"Religion is opium for the people", should be read as: "anything that gives respite, comfort, any form of escapism, any form of hope, any purpose and meaning is evil because it sedates the revolutionary will of the people".
Entertainment is inherently good - it gives hope, it's uplifting, it's escapism. And therefore it is evil.
All that is good, is evil, because The Truth is that the world is in a state of perpetual and untolerable and unjust exploitation and oppression, and the evidence for that is inequity. This is the core seed of marxism. It's the zeroeth law.
The first law is that all men are perfectly equal. Blank slate theory.
The second law is that consequentialism is the one true ethical framework.
The third law is that everything can, at it's essence, be reduced to a power struggle.
Take away everything from people that makes them happy, so they are forced to confront the harshness of reality, and to paraphrase; through their misery develop the hatred and sadism neccessary to rise up and destroy literally everything.
So that utopia can be rebuilt from the ashes of the old. Where people are equal in every way, and that equality is upheld through a constant awareness about the forces of inequity. I.e. the mental load will forever increase until the ideology consumes every waking thought - and in return we will have acheved material parity.
Everything that comes after "destroy everything" is murky however. And it's not at all clear how competing interests will harmonize, even if the laws were true, which of course they are not.
It's why true believers are so miserable, hateful, sadistic, vengeful, angry, full of rage and suffering to the core. It's by design. They're fully in the grips of the ideology, and have reached the endstage of marxist ideological posession.
It's also why every prediction leftists make turns out to be wrong. Their premises and axioms are wrong.
TL;DR
It's because they want you to suffer.
Decentralize everything.
Let them try to cencor web3, the fucking useless morons.
I bet it doesn't.
They're red pilling people left and right.
They're too stupid to play their cards right. Every idiot lefty is playing his strongest trump card at every opportunity. And soon they're going to be out of trumps.
10 years ago if someone called me an 'ist I'd be mortified. Today I couldn't care less.
These truckers are normies. So are their friends and family. Now they're all going to realize that isms are weapons of the establishment used to discredit.
And the next time some idiot lefty plays a trump card, it will be less effective.
And come election day, very soon "vote for us even though we're retarded, but at least you won't be an ist" wont work anymore.
NFTs are the latest evidence that leftists don't have an inner monologue.
It's some tech, take it or leave it.
Yet out of the shit they crawl in droves to all of them chant the same few lines they've seen repeated elsewhere.
A uniform blob of ugly, wretched, sadistic, unhinged, stupid cretins driven by their negative emotions.
An NPC army that can be pointed at anything and be expected to uncritically attack it with hysteria and hatred.
These same worthless morons will start collecting NFTs of black women in a few years and present them in their metaverse homes where they virtue signal about how much they love diversity.
These same useless idiots will tell their kids they always loved NFT because the worst thing for them is being seen as uncool or not with whatever is the latest trend.
In just a few years these same disgusting leftist wastes will riddicule anyone who doesn't care about NFTs and who hasn't made NFTs part of their digital life.
They'll embrace it and call you a right winger for not having the right NFTs on your twitter profile.
As much as they hate NFTs now, just as much they'll love it when they're told to. They're repulsive, sick, neurotic, evil imbecils paralysed by anxiety with nothing of their own and they will always follow the trend for added feelings of protection, it's all they are: a repugnant hivemind of perpetual fear.
IQ is biological.
They will purge the records.
In 50 years you will not be able to find any references to differences in IQ. All Modern Science will show that we are all perfectly equal. Everything else will be wrongthink and strictly illegal.
They can't wait, becuase now the ideologues will at least get temporarily embarassed if someone mentions IQ test scores. Soon however that will be fixed, and all Modern testing will show that blacks score the same as whites!
Questioning the tests (as they do now) will be considered a conspiracy, and cospiratorial thinking is doubleplussungood and cause for mandatory re-education training.
You can't teach math to low IQs, but you can mess up the teaching order and make the subject convoluted to reduce the understanding of the higher IQs. It's the only way equity will be reached, and it's the what they're going for.
I remember a study linked to reddit a couple of years back that bgragged about how their method is more equitable, and digging into the data it became obvious the stronger kids were doing worse.
One of my first red pills, it was around then I understood the ideology is evil, not just misguided.
If the parents were supportive that means they've been infected by the brain slug.
