Antifa exists to create and perpetuate loyalty to the supreme kakistocracy. The system they are using is called 'Biological Leninism'.
People who naturally float to the top of meritocracies don't try to protect the system. They have nothing compelling their loyalty to maintain the system, since they achieved greatness on their own and locking out the plebs would be nice.
The problem is As hire As and Bs hire Cs. Once one person gets in that doesn't belong there, they will scramble to cling to their position by producing loyal backers, people who wouldn't get there without being placed. This creates a race to the bottom.
They need to start categorizing people to identify those who will be loyal. Falguini Sheth calls it racialization. Eventually they start openingly selecting for groups they percieve to be worthless. When you see leftists yelling for representation, the groups that they champion are ones that they percieve to be fundamentally worthless, because it will instill loyalty.
What is loyalty other than being bound by obligation? And if that is what unnatural or abhorrent to them, would that not then lead them to be in alignment to the opposite? It's not like you cling to one thing over the other here. This is seeking the absence or the opposer of loyalty, which is disloyalty.
I'm sure she loves the actions of loyal, reliable people when they're joining her BLM group and following HER orders. She just doesn't like those ideals when she's not calling the shots. All the talk about colonialism and white supremacy is just to make her untouchable when she claims she should get paid to eat donuts and sleep at her desk all day instead of working.
I don't think she (or people like her) truly want a system based on disloyalty - she just wants a system where she's allowed to leech off all the loyal, reliable people while feeling superior to them.
The idea that one must provide goods or services to recieve compensation is white supremacist now? I haven't seen a more blatant example of marxists mad-libsing their ideology with racial politics.
Everyone must reject the white supremacist worldview of reliability and loyalty, preferring recklessness and seditious duplicity. That's what they're telling us should be the case, anyhow. Because black and brown people don't like reliability and loyalty like evil white people do.
But, he assured me, it was otherwise for “promise.” I was skeptical. How about “obligation?” We both had the same dictionary (English-Zulu, Zulu-English Dictionary, published by Witwatersrand University Press in 1958), and looked it up. The Zulu entry means “as if to bind one’s feet.” He said that was not indigenous but was added by the compilers. But if Zulu didn’t have the concept of obligation, how could it have the concept of a promise, since a promise is simply the oral undertaking of an obligation? I was interested in this, I said, because Africans often failed to keep promises and never apologized — as if this didn’t warrant an apology.
A light bulb seemed to go on in his mind. Yes, he said; in fact, the Zulu word for promise — isithembiso — is not the correct word. When a black person “promises” he means “maybe I will and maybe I won’t.” But, I said, this makes nonsense of promising, the very purpose of which is to bind one to a course of action. When one is not sure he can do something he may say, “I will try but I can’t promise.” He said he’d heard whites say that and had never understood it till now. As a young Romanian friend so aptly summed it up, when a black person “promises” he means “I’ll try.”
Make of it what you will. CPT is a real thing, though.
This is a perfect example of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. In all my Linguistics classes that deal with Sociolinguistics or language processing, there were no good examples. They were avoiding good ones like this one.
Not really, but kinda. His view is a little different and can explain a lot of things in traditional linguistics as being different from previously thought. His major contribution is in his theories that natural language is essentially binary.
If you live in a culture where such commitments are a-typical it's not a weakness. If you were placed into a society which didn't have such a concept of hard obligations and acted as though they did, you would be at a disadvantage. There's not an inherent superiority or inferiority, just an "impedance mismatch"
The thing is, there's no evidence that either blacks, nor Africans, live in a culture where 'promises' don't exist. In fact, many live in an Honor Culture where such commitments and duties are held in extreme regard.
Most african cultures are fear-power based. We see this reflected in US urban communities and the code of silence. This is done out of fear of reprisal, not honor.
You're claiming intimate knowledge of African cultures by one institution of an American ghetto?
That's utterly stupid.
It's no different from saying, "Europeans have proven their inability to have a stationary culture because white Americans live in Trailer Parks."
And you still don't understand the relationship between fear, power, and duty. If a culture focuses heavily on power, fear of that consequences from that power are a natural result. So is the concept of duty, stemming from obligations both to and from power. They will both exist. To claim that only one can exist is idiocy. If you look in the most culturally degenerated places on Earth, like prisons, you will still find a concept of duty emerge among people as either a form of homage to the powerful, or a duty for the powerful to protect those who sear fealty.
...the code of silence. This is done out of fear of reprisal, not honor.
Then you don't know anything about those communities. A code of silence is not held out of fear. It can be re-enforced by fear, but it does not exist solely out of fear. A code of silence is an obligation to the community not to let outsiders interfere. A violation of a code of silence is a threat to some, but it is an action taken against a community as a whole by allowing outsiders in.
