed incredible courage and strength during this process,” District Attorney Charles Branson said.
Charles Branson is ridiculous.
Put them in prolonged close contact with their favorite oppressed group, and attitudes change. I have a number of friends who moved to DC and Baltimore in the 90s and early 00s and after a few beers would quietly confess that since moving there they had grown to have some thoughts that some might consider racist. Likewise, people who work in the property management industry quickly learn that contra Alena Samuels (of the Atlantic), most lower income tenants are not hapless victims of an unjust system but not very bright people who make bad life choices again and again.Replies: @Logan
most lower income tenants are not hapless victims of an unjust system but not very bright people who make bad life choices again and again.
They can, of course, be both.
The actual main thrust of The Bell Curve was the way our society has been making itself increasingly complex. This is done by fairly bright people who thrive on complexity and have no problem navigating it. But it is utterly disastrous to “not very bright people” who by definition cannot handle complexity well. Being “not very bright” is not of course a choice, and a truly just society would be designed to help such people live decent lives. The “quite bright,” OTOH, will probably be okay anyway.
This is made much worse by the upper classes in our society encouraging behavior, particularly with regard to work, drugs and promiscuity that they, for the most part, at least after their early adulthood, do not practice personally.
Such behavior can be engaged in with relatively few repercussions by those who are well-off, well-educated and well-connected. By Tywon from the ghetto or James Earl from the trailer park, not so much.
Such people need work ethic, sobriety and strong families just to maintain a somewhat decent life, much less get ahead. Yet their “betters” have for 50 years glorified and glamorized the opposite.
You have a good point, but it’s too simplistic. If the aliens wanted to defeat Communism and then go home to Mars, that would be much different than if they wanted to defeat Communism and use Leningrad as a trading outpost.
The history of the Dutch and the Portuguese in Japan is instructive–not simple as regards politics and psychology, but instructive.
For the American low-paid coffee barista, giving a few bucks to some outfit regularly to support lefty causes feels good, looks good, and is just way EASIER than DOING real charity. Helping his nephew who's got alcoholic tendencies takes too much effort perhaps and follow-up. Doing anything for the neighborhood or local schools may be seen as conservative too, which looks bad.Replies: @Realist, @Logan, @Jim Don Bob
For the American low-paid coffee barista, giving a few bucks to some outfit regularly to support lefty causes feels good, looks good, and is just way EASIER than DOING real charity. Helping his nephew who’s got alcoholic tendencies takes too much effort perhaps and follow-up.
I’ve always seen something along the same lines, though at a much higher status level, as pretty disgusting.
Many rich people spend a lot of time on philanthropy, much of which consists of throwing fabulous (and deductible) parties for themselves and their friends to raise money to help the poor. Those funds are then used to pay much, much lower status people to actually, at least in theory, provide the help.
God forbid the rich and powerful should get their hands dirty by actually coming into contact with those for whom they claim to have such great compassion .
I read a book quite some time ago about how during the later 19th this was not nearly so much the case. Wealthy high-status women actually went into slums and worked directly with the poor, demonstrating in the most profound way possible that they considered them human and worth of direct compassion. According to the author, whose name I unfortunately can’t remember, such initiatives were generally more effective than today’s “pay low-status people to help the poor” approach.
And that Mr. Sailer is why cosmopolitan liberals keep losing when faced with a challenge.
From Alt-Left.com:
“Herein lies a cautionary tale against the distinctly European tendency of embracing blind universalism. There is no coming future of global utilitarian welfarism, at least not one with internally coherent goals or loyalties, because for most of the peoples of this Earth, the only relevant loyalty is to their group, their moral community, their kith and kin – whatever that looks like. It need not be racial, although it usually is in part. Recent computer model data have shown how ethnocentric orientation fares in competition with three alternative group strategies: humanitarianism (English liberals, effectively), egoism, and traitors (SJWs). The last of these is found to be the least effective strategy by far, which is why in the long run there is little reason to worry about traitorous progressive ideologues. Eventually they will learn the hard way. Ethnocentrism wins the day against humanitarianism too, by exploiting the generosity of humanitarians. This sheds light on how ethnocentrism evolved without invoking impossibilities such as group selection in humans, and how it is that this strategy seems to predominate, quietly, even in relatively humanitarian populations.”
And that Mr.Sailer is why cosmopolitan liberals keep losing whenever challenged:
From Alt-Left.com:
” Herein lies a cautionary tale against the distinctly European tendency of embracing blind universalism. There is no coming future of global utilitarian welfarism, at least not one with internally coherent goals or loyalties, because for most of the peoples of this Earth, the only relevant loyalty is to their group, their moral community, their kith and kin – whatever that looks like. It need not be racial, although it usually is in part. Recent computer model data have shown how ethnocentric orientation fares in competition with three alternative group strategies: humanitarianism (English liberals, effectively), egoism, and traitors (SJWs). The last of these is found to be the least effective strategy by far, which is why in the long run there is little reason to worry about traitorous progressive ideologues. Eventually they will learn the hard way. Ethnocentrism wins the day against humanitarianism too, by exploiting the generosity of humanitarians. This sheds light on how ethnocentrism evolved without invoking impossibilities such as group selection in humans, and how it is that this strategy seems to predominate, quietly, even in relatively humanitarian populations. ”
This has happened in the past with various groups inviting foreigners into their nations to subdue their rivals only to find they themselves being subdued in turn. E.g. the Irish.Were these studies conducted on just White liberals in the European world? Or were they conducted on what passes for liberals in the non-European world? I have a hard time believing that there is a material number of Japanese, Chinese, Arabs of various stripes and anyone not of the post-WW2 cucked, White world who would would not put their family first, or their nation.
The reason I think this needs clarification is that modern, White liberals really seem to be an oddity. Rush has said before that liberalism is a mental disorder. And if White liberals are the only ones who routinely place their family and nation behind others, then it would make them stand out as freaks of nature.
But to suggest that this is a view shared by liberals worldwide, so that the reader assumes there are similar types in China, Japan, etc., gives this point of view more credibility than it would have received if it were known that just post WW2 Whites suffer from it.
Since the Chinese have even coined a term for it, Baizuo, this would suggest that this disorder is confined to the White, European world.Replies: @Louis Renault, @Lot, @houston 1992, @Aft, @Jesse, @Desiderius, @res, @AndrewR
The left is increasingly selecting for white people with…issues. I’d have been a leftist in good standing even 15 years ago.
Now the leftist establishment has gone so in hock to corporations, and is so viciously anti white, that I have too much self respect to go anywhere near them. Any white person who stays is either a vicious profiteer, PR mentally ill.
Aliens for Bernie!
Works on so many levels.
As far as the foreign wars go, with your Vietnam example, it's not the same thing. Going backwards, the last 30 years of foreign wars have been arranged and promoted by Neocons for reasons that we all know about. They have never been real conservatives and on the right. They just jumped into positions in government and punditry that were formerly held by actual conservatives fighting the Cold War. This "protect the Iraqi people from madman Saddam" business was a way to get actual Conservatives to come on board, but I think the Conservative American's doing that (using that excuse) is just a holdover from the anti-Communism of the Cold War.
The N. Korea as part of the axis-of-evil bit is a direct holdover from the Cold War. I don't think many conservatives give that much of a damn about the people of N. Korea. It's just a reflexive thing to want another Commie taken down or at least lose his ability to strike at the west.
On Vietnam, it was the same thing. Conservatives did not particularly care about the people of Vietnam, though they didn't hate them, as the left would claim. Hail, remember, from 1944 to 1950 (only 6 years), Communism had gone from just a problem with Russia to controlling all of Eastern Europe including the eastern 1/3 of Germany, the huge area and population of China, then 1/2 of Korea (with the loss of 30-something thousand Americans fighting over it) and now it was gonna be southeast Asia. Cuba and Latin America were another story
The Domino theory was no joke. It wasn't all about saving these poor souls. It was about the world being so dominated by Communism that western Europe and America were going to be next. Normal conservative Americans (it was most of us back then) would have had no problem with Communism being contained in Russia, China, and even E. Europe (they served as great example of what not to do). so long as that was it. The policy was called just that, "containment".Replies: @Jesse, @Redneck farmer
A better example are the religious nutbags importing millions of foreigners to fill the pews and be recipients of their – taxpayer funded – services. Or this creeps who go around stealing children from the Third World, or focusing their missionary efforts on it.