If they are infected by the brain slug, then they wouldn't have done anything to counter the ideoogy.
Not even their own kid committing suicide would have been enough.
They would have had a trans funeral and blamed the patriarchy.
LOTR couldn't possibly be more openly racist.
Dark skinned invading hordes coming from the south. A world of ethnic groups living separatly. A struggle against a force that seeks to unify everything into sameness. Some superior kin not as easily corrupted as other races. High elfs and royals of superior stock.
And while it doesn't call for the subordination of women, they're not exactly featured either. The few women are either feminine types, or oracle types. As is right since they would have no business tagging along on a dangerous adventure.
LOTR is incredibly based.
16 hours since this was posted and and no one has bothered to google this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/sam1b0/lol_vince_james_and_nick_found_a_clip_of_destiny/
Do you know where I can read more about this theory?
Would be better to restaff it.
They're not interested in creating art, they want to erase blasphemy and punish heresy and rewrite history.
What's the point in adopting something that's not problematic? That's already fixed. Once it's fixed it's not interesting anymore.
Fixing the old fills them with self-righteous energy, it fuels their hatred knowing that they're destroying something precious, as true sadists that's a source of pleasure.
They get a sense of justice as they're reclaiming a source of envy.
They get to bask in their achievment among peer and recieve adolation to scratch their narcissistic urges.
They get a short reprieve from their intense and costant self-pity which casts them into a spiral of manic euphoria.
When you don't engage with art to learn or grow, you only engage with it to validate your ideology - remember they are already perfect queens and their every life choice, vice, and personality flaw is validated by the ideology and beautiful.
It's perfect.
And it's all they've got. They are otherwise unable to feel joy, wonder, a sense of adventure, they have no immagination, no wanderlust, it's been years since they laughed. Art is useless to them.
Except as fuel for their wrath. They're wretched.
The only happiness for them is when an enemy meets misfortune, then they cheer hysterically like hyenas and for a moment feel releief.
It's not a way to live. They're deeply unhappy. It's why they spend all their time either on twitter/reddit or IRL enraged and wallowing in hatered.
It's not only that.
One thing is that you're filling important roles with talentless hacks.
But they're not just obstacles to be worked around.
No, they're actively sabotaging you. And they're succeeding no matter if they're technically subordinates to the production.
Becasue you're also providing them with a script that allows them to bully others to get their way. The ideology has them at the top of a hierarchy based on their "identities", and lays out in detail what to say in the climate the ideology has created to make the shots.
AND you're giving them the motivation to use this power. The ideology is a huge larp where they're good and oppressed and anyone with competence (i.e. anyone who is making arguments not based on the ideology) is evil and secretly plotting to hurt them.
AND you're fueling their anger and hatred through constant misery-port journalism and filling them with a lust for rightous vengence to the point where they start to take pleasure in humiliating those they see as their enemies.
AND you're scaring the incompetent others (the allies) into cheering on whatever the angry, incompetent, hateful mob is pushing for.
You can't own ideas.
And you can't stop me from sharing your words or copying your pictures.
Making a copy is not theft. It's not stealing your property when you still have your property in your hands.
The best you have is rubbish rethoric designed to protect the propagandists, like "copyright infringement", and fuck that.
Now you can argue that profiting from others creativite work is a form of plagarism, and I would back you there, but that's not what we're talking about. A system that protects against plagarism everyone would support, but you're here talking shit because you're mad people aren't paying their tax to the indoctrinators for providing them with more agitprop, and fuck that twice.
Just hearing "stealing copyrighted materials" makes me puke. You've been brainwashed well by your handlers if you're spewing garbage like "copyrighted" with no sense of irony.
Without copyright, we wouldn't have such a plethora of inventions and works of art.
What a retarded idea. We managed well for the majority of recorded history without the concept of copyright. People don't stop inventing or writing because there's some holes in the paywall. Soulless, empty vessels work like that. Grifters work like that. And soulless grifters shouldn't be making art anyway, they're just adding noise to the point where today there's hardly any signal left.
Artists create for the sake of art and their communities and themselves. They create to share. What the hell else is the fucking point.
As an artist you live from patrons, grants, and sales - but there's no natural law that says police have to step up and the government has to step up to stop others from sharing your output so that you can scale up to the level of a billionare.