I don't understand how you could think a code of silence, which is most famous from the Italian mob, is evidence of something innately African.
Fear-power, honor-shame, and guilt-innocence cultures aren't mutually exclusive. Each feature can play a role, but African cultures are generally Fear-Power, Asian cultures Honor-Shame, and European cultures Guilt-Innocence as their primary features. Honor-shame culture has a requisite for shame, and that is not the motivation we're talking about here. Duty through fear is not really duty at all. It's coercion.
Snitches get stitches. The fear-power dynamic is very strong in the AA community. Yes, family members don't want to turn in their relatives, but beyond that, snitching will get you (or your kids) shot. Omerta isn't too different, tthough other aspects of mafia culture certainly had at least a veneer of honor-shame to it, including generally leaving women and children off limits.
You look at things too much in black and white. It's not all or nothing. Shame just isn't as powerful of a motivator as fear in African culture.
Anyway, I see African cultures tend towards fear-power dynamics generally wherever they establish. Even BLM trends this way. It doesn't appeal so much to a sense of fairness or honor, but instead to fear to achieve its aims.
Each feature can play a role, but African cultures are generally Fear-Power, Asian cultures Honor-Shame, and European cultures Guilt-Innocence as their primary features.
It's ridiculous that you are trying to segregate out Guilt & Shame. You are drawing ridiculous abstractions in cultures that use literally all of the above.
Snitches get stitches. The fear-power dynamic is very strong in the AA community
No, that's a strong dynamic in ghettos and prisons. It's also shared across the world by many different cultures.
You look at things too much in black and white. It's not all or nothing.
You're projecting wildly.
Anyway, I see African cultures tend towards fear-power dynamics generally wherever they establish.
No, you look at historical examples and if you find a relationship between fear & honor (which you always will) you affirm your own narrative. You look for something universal in only specific places, and you're amazed when you find it. Then you dismiss it when you weren't looking for it everywhere else.
Even BLM trends this way. It doesn't appeal so much to a sense of fairness or honor, but instead to fear to achieve its aims.
An activist organization built off of Marxism which pushes resentment is involved in power politics. No shit. That's an amazing find, Holmes.
Not only that, but they make constant appeals to fairness and honor. You're just choosing to reject the information that isn't fitting your narrative.
It is impossible for a judgement on the memes a group holds to be a commentary on their genes unless you accept the premise that memes have a genetic basis, and that is the foundation for everything you claim to hate.
If memes are genetic, then there are, objectively speaking, inferior genes. Since you argue vehemently against that conclusion whenever you weigh in on the topic, I have to assume that the rejection of genetic inferiority is a core part of your belief system.
No, you're saying that Africans never developed the concept of any sort of self-imposed duty. Considering that such a thing is a base level activity in all known human societies and peoples, your position is one that demarcates Africans as particularly inferior to all other humans.
It would be like saying "European societies never developed the concept of an offer. Asians had to introduce the concept of to them." The implication being that Europeans are a beastly population of uncivilized and sub-human savages who only have a history of theft and violence because the concepts of generosity are foreign to them.
European societies never developed the concept of an offer. Asians had to introduce the concept of to them.
If there's some sort of historical evidence of this, combined with observable behavior to this effect that goes on to this day, it would definitely be food for thought. There's not though. Trade is a bit different than abstract concepts like duty and honor. The adoption of the concept of private property could be interesting to explore, though.
If there's some sort of historical evidence of this, combined with observable behavior to this effect that goes on to this day, it would definitely be food for thought. There's not though.
The same thing is true of your claim, that's why I made the allegory.
Trade is a bit different than abstract concepts like duty and honor.
Trade relies on abstract concepts like duty and honor. Honor, taken from it's modern western individualist meaning, is more akin to "Integrity". Trade requires a voluntary exchange, and high integrity means the most likely fulfillment of a mutually beneficial trade. Duty, like integrity, ensures that a voluntary trade takes place if the trade can't be done simultaneously. Your promise to finalize the exchange is a duty, literally. Only the most minor form of immediate voluntary trade can be conducted without duty. It can't be done at all without integrity.
The same thing is true of your claim, that's why I made the allegory.
You really think there is observable behavior that Europeans don't understand trade? It's not like we have a leader of a European movement openly railing against the very concept of trade.
Trade doesn't really rely on any of those things. It just relies on cost-benefit analysis. The currency of fear can be just as likely a factor in that analysis as fairness or honor.
You really think there is observable behavior that Europeans don't understand trade?
You really think there is observable behavior that Africans don't understand duty?