I really don’t know where Haidt got this image of conservatives being loyal.
Just look at the 2nd example: The purported God-chosen leader of the organization, the So-Called Pope (scroll down) is nothing but Commie follower of liberation theology.
Yeah, there are some deluded, but well-intentioned real Conservatives too, the ones that adopt 2 black kids, hoping to beat genetics, but they put their lives where their mouths are.
Finally, conservative and very conservative people favor friends and family over all others–and even very conservative people favor friends over family! I wonder if the real story here is the collapse of family ties.
If you say so. Not true in our house, especially when someone needs money.
This wrought a sea change that affected the whole ordering of society. Now the traitors no longer needed to confine their conspiracies to dark alleys and smokey back rooms, but could proclaim them out in the open and be proud of them. They were serving the greater good! With that change, the Right was already defeated. All the energy and good conscience was on the side of the Leftists.
If the Right wants to start winning again, it needs to directly attack those Enlightenment ideals and stop trying to be the reasonable branch 0f liberalismReplies: @Mister.Baseball, @dfordoom, @James J. O'Meara
“Enlightenment” idea? Sounds more like Christianity. “Neither Jew nor Greek,” the Good Samaritan, etc.
I think the Enlightenment types, no friends of Christianity as such, would welcome the ability to say “See, our ideas are not so different,” while on the other hand, this is exactly what disturbed the Greeks/Romans about Christians. (Most of the so-called “persecutions” were just judicial procedures against Christians who refused to swear allegiance to the Emperor).
If you say so. Not true in our house, especially when someone needs money.Replies: @SFG
I was looking at the graph. It is entirely possible your family is different. Indeed, I would hope so.
Roger Scruton and James Taranto use the term oikophobia to describe a pathological fear and hatred of nearby and familiar things. It’s borrowed from a psychiatric term meaning a fear of home surroundings. It focuses on precisely what liberals and progressives do constantly: worship the faraway, the exotic, the strange while avoiding and criticizing all local cultural and political practices. For example, Chik-Fil-A, a restaurant chain that observes Sunday closing in keeping with the owners’ religious beliefs, is vilified, while the wearing of hajibs by Muslim women is sanctified as somehow empowering them and being a worthy practice. The disapproval by Chik-Fil-A owners of homosexuality is interpreted as horrific, although the restaurant does not in fact discriminate. The lethal hostility (torture and death) toward homosexuals by Islam is a matter that hardly concerns modern progressives.
My view is that white liberals value freedom from commitment and responsibility above all else. Marriage and having children require the greatest amount of commitment and responsibility so they shy away from them.
Conservatives on the other hand see the value of marriage and children and readily give up some of their freedom in return. That is why so many liberals worship at the alter of abortion. Having a baby is literally slavery and imprisonment for them.
However, white liberals like conservatives do have a sense of altruism and responsibility to make the world better. The concerns of the white conservative start with those closest to him and spread outward. These are commitments and responsibilities that cannot be easily forsaken. Many prominent conservatives such as Michelle Bachmann and John McCain have adopted children. This is an incredible commitment.
On the other hand , a liberal will support open borders or BLM because this gives them a sense of self satisfaction and assuages guilt. They can easily withdraw their support without much attention and claim they are too busy.
How do liberals get this preference for far away entities? It seems so counter intuitive to me, but perhaps it’s their innate disposition?
For the most part, I can’t understand preferring the outer circle though I know there are some cases where my natural empathy would align with the one less like me.
For example, if a man who was driven out of his village by a savage African civil war poached a mountain gorilla after learning he could sell its parts for a good price, my sympathy would still be almost entirely with the mountain gorilla. A human is more like me than a gorilla, yet it’s an endangered and majestic species which garners my sympathy more easily.
Concern over animal welfare is an exception to the Concentric Conservative/Leapfrogging Liberal pattern. The stereotypical animal lover in the UK at least is a woman of small-c conservative tastes who doesn’t much care for mass immigration and favours rigorous old-time punishments for animal abusers.
You might try turning it around. Typically, the people making these attacks also know nothing, and have done less, for the people they claim to champion. Emphasize that fact. (e.g. "What zip code do you live in? How many of the people you champion live there? What have you done for them lately, other than browbeat random strangers?")
CounterinsurgencyReplies: @Moses
I’ve used this to great effect on cucks who want endless low skill 3rd world immigration.
Invariably they live in wealthy supermajority White ZIP codes. Their kids go to supermajority White schools.
Pointing this out is like spraying holy water on them. They recoil, shudder and spit in fear.
Nothing gets under a cuck’s skin more than suggesting he’s “raaaciiistt!”
I enjoy it immensely.
Which is an exploitation of the right’s “far” sympathies. The right starts with hearth and home, then works outwards. But they are willing to go to war against the Far in the name of hearth and home, a sympathy that gets exploited by those with the megaphone.
#BlackMenInMedicine was on my list of worldwide trends on Twitter.
It's because of @ICREConf, the 2019 International Conference on Residency Education by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.White man:
White woman:White male with gay face:Is there a doctor in the house?Replies: @bomag
Is there anything #diversity can’t cure?
“Take two #diversity and call me in the morning.”
As far as the foreign wars go, with your Vietnam example, it's not the same thing. Going backwards, the last 30 years of foreign wars have been arranged and promoted by Neocons for reasons that we all know about. They have never been real conservatives and on the right. They just jumped into positions in government and punditry that were formerly held by actual conservatives fighting the Cold War. This "protect the Iraqi people from madman Saddam" business was a way to get actual Conservatives to come on board, but I think the Conservative American's doing that (using that excuse) is just a holdover from the anti-Communism of the Cold War.
The N. Korea as part of the axis-of-evil bit is a direct holdover from the Cold War. I don't think many conservatives give that much of a damn about the people of N. Korea. It's just a reflexive thing to want another Commie taken down or at least lose his ability to strike at the west.
On Vietnam, it was the same thing. Conservatives did not particularly care about the people of Vietnam, though they didn't hate them, as the left would claim. Hail, remember, from 1944 to 1950 (only 6 years), Communism had gone from just a problem with Russia to controlling all of Eastern Europe including the eastern 1/3 of Germany, the huge area and population of China, then 1/2 of Korea (with the loss of 30-something thousand Americans fighting over it) and now it was gonna be southeast Asia. Cuba and Latin America were another story
The Domino theory was no joke. It wasn't all about saving these poor souls. It was about the world being so dominated by Communism that western Europe and America were going to be next. Normal conservative Americans (it was most of us back then) would have had no problem with Communism being contained in Russia, China, and even E. Europe (they served as great example of what not to do). so long as that was it. The policy was called just that, "containment".Replies: @Jesse, @Redneck farmer
Yeah, but that’s all, like McCarthyite propaganda, or something, AEN!
BTW, Steve Sailer, can you please let through my comment in reply to this comment by Aft, before nobody sees it? It's comedy gold!
One wonders if the Left is actually for real, or their “morality” is just a spectacle to show they are “better” than the Right?
Who actually does care about someone who lives halfway across the globe, who speaks a different language, follows a different religion, wears a different costume, and has problems and concerns that are totally alien to some person living in an American metropolis? [And if they do care, why aren’t they on about Yemen the way they are on about Syria? Or why is “human rights” and “democracy” an invasion-sized problem in Iraq and Afghanistan but not Saudi Arabia?]]
I note the MSM never cover local issues in say Botswana the way the NYT might cover something about up-state NY. Leftists say “they care” but very, very few actually behave in a manner consistent with the claim they care. Why aren’t they all doing refugee work or working for doctors without borders, instead of journalist gigs talking about their hair and tweeting about grumpy white guys and fire hydrants?
Charles Schultz is quoted as saying, “I love humanity. It’s people I don’t like.” Seems to aptly describe leapfrogging liberals.
