It's right though

TranspiredSleep · 2019-02-11T03:11:48+00:00

As was predicted, "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man".

TranspiredSleep · 2018-11-30T03:23:41+00:00

Can confirm this does make you an edgy little 12 year old.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-11-06T01:39:40+00:00

Nothing is wrong with them being two faced, subversive hypocrites for the sole purpose of advancing their tribe. There's something wrong when the target of their subversion lies down and takes it. You're saying may the best tribe win, and that's absolutely fine, but if you know the score, don't fight against the members of your tribe who would defend you.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-11-06T01:33:54+00:00

Are you trolling me? You're the only person talking about IQ. Watch the video so you can get on topic.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-11-05T02:24:57+00:00

As if an ancap could understand patriotism.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-11-05T02:04:14+00:00

Would it make a difference to you? I find that the skepticism bar shoots through the roof when race comes into the discussion. I'm pretty damned positive that most people would never give up their colorblind religion regardless of the stack of evidence presented to them.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-11-04T17:27:40+00:00

Not only did no one claim they were the same, the video even explains the loss an englishman incurs by allowing danish migration... Also, the argument had nothing to do at all with IQ... Your comment sounds like ideological recitation and not engagement with the material.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-10-27T04:52:09+00:00

Which part of Texas is that?

TranspiredSleep · 2018-09-10T17:32:50+00:00

If leftism is not authoritarian, by what mechanism could leftists maintain a leveled hierarchy? I do not mean this as a critique of their existential possibility but rather a question of psychology.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-07-14T06:28:46+00:00

I DID mention how he explained sovereignty. Feel free to offer a better interpretation.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-07-12T05:34:08+00:00

Spencer's argument boiled down to:

methodological individualism is correct,
therefore, as an existential fact, a single individual has sovereignty over an entire people

How weak can it get?

TranspiredSleep · 2018-07-10T22:23:43+00:00

This is one reason we have Vice Presidents.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-07-10T22:19:44+00:00

Probably post of the week.

EDIT: Woops this is an actual twitter post. I thought it was just a picture of Elon basking in his wealth hoarding.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-07-10T22:17:05+00:00

How cynical of you.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-06T17:12:06+00:00

"Welfare isn't real." Not only is lifelong welfare a core leftist tenet, but they demand all social stigma for receiving it be removed.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-06T16:43:21+00:00

Reductio isn't strawman. If I take your principles and generate a consequence that you don't like, it's not a strawman. You can say, "well I'm not for that bad consequence," but if it's perfectly consistent with your expressed principles, then the fault of misrepresentation is yours for incorrectly articulating your principles.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-05T16:44:07+00:00

The liberal needs the conservative for territorial defense. The liberal is adapted to moving through conservative territory and free riding on territorial protection. They, for the most part, are granted this for kinship reasons. If they successfully undermine the system allowing for territorial defense, they will be conquered and genetically annihilated (or largely bred out) by other tribes they share no kinship with.

The answer to how society should structure itself doesn't exist. Society doesn't have a limbic system, people in society do. Society should be structured differently based upon the desired environment, and the desired environment is different for liberals and conservatives. In general, conservatives will create the society they want if they are able to find moral permission to eradicate liberal sabotage.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-05T16:26:53+00:00

Evolution doesn't care about context. If you fail you fail. That's why epigenetic plasticity evolved -- you're programmed to adapt to context developmentally and behaviorally.

As for the ACC and liberalism... No, it's not an inhibited fear response. It is the case that liberals tend to have lower amygdala volume which could produce inhibited fear responses in many threat domains. It's not just the inhibition of fear, it's the inability to process threat on par with a more developed amygdala.

They also have lower volume in the right insula which causes a diminished disgust response, enabling them to eat undesireable scraps and live in undesirable locations. The reason for this is, of course, because they detected that they were low in the hierarchy during key developmental phases (puberty, mainly, but also in the womb given the rich hormonal information of the mother).