Trade doesn't really rely on any of those things. It just relies on cost-benefit analysis. The currency of fear can be just as likely a factor in that analysis as fairness or honor.
Only fear of other things that stimulate your need to trade. If you fear the buyer or seller to the point that you feel like you have no other choice but to exchange something, that's not trade, it's coercion.
Presented without comment, because Jesus fucking christ.
I'm getting to enjoy the ability to be utterly shocked, having made the mistake of thinking I'd become horribly jaded prior to the clowns coming in.
Antifa exists to create and perpetuate loyalty to the supreme kakistocracy. The system they are using is called 'Biological Leninism'.
People who naturally float to the top of meritocracies don't try to protect the system. They have nothing compelling their loyalty to maintain the system, since they achieved greatness on their own and locking out the plebs would be nice.
The problem is As hire As and Bs hire Cs. Once one person gets in that doesn't belong there, they will scramble to cling to their position by producing loyal backers, people who wouldn't get there without being placed. This creates a race to the bottom.
They need to start categorizing people to identify those who will be loyal. Falguini Sheth calls it racialization. Eventually they start openingly selecting for groups they percieve to be worthless. When you see leftists yelling for representation, the groups that they champion are ones that they percieve to be fundamentally worthless, because it will instill loyalty.
If they are saying that concepts such as loyalty are ‘White Supremacy’ then does that mean the rest of the world admires Disloyalty?
At least this could explain how quickly these types of people will turn on each other.
I don't think admire would be the correct word for it. More that to be bound by an obligation is unnatural to them.
What is loyalty other than being bound by obligation? And if that is what unnatural or abhorrent to them, would that not then lead them to be in alignment to the opposite? It's not like you cling to one thing over the other here. This is seeking the absence or the opposer of loyalty, which is disloyalty.
I'm sure she loves the actions of loyal, reliable people when they're joining her BLM group and following HER orders. She just doesn't like those ideals when she's not calling the shots. All the talk about colonialism and white supremacy is just to make her untouchable when she claims she should get paid to eat donuts and sleep at her desk all day instead of working.
I don't think she (or people like her) truly want a system based on disloyalty - she just wants a system where she's allowed to leech off all the loyal, reliable people while feeling superior to them.
Well, she's got the support of Comcast on that one.
I don’t understand how government is supposed to work in her world without loyalty or reliability.
Because it’s “the LAW?!” Why should a government honor that without LOYALTY? How does a government provide services without RELIABILITY?!
(Although it would explain the massive failure of socialist governments)
Bet she’s got a PhD in black studies too.
The idea that one must provide goods or services to recieve compensation is white supremacist now? I haven't seen a more blatant example of marxists mad-libsing their ideology with racial politics.
Everyone must reject the white supremacist worldview of reliability and loyalty, preferring recklessness and seditious duplicity. That's what they're telling us should be the case, anyhow. Because black and brown people don't like reliability and loyalty like evil white people do.
Good luck winning a revolution against those qualities.
I need a source for that, because it sounds too ridiculous to be true.
https://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/february-2009/
Make of it what you will. CPT is a real thing, though.
This is a perfect example of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. In all my Linguistics classes that deal with Sociolinguistics or language processing, there were no good examples. They were avoiding good ones like this one.
I hadn't heard the name for it before. It looks like I can thank Chomsky for that. Thanks for the info.
It's actually from traditional linguistics, far before Chomsky. Chomsky contributed a lot to the science, but it existed long before him.
Yeah, I'm no linguist. Just a quick check shows that Chomsky is largely credited with discrediting linguistic relativity.
Not really, but kinda. His view is a little different and can explain a lot of things in traditional linguistics as being different from previously thought. His major contribution is in his theories that natural language is essentially binary.
We can link to AmRen on this site? Based.
It actually would be because it's still a genuine declaration of a race of people as innately inferior.
If you live in a culture where such commitments are a-typical it's not a weakness. If you were placed into a society which didn't have such a concept of hard obligations and acted as though they did, you would be at a disadvantage. There's not an inherent superiority or inferiority, just an "impedance mismatch"
The thing is, there's no evidence that either blacks, nor Africans, live in a culture where 'promises' don't exist. In fact, many live in an Honor Culture where such commitments and duties are held in extreme regard.
Most african cultures are fear-power based. We see this reflected in US urban communities and the code of silence. This is done out of fear of reprisal, not honor.
You're claiming intimate knowledge of African cultures by one institution of an American ghetto?
That's utterly stupid.
It's no different from saying, "Europeans have proven their inability to have a stationary culture because white Americans live in Trailer Parks."