The CEO of the company I work for is a very typical case. Talks about creating “a caring corporate culture” and demonstrates this by all kind of campaigns to protect “the environment,” “indigenous people’s rights”, “assure sustainably procured goods,” etc.
Meanwhile, the company, despite making huge profits is cutting the workforce by 10-20%. Cares about people halfway around the world, but not the people in the room next to him...Replies: @Hail, @South Texas Guy, @Achmed E. Newman, @Karl, @TTSSYF, @Ancient Briton
Your boss is just another Mrs. Jellyby ( Bleak House, Dickens).
Nice phrase. More on that at https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Telescopic_philanthropy
Does anyone know more about how this played out in Victorian England (which is what Dickens was satirizing)?
Good point about leftist authoritarianism and conformity (which is highly ironic if you listen to much of what they say). But it looks to me you are thinking more of Joshua Greene?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
The crux of the matter is that American liberals hate white conservatives more than any other group in the world. So they will favor literally any group over them. You can easily predict what liberals will favor once you understand what they hate. The Left is only "for" certain things to the extent they believe it will hurt the group they hate the most. Once you understand this their behavior and attitudes are completely predictable.Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @Hypnotoad666, @Mr McKenna, @Hhsiii, @res, @I Have Scinde, @Jim Given, @TTSSYF
All the way down to “all things in existence.” It is worth including the caption to the figure iSteve used to illustrate just how extreme this is. Repeating the figure so we see the caption in context.
P.S. That’s a nice analogy. Any alternative explanations?
This has happened in the past with various groups inviting foreigners into their nations to subdue their rivals only to find they themselves being subdued in turn. E.g. the Irish.Were these studies conducted on just White liberals in the European world? Or were they conducted on what passes for liberals in the non-European world? I have a hard time believing that there is a material number of Japanese, Chinese, Arabs of various stripes and anyone not of the post-WW2 cucked, White world who would would not put their family first, or their nation.
The reason I think this needs clarification is that modern, White liberals really seem to be an oddity. Rush has said before that liberalism is a mental disorder. And if White liberals are the only ones who routinely place their family and nation behind others, then it would make them stand out as freaks of nature.
But to suggest that this is a view shared by liberals worldwide, so that the reader assumes there are similar types in China, Japan, etc., gives this point of view more credibility than it would have received if it were known that just post WW2 Whites suffer from it.
Since the Chinese have even coined a term for it, Baizuo, this would suggest that this disorder is confined to the White, European world.Replies: @Louis Renault, @Lot, @houston 1992, @Aft, @Jesse, @Desiderius, @res, @AndrewR
They coined a term for it to shame their fellow citizens from going down that path. It is not uniquely Western.
What this tells me is that the left cares about the extremes (very immediate family on one side, the whole world on the other side), while the right cares more about the in-between, relatively close relatives that are neither too closely nor too distantly related.
I think this plays well into the reality that today, the left is a coalition of the fringes, while the right is the mass middle.
For the American low-paid coffee barista, giving a few bucks to some outfit regularly to support lefty causes feels good, looks good, and is just way EASIER than DOING real charity. Helping his nephew who's got alcoholic tendencies takes too much effort perhaps and follow-up. Doing anything for the neighborhood or local schools may be seen as conservative too, which looks bad.Replies: @Realist, @Logan, @Jim Don Bob
And, CEOs are not spending their own money.
This has happened in the past with various groups inviting foreigners into their nations to subdue their rivals only to find they themselves being subdued in turn. E.g. the Irish.Were these studies conducted on just White liberals in the European world? Or were they conducted on what passes for liberals in the non-European world? I have a hard time believing that there is a material number of Japanese, Chinese, Arabs of various stripes and anyone not of the post-WW2 cucked, White world who would would not put their family first, or their nation.
The reason I think this needs clarification is that modern, White liberals really seem to be an oddity. Rush has said before that liberalism is a mental disorder. And if White liberals are the only ones who routinely place their family and nation behind others, then it would make them stand out as freaks of nature.
But to suggest that this is a view shared by liberals worldwide, so that the reader assumes there are similar types in China, Japan, etc., gives this point of view more credibility than it would have received if it were known that just post WW2 Whites suffer from it.
Since the Chinese have even coined a term for it, Baizuo, this would suggest that this disorder is confined to the White, European world.Replies: @Louis Renault, @Lot, @houston 1992, @Aft, @Jesse, @Desiderius, @res, @AndrewR
Excellent point. Here is participant information for each of the studies (after the MORE). It is worth noting the raw numbers of liberals/moderates/conservatives. As far as I can tell they looked at neither race nor country of origin (except for 3a and 3b which were US residents only).
Liberals have little loyalty to family because their families are often fragmented. It’s all divorced parents, step-sibs or step-parents, or they are children who are on poor and/or nonspeaking terms with their parents or vice-versa. Liberals are often so dogmatic and egoistical that they don’t get along well with their age peer group and have few or no friends.
In a situation like this, attaching yourself to outsiders offers greater Darwinian potential for finding a mate who will accept you and of successfully passing on your genes.
Fat, strident, white liberal women marry blacks, while feeble white beta males marry minority women. They do it because they are unattractive to those of their own race. White losers increase their chances of marriage and reproductive success by demanding their own country be flooded with outsiders, namely those who are ‘lesser,’ genetically speaking, because those outsiders are not so choosy as other whites. Any white to mate with looks good to an outsider.
Quite often, whites who cannot get along with their own white tribe are just showing the genetic expression of an unusual amount of ‘outsider’ or defective genes that literally make them less related or less acceptable to their own tribe. Some of the most strident pro-immigration supporters are cross-breeds. White/black combinations, or white/Asians, etc. Either that, or they quite literally are outsiders already here who cannot readily blend into the mainstream white population by mating.
Among the loudest promoters of letting outsiders into the US are people who are already outsiders, such as Jews, Blacks, and Mexicans. Letting more outsiders into the US increases their chance of landing a mate. All three of these groups look ‘better’ as mate choices to dirt-poor non-US citizens trying to get ahead and who are willing to take any job they can get.
Politics is all Darwin.
These people claim that they're shunned because of their beliefs, but after interacting with them a while, you realize the sad truth: they're not quarrelsome loners because they're WNs, they're WNs because they're quarrelsome loners.Replies: @Anonymous, @TTSSYF
https://quillette.com/2019/05/28/noah-carl-an-update-on-the-young-scholar-fired-by-a-cambridge-college-for-thoughtcrime/Replies: @res
Thanks for passing that along. I am glad to see Noah Carl is fighting back, but if I read that article correctly they were talking about him suing as an “if” and not an actual fact.
The Daily Mail article is here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516365/Cambridge-scientist-sacked-publishing-racist-research-reveals-suing-university.htmlReplies: @res
Whether they have to deal with the reality of slum blacks or not (and most blacks these days are distributed fairly unobtrusively outside of slum concentrations), what's notable about white liberals is that its rare to hear them advocate anything which actually addresses the palpable and measurable problems in slum neighborhoods. Years ago, Morton Kondracke interviewed a researcher who specialized in studying drug abuse and the trade in street drugs who was dead-set against any kind of legalization. The man explained the liberal mentality thus, "liberals want to give people things". People like Edward Banfield and Lawrence Mead were building the case that inner-city slum dwellers don't benefit from being given material things over and above what would commonly be provided ordinary wage earners outside the slums (e.g. old age and disability pensions or medical insurance or a berth in a state-financed school). What they have been lacking is public order and hygiene, and liberals refuse to advocate anything of the sort except as an excuse to seize privately-owned firearms or to to increase the head count of the school district or social services apparat. Leave no social worker behind.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
That would have been Leonard B Sand.
https://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/12/09/lawyer-yonkers-desegregation-case-reflects-judge-sands-legacy/95190544/
There can be no reasonable branch 0f liberalism. There is no such thing as moderate liberalism. Liberalism is by its very nature socially radical. Right from the start liberalism was intended to destroy all traditional values and beliefs and institutions.
Conservatives can only become useful by utterly renouncing liberalism. But they won't because liberalism is the very core of their being.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Logan
Repeal the Reformation! Tear up the Treaty of Westphalia!
