Islam is right about women.
They're winning because they're a loose coalition of opposing interests who have temporarily set aside their differences to pursue power. The DIE agenda is a tactical truce, it's never going to actually hold once they win.
Once they have power they will turn on each other, and very quickly one faction will dominate and the coalition will fall, and with it any strength that doesn't directly eminate from the state.
They're terrified of conservatives / ethnic majorities because they have a biological incentive to cooperate. And once the coalition falls they will be vulnerable.
In other words; they're afraid that history will repeat itself.
Exactly.
Giving up on your most sacred beliefs can't be part of a compromise. The proposition makes no sense.
With this Peterson assumes that leftism is good, rational, practical - except these silly fringe things that they can get rid of, and then we can get along.
But the things that are wrong with leftism are at the heart of it. No I'm not talking about calls for more empathy, equality, or solidarity. Look beyond the surface, before the rhetoric, at the motivational levels, at the points of origins. Look at the code the NPCs are running on.
They are not going to compromise with their core assumptions. They're not going to give up on blank slate theory, or consequentialism, or their absolute relativism, or stop reducing everything into foucauldian power struggles.
This is not about what they say they want. No one anywhere is against empathy. It's about what they actually want, which is power.
I'm not against leftism because I can't accept a welfare state. That's a compromise I would be willing to make. There are many functioning social democracies. But social democracies aren't built on postmodern ideas, they don't strive for equity, they don't try to redistribute power at all costs, or sacrifice their futures with hopeless attempts at rectifying their pasts, they aren't socialist, or globalist.
They're generally open, free market economies rooted in national traditions with a moderate amount of regulation - often less than the US. Ideologically they're not majority leftists, they're traditionalists and christians with a welfare state. They're fairly rational, and while I can dissagree with them on many points or believe it's a system that only really works in smaller and more homogenous populations, I don't think they're outright insane.
I'm aginst leftism after realizing that leftists have impossible goals and that they are willing to go to any lenght, no matter how authoritarian and dystopan, to try to achieve them - and since the goals are impossible there is no chance of them stopping before they've created hell on earth, as they've done each and every time before. I'm against it because unchecked liberalism promotes social climbers, sociopaths, bullies, grifters, charlatans, and worse over everyone else.
Leftism is a brain virus that makes the infected angry, miserable, hateful, sadistic, irrational, and turns them into slaves who will say or do anything to further the virus' agenda. How do you compromise with that? You can't.
If the Chinese were going to engineer a bio-weapon and deliberately release it into the world, they would have made it a lot more deadly
Or they were looking for something mild to make the HK protesters go home.
It's not about representation, it's about revenge and sadism.
There's no point for these people in making a movie about a heroic or interesting black character. Everyone would enjoy watching that. Which means the woke would find it uninteresting and boring.
There's no purpose nor pleasure unless someone or some group is attacked or humiliated. They derive joy out of doing to others what they have defined as immoral to do to themselves.
And the more people react the better. If they make some woke theater no one would care. But if they take people's history, that they care about, and wokify it, then they can lay in bed at night and for a moment feel something besides hate, bitterness, and anger - satisfaction and amusement as their brain virus rewards them for imagining that they have made someone else suffer.
I heard it's because they are shorter, and since the heart-brain distance is shorter they can deal with higher G forces.
Haven't confirmed if that's actually true. Though even if it is; not passing out as easily during some manouvers seems to be at best just one of many aspects that makes a pilot good.
Hi there! I'm here to help you brainwash your child so that he'll become a productive member of the brave new feminist theocracy that is about to have full authoritarian control over the western world.
You might find some teachings to be counter intuitive, but don't worry because your way of thinking is irrelevant, and soon to be extinct. We are making sure that his intuition alignes with ours. Do not resist. You do not want your child to grow up in a world that hates him. Feminist utopia will not tolerate disobedience. Keep your views to yourself, and we'll accept your existance, but any attempt at communicating your beliefs to your child or others will be met with consequences.
You might find some teaching to be counter to research, but don't worry - by the time your child is an adult all the archives will have been scrubbed and corrected, and the research redone with the correct methods to show the correct results. Your son will love science, and science will confirm that we are on the right side of history. Do not question the science, or teach or your child to question the science. Failure to comply will be met with consequences.