And you still don't understand the relationship between fear, power, and duty. If a culture focuses heavily on power, fear of that consequences from that power are a natural result. So is the concept of duty, stemming from obligations both to and from power. They will both exist. To claim that only one can exist is idiocy. If you look in the most culturally degenerated places on Earth, like prisons, you will still find a concept of duty emerge among people as either a form of homage to the powerful, or a duty for the powerful to protect those who sear fealty.
Then you don't know anything about those communities. A code of silence is not held out of fear. It can be re-enforced by fear, but it does not exist solely out of fear. A code of silence is an obligation to the community not to let outsiders interfere. A violation of a code of silence is a threat to some, but it is an action taken against a community as a whole by allowing outsiders in.
I don't understand how you could think a code of silence, which is most famous from the Italian mob, is evidence of something innately African.
Fear-power, honor-shame, and guilt-innocence cultures aren't mutually exclusive. Each feature can play a role, but African cultures are generally Fear-Power, Asian cultures Honor-Shame, and European cultures Guilt-Innocence as their primary features. Honor-shame culture has a requisite for shame, and that is not the motivation we're talking about here. Duty through fear is not really duty at all. It's coercion.
Snitches get stitches. The fear-power dynamic is very strong in the AA community. Yes, family members don't want to turn in their relatives, but beyond that, snitching will get you (or your kids) shot. Omerta isn't too different, tthough other aspects of mafia culture certainly had at least a veneer of honor-shame to it, including generally leaving women and children off limits.
You look at things too much in black and white. It's not all or nothing. Shame just isn't as powerful of a motivator as fear in African culture.
Anyway, I see African cultures tend towards fear-power dynamics generally wherever they establish. Even BLM trends this way. It doesn't appeal so much to a sense of fairness or honor, but instead to fear to achieve its aims.
It's ridiculous that you are trying to segregate out Guilt & Shame. You are drawing ridiculous abstractions in cultures that use literally all of the above.
No, that's a strong dynamic in ghettos and prisons. It's also shared across the world by many different cultures.
You're projecting wildly.
No, you look at historical examples and if you find a relationship between fear & honor (which you always will) you affirm your own narrative. You look for something universal in only specific places, and you're amazed when you find it. Then you dismiss it when you weren't looking for it everywhere else.
An activist organization built off of Marxism which pushes resentment is involved in power politics. No shit. That's an amazing find, Holmes.
Not only that, but they make constant appeals to fairness and honor. You're just choosing to reject the information that isn't fitting your narrative.
Race is a genetic concept; culture a memetic one.
It is impossible for a judgement on the memes a group holds to be a commentary on their genes unless you accept the premise that memes have a genetic basis, and that is the foundation for everything you claim to hate.
When did I claim that?
If memes are genetic, then there are, objectively speaking, inferior genes. Since you argue vehemently against that conclusion whenever you weigh in on the topic, I have to assume that the rejection of genetic inferiority is a core part of your belief system.
I don't see how you could possibly imagine that memes are purely genetic.
Only if you're making a moral judgement on the concept of obligation.
No, you're saying that Africans never developed the concept of any sort of self-imposed duty. Considering that such a thing is a base level activity in all known human societies and peoples, your position is one that demarcates Africans as particularly inferior to all other humans.
It would be like saying "European societies never developed the concept of an offer. Asians had to introduce the concept of to them." The implication being that Europeans are a beastly population of uncivilized and sub-human savages who only have a history of theft and violence because the concepts of generosity are foreign to them.
If there's some sort of historical evidence of this, combined with observable behavior to this effect that goes on to this day, it would definitely be food for thought. There's not though. Trade is a bit different than abstract concepts like duty and honor. The adoption of the concept of private property could be interesting to explore, though.
The same thing is true of your claim, that's why I made the allegory.
Trade relies on abstract concepts like duty and honor. Honor, taken from it's modern western individualist meaning, is more akin to "Integrity". Trade requires a voluntary exchange, and high integrity means the most likely fulfillment of a mutually beneficial trade. Duty, like integrity, ensures that a voluntary trade takes place if the trade can't be done simultaneously. Your promise to finalize the exchange is a duty, literally. Only the most minor form of immediate voluntary trade can be conducted without duty. It can't be done at all without integrity.
You really think there is observable behavior that Europeans don't understand trade? It's not like we have a leader of a European movement openly railing against the very concept of trade.
Trade doesn't really rely on any of those things. It just relies on cost-benefit analysis. The currency of fear can be just as likely a factor in that analysis as fairness or honor.
You really think there is observable behavior that Africans don't understand duty?
Only fear of other things that stimulate your need to trade. If you fear the buyer or seller to the point that you feel like you have no other choice but to exchange something, that's not trade, it's coercion.