At least you’ll be ready for the death of Sorokin’s “sensate” era and the return to medieval “ideationalism”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory#19th_and_20th_century_theories
Two issues:
🐈Is Brigitte Bardot’s concern for animals over Arabs an instance of this? Or the Englishman’s love for his dog above everyone else? Or the French shocking Europe by employing black colonials in the First World War?
🛂Will we be seeing Haidt-crime legislation to put limits on such research?
Like I wrote in another story here, the future of Western world left-right conventional politics is demographics vs ecology, which one you believe to be the bigger/-est threat. Here we have some solid social science evidence backing up the dichotomy.
This also shows why the environmentalist sector (Green Parties, etc.) tend to be anti-nationalist, love open borders, in spite of their environmentalism. It’s because to be that concerned about the environment, you need to have your concentric circle heat map far out from the center, and such an individual is not much capable of ever caring about close-in concentric circles, i.e. race or ethnicity or tribe.
Steve Sailer:
“Concentric loyalties Vs leapfrogging loyalties”
Acctually, what you call “leapfrogging” loyalties is far more rational and innately moral. The problem with “concentric” loyalties is that people don’t arbitrarily have diminished personal, intellectual and moral value according to how far off the center the circle they are in is. The problem with yur whole argument is that, say, a Palestinean child being beaten bt Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip does not experience a lesser degree of pain and terror than your own child would under the same ccircumccstance.
You present concentric circles of loyalty as a valid moral behavior, that is somehow superior to the moral values of liberals. How? It is completely arbitrary, irrational and thus immoral. It is based on *geneticc and arbitrary* selfishness. The whole point of morality is selflessness: we ascribe moral value to others based on empathy, on the fact that they can experience what we can, so something that is unpleasant to us is unpleasant to them. Your morality is completely arbitrary and selfish:
“I care more about those who are more similar to me; the fact that others that are different feel the same pain is less relevant.”
Your morality is deeply immoral. Oxford philosopher, David Pearce, who is a good friend of mine, has written about this in his defense of animal rights, about how degrees of sentience is a much more rational way to ascribe moral vaalue to other living things than arbitrart categorizations, such as species. Likewise, this applies to humans as well. The categorizations such as “nation”, ” gender” and ” race” are arbitrary and/or pseudo-scientifiic and not morally valid. Here is David on the issue:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwipkpz37fbkAhVwGbkGHQAVApEQFjAAegQIABAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.animal-rights-library.com%2Ftexts-m%2Fpearce01.htm&usg=AOvVaw2a1wYQ8gMtkKFfMJu9oUiE
This is the problem with you, Steve Sailer: you are an arrogant pluripotent blowhard who bases your entire political views on arbitrary value-judgements. You start with aa biased, slanted, selfish and innately morally bankrupt principle, such as:
“What is good for native-born Americans?”
And then, you try to justify things such as restricting immigration, or removing righs from gays, etc, on *moral* grounds. The stupidity and odious nature of your “thinking” is what makes it worse. I actually respect a flat out raacist more than I do you, because as odious and deplorable the viewpoint of the racist it, at least he does not engage in the even more odious cynicism of trying to jjustify their detestable prejudices on moral grounds.
Look: it is those of us who accept the reality of "concentric loyalties" who are more likely to take a balanced view of the Mideast situation and demand that the US stop its one-sided support for Israel. On the other hand, have you heard even a single one of the current Democratic candidates speak up for the Palestinians?
Yes, yes, all human lives are of value in the eyes of God or Brahma or the multiverse or whatever.
But, the point of "concentric loyalties" is not that we denigrate the Palestinians. The point is to realize that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are our problem.
We should just leave them alone.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
You want this in terms of political philosophy? We should respect the "negative rights" of all human beings everywhere all the time. But in terms of positive obligations, we should focus on those near to ourselves: first ourselves and our families, then our neighbors, then our hometowns, and so on.
And this actually makes sense even in terms of a universalist utilitarianism. You know enough about your neighbors that, with a bit of thought, you can help them when they actually need help without being a nosy busybody who is "helping" them when they just want to be left alone.
But if you try to "help" the people of Vietnam or Iraq or Syria, you know so little about those countries that you are likely to destroy the country in the name of saving it.
And that is why cosmopolitan liberals keeping losing whenever they receive a nationalist challenge.
From Alt-left.com:
” Herein lies a cautionary tale against the distinctly European tendency of embracing blind universalism. There is no coming future of global utilitarian welfarism, at least not one with internally coherent goals or loyalties, because for most of the peoples of this Earth, the only relevant loyalty is to their group, their moral community, their kith and kin – whatever that looks like. It need not be racial, although it usually is in part. Recent computer model data have shown how ethnocentric orientation fares in competition with three alternative group strategies: humanitarianism (English liberals, effectively), egoism, and traitors (SJWs). The last of these is found to be the least effective strategy by far, which is why in the long run there is little reason to worry about traitorous progressive ideologues. Eventually they will learn the hard way. Ethnocentrism wins the day against humanitarianism too, by exploiting the generosity of humanitarians. This sheds light on how ethnocentrism evolved without invoking impossibilities such as group selection in humans, and how it is that this strategy seems to predominate, quietly, even in relatively humanitarian populations. ”
You should be down on your knees thanking Hermes Trismegistus and Thoth that Donald John Trump had such a command of the television medium as he did. Otherwise you’d be b!tching about POTUS Citizen Kaine at the moment.
Then stand up and remember that Tucker McNear Carlson also commands the electronic media–out of his father’s experience and roles with Look, USIA, and VOA. (I view his dad as a bigger badass than the son ever will be…but then Mr. Tucker has plenty of years ahead of him hopefully.)
Trump always knew what the media were. Always. He played the MSM like the church organist lady in The Simpsons nailed “In The Garden of Eden.” He started down this path while I was still a snot-nosed student at his alma mater. No less an old media maven than Walter Annenberg regarded with admiration young builder Trump’s gift for getting himself in the newspapers/building himself a media presence.
So your assertion that he “stumblebummed” into this in 2015 is…well, I’ll be polite and say daft.
For a good time look up how Carlson’s dad, Dick Carlson, took on Joe Alioto (SF mayor of deeply questionable ethics, on the city’s bridge for the white-targeting Zebra killings, the Zodiac murder spree, the SLA crime spree, and a buncha else-a stuff in Nancy Pelosi’s/Dianne Feinstein’s home town). I always knew we hadn’t gotten the whole story about that, and I’ve never had time to dig into it. It’s on my Diggery Do list hopefully before the Internet gets Shut Down (TM).
That staple of fifties naughtiness, the panty raid, is back;
https://fox4kc.com/2019/09/27/former-ku-assistant-volleyball-coach-sentenced-for-stealing-female-players-underwear/Replies: @Peterike, @Logan
Was looking around on Craigslist, and somehow stumbled across a section of the Brit site that was devoted to women selling their “worn” undergarments. Apparently doing quite a lively business.
There can be no reasonable branch 0f liberalism. There is no such thing as moderate liberalism. Liberalism is by its very nature socially radical. Right from the start liberalism was intended to destroy all traditional values and beliefs and institutions.
Conservatives can only become useful by utterly renouncing liberalism. But they won't because liberalism is the very core of their being.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Logan
You are correct in that arguably the American Revolution is the most radical/liberal in history.
Most all revolutions before and since have been over which subset of the population will get to domineer and stomp all over the other subsets. The American Revolution, with uncomfortable exceptions such as slavery, was intended to keep any subset from stomping on the others, allowing people to lead their own lives as they saw fit.
Conservatism, in the American context, if it means anything logical, means devotion to this ideal.
And the Mexican and Peruvian Indians.
There could be a psychological pattern in which they seek to define themselves in opposition to the near (the "cis," if you will). All adolescents do this. But some people just keep it going into adulthood.