You might find that the teachings are making you and your child depressed. Rest assured that this is normal and for your own benefit. It is important that you are at all times aware of suffering. The best way to do this is to focus on pain, and channel that pain into sadism and humiliation directed at dissidents. Do not express joy, happiness, contentness, or optimism under any circumstances, except in cases where ill fate or suffering has befallen an enemy, or there will be consequences.
Do not question the orthodixy. Accept the ideology. Love trumps hate!
Average IQ is going to be 85 in a 100 years.
Even if we make it to a generation starship it'll be commandeered by blue haired 70 IQ diversity hires and inhabited by useless idiots who'll go max 2 years before they start burning down the hydroponic farms in protest over how they're not getting enough junk food as part of their daily rations and how that's racist and sexist.
You're making the mistake of severely underestimating the ruling class.
Don't confuse them for their midwit mouthpieces spouting ideology and propaganda.
Your rulers are intelligent, or at least the technocrats surrounding them are and so are the systems that prop them up. They have access to information and tools that you don't. Predictive analysis, holistic perspectives, influential networks, statistical analysis, supercomputers, the list goes on. They know exactly what they're doing.
It's worthwhile to study how Christianity became the Roman state religion, and how in the same declaration Theodosius also calls for the persecution of all other religions.
Christianity was persecuted by the Roman state because it was seen as a cultish branch of Judaism that operated besides the state and often in conflict with it.
Throughout the persecutions Christians were forced to flee and scatter throughout the empire, but their influence never dissapeared. Where they fled they set up churches, and the churches stayed in communication - effectively creating a network spanning the empire. With time it would become the only organization that had a hierarchical structure and branched across the wast empire.
How did they stay afloat during the hundreds of years of persecution? Seen as a movement for the weak they gathered assistance through empathy. They drew their base of support from the powerless and mainly from influential women, the wifes of influential and wealthy men.
And because of its association with women and their charitable work, the churches were most often allowed to exist in the open despite the state's edicts, also for being seen as mostly harmless, and for having the function of taking care of the weak, sick, and poor.
As the Empire at its height becomes unruly, Aurelian sees the utility of a monotheistic state cult to bind his subjects in one unified belief. For this he chooses Sol Invictus, and sets out to force this religion on the empire. But ultimatly this would fail. This ideology didn't have the infrastructire to succeed.
Was Constantine a Christian in belief? Possibly, his father was one of the influential men who protected Christianity.
However it was Theodosius who gave up on Sol Invictus and made Christianity the state's cult, and ordered the destruction of every other competitior. Think about what that means. The destruction of ancient traditions and values and beliefs, the fundament of what it meant to be Roman, the very fabric of society - made illegal.
People forced to give up on their traditions, culture and beliefs and adopt Christianity or face punishment and death. Christianity became the only way you are allowed to think, and though Christianity the empire was united in an ideology that could be controlled through a clearly defined hierarchical organization.
The church was thus just simply coopted. With the organization in place, all that ever was needed was to replace some key figures, and the religion could go from inherently anti-establishment, to an effective tool of the rulers.
When the state coopts woke culture, it's not an accident. They've found their new state cult. And it's perfect: it's like Christianity on steroids. It exploits peoples empathy, it fosters groupthink, it sucks in anyone who in any way feels powerless, it's organized and hierarchical, and any challenge is a de facto act of evil and worthy of strict punishment.
There's a scene that perfectly encapsulated SJW ethics.
They bring a security guard with them. Then not even 2 minutes into 'the zone' one of the women flirt with him to disarm him, then with his own gun shoots him and offers him as a sacrifice for the zombies.
They then justify this murder of one of their own group because he had said sexist things in the past. It's ok to kill him, he's a sexist. Not 'he's a rapist' - no, nothing that serious, but he had committed wrongspeak.
And only 2 of the group even knew about his past. The others just watch this and shrug. No questions askes. Just hearing after the murder that he was a sexist is enough to ethically make his murder unquestionable and fine.
Presumably thinking: "Why wouldn't we lure and kill one of our own, aftall we're SJWs and deceit, retribution, and hatred is in our blood, now let's get on with the mission".
