And nothing will change until people are willing to stop watching propaganda.
Anyone who cares even a little bit should avoid giving clicks or money to anything that's pleasing to the woke.
If you ignore the propaganda part of the propaganda, what else is there to discuss?
Technicalities, I suppose. I suggest going to forums for cinematographers, or sound engineers.
Otherwise current year programming is fawned over by brainwashed automatons praising the glorious messaging and critiqued as stunning and brave, or berated by people pointing out that it's trash brainwashing and critiqued as the attempt at social engineering that it is.
Critisism is violence.
We should make PhDs have to replicate a study (and start the process of replicating a long term study) before they're allowed to publish anything of their own.
And once you do publish, you shouldn't be able to cite anything that hasn't been replicated at least twice.
You're assuming they're rational.
Closest thing to National Socialism today is probably the left's beloved Scandinavian countries (minus suicidal Sweden). Very homogenous, very nationalistic, strong welfare states.
Though nazi Germany was more of a Racial Fascism and e.g. Denmark today is more of a National Social Democracy, but close enough.
I mean Racial Fascism literally btw, not as a slur. The racial part is what mainly put it apart from Italian National Fascism.
People hear fascism and their brainwashing takes over and they think about misery and sadism. Really they should be thinking The Roman Republic - a governmental coalition between state and private interests arranged in a hierarchical system with senators and optimates and a princeps at the top.
Italian fascism had expansionist ambitions from the getgo, a desire and a long term plan to rebuild the empire, but besides seeing blacks as inferior they didn't really care much about race.
A facie is a bound bundle of wood - it symbolizes 'stronger together', and fascism shares a lot of rhetoric with communists. Go watch early speeches and propaganda videos of Mussolini - you will often hardly be able to distinguish it from communism. Mussolini would go to factories and work for hours in shows of solidarity. His speech was very much about regaining glory and wealth to the benefit of all Italians.
Nazism on the other hand (very much derived from and inspired by Mussolini's parties) didn't start with expansionist ambissions. The 3rd reich was an intended resurrection of Imperial Germany, and the goal was to unite and create a homeland for the germanic people in the heart of Europe (within a nation otherwise built on Mussolini's fascist principles of state and industry working in tandem for the benefit of the people). This focus on people rather than nation made it very focused on race.
And well, we all know how it ended. Not exactly after plan.
In a world where Hitler isn't a drugged up belligerent warmongering genocidal maniac with delusions of grandeur fascism likely survives and likely helps put an end to socialism and socialist states, and quite possibly even outcompetes liberal democracies.
But she said it was an accident! You must listen and believe!
You see it's important that we give the left the benefit of the doubt. They are afterall undoubtedly principled and fair people!
For instance, I'm sure if Trump had liked and retweeted some nazi post on twitter but later claimed it was by accident - the left would immediatly appologize to him and never bring it up again, and certainly never hold it against him.
Shotsightedness is an IQ thing, not a gender thing.
Just that shortsighted men end up in jail, broke, or as addicts. Shortsighted women end up leeching off some schmuch or as sex workers.
Which country is this?
This is neither here nor there, but I don't think leftists are low IQ.
Most of them are of course, but I'm talking about the liberal media types, colledge types, the twitterati, or many of the ones setting, policing, and parroting the narrative online and on social media.
They're above average, around 110. I know, weirdly specific number, but somwhere at the top-end of one standard deviation above the norm.
Smart enough to notice patterns, but not smart enough to see broader connections. Makes them especially receptible to programming and primed for believing in convoluted theories-of-everything.
We tend to think "low IQ bad" without giving much thought to psychological tendencies. Look closer, and it's more apparent - at least to me - that the source of all of this is midwits. Low IQ is indeed subotimal, but also manageable.
This midwit status also explains so much more, like how they develop a sense of superiority because they have actually very plausably been the smartest in their group, or the unwawering sense of confidence which is so particular to this group. At or below the norm, or above one standard deviation above the norm, it's very rare to find people who are convinced of some conceptual truth.
Really, if you think about it, the problem isn't the low IQ at all. Societies that are predominantly low IQs seem to be fairly (dys)functionally stable, and the low IQ will mostly go along with anything, no matter what the dominant culture or narrative may be, even if it's directly aginst their interest.
They get violent when they are agitated to violence. And the agitators are midwits.
People don't reason themselves into becoming woke.
Wokeness just has an inherent draw on people who can't reason.
It's a mix of misery porn addiction, mental self flagellation, self pity, dopanime addiction, mental and emotional instability, coping mechanisms, nihilism, and pent up hatred and anger.
Failure is just fuel, it reafirms the misery. They're drawn towards failure. "Get woke go broke" just feeds the monster revolutionary energy, and the monster keeps sucking in losers who become mindless drones just wallowing in suffering and lashing out.
If they were to actually succeed they'd find purpose, mellow out, and find values worth protecting.
But of course they won't, any more than a bunch of emotionally retarded, low IQ, temper tantrum children with no impulse control are likely to get together and build a functioning automobile.
Thanks!
Not really looking for anything in particular. I used to read quit a lot but that's a decade ago now. Back then I would read mostly canonical works. Wilde, Fitzgerald, Kerouac, Dostroevsky, Dickens, Hemingway, Poe. Stuff like that. Of those I'd say I liked Dostroevsky and Poe the most. Maybe also Wilde for the prose and Fitzgerald for the short stories.
Then one day I just stoppd reading.