It's like the person who moves to the big city and thereafter defines himself as a sophisticate, looking down on the rubes he left behind.Replies: @Lot, @Art Deco, @Kevin O'Keeffe
I don’t know of any data to confirm this, but it sure accords with my experiences. Every liberal hates the place they grew up in (and most are just as embarrassed by their parents at age 40, as I was when I was 12). When we lived in a more narrowly-focused world, that wasn’t quite as problematic as it has become. It doesn’t really matter if some guy hates Council Bluffs, Iowa, or wherever. But now days, liberals hate the USA, and the larger West itself.
Testing.
And that Mr. Sailer is why cosmopolitan liberals always lose when faced with a communitarian challenge
From Alt-Left.com:
“Herein lies a cautionary tale against the distinctly European tendency of embracing blind universalism. There is no coming future of global utilitarian welfarism, at least not one with internally coherent goals or loyalties, because for most of the peoples of this Earth, the only relevant loyalty is to their group, their moral community, their kith and kin – whatever that looks like. It need not be racial, although it usually is in part. Recent computer model data have shown how ethnocentric orientation fares in competition with three alternative group strategies: humanitarianism (English liberals, effectively), egoism, and traitors (SJWs). The last of these is found to be the least effective strategy by far, which is why in the long run there is little reason to worry about traitorous progressive ideologues. Eventually they will learn the hard way. Ethnocentrism wins the day against humanitarianism too, by exploiting the generosity of humanitarians. ”
To which I can only add, thank heaven for human nature!
Mearsheimer does think that progressive liberalism is so tightly intertwined with modern post-industrial society that it can never be fully extirpated. On that, I think he is too pessimistic.
History happens, the times they are a changin', crises occur, nothing is forever.
There are a lot of sources of instability in progressive liberalism -- from financial and monetary instability to denial of basic facts of human biology to government fiscal collapse. It will not last forever.
I also thinks that Mearsheimer over-emphasizes the problem with too much individualism in classical (nineteenth-century) liberalism: after all, our nineteenth-century forebears were very social people in everything from barn-raisings to founding the English kennel clubs.
Classical liberalism opposed socialism but it very much favored sociality. The whole idea was that if government would leave people alone and if social interactions were purely voluntary, then human sociality would flourish.
And it worked. Nineteenth-century England and America were shining exemplars of voluntary human cooperation, charity, and sociality.
Despite these quibbles, it s a great book: one of the central themes, by the way, is that the USA really better stop "Invite the world/invade the world" for our own good and the goof of everyone else. One almost suspects that Mearsheimer may be reading Sailer!Replies: @Desiderius
https://www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/bleak-house.pdf
Nick Diaz wrote:
Except…. except…
Look: it is those of us who accept the reality of “concentric loyalties” who are more likely to take a balanced view of the Mideast situation and demand that the US stop its one-sided support for Israel. On the other hand, have you heard even a single one of the current Democratic candidates speak up for the Palestinians?
Yes, yes, all human lives are of value in the eyes of God or Brahma or the multiverse or whatever.
But, the point of “concentric loyalties” is not that we denigrate the Palestinians. The point is to realize that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are our problem.
We should just leave them alone.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
You want this in terms of political philosophy? We should respect the “negative rights” of all human beings everywhere all the time. But in terms of positive obligations, we should focus on those near to ourselves: first ourselves and our families, then our neighbors, then our hometowns, and so on.
And this actually makes sense even in terms of a universalist utilitarianism. You know enough about your neighbors that, with a bit of thought, you can help them when they actually need help without being a nosy busybody who is “helping” them when they just want to be left alone.
But if you try to “help” the people of Vietnam or Iraq or Syria, you know so little about those countries that you are likely to destroy the country in the name of saving it.
From Alt-Left.com:
"Herein lies a cautionary tale against the distinctly European tendency of embracing blind universalism. There is no coming future of global utilitarian welfarism, at least not one with internally coherent goals or loyalties, because for most of the peoples of this Earth, the only relevant loyalty is to their group, their moral community, their kith and kin – whatever that looks like. It need not be racial, although it usually is in part. Recent computer model data have shown how ethnocentric orientation fares in competition with three alternative group strategies: humanitarianism (English liberals, effectively), egoism, and traitors (SJWs). The last of these is found to be the least effective strategy by far, which is why in the long run there is little reason to worry about traitorous progressive ideologues. Eventually they will learn the hard way. Ethnocentrism wins the day against humanitarianism too, by exploiting the generosity of humanitarians. "Replies: @PhysicistDave
Kaplan Turqweather wrote:
I’m currently reading John Mearsheimer’s recent The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. One of his major themes is that liberals are congenitally unable to understand that normal human beings view the world not from a God-like perspective but from the perspective of where they are actually physically located in the world. And, therefore, liberals can never really have a final victory: human nature will always fight back against liberalism.
To which I can only add, thank heaven for human nature!
Mearsheimer does think that progressive liberalism is so tightly intertwined with modern post-industrial society that it can never be fully extirpated. On that, I think he is too pessimistic.
History happens, the times they are a changin’, crises occur, nothing is forever.
There are a lot of sources of instability in progressive liberalism — from financial and monetary instability to denial of basic facts of human biology to government fiscal collapse. It will not last forever.
I also thinks that Mearsheimer over-emphasizes the problem with too much individualism in classical (nineteenth-century) liberalism: after all, our nineteenth-century forebears were very social people in everything from barn-raisings to founding the English kennel clubs.
Classical liberalism opposed socialism but it very much favored sociality. The whole idea was that if government would leave people alone and if social interactions were purely voluntary, then human sociality would flourish.
And it worked. Nineteenth-century England and America were shining exemplars of voluntary human cooperation, charity, and sociality.
Despite these quibbles, it s a great book: one of the central themes, by the way, is that the USA really better stop “Invite the world/invade the world” for our own good and the goof of everyone else. One almost suspects that Mearsheimer may be reading Sailer!
The present instantiation of Liberalism is among the worst if not the worst in history.
So either we’re in a fin d’siecle or just in a temporarily bad stretch, perhaps a period of adjustment to new information tech like that which followed the printing press.
The crux of the matter is that American liberals hate white conservatives more than any other group in the world. So they will favor literally any group over them. You can easily predict what liberals will favor once you understand what they hate. The Left is only "for" certain things to the extent they believe it will hurt the group they hate the most. Once you understand this their behavior and attitudes are completely predictable.Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @Hypnotoad666, @Mr McKenna, @Hhsiii, @res, @I Have Scinde, @Jim Given, @TTSSYF
And yet, there is another subset of fans out there that would still root for UNC. In collegiate athletics it is often manifested by conference loyalties, and was more pronounced in the days when conferences had geographical meaning. SWC, SEC, and Big 8 would root for their rivals to make the conference look good, and their win or loss over their rival look better. Big Ten and Pac-8/10 fans almost all rooted for their side in the Rose Bowl. I believe the point is that this approach is more fundamentally conservative.
To which I can only add, thank heaven for human nature!
Mearsheimer does think that progressive liberalism is so tightly intertwined with modern post-industrial society that it can never be fully extirpated. On that, I think he is too pessimistic.
History happens, the times they are a changin', crises occur, nothing is forever.
There are a lot of sources of instability in progressive liberalism -- from financial and monetary instability to denial of basic facts of human biology to government fiscal collapse. It will not last forever.
I also thinks that Mearsheimer over-emphasizes the problem with too much individualism in classical (nineteenth-century) liberalism: after all, our nineteenth-century forebears were very social people in everything from barn-raisings to founding the English kennel clubs.
Classical liberalism opposed socialism but it very much favored sociality. The whole idea was that if government would leave people alone and if social interactions were purely voluntary, then human sociality would flourish.
And it worked. Nineteenth-century England and America were shining exemplars of voluntary human cooperation, charity, and sociality.
Despite these quibbles, it s a great book: one of the central themes, by the way, is that the USA really better stop "Invite the world/invade the world" for our own good and the goof of everyone else. One almost suspects that Mearsheimer may be reading Sailer!Replies: @Desiderius
This.
The present instantiation of Liberalism is among the worst if not the worst in history.
So either we’re in a fin d’siecle or just in a temporarily bad stretch, perhaps a period of adjustment to new information tech like that which followed the printing press.
Yeah, that’s what I sort of believed until I read Miss Coulter on Tailgunner Joe (just the columns, but I ought to get her book).