This act of murder, I bet you, is deeply pleaseing to the SJWs who made and watch this film. The S in SJW can equally validly stand for Sadistic.
Because they underperform.
And since acknowledging the real reason is verboten, they're left with the assumtion that they're somehow being held down.
And because they can't find this somehow, or see it, or in any way point to what exacly it is that is holding them down, they are left to assume that the conspiracy is sinister and everpresent.
And becuase it's everpresent they start seeing ghosts and "evidence" for it everywhere and in everything.
This is how we get to math and walks in nature being racist.
It's obvious from SJW dogma that they have since a few years now accepted that some demographics have extremely low IQs on average, to the point where they can't be expected to function in liberal democracies.
Nature/nurture debates started getting settled about the time when they switched from promoting equality to equity. From support to cuddling. From seeking decentralization and promoting openness, to authoritarianism and cencorship.
They've stopped trying to explain the IQ gap away, since decades of effort couldn't mask the heritability of IQ or the predictive value of IQ tests.
But their entire worldview is built on blank slate theory. The mental dissonance isn't allowing them to see the basis for their conclusion. The woke are in fact sleepwalking.
"Reality has a liberal agenda" is the biggest cope of them all. And in their sleepwalk they're accepting the consequences of the very same things they decry. Even ideologues must relate to the universe in some way.
The intention was for research to catch up with the obviously true; that we are all created equal. The famous start of it all: "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman".
To show that inequality is a function of inequitable power structures. To prove the social darwinists wrong, and to shove the truth in the face of anyone who believes in falehoods like group selection, different racial clusters, inherent abilities, or mental and biological differences between the genders.
However that's not what happened. Half a century of their best efforts, and all that effort did was to confirm the worst possible reality.
Races break down along allele clusters, with only one group not part of the overlap. Personalities are heritable. Habits are heritable. Gender differences are heritable. You are your genes, your abilities are in your genes, your happiness is in your genes, and there's nothing you can do about it.
The only path left to equity is through sadism, humiliation, force, population control, misery, and centralized power. They might not ever be able to accept reality, but cleaarly they have accepted the consequneces of it.
"Oh so you have anorexia. People with anorexia don't eat. Do you not eat? How exactly are you fat if you don't eat?"
Journalism is a cancer on society - if they just did their job 90% of everything that is wrong with modern culture would go away.
A projector and sourround sound system is much cheaper than you imagine.
Project the image on a white wall, you don't need a projector screen, and you can easily make it hundreds of inches. And buy a cheap surround system set and good front speakers (which you probably need anyway), don't build your own it's not worth it, or if you're watching alone just use a pair of quality headphones.
Yes I know you'll get 60% of the "qulity", but you'll get 99% of the experience. Screen size is that only metric that will produce a significant wow factor - everything else your brain will stop noticing after 2 minutes.
Don't let consumer culture make you into an android - who the fuck cares if the blacks aren't completely black or the contrast isn't high enough. You're watching fucking hollywood trash in a heavily compressed format. You don't need a ivory spoon to enjoy a bowl of cereal.
For games however you need 120hz+, reasonable response time, and OLED or CRT will make a significant difference to immersion, but for movies it makes no difference to your enjoyment.
Yeah, it's why I thought you need a board of trusted judges who can intervene.
Let's say you have a constitution of sorts that defines a list of unacceptables. The people voting would then have to follow the constitution, and if they don't will be banned.
The alternatives to crownsourcing the work is either that you have to do it yourself, or pay people to do it.
Paying people to do it would be possible if you could get seed funding, but no one is going to fund something like this - VCs will see this are having almost no possiblilty for a successful exit, and as a potential PR disaster.
Also you're trying to solve a hard problem. I just saw the first episode of Shadow and Bone and these Russians who apparently are racist suddenly without a question fall in line behind a random black woman inserted as commander / expedition leader. Makes absolutely no sense, but how would you codify this as a rule? Is merely having a black woman actor woke?
Probably more useful is a site that only lists non-woke films and shows. Where I can go and know that everything there is watchable.
A wiki of sorts, where titles get suggested, people discuss and vote Woke/Not-Woke and when it reaches some vote talley it gets added to the main site.