I think like many here I'm just tired of the constant propaganda and would enjoy some respite in entertainment.
I think I need something more fun and light to get back into reading. Sci-fi would be nice. Was never much into fantasy, but I love LOTR and The Hobbit (so much so that I decided not to watch the Hobbit movies).
That's not how this works.
Failure is like food for the neomarxist monster, it only makes it grow stronger.
Thank you Sir!
I've been meaning to get back into reading... Can you recommend a few?
This isn't about keeping minorities down.
This is a logical consequence of striving for equity in the face of biological essentialism.
85 per day seems infinitly doable.
Is it just another diallect though?
I'd argue that a dialect, and I speak with one, is a verbal trait. If speaking ebonics was just another dialect, its speakers would have no issues communicating in writing in the common tongue - which emphasises clarity and meaning over whatever it is that dialects communicate.
But that's not what we're observing though, is it? We don't generally see those who speak ebonics switch to writing English proper.
It's almost as if ebonics is the only dialect they know, even after two decades in the education system.
If the Portuguese can pick up English from not dubbing their TV shows, what kind of argument is it that Amercans somehow can't due to an underfunded education system (that spends more per student than any other nation) when they're steeped in the languge?
The will to manipulate is the same, but the means and knowhow has increased tremendously since the inception of mass communication just about 100 years ago.
Mass-manipulation/propaganda/PR used to be quackery, it bacame about as sofisticated as an axe amputation around WW2, and now it's precision laser surgery.
Crypto is a decentralized trustless ledger.
The 'decentralized ledger' part means it's an automated way to keep track of things (like ownership), secured by cryptography.
Think of it as a way to digitize and transact value, like the internet digitized and transacted information.
The 'trustless' part means that anyone who transacts with the ledger can trust that it's accurate, even though no one is tasked with verifying or updating it.
The implication being that you don't need third parties anymore. This is where a lot of the high value of coins comes from - these coins (representing platforms, businesses, protocols, exchanges, etc) are replacing third parties (like banks, lawyers, notaries . . . governments). What is the sum value of all these third parties in every concivable industry? Higher than the current crypto market cap by a lot, which is why it's safe to say that we're still early. Of course, with the gains of being early comes the risks; who's to say some black swan event doesn't kill everything in a year. So be careful and don't invest more than you can afford to lose.
As for the coins, you should do your own research. They generally break down along the lines of:
Utility tokens (like a token you must use if you want to use a platform that does rendering, or storage, etc.),
Govenance tokens (those who hold them own the platform, and desicions are made where each token is one vote),
Platform tokens (like ETH, think of them like an OS),
Stable coins (USDC is pegged to the dollar, but there are more interesting and experimental coins that are not pegged to anything yet still stable through economic games),
Security tokens (securities as in stocks - these tokens represent ownership of something, even physical things like real estate), and
Non-fungible tokens or NFTs that certify something as uniqe and authentic.
Some cool blockchain things are:
Defi (decentralized finance), where things like AMMs (automated market makers) give liquidity to tokens by creating pools with incetives for liquidity providers
NFTs, or proofs of ownership of digital content which are programmable and e.g. can automatically give some % of any future transaction price to the creator or can include any set of rights, and
DAOs (decentralized autonimous organizations) which are collectively owned and run organizations, businesses, and even governments.
This is a good video with more technical detail (still very accessible) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4
This is something I reliazed only resently.
They are not more empathetic, contrary to popular belief.
They are more neurotic. Which means they feel negative emotions more intensely.
Show them a picture of somone suffering and they'll easily be able to well up with feelings of (self)pity and pain, but show them a picture of someone experiencing something positively and their reactions are no more empathetic than men - and more often than not they'll find some unrelated negative emotion to hone in on "oh yeah that must be nice, but have you considered /suffering/ pain/ misery/ misery/ misery".
Yet the whole world has bought this cope that because women are constantly miserable they're somehow better. No, they are just more neurotic and risk-averse, and thus forgiving and submissive towards the in-group, and ruthless and passive-agressive towards the out-group.
They have always carried the flames of whatever ideology is dominant - it's what you would expect neurotic people to do; huddle together and embrace the groupthink for added feelings of protection.
They probably see the writing on the wall.
Ecological collapse will make equatorial nations uninhabitable. Coming resource wars. Increasing cost of energy. Collapsing economies. Water shortage.
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.
The masses are coming. You have seen nothing yet. And I bet you that view is pretty clear from the top. So what should they do? Either they stop immigration and deport - but that would go against the narrative, and feminists would never agree and they are very much part of the power structure. Or they prime and prepare for what's coming, some last ditch doomed to failed attemt at social engineering, trying desperatly to brainwash people into accepting the destruction and subversion of their cultures, way of life, political and social systems, values and norms, ideals and aspirations. They're trying to make you love and revere and fear the low IQ masses who are about to flood your land in a deperate play hoping that a stable enough society can emerge. Because they know that unless forced by a narrative, if left free to your own will, you will never accept them or their ways, you need to be brainwashed. But the brainwashing isn't taking. Beucase they are fundamentally wrong in their assumtions. Humans are not social constructs. Nothing is. Everything has a rime and reason. They're failing, and they're getting nervous, and they're doubling down.
In a decade or two you're going to be attacked for saying it's crazy that we're about to elect islamists to power, "What's wrong with muslims being involved in the political process, you racist?". By the same people who today will tell you that "omg, are you serious, this will never happen, you paranoid idiot".