BTW, Steve Sailer, can you please let through my comment in reply to this comment by Aft, before nobody sees it? It’s comedy gold!
The crux of the matter is that American liberals hate white conservatives more than any other group in the world. So they will favor literally any group over them. You can easily predict what liberals will favor once you understand what they hate. The Left is only "for" certain things to the extent they believe it will hurt the group they hate the most. Once you understand this their behavior and attitudes are completely predictable.Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @Hypnotoad666, @Mr McKenna, @Hhsiii, @res, @I Have Scinde, @Jim Given, @TTSSYF
A brilliant but crucial insight: the distinct between ideological (and tribal) loyalties defined by love and caring (those closest to me, then those closest to them, etc.); vs. loyalties defined by hatred and competition (tentative shifting alliances with each of the enemies of my enemy). (As a physicist, I would designate this as “ferromagnetic” vs. “anti-ferromagnetic order”.) As “social science” this sort of ideology-laden thesis seems so retrograde; so anachronistic. It seems very much to resemble the sort of *research* produced by the post-WWII Frankfurt School. And yes, it does seem very much like the authors want to contrast Jews and Christians, (rather than the “liberals” and “conservatives” employed here as proxies); characterizing them as “parochial” and “cosmopolitan”, respectively. In the present era it would be hopelessly simplistic to make any simple characterization of Americans as “liberals” and “conservatives”, respectively. Any meaningful characterization must be multi-dimensional; probably two or three dimensional. The strict two-party frame, successfully enforced in American politics, does impose dichotomy on American politics. But both political parties are presently characterized very much by the second type of order I mention; tentative alliances of groups with very little in common.
Some affluent liberals live in affluent outer ring suburbs far from the urban scene while others live in affluent inner ring suburbs and urban neighborhoods, near racially and economic diverse areas although usually not in them.
Liberals are deplorable oikophobes.
Roger Scruton
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs49-8.pdf
Liberals / progressives, almost always value the “mysterious other” over their own people (sometimes their own close kindred). They also tend to noble-ize and/or excuse negative characteristics in the “mysterious other” that they actively disdain in their own people. The sports analogy already mentioned is part of this, as is the “enemy of my enemy” theory and the “fragmented family”. They all come together like a trifecta in some liberals, while others may only have 1-2 of the three prongs.
Some litmus tests:
1. Looks down about lower-middle class whites who listen to rock music with foul or nonsense lyrics; however, idolizes/remains neutral on rap lyrics that are more profane, and music without any actual melody. Even music calling women bitches and hoes.
2. Corrects MC and LMC whites in social settings with things like “It’s pronounced NeanderTAL (dummy), not NeanderTHAL..sheesh (shaking head)”; however, routinely gives pass to blacks who cannot pronounce 50 percent of the words in a given sentence correctly. (See Heartiste’s Venn diagram of this….that Trump “haiti is a shithole comment is racist….but yet they all say that of the American South all the time…especially if they find out the person they are talking to is from the South”). Wants to show intellectual prowess but yet never feels the need to do this around blacks.
3. Uses blacks as a proxy against whites in various discussions. Hopes so and so gets “raped by black men” or “shot” in some known ghetto area, or challenges a MC or LMC White in some way that does not put them (lib/prog) as the aggressor, but blacks (out of nowhere)…”you wouldn’t be saying that if…” (even when the conversation has nothing to do with blacks). Also, tends to go out of their way to heighten perceived black superiority… for example, a casual break room conversation about last nights boxing match, suddenly turns into their argument that Ali (or Tyson) was SOOOO Much better than Marciano (or Klitchko if they are up to date). Almost always wants to position blacks or mexicans in a narrative, into a position where they are hypothetically hurting MC and LMC whites.
4. Snoots their nose at LMC whites who cannot speak a foreign language or “find Belgium on a map”; however, doesn’t care that most blacks or mexicans or any other non-white group in the US cannot find NYC on a map, and has no idea who Benjamin Franklin was. Doesn’t care that Obama thinks Austrians speak “Austrian” (instead of the correct, German).
Number one test when lib/progressive starts sermonizing you: Nonchalently work into the conversation where they live (they love to brag about their neighborhood, schools, etc). Casually narrow it down to an identifiable zip code on your smart ph0ne…let them ramble about helping blacks, minorities, etc. Casually pull up the demos on their zip code (it will almost always be overwhelmingly white and/or asian). Mention it to them….noting the dichotomy. If you live in a Metro area that is 25 pct black…make clear you do not even continue to HAVE a conversation with a lib/prog until they live in an area that is 25 pct black.
I see it as the liberal mindset is more like a hunter-gatherer mindset. The universalism was with nature and everything in it. The how-to for their survival.
The conservative mindset would be that of townsfolk and universalism based on family, town, ruler, and deity. The how-to for their survival.
Unfortunately, both are burdened with mindsets that fail miserably in a modern technological world.
When I was 6 I rooted for the LA Dodgers over the SF Giants in the National League. But when I watched the All-Star Game at my cousins’ house in St. Paul, where they rooted for the Minnesota Twins of the American League, I rooted for Willie Mays of the Giants to hit a homer to help the NL beat the AL.
Similarly, I rooted for the California Angels on the rare occasions when they were good.
That behavior is so quintessentially liberal. Lately I’ve seen liberals going crazy over climate change (I suppose because of Greta Thunberg), yet I haven’t seen a single one riding a bicycle to work.
This has happened in the past with various groups inviting foreigners into their nations to subdue their rivals only to find they themselves being subdued in turn. E.g. the Irish.Were these studies conducted on just White liberals in the European world? Or were they conducted on what passes for liberals in the non-European world? I have a hard time believing that there is a material number of Japanese, Chinese, Arabs of various stripes and anyone not of the post-WW2 cucked, White world who would would not put their family first, or their nation.
The reason I think this needs clarification is that modern, White liberals really seem to be an oddity. Rush has said before that liberalism is a mental disorder. And if White liberals are the only ones who routinely place their family and nation behind others, then it would make them stand out as freaks of nature.
But to suggest that this is a view shared by liberals worldwide, so that the reader assumes there are similar types in China, Japan, etc., gives this point of view more credibility than it would have received if it were known that just post WW2 Whites suffer from it.
Since the Chinese have even coined a term for it, Baizuo, this would suggest that this disorder is confined to the White, European world.Replies: @Louis Renault, @Lot, @houston 1992, @Aft, @Jesse, @Desiderius, @res, @AndrewR
Every Japanese person knows what “Japan first” led to, so obviously many of them aren’t exactly fanatical about “Japan first.” Of course this doesn’t mean that ethnomasochism is as common among the Japanese as among, say, Germans, but I’m not sure why it’s so hard to believe that many people in Japan and other “non-white” lands tend to value what’s good for the world over what’s good for their own country.
Whiskey, please stick to one handle.
Leftists don’t conceptualize authority as an ontological appartus born from natural order. They operate under the narcissistic impulse that individual moral guidelines must extend wholesale into ethical ones (ergodicity and emergent phenomena are beyond their usual paygrade). Conformity is a grassroots movement where all irrelevant distinctions are blotted out in favor of lockstep ideology. Authority is the imprimatur of peer approval, suspect to termination whenever the institution blurts out naughty words in the public arena.
It creates an inherent paradoxical tension. Conformity is necessary but comes at the expense of losing the peer status game – a very fluid and mercurial arena – so the more astute players push the envelope to climb the ladder. Worst-case scenario is denigrating your own to add nitrous oxide to your career arc. Authority has no innate gravitas, which produces endless turnover among thought leaders and the local celebrity pool. Sure both exist but the system is inherently unstable by design.
The first story that I read on this topic was in The Daily Mail. According to that article, published yesterday:
After having read that article, I googled the topic and for whatever reason — maybe because it was shorter — linked to the piece from Quillette.
The Daily Mail article is here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516365/Cambridge-scientist-sacked-publishing-racist-research-reveals-suing-university.html
Does Mark Steyn live in the Indian Stream Republic? That’s kind of America’s High Cocklaw. Or Low.