This way those who want to get involved can, while those who just want to find something to watch don't have to deal with debates, a million tags, and 8 different wokeness scores.
Voting should be transparent btw, and a board of trusted people should be able to ban voters who misuse the system.
If you're doing it to make money, do something else.
If you're doing it because you're passionate about it then do it, and then promote it.
Will I personally use it? That entirely depends on how it works, the UI, selction criteria, etc. So it makes little sense to ask me before you can show me.
You should build a prototype and then show it off and ask for feedback - it's pointless to ask people if they want something that doesn't exist. You'll just get a lot of noise and in the end the people who said yes might end up hating it anyway.
Joss Whedon gets cancelled by the woke, then he spends years like a weak, pitiful, cucked gimp crawling back for forgiveness and making The Nevers which is ultrawoke garbage, but even that is not enough to appease the wokesters and his show gets no attention and fails. Pathetic.
Society was never meritocratic, was never this place of free competition where the smart did well and the stupid perished.
Group intelligence was likely selected for, except for in places where survival was easy - but this has more to do with geniuses, which different groups valued / protected / allowed for to various degrees, and utilizing people where they're most effective - than it has to do with a game where the intelligent win.
Intelligence was likely only a small part of selective pressure. Though not insignificant, as we can observe in significant differences between groups, but also not the pillar that you seem to imply that it was.
Even 10,000 years ago, and even if you were born in a rational tribe not lorded over and used for personal gain by a sadist, you'd be given your role based on the needs of the tribe, not your abilities - and that tribe would have a leader who's attributes were strenght (ability to sieze and hold power) and empathy (ability to effectively organize his tribe and to predict and diffuse threats), not intelligence. Or not nessecarily intelligence, I don't dispute that intelligence is always useful no matter what.
Does that mean that a tribe doing things intelligently wasn't an advantage? No it means that there were only limited ways to act as a tribe, and group intelligence was coded in the traditions and ways of the tribe. The tribe wasn't dependent on a steady supply of smart people to function well.
And the women of that tribe would mate based on the tribes customs whatever they were.
The individual was never the provider - in the grander scheme of things. The tribe was always the provider.
Same in agrarian societies - selection was more about family, empathy, and strenght (or good looks).
Same in industrial societies. Though here smarts probably started playing a larger role. But still arranged marriages were common, as was marrying whomever was nearest, or was the most economically or politically beneficial for the family to hitch you up with.
The idea of the selfmade man who rises to the top because he's smarter is a modern construction. Even then, success is about risk taking. It doens't matter how smart you are when the path to victory is through taking bets that the majority lose or break even on (or win but not enough to really matter). Wheather on the stock market, or on a trade ship across the atlantic, or as a farmer, or as a restauranteur, or as a soldier.
Of course you're right that regardless of attributes and abilities, the man was expected to provide and protect, and that wealth was always a strong advantage. But this wealth almost always came from family (with some origin years/decades/centuries ago in luck or conquest), and not in entrepreneurial initiative.
Report your phone stolen, then leak everything anonymously.
Wrap it up in a narrative. "I'm a strong, brave, independent wahmyn and 30 years ago an intern of this company looked at my butt and therefore I am leaking this to hurt the company that raped me" and send it to newsdesks and dump it on the internet.
Now it's public and you can use it. Maybe. IANAL.
I remember seeing a study a couple of years ago where they tested different methods of teaching math to to find one that reduced demographic differences.
They colcluded that some specific order of teaching concepts worked best, and recommended it.
You'd have to dive down and look at the data to see that the new pedagogic paradigm succeeded by making the material confusing, and equity had been achieved by reducing everyones scores but reducing the scores of the best students the most dramatically.
Deep down they must know that differences in outcomes are biological in nature, and that there is nothing they can do to erase them besides sabotage.
(1)
You can't just compare ancient empires with modern liberal economies.
"Proven capable of having a civilization" /= "capable of creating and maintaining a free and open society".
Egypt was controlled by a Greek family for centuries. Before that it was some weird death cult in the hands of all powerful god-kings.