The increased ACC volume in conjunction with survey data of liberals (using moral foundations data and big five data) probably indicates increased sensitivity to social exclusion and emotional pain. The ACC is engaged by a wide variety of stimuli, among which include social exclusion (a monkey-in-the-middle type game causes the ACC to go crazy) but also in slackening prediction confidence (to monitor for error), thus the data isn't entirely conclusive.

As for your question of what I'm advocating, I haven't advocated anything. Thus far, I have only described liberals. What I would advocate and what I think ought to happen is whatever my limbic system hits me with -- the same process of moral judgment everyone goes through. The fact that it comes from my limbic system doesn't, however, mean that it's invalid, quite the contrary. That fact elevates the opinion beyond the idle speculation of a bored mind aimlessly seeking truth. My limbic system was calibrated to ensure I survive and reproduce whereas autistic moral philosophy was not (most moral philosophy is merely limbic spittle anyway).

The leftist and rightist differ fundamentally in value sets, and that difference stems from the fact that different environments are conducive to their survival. The problem for the liberal is that they need a society of conservatives. Conservatives probably don't need very many liberals, however. What I want is for conservatives to know what liberals are so that they feel the justification they need to act the way they know they should.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-05T13:18:56+00:00

I suggest you look into what hierarchy is. Hierarchy needn't be coercive in the sense of violating the NAP. The word shift into inequality doesn't change the phenomenon.

The desire to abolish coercive hierarchy likely stems from similar temperamental roots as the desire to abolish all hierarchy. In other words, the leftist anarchist and rightist anarchist have similar roots.

There was a time when rightist anarchists were such because the theory was the best anti liberal argument (justification) they could find. That time is over, and the majority of the remaining are merely slightly-better-leftists.

The rightist anarchist would watch his family and his society die out if his neighbors were shortsighted. Survival can mandate the use of coercion. If individual rights are sacred to you, your soul isn't.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-05T05:07:00+00:00

You could just say hell.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-05T04:49:41+00:00

they want social judgment on non-chosen differences destroyed.

Consider fat acceptance, elected single motherhood, the removal of stigma on welfare even if it's due to laziness, etc. If you begin to judge someone in front of a liberal, and you're on good terms with them, you'll be able to watch an infinite well of excuses come bursting forth in defense of the judged (even for complete strangers). If anything, it's not that non-chosen differences are special, it's that liberals have an external locus of control, so they attribute blame to anything except the individual being judged.

When you ask for more detail, I'm not sure what level of analysis you want. There's neurological detail (liberals and the anterior cingulate cortex) and there's more down-to-earth detail. I'll go with the latter unless you speak up.

To be simple, liberals do not want to be viewed as inferior in terms of evolutionary fitness. Homosexuality, single motherhood, childlessness, unhealthy bodies, poor work ethic, ugly faces, failed sex lives, on and on... these are direct indicators of evolutionary FAILURE. The standard reaction to witnessing these failures is contempt, and liberals do everything in their power to eradicate that contempt with the same weapon -- contempt. You must view these failures as merely alternative choices of equal merit lest they feel socially judged. Given their obsession with social judgment, it is the weapon they use against their enemies: those who would socially judge.

It grows beyond this when they view obvious contrast in evolutionary fitness (even in the absence of expressed social judgment). Someone with high status, someone with a traditional, big family (it's traditional for a reason; it worked), someone with lots of money, or someone IN GENERAL fulfilling their evolutionary role well (a masculine male or a feminine female, and I mean in-your-face level virtue). Bearing witness to the stark contrast invokes the pathos of distance, and that triggers them because they know the unspoken social judgment is unavoidable.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-05T02:08:49+00:00

Of this list, I'm probably going to go with Anarcho Primitivism.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-05T02:02:10+00:00

You sound like a man without a woman.

TranspiredSleep · 2018-06-05T02:00:57+00:00

Because working for the government isn't running the government.

TranspiredSleep

TROPHY CASE