I don't totally agree with that. "Knowledge And Decisions" really had an impact on my thinking.
There's a problem with the middle-class. They seem to just accept all """authoritative""" information as gospel, even when it is contradictory.
It comes from a pattern of behavior among the mid-wits that seems to twist contradiction as sophistication. I'll try to explain:
When you first learn something, it can be really confusing at first... but once you understand it, you feel like you understand the deeper meaning of what's going on. In physics, I've seen a ton of this. That's because in physics, you're using more advanced mathematics and whole different ways of thinking about problems all the time than most people are used to. Problems are often very difficult to wrap your head around until you understand the deeper mechanics of what's going on. There's a "Eureka!" moment that lots of people have when trying to solve more and more difficult problems. To be clear, this is a kind of emotional high that you'll have when you discover something.
There are all sorts of little moments like this, like: learning that you can rotate axis to simplify problems, learning how to break problems into component parts, learning how integral & differential calculus is how formulas are invented from their basic mathematical assumptions, understanding that portions of mathematics (like the natural exponent) are discovered rather than invented. All sorts of little things.
However, Leftist psuedo-science doesn't have any of this... so they invent it.
The acceptance of a contradictory statement becomes the Eureka moment for the midwits. They mistake being bamboozled for confusion, and acceptance for learning. The authority figure just signals to them that it's safe to accept the conclusion.
Like this:
SJW: "She has a penis."
Lowwit: "Ha! Good one. Boys have dics, not girls."
Midwit: "Ha ha ha! That's ridiculous".
Highwit: "You've use a contradiction in terms. I'm not taking you seriously."
SJW: Authority: "Actually..."
Lowwit: "???"
Midwit: "???"
Highwit: "Oh god."
SJW: Authority: "... when you define women correctly, of course they can have penii."
Midwit: "Ahhhh... I see."
Highwit: "What? No! You can't just re-define the terms of a premise in an argument!"
Lowwit: "You say that because you like dick, and hide your gay."
SJW: Authority: "Don't listen to them midwit! You're smarter than even highwit now! You are very smart."
Midwit: "Yes! I am very smart."
Highwit: "You're both fucking stupid."
Lowwit: "Midwit tried this on me last week."
Where I think this all comes from is that the 'midwit' grouping is having their life experiences be dictated and controlled by authority figures. They are acting as slaves to an authority which is conditioning them, and giving them experiences through indoctrination, which is contradicting their normal life. The more they ingest corporate media, authority, and propaganda; the more the propaganda defines their lives, rather than their own experiences.
The Lowwits and Highwits are experiencing a different series of events because they are both not ingesting corporatist doctrine. The highwits because they recognize it, and the lowwits because corporatism doesn't benefit them. The lowwits basically live and learn from their experiences for better or worse. If they live in worse conditions, they learn worse lessons. Corporate conditions don't exist for them, and if they do, it's in an adversarial nature. The highwits are capable of recognizing the deception of corporatism, and reject it voluntarily.
What I'm saying is that the normies and midwits need to be stripped of their corporate protectionism, so that they can actually have experiences without the filter of corporate indoctrination and dogma which is supplanting their normal responses to stimuli, and giving them a completely twisted sense of knowledge.
Or, in a more lowwit manner: The boys have to learn.
If you're in this sub you're probably in the highwit variety or between midwit and highwit.
All I know is I don't know everything, and I run into too many midwits that think they know everything. Reddit is a very good representation of this.
If you try to contradict the SJW authorative opinion on something (i.e. arguing that the election was rigged, or that COVID lockdowns is killing people and destroying lives more than keeping things open) there are too many midwits there that they essentially argue/yell you down/downvote you to a point where you are unable to bring a highwit opinion to the table to prove them wrong.
Lowwits are difficult to convince because they just don't care. I know a LOT of lowwit types on Discord and they unironically post shit from MSM and when I argue against them about bias they say "I don't know, I just look at whatever is on the frontpage of Google News".