Yeah it's a bit like saying: "Inflation is soaring, and yet the price of gold is going up".
Of course it is.
The market is up because the economy is in shambles. What else are you supposed to do with your money? You could buy crypto for more volatility. Or gold for less. But right now stock in Apple doesn't feel so much less safe than gold. The writing's on the wall - a handful of companies are going to own the future, and their value is only going to go up. If it goes down it's because something happened that's making everything go down.
In a strong economy there are many more things people do with their capital. High risk investments, VC funds, real estate, creating a business, etc.
In an uncertain economy people are keeping their capital in relatively low risk securities. With inflation as high as it is, that's the safest way to not lose so much - otherwise at 7% inflation you're losing half your wealth in just a decade.
If Trump had swithed to something else while he was president, it would have made that something else relevant, added hundreds of millions of users to it as even people who hated him were obsessed with reading his tweets, and that something else would today be a real competitir to twitter, if not already bigger.
A lesson for the next populist. Use establisment media / social media to get elected - then switch to a platform that's sympathetic to you and your followers once you have everyone's attention.
Yes you'll probably lose followrers at least in the short run, but you'll gain influence. And followers is just a number.
That IQ correlates with social status doesn't mean that it's the only way, or even the best / most effective way, to achieve social status.
That women select for IQ doesn't mean that women only select for IQ.
Otherwise we'd all be geniouses by now.
Clearly there is an equilibrium. Populations stay around the same IQ level, and while we saw gains accross all gorups throughout the last century those gains were mainly due to nutrition and education. These gains were significant over time but anyway they have slowed down now or and are even reversing.
What you can't account for is that blacks have a 85 IQ as a maximum anywhere in the world if you correct for poverty. Places with no AA. Places where they are disenfranchised. Places where they are the dominating group. Places with strong welfare states. From the US, to Japan, to Denmark, to Italy, to I'm sure Morocco, etc.
If what you are saying was true, we'd see large variations in IQ's in populations based on their culture, not ethnicity.
But we are observing the exact opposite of that. Regardless of culture, ethnicity determines IQ. Chinese people in Norway, in the US, in China, in Africa, if we correct for socioeconomic status have similar average IQs.
In most African countrues the average is much lower than 85. Most are in the 60s, with at least a couple of countries in the 40s. However, it's likely that low because of cultural and economic reasons, bc when they emigrate they stabilize around 85 in the west where the conditions are best.
What it looks like is that there is a upper potential for IQ in various ethnicities, and that the group stabilizes around that IQ when they have access to ample nutrition and education.
For blacks, that's about one standard deviation below Europeans. Koreans are about half a standard deviation above Europeans. Regardless of any Flynn effect, these ratios are staying the same.
If you write this book I'll buy it.
Cultural practices dictate how we develop as a species. Genetics and evolution dictate culture.
It's a feedback loop.
To pretend that everything is culture is wokeism.
Then you seem to not understand how genuinely low IQ autistic people are able to still live on their own and function independently and successfully in society. The idea that someone under 85 IQ can't function in society is laughable.
You changed the goalposts here from 'compete' and 'succeed' to 'function'.
Can a 70 IQ person function in society? Only with help. Unless we're talking about a village where he can stare into the sky all day and lift things when asked and generally just exist in the open and eat with the community.
Can a 85 IQ person function in society? Sure, they can be productive in many different ways.
Can they compete? Can a group with a 85 IQ average achieve parity in terms of salary, or positions of power in corporate or government sectors, or education, or innovation? No. No they can not.
Can they ever be expected to commit crime at a similar rate to 100 IQ groups? No.
You conveniently skipped my paragraph about how IQ correlates with so many other traits than just information processing.
Just having lower impulse control and lower ability to delay gratification means the group will be higher represented in crime statistics. Just those two things alone mean they're much less likely to finish an education, that they will be less reliable workers.
We take people who get 32 on the ASVAB in the infantry. We let them use guns, big ones. That 32 basically means they can't even do fractions.
The US military doesn't take anyone with an IQ under about 83. They've done experiments with admitting people with IQs of 80 and high 70s, but concluded that it's not worth the cost, damage, and effort. That is to say that people in the lowest 10th percentile are not only not useful, they actually harm the organization.
Women are going to sex select for higher IQ due to societal success and adaptation.