I’m okay with helping the “not very bright” even more than we already do, but it would come with a catch: mandatory sterilization. Is that not the kindness we show feral cats when we round them up off the street and spay and neuter them? As it is now, we’re just paying them to breed.
Do you think that all geniuses have genius children?Replies: @TTSSYF
The problem is that our society constantly makes things more difficult than they need to be for the "not too bright."
For instance, there is no reason a not very bright guy couldn't run a small business mowing lawns and such for his neighbors. There is nothing in the services themselves that requires much intelligence.
But running any business today is complex, what with dealing with taxation, business licenses, etc., etc.Replies: @TTSSYF
For the most part, I can’t understand preferring the outer circle though I know there are some cases where my natural empathy would align with the one less like me.
For example, if a man who was driven out of his village by a savage African civil war poached a mountain gorilla after learning he could sell its parts for a good price, my sympathy would still be almost entirely with the mountain gorilla. A human is more like me than a gorilla, yet it’s an endangered and majestic species which garners my sympathy more easily.Replies: @TTSSYF
While I’m heavily-weighted on the inner circles of preferring family and then friends to outsiders, I jump a few rings in preferring animals to more than a few distant humans.
The crux of the matter is that American liberals hate white conservatives more than any other group in the world. So they will favor literally any group over them. You can easily predict what liberals will favor once you understand what they hate. The Left is only "for" certain things to the extent they believe it will hurt the group they hate the most. Once you understand this their behavior and attitudes are completely predictable.Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @Hypnotoad666, @Mr McKenna, @Hhsiii, @res, @I Have Scinde, @Jim Given, @TTSSYF
Isn’t this just another way of saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”?
I really don't know where Haidt got this image of conservatives being loyal.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
Are you sure that those Lutherans importing the Somalians by the planeload and the Catholic Churches with their encouragement of Chicano immigration to fill the pews are Conservative, Jesse? Formerly conservative institutions have been infiltrated by the ctrl-left, and we shouldn’t mistake the people in them for Conservatives anymore.
Just look at the 2nd example: The purported God-chosen leader of the organization, the So-Called Pope (scroll down) is nothing but Commie follower of liberation theology.
Yeah, there are some deluded, but well-intentioned real Conservatives too, the ones that adopt 2 black kids, hoping to beat genetics, but they put their lives where their mouths are.
That’s an excellent comparison/contrast there, Mr. Smith. The nagging feeling of extreme hypocrisy is always with me when I think of the left, but you nailed this one down.
Any number of commenters have provided answers to your question.
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-019-12227-0/MediaObjects/41467_2019_12227_Fig5_HTML.pngP.S. That's a nice analogy. Any alternative explanations?Replies: @James N. Kennett
The figure suggests that liberals supposedly care for plants and trees more than members of their own species. In fact, circle 14 includes all the circles within it: it does not exclude circles 1 to 13.
I can’t help but notice that Race was not on the heat map.
Mostly OT
In a situation like this, attaching yourself to outsiders offers greater Darwinian potential for finding a mate who will accept you and of successfully passing on your genes.
Fat, strident, white liberal women marry blacks, while feeble white beta males marry minority women. They do it because they are unattractive to those of their own race. White losers increase their chances of marriage and reproductive success by demanding their own country be flooded with outsiders, namely those who are 'lesser,' genetically speaking, because those outsiders are not so choosy as other whites. Any white to mate with looks good to an outsider.
Quite often, whites who cannot get along with their own white tribe are just showing the genetic expression of an unusual amount of 'outsider' or defective genes that literally make them less related or less acceptable to their own tribe. Some of the most strident pro-immigration supporters are cross-breeds. White/black combinations, or white/Asians, etc. Either that, or they quite literally are outsiders already here who cannot readily blend into the mainstream white population by mating.
Among the loudest promoters of letting outsiders into the US are people who are already outsiders, such as Jews, Blacks, and Mexicans. Letting more outsiders into the US increases their chance of landing a mate. All three of these groups look 'better' as mate choices to dirt-poor non-US citizens trying to get ahead and who are willing to take any job they can get.
Politics is all Darwin.Replies: @Anonymous
I don’t know about liberals, but that exactly describes the typical white nationalist. The WN who claims to love the white race, yet has bad relations with all the white people closest to him, is a common ironic stereotype.
These people claim that they’re shunned because of their beliefs, but after interacting with them a while, you realize the sad truth: they’re not quarrelsome loners because they’re WNs, they’re WNs because they’re quarrelsome loners.
For the most part, out WNs tend to be people with past or present issues. Squared away smart functional whites stay far away-because they can get around the dysfunctionality okay themselves. They can get a desirable college degree or learn and work a good trade or sniff out the last blue collar good jobs like the railroad, elevator mechanic, etc. They can then get a house in an area with no underclass blacks or illegal mestizos because it costs too much. They see what is going on but dare not speak up.
The people who will are either a tiny number of tenured or retired principled ones or people who have nothing left to lose. Many have made mistakes in life. Some are not high IQ, some have personality issues, most are easily Discredited.
But they can see what is happening.
"if everyone cleans his own yard, everyone will be better"Replies: @al gore rhythms
Unless everyone dumps their rubbish in the neighbour’s yard.
Do you think all “fairly bright” people have “fairly bright” or “very bright” parents?
Do you think that all geniuses have genius children?
Their objections to authority and sanctity arise when somebody else is the authority. They are “daddy issues”.
They don’t object to either authority or sanctity if they are the ones who are deciding the rules. If in addition they can punish the older generation for beliefs that were considered normal 40 years ago, so much the better. Daddy issues again.
These people claim that they're shunned because of their beliefs, but after interacting with them a while, you realize the sad truth: they're not quarrelsome loners because they're WNs, they're WNs because they're quarrelsome loners.Replies: @Anonymous, @TTSSYF
Harold Covington, and to an extent William Pierce himself, openly discussed this.
For the most part, out WNs tend to be people with past or present issues. Squared away smart functional whites stay far away-because they can get around the dysfunctionality okay themselves. They can get a desirable college degree or learn and work a good trade or sniff out the last blue collar good jobs like the railroad, elevator mechanic, etc. They can then get a house in an area with no underclass blacks or illegal mestizos because it costs too much. They see what is going on but dare not speak up.
The people who will are either a tiny number of tenured or retired principled ones or people who have nothing left to lose. Many have made mistakes in life. Some are not high IQ, some have personality issues, most are easily Discredited.
But they can see what is happening.
I suspect that key point is a big part of why he has not been deplatformed. And him “missing” it is not an accident.
And he is outspoken against unlimited immigration. And he is clearly against the snwoflakes. - Haidt is a good man in my eyes.
What else would you expect from him?
“These women showed incredible courage and strength during this process,” District Attorney Charles Branson said.
Charles Branson is ridiculous.Replies: @res
At this point this sort of thing seems to be said for “achievements” like getting out of bed in the morning. Hopefully at some point these idiots realize that if anything that sort of rhetoric demeans the achievements of women showing actual courage and strength.
Craigslist usually involves a face to face transaction. Do the Brits have a way of avoiding that? Because I can’t see the women wanting to meet the men buying their “worn” undergarments.
The Daily Mail article is here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516365/Cambridge-scientist-sacked-publishing-racist-research-reveals-suing-university.htmlReplies: @res
Thanks! I am glad to see Noah Carl is fighting back. That article was worth reading and I am pleasantly surprised that the comments (and upvotes) are strongly in favor of him.
Modern progressive feminists also ignore female genital mutilation even when it happens in the USA.
OK. I could have worded that better.
The problem is that our society constantly makes things more difficult than they need to be for the “not too bright.”
For instance, there is no reason a not very bright guy couldn’t run a small business mowing lawns and such for his neighbors. There is nothing in the services themselves that requires much intelligence.
But running any business today is complex, what with dealing with taxation, business licenses, etc., etc.