They are going to be totally informed by experience. I know a lot of poor and lowwit people who will simply come to me because they know that a) I can be trusted, b) I can do not require that they believe me and I'll walk them through my claims, and c) I've been reliable in the past.
Lowwit people are going to much more heavily rely on their personal experiences, and social groups as a filters of human capital and intellect. They don't really know how to process intellectual arguments, but they also know when they're being taken advantage of, which was the reason for my example "midwit tried that on me last week.". They know a con when they see it... most of the time. They may even be committing them. These social circles provide collectively available human capital to anyone within the group, including to people who are not intellectually capable of having that human capital available to themselves, because someone in the group has had an experience and generated knowledge to share among the group.
On that note, if their personal experience doesn't obviously relate to anyone who is identifying themselves as cultural Marxists; they won't understand the long-winded ideological and historical background that led a Marxist to their little social circle. So, they won't be able to heed a warning if you try to explain it to them from an intellectual narrative.
If you're trying to warn a low-wit person about the problems with trans activist gender camps. You don't explain that the camps exist to isolate kids in an environment that normalizes degeneracy and self-harm through making their self-identification dependent on Marxist collectivist narratives; and that there will be behavior pathologies that emerge from those resentment based narratives. You tell them, "They're poofs and nonces that want your kids to be poofs and nonces, whether they are or aren't." It's true, but eliminated the frill. They'll only believe you, if they can trust you.
The use of proper social networks to filter human capital allows them to be much more difficult to control from a propagandistic narrative. The corporatists and statists have to infiltrate social groups, which is all but impossible at any reasonable scale for a corporation. This is why Marxists infiltrated and attacked social institutions wherever they could find them. It's why we have to go around creating anti-Marxist institutions to replace them with.
All wits of people will be able to rely on our social institutions to protect them from Marxist dogma, and share experiences that will inform that wariness of Marxism.
I always consider those the stupidest. Those throughout history who are considered the smartest people ever (i.e. Tesla, Einstein, Da Vinci, Newton, Plato) never thought of themselves as knowing everything.
I'm always looking to learn and question things myself. I may or may not come to a shared conclusion with someone else, but at least I thought about it and it came from my own mind.
We have to strip the cathedral at every level. Protectionism is the promise of the authoritarians running it.
So, a good first step is already happening: undermine that protectionist claim.
However, it can't be enough to just undermine it, but to completely subvert and poison the concept. "Look what they will do to you". We must eradicate trust in the institution. It's not enough for them to be skeptical of it, we need to promote the tearing of it apart.
This causes unease in those who are not prepared to protect themselves. So the second step is to push the heroic narrative on each individual to be able to protect themselves. Leadership not only through example, but inspiration as well. We must present them with an affirmative narrative where they can accept and believe that they will be better off governing themselves, then having others govern for them. We must promote a strong sense of individualism and individual attainment. Instead of "Don't raise taxes", say "keep your money". Instead of "cut government spending", say "they can't spend for you." Really push the idea of: only you know best for you.
Now that you have a strong individual, you need a strong community. Each person must be the pillar of their community, over-lapping with one another. New individuals must be able to join a community of people that will offer affiliates, that are anti-parallel to the establishment system.
We must have radical divestment from the establishment system wherever possible. We must exist in anti-parallel to them. We must be pushing the opposite direction.
I can't stress enough that it is imperative to re-individuate people. The establishment supports de-individuation in order to maintain collectivism and propagate emotional abuse & conditioning. Individuation must be a core focus of what we do and the rhetoric we use in order to separate people from the establishment system and make them anti-fragile. They have been given learned helplessness, and we must teach them strength. A heroic narrative is a critical aspect to that.
The unfortunate part about WSB is that because it was hosted on a centralized platform it got taken over by a lot of far leftists - they started bringing in people like Mark Cuban etc for AMAs and then the original mods were kicked out.