This paragraph is not really relevant. Do women sex select for higher IQ? Sure why not. Do they sex select for percieved IQ which is not real IQ but just some adaptability metric / success / how well an individual fits into society? Sure why not.
But we're not talking about how other people see you. We're talking about how well you can score on a standardized test. Go back 200 years and a random ashkenazi jew would probably outscore a random englishman, it doesn't matter that he was percieved to be lower IQ.
You put a group of any kind of 85 IQ average population in a neighborhood and leave them alone, and you will likely see a 100 IQ average population in a few generations
If you leave people with 85 IQ alone, they will become smarter? They will have smarter children? You must be joking.
IQ is highly heritable. Its heritability quotient is about 80, that's the same heritability quotient as height.
Now you can critisize the analogy and claim that IQ is determined by several other factors like epigenetics, environment, and passive genes. Ok, it's not the greatest analogy. Maybe that community would become smarter, maybe not. But we know blacks aren't becoming smarter, so whatever epigenetic or passive gene effects are at play, are clearly not affecting that particular demographic.
An 85 IQ society will only become a 100 IQ society if you recalibrate the tests to reflect their normal distribution. Then they will be 100 IQ by definition. However compared to outside groups they will always be 85 IQ.
It doesn't cause violence, it causes failure.
Sure, maybe, probably. But the alternative to AA is to just accept that blacks will not be able to compete, will be poorer, will have shittier jobs, etc.
Blacks not being as intelligent as other races isn't in itself a black pill. That's a solvable problem, to make sure that they all have some purchasing power and vested interest in society means some structuring is necessary. As a species we're not more hostile or less empathetic to people with lower IQs. Quite the opposite. There are ways of dealing with the fact that some people do worse in society. If you want to keep the multicultural society and solve for lower crime and more stability, that probably means UBI, socialized housing, and legalized drugs.
But as long as the woke cling to blank slate theory, the fact that blacks are underperforming will be a motovator to keep tearing down society. That's the real black pill.
It's why education is being dismantled - equity thrhough tearing down the intelligent to appease the dumb. It's why heroes in popular media are being destroyed - equity through tearing down the brave to appease the anxious.
Accross the board, everything that is good will be torn down to cuddle the feelings of those who can't hit the standard. The lowering of all standards is something you can observe, and while wokeism is a cancer on any society it's clearly much more damaging in societies where lage portions are low IQ, than in more homogenous ones like e.g. China.
Of course this ignores things like invasive species
Ancient Egypt was even much LESS black than today, and even today they're not black.
The majority of black migration to Egypt happened much more recently.
Heritability is based on observational studies.
Rlevant part from your article is "which genes these variants are in and what they do to affect height are only partially understood".
Point being that there are a lot of things we don't know about genes. We don't know in exactly what way height or intelligence is genetic, we only know that they are based on observation and definition. And those are the most well studied, much more than homosexuality which no one wants to touch out of fear of woke backlash.
Essentially, you haven't proven that homosexuality isn't genetic. You've just stated that we don't know for sure yet to what degree it's genetic. If you frame it like that, no one will dissagree with you. Everything is a combination of genetics, epigenetics, and environment. That's not controversial.
You're arguing the exact same way a normie argues if you try to talk to them about the genetic and heritable component in IQ. They start going down a convoluted path to try to discredit you attacking everything from core assumptions to methodology to nitpicking on the smallest meaningless points. The best you can get out of this is a conclusion of "we don't know" but at a riddiculously high epistomological standard.
So it's pointless for you to make a negative argument. Can you put together a convincing positive argument? Something less retarded than "all gays were diddled and that's what turned them gay"? Something that doesn't have even bigger questionsmarks and holes around it than "probably homosexuality developed because group selection is real and there was an evolutionary advantage to having some % of non-reproducing caretakers".
I suspect that for sexual orientation it doens't work, but for gender identity it does.
Sexuality is biology. It is what it is.
Gender identity is a mental illness. Can you infect people with a brain virus that destroys them if they're not strong enough to resist it? Clearly yes.
It's how a cult works. You can drive people crazy, make them confused, break them down mentally, disillusion them, convince them of any falsehoods, make them believe that self-mutilation will fix their despair, etc.
Autistic people and people who have been traumatized seem to be particularly vulnerable to this kind of ideological contaigion.