These people claim that they're shunned because of their beliefs, but after interacting with them a while, you realize the sad truth: they're not quarrelsome loners because they're WNs, they're WNs because they're quarrelsome loners.Replies: @Anonymous, @TTSSYF
Disagree. Plenty of mentally healthy white people hold white nationalist beliefs but keep them to themselves so they don’t lose their jobs and become social pariahs…there is still too much to lose. With enough gaslighting, even the most well-balanced individual can snap. I think it’s much more likely that these “quarrelsome loners” were in fact created by all of the powerful forces arrayed against them, constantly telling them they are crazy and evil. They are merely pushing back, and pushback under the current circumstances is not going to look pretty (e.g., when Trump pushes back) — the global Leftists will not allow it to look pretty, even if spoken calmly and rationally (e.g., Jared Taylor). If/when things get bad enough, there will be plenty of other white people who come out of the shadows and join forces with these frustrated Cassandras. Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening until whites are a minority in the country and thus pose no threat. Short of revolution, we’ll be consigned merely to agitate for our group interests like all of the other minority groups currently do.
Do you think that all geniuses have genius children?Replies: @TTSSYF
Not being stupid, I do not think that all geniuses have genius children, nor do I think that all “fairly bright” people have “fairly bright” or “very bright” parents, nor do I see where I’ve written that. But I do think it is much more likely that “not very bright” people will have children who are “not very bright” than geniuses or bright people would. Public policy has to be made based on numbers of people, not individuals. Also, there is an expression that comes to mind: beggars can’t be choosers. If we’re paying for these people’s upkeep, we should have the right to decide whether they procreate or not and generate more mouths for us to feed. Ditto for Third World countries for which we provide foreign aid. If you want our money, you’ll have to get your population growth under control.
The problem is that our society constantly makes things more difficult than they need to be for the "not too bright."
For instance, there is no reason a not very bright guy couldn't run a small business mowing lawns and such for his neighbors. There is nothing in the services themselves that requires much intelligence.
But running any business today is complex, what with dealing with taxation, business licenses, etc., etc.Replies: @TTSSYF
Well, you’re lamenting something that simply is and unlikely to change, with more self-service and automation pushing out more and more simple jobs (e.g., check-out clerks and bag boys). What should we do? Continue to entice the “not too bright” to have children so they can increase their welfare checks? Or put some conditions on the hand-outs?
The solutions to our problems require a consenus of the population, as anything else rightly would be condemned as decrees by totalitarian elites from on high. We made the possibility of consensus orders of magnitude harder when we changed the immigration laws in 1965 and, in recent decades, not required assimilation to a common set of core values, compounding this error with miseducation of the native born.
The core question asked by "The Bell Curve" is, "What do we do with people for whom there simply is no economically productive role?" In other words, to put it as crudely as possible, people for whom there is, and can be, no demand. That demand is of course economic at root, but also, sadly, applies in broader terms. Nobody wants or needs them, there is simply no role for them in society.
The root problem here is not one of money. It is of having a place and a purpose in society and the respect of self and others for it.
This has, till now, affected largely the "not very bright." Yet it's moving up the social/intellectual scale and will soon affect the "average," then the "bright but not super bright," etc.
This is the issue of our time, and absolutely nobody really wants to talk about it.
The Left thinks it's an issue of money, and that simply giving the dispossessed money will solve everything. A massively automated society will probably be wildly productive and the funds will be there if needed. But the problem is at root not one of money, it's of purpose and meaning. Take a look at American Indian reservations or British underclass slums. The people in both are far better off materially than their nomadic or working-class ancestors, who starved with some regularity. But they are sunk in degradation for lack of purpose.
The Right thinks it's entirely a moral issue, that there is always a job, purpose and respect for anyone who tries hard enough. This is to some extent true, so far, but it requires greater and greater character and discipline to pull off, and will eventually become almost impossible.
The future does not look likely to be pretty.Replies: @Anonymous
I agree it’s not likely to change, but that’s no reason to aggressively accelerate the process of making life more and more difficult for those least capable of handling complexity.
The core question asked by “The Bell Curve” is, “What do we do with people for whom there simply is no economically productive role?” In other words, to put it as crudely as possible, people for whom there is, and can be, no demand. That demand is of course economic at root, but also, sadly, applies in broader terms. Nobody wants or needs them, there is simply no role for them in society.
The root problem here is not one of money. It is of having a place and a purpose in society and the respect of self and others for it.
This has, till now, affected largely the “not very bright.” Yet it’s moving up the social/intellectual scale and will soon affect the “average,” then the “bright but not super bright,” etc.
This is the issue of our time, and absolutely nobody really wants to talk about it.
The Left thinks it’s an issue of money, and that simply giving the dispossessed money will solve everything. A massively automated society will probably be wildly productive and the funds will be there if needed. But the problem is at root not one of money, it’s of purpose and meaning. Take a look at American Indian reservations or British underclass slums. The people in both are far better off materially than their nomadic or working-class ancestors, who starved with some regularity. But they are sunk in degradation for lack of purpose.
The Right thinks it’s entirely a moral issue, that there is always a job, purpose and respect for anyone who tries hard enough. This is to some extent true, so far, but it requires greater and greater character and discipline to pull off, and will eventually become almost impossible.
The future does not look likely to be pretty.
The real choice is to create a society where low IQ individuals can have productive jobs or -one way or another-removing them from society. If that course is chosen, there are three possibilities and we know what they are. None are especially palatable to most people.
There is only a least bad fix, in my opinion. Cut off any more low IQ people from coming in, offer incentive to those that can be induced to leave to do so, offer more incentive for those staying to be rendered incapable of reproducing. Violent and stupid criminals, particularly murderers should be executed, proven rapists should get the offending parts lopped off. And gangbangers should get asswhippings, public humiliation, maybe an occasional Pinochet Helicopter Airways ride with a stop 3000 agl over the main street of their own turf.
Do that and in fifty years maybe we'll be back on track to flying cars and boots on Mars.
Jonathan Haidt clearly addresses that it is the left’s fault to monopolize the public opinion and that thus the left destroys the ages-old idea, that science has to be looked upon as an open attempt, and not a strategic tool to achieve the good. Pro bono contra malum simply does not work in science. According to Haidt, science is not about being good, but about being right. – And rightfully so!
And he is outspoken against unlimited immigration. And he is clearly against the snwoflakes. – Haidt is a good man in my eyes.
What else would you expect from him?
The core question asked by "The Bell Curve" is, "What do we do with people for whom there simply is no economically productive role?" In other words, to put it as crudely as possible, people for whom there is, and can be, no demand. That demand is of course economic at root, but also, sadly, applies in broader terms. Nobody wants or needs them, there is simply no role for them in society.
The root problem here is not one of money. It is of having a place and a purpose in society and the respect of self and others for it.
This has, till now, affected largely the "not very bright." Yet it's moving up the social/intellectual scale and will soon affect the "average," then the "bright but not super bright," etc.
This is the issue of our time, and absolutely nobody really wants to talk about it.
The Left thinks it's an issue of money, and that simply giving the dispossessed money will solve everything. A massively automated society will probably be wildly productive and the funds will be there if needed. But the problem is at root not one of money, it's of purpose and meaning. Take a look at American Indian reservations or British underclass slums. The people in both are far better off materially than their nomadic or working-class ancestors, who starved with some regularity. But they are sunk in degradation for lack of purpose.
The Right thinks it's entirely a moral issue, that there is always a job, purpose and respect for anyone who tries hard enough. This is to some extent true, so far, but it requires greater and greater character and discipline to pull off, and will eventually become almost impossible.
The future does not look likely to be pretty.Replies: @Anonymous
Both sides are wrong.
The real choice is to create a society where low IQ individuals can have productive jobs or -one way or another-removing them from society. If that course is chosen, there are three possibilities and we know what they are. None are especially palatable to most people.
There is only a least bad fix, in my opinion. Cut off any more low IQ people from coming in, offer incentive to those that can be induced to leave to do so, offer more incentive for those staying to be rendered incapable of reproducing. Violent and stupid criminals, particularly murderers should be executed, proven rapists should get the offending parts lopped off. And gangbangers should get asswhippings, public humiliation, maybe an occasional Pinochet Helicopter Airways ride with a stop 3000 agl over the main street of their own turf.
Do that and in fifty years maybe we’ll be back on track to flying cars and boots on Mars.