Any attempt at re-individuation on authoritarian platforms like Reddit gets squashed easily.
Hmm, there's something here, something about a link between this individuation and atomization.
Atomization strips away social support, which has many effects, but I can see one big desirable effect being reliance on authority. I've been toying with the idea that it may be possible to teach an atomized individual how to become..well, ubermensch, basically.
Most of the principles behind strategic atomization seem to rely on the targets all breaking. But if they come out stronger instead of weaker, that'd be a sight.
I've been thinking of how a children's book aimed towards atomized children might be comical enough to get published (basically teaching basics of living like a beast surrounded by enemies, older ages get lessons on humanity).
Do you have any thoughts on the relevance of atomization towards your topic? This'll really bug me for a while, so I want some more data to work with.
This is the most intelligent thing I've read in awhile. Really great breakdown you got there. Whether you're a lowwit or a highwit we all know the midwits, often thinking they're smarter than they are, because as you pointed out, that's what they've been told by authority and that's where they derive their truth. I remember getting ganged up on by a group of midwits who thought it was soo novel that they could call me out for being a white male. As if they had just discovered enlightenment, and now they where the elites. It was kinda weird, but the way you broke it down, now the whole exchange makes sense.
Yeah, I used to do it a bit myself from time to time. You have to catch yourself.
I've also been on the entirely opposite end of it.
I was derided for pointing out that American culture exists, but we don't typically experience it as such because most people haven't gone without it.
The exchange went fairly simply. It was a discussion in my ASL class in college about culture, and recognizing culture. Someone mentioned that clearly deaf people had a culture (once it was explained to us about how deaf people genuinely do behave differently among other deaf people and communicate with them in ways that they don't with hearing people, which is reasonable). I mentioned the concept that, to a degree: all social groups have a culture of some kind, even businesses. I pointed out that American culture tends to be very distinct, but most people didn't notice that because they've never really lived outside of American society or culture for very long. I mentioned in my experience that I was quite glad to re-experience American culture when you aren't living in it.
This is such an obviously true statement, you wouldn't think I'd even need to defend it.
However, I did have to defend it because one classmate, with the support of a few others, explicitly claimed that American culture didn't exist, and wasn't a positive even if it did, because only other places had cultures that were unique. Everybody here lived in a similar way, and therefore it didn't have a culture, and my opinion wasn't educated.
Another student spoke up and agreed with me because she had lived abroad, and pointed out that... yes... American culture exists. She, too, valued our unique approach to personal liberty and individual rights.
She was also dismissed, and gawfed at. My critics were quickly turning into mean-girls.
I was going to give an elaborate explanation about how social groups of any kind had to have their own cultures and social morays. But before I could even finish my first sentence, a little clique of 3 of them literally started laughing and snickering classic mean-girls style.
After a very tense pause, I threw my hands up and said "Fuck it, I'm done". After realizing that very bad things would happen to my chances of graduation had I done or said any of the things that were rolling through my head.
The Midwits are informed by "official sources" that their opinions are correct and conform to the correct narrative. After that, they use their sense of smug self-entitlement to deride others and affirm themselves in their moral superiority. That's why I've always felt that it was important to confront Leftists directly on their moral high-ground. It's actually never as well defended as they think because they've never properly interrogated their own beliefs.
That's why I've always felt that it was important to confront Leftists directly on their moral high-ground. It's actually never as well defended as they think because they've never properly interrogated their own beliefs.
Can you elaborate on this point? Are you saying attack them on their morality, their sense of authority, or are you suggesting something else entirely?
The normies completely fell hook line and sinker for the false narrative based on emotion that the globalists created.
If they didn't wake up in the last fucking ten months, I don't expect them to ever stand up against this.
I don't totally agree with that. "Knowledge And Decisions" really had an impact on my thinking.
There's a problem with the middle-class. They seem to just accept all """authoritative""" information as gospel, even when it is contradictory.