IQ is less of an issue in pre-industrial times where people were expected to do as they're commanded, economies are top-down and rigid, retribution is swift and final and most people are either farmers or salves. These systems are designed to deal with low IQs - like every human the low IQs are going to be obedient under threat of immediate brutality.
Just because a few managed to keep the masses under strict control, build up armies to conquer,and the upper crust of society produced some art and poetry, doesn't mean that those peoples can transition into a meritocratic, innovative, democratic, free economy. And in a world where different types of societies exist, the meritocratic higher IQ ones will outcompete the others, and the low IQ ones will be dysfunctional unless lorded over by an iron hand.
Of course the low IQ will grow more resentful in a society where they're constantly bottom, than in some ancient world where everyone more or less were subsisting on the same misery.
(2)
As far as I know, IQ correlates less with negative characteristics in populations with a lower average IQ. That is, while a white person with an IQ of 75 will be emotionally stunted as well, a black person will not be (at least not necessarily).
I don't intuitively believe this. I'd have to see some sources. It makes no sense. They may be from different races, but they're not a different species. And in the context of low IQ populations of the US this is just blatantly false, those correlations I mentioned are just as relevant for low IQ as everyone else.
(3)
IQ is highly heritable in developed Western countries, because all the environmental 'efficiencies' have already been reaped.
IQ is highly heritable everywhere, but you are right that heritability is not the only thing that affects IQ, and poverty factors in particular can have an outsize effect. As long as the average IQ is low the prospects for a functional society are low too, but of course if the average IQ rises then those prospects improve.
China went from an average IQ of around 80 to over 100 in record time, as their economy improved and things like malnurishment declined. But the Chinese people in western nations were already above 100. So a better indication of the potential for IQ in populations is the IQ of their people in western countries. Some populations have stagnated around 85. I suspect we only know this because it's so shockingly extremely low that it was impossible to hide. You probably won't be able to find any further breakdown of other races. Couple that with the reality that the IQ cutoff point for both creating and maintaining competitive, democratic, wealthy societies may very well be over 90 and it's naive to dismiss IQ as a significant factor for why some nations are underperforming.
(4)
Not really, it's just that you dismissing entire populations as 'low IQ'.
I know what a normal distribution is. A more charitable reading of "Low IQ populations incapable of creating their own functioning societies watching western nations over the internet and worshipping it like some sort of promised land" would be "The people of nations where the average IQ is low are watching western nations over the internet and some of them, presumably the midwits and lower IQs of thier societies, worship it like some sort of promised land".
You're obviously not going to get an unassailable answer, becuase there is no exact cutoff point, and the aggressive tone you've approached this with tells me that there is no answer that is going to satify you.
However, if you press me I'd say the line is somwhere around 85 to 90, or about one standard deviation below the mean.
The US army doesn't accept anyone with an IQ under 83, because they've found that these people are not useful for anything and including them make it hard to maintain order.
I'd expect the ability to create and maintain an innovating and stable society to requre more brainpower than the absolute minimum for functioning in a strictly organized system like the army, so a bit above that doesn't sound unreasonable.
Anything under 79 is considered mentally retarded (with the higher range being classified as 'borderline retardation').
IQ is heritable, about level with height. And a nation having a low IQ average is not just a problem because they'll lack people who innovate and create and organize and stabilize. That too, but an even bigger problem is the strain the low IQ put on a society. IQ correlates with everything from financial success, health, life expectency, level of education, social status, emotional maturity, and productivity - to crime, impulse control, ability to delay gratification, violence, poverty, religious fanatisism, and competence.
With an average IQ of 85, 15% of your population is going to be in the 60s and lower. These people are extremely high maintenance, any country would struggle with more than a few % of people in this range, and especially countries that otherwise lack infrastructure due to the upper ranges being capped too (i.e. you'd expect Singapore to do better if you imported 1/4 of their population's worth of under 60 IQ indivuduals, because the population numbers above 100 are still going to be significant - not so with 85 average countries).
Does this satisfy you, or were you looking for something more like: "Now that you mention it, you're right, we can't know for sure, so therefore that must mean that IQ has no impact whatsoever on nationbuilding!".
Here you go: https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php
Seems to be legal based on some quick googling.
Of course you'll probably end up subject to vicious hate campaigns if you actually use them.