It comes from a pattern of behavior among the mid-wits that seems to twist contradiction as sophistication. I'll try to explain:
When you first learn something, it can be really confusing at first... but once you understand it, you feel like you understand the deeper meaning of what's going on. In physics, I've seen a ton of this. That's because in physics, you're using more advanced mathematics and whole different ways of thinking about problems all the time than most people are used to. Problems are often very difficult to wrap your head around until you understand the deeper mechanics of what's going on. There's a "Eureka!" moment that lots of people have when trying to solve more and more difficult problems. To be clear, this is a kind of emotional high that you'll have when you discover something.
There are all sorts of little moments like this, like: learning that you can rotate axis to simplify problems, learning how to break problems into component parts, learning how integral & differential calculus is how formulas are invented from their basic mathematical assumptions, understanding that portions of mathematics (like the natural exponent) are discovered rather than invented. All sorts of little things.
However, Leftist psuedo-science doesn't have any of this... so they invent it.
The acceptance of a contradictory statement becomes the Eureka moment for the midwits. They mistake being bamboozled for confusion, and acceptance for learning. The authority figure just signals to them that it's safe to accept the conclusion.
Like this:
SJW: "She has a penis."
Lowwit: "Ha! Good one. Boys have dics, not girls."
Midwit: "Ha ha ha! That's ridiculous".
Highwit: "You've use a contradiction in terms. I'm not taking you seriously."
SJW:Authority: "Actually..."Lowwit: "???"
Midwit: "???"
Highwit: "Oh god."
SJW:Authority: "... when you define women correctly, of course they can have penii."Midwit: "Ahhhh... I see."
Highwit: "What? No! You can't just re-define the terms of a premise in an argument!"
Lowwit: "You say that because you like dick, and hide your gay."
SJW:Authority: "Don't listen to them midwit! You're smarter than even highwit now! You are very smart."Midwit: "Yes! I am very smart."
Highwit: "You're both fucking stupid."
Lowwit: "Midwit tried this on me last week."
Where I think this all comes from is that the 'midwit' grouping is having their life experiences be dictated and controlled by authority figures. They are acting as slaves to an authority which is conditioning them, and giving them experiences through indoctrination, which is contradicting their normal life. The more they ingest corporate media, authority, and propaganda; the more the propaganda defines their lives, rather than their own experiences.
The Lowwits and Highwits are experiencing a different series of events because they are both not ingesting corporatist doctrine. The highwits because they recognize it, and the lowwits because corporatism doesn't benefit them. The lowwits basically live and learn from their experiences for better or worse. If they live in worse conditions, they learn worse lessons. Corporate conditions don't exist for them, and if they do, it's in an adversarial nature. The highwits are capable of recognizing the deception of corporatism, and reject it voluntarily.
What I'm saying is that the normies and midwits need to be stripped of their corporate protectionism, so that they can actually have experiences without the filter of corporate indoctrination and dogma which is supplanting their normal responses to stimuli, and giving them a completely twisted sense of knowledge.
Or, in a more lowwit manner: The boys have to learn.
Now I'm trying to figure out if I'm a lowwit or a highwit. Definitely not a midwit. Maybe I'm a nitwit, is that an option?
If you're in this sub you're probably in the highwit variety or between midwit and highwit.
All I know is I don't know everything, and I run into too many midwits that think they know everything. Reddit is a very good representation of this.
If you try to contradict the SJW authorative opinion on something (i.e. arguing that the election was rigged, or that COVID lockdowns is killing people and destroying lives more than keeping things open) there are too many midwits there that they essentially argue/yell you down/downvote you to a point where you are unable to bring a highwit opinion to the table to prove them wrong.
Lowwits are difficult to convince because they just don't care. I know a LOT of lowwit types on Discord and they unironically post shit from MSM and when I argue against them about bias they say "I don't know, I just look at whatever is on the frontpage of Google News".
I agree with your assessment on Lowwit.
They are going to be totally informed by experience. I know a lot of poor and lowwit people who will simply come to me because they know that a) I can be trusted, b) I can do not require that they believe me and I'll walk them through my claims, and c) I've been reliable in the past.
Lowwit people are going to much more heavily rely on their personal experiences, and social groups as a filters of human capital and intellect. They don't really know how to process intellectual arguments, but they also know when they're being taken advantage of, which was the reason for my example "midwit tried that on me last week.". They know a con when they see it... most of the time. They may even be committing them. These social circles provide collectively available human capital to anyone within the group, including to people who are not intellectually capable of having that human capital available to themselves, because someone in the group has had an experience and generated knowledge to share among the group.
On that note, if their personal experience doesn't obviously relate to anyone who is identifying themselves as cultural Marxists; they won't understand the long-winded ideological and historical background that led a Marxist to their little social circle. So, they won't be able to heed a warning if you try to explain it to them from an intellectual narrative.
If you're trying to warn a low-wit person about the problems with trans activist gender camps. You don't explain that the camps exist to isolate kids in an environment that normalizes degeneracy and self-harm through making their self-identification dependent on Marxist collectivist narratives; and that there will be behavior pathologies that emerge from those resentment based narratives. You tell them, "They're poofs and nonces that want your kids to be poofs and nonces, whether they are or aren't." It's true, but eliminated the frill. They'll only believe you, if they can trust you.
The use of proper social networks to filter human capital allows them to be much more difficult to control from a propagandistic narrative. The corporatists and statists have to infiltrate social groups, which is all but impossible at any reasonable scale for a corporation. This is why Marxists infiltrated and attacked social institutions wherever they could find them. It's why we have to go around creating anti-Marxist institutions to replace them with.
All wits of people will be able to rely on our social institutions to protect them from Marxist dogma, and share experiences that will inform that wariness of Marxism.
I always consider those the stupidest. Those throughout history who are considered the smartest people ever (i.e. Tesla, Einstein, Da Vinci, Newton, Plato) never thought of themselves as knowing everything.
I'm always looking to learn and question things myself. I may or may not come to a shared conclusion with someone else, but at least I thought about it and it came from my own mind.
Your hesitance to consider yourself a high-wit makes think it's likely you are one.
The fool believes he knows everything.
The wise man is painfully aware of just how little he knows.
The problem remains that we have way too many normies and midwits.
The real question is how can one remove normies and midwits away from globalist/corporate brainwashing?
We have to strip the cathedral at every level. Protectionism is the promise of the authoritarians running it.
So, a good first step is already happening: undermine that protectionist claim.
However, it can't be enough to just undermine it, but to completely subvert and poison the concept. "Look what they will do to you". We must eradicate trust in the institution. It's not enough for them to be skeptical of it, we need to promote the tearing of it apart.
This causes unease in those who are not prepared to protect themselves. So the second step is to push the heroic narrative on each individual to be able to protect themselves. Leadership not only through example, but inspiration as well. We must present them with an affirmative narrative where they can accept and believe that they will be better off governing themselves, then having others govern for them. We must promote a strong sense of individualism and individual attainment. Instead of "Don't raise taxes", say "keep your money". Instead of "cut government spending", say "they can't spend for you." Really push the idea of: only you know best for you.
Now that you have a strong individual, you need a strong community. Each person must be the pillar of their community, over-lapping with one another. New individuals must be able to join a community of people that will offer affiliates, that are anti-parallel to the establishment system.
We must have radical divestment from the establishment system wherever possible. We must exist in anti-parallel to them. We must be pushing the opposite direction.
I can't stress enough that it is imperative to re-individuate people. The establishment supports de-individuation in order to maintain collectivism and propagate emotional abuse & conditioning. Individuation must be a core focus of what we do and the rhetoric we use in order to separate people from the establishment system and make them anti-fragile. They have been given learned helplessness, and we must teach them strength. A heroic narrative is a critical aspect to that.
See, like this
This sounds reasonable in theory.
I just don't see the Cathedral letting this happen on any meaningful scale.
I think what they will do this year will make 2020 look like a good year.
Before you say it, I admit that I am already pretty blackpilled by this point.
The unfortunate part about WSB is that because it was hosted on a centralized platform it got taken over by a lot of far leftists - they started bringing in people like Mark Cuban etc for AMAs and then the original mods were kicked out. Any attempt at re-individuation on authoritarian platforms like Reddit gets squashed easily.
Hmm, there's something here, something about a link between this individuation and atomization.
Atomization strips away social support, which has many effects, but I can see one big desirable effect being reliance on authority. I've been toying with the idea that it may be possible to teach an atomized individual how to become..well, ubermensch, basically.
Most of the principles behind strategic atomization seem to rely on the targets all breaking. But if they come out stronger instead of weaker, that'd be a sight.
I've been thinking of how a children's book aimed towards atomized children might be comical enough to get published (basically teaching basics of living like a beast surrounded by enemies, older ages get lessons on humanity).
Do you have any thoughts on the relevance of atomization towards your topic? This'll really bug me for a while, so I want some more data to work with.
This is the most intelligent thing I've read in awhile. Really great breakdown you got there. Whether you're a lowwit or a highwit we all know the midwits, often thinking they're smarter than they are, because as you pointed out, that's what they've been told by authority and that's where they derive their truth. I remember getting ganged up on by a group of midwits who thought it was soo novel that they could call me out for being a white male. As if they had just discovered enlightenment, and now they where the elites. It was kinda weird, but the way you broke it down, now the whole exchange makes sense.
Yeah, I used to do it a bit myself from time to time. You have to catch yourself.
I've also been on the entirely opposite end of it.
I was derided for pointing out that American culture exists, but we don't typically experience it as such because most people haven't gone without it.
The exchange went fairly simply. It was a discussion in my ASL class in college about culture, and recognizing culture. Someone mentioned that clearly deaf people had a culture (once it was explained to us about how deaf people genuinely do behave differently among other deaf people and communicate with them in ways that they don't with hearing people, which is reasonable). I mentioned the concept that, to a degree: all social groups have a culture of some kind, even businesses. I pointed out that American culture tends to be very distinct, but most people didn't notice that because they've never really lived outside of American society or culture for very long. I mentioned in my experience that I was quite glad to re-experience American culture when you aren't living in it.
This is such an obviously true statement, you wouldn't think I'd even need to defend it.
However, I did have to defend it because one classmate, with the support of a few others, explicitly claimed that American culture didn't exist, and wasn't a positive even if it did, because only other places had cultures that were unique. Everybody here lived in a similar way, and therefore it didn't have a culture, and my opinion wasn't educated.
Another student spoke up and agreed with me because she had lived abroad, and pointed out that... yes... American culture exists. She, too, valued our unique approach to personal liberty and individual rights.
She was also dismissed, and gawfed at. My critics were quickly turning into mean-girls.
I was going to give an elaborate explanation about how social groups of any kind had to have their own cultures and social morays. But before I could even finish my first sentence, a little clique of 3 of them literally started laughing and snickering classic mean-girls style.
After a very tense pause, I threw my hands up and said "Fuck it, I'm done". After realizing that very bad things would happen to my chances of graduation had I done or said any of the things that were rolling through my head.
The Midwits are informed by "official sources" that their opinions are correct and conform to the correct narrative. After that, they use their sense of smug self-entitlement to deride others and affirm themselves in their moral superiority. That's why I've always felt that it was important to confront Leftists directly on their moral high-ground. It's actually never as well defended as they think because they've never properly interrogated their own beliefs.
Can you elaborate on this point? Are you saying attack them on their morality, their sense of authority, or are you suggesting something else entirely?