IMO wokeness is the natural result of diversity. Liberalism fails in diverse countries because it can't deal with tribalism. Minorities are woke because it serves their collective interests. For example dual citizenship german turks vote for leftist parties in german elections but for the islamist nationalist Erdogan in turkish elections.
The ethnic majority would oppose this but they are initially divided by normal political divides and by the time they start to realize the problem any attempt to organize them as an ethnic group of interest is made de facto illegal.
At first using diverse shock troops allows what would ordinarily be a minority political party (US leftists) to achieve power. But like Rome filling out its armed forces with German barbarians, eventually they notice that they have all the power and don't need some effete people hiding in Ravenna.
Rich Hanania and Chris Rufo are low-IQ libertarians (failed economic ideology) who support Israel's genocide of Gazans. I'm surprised they can tie their own shoes.
The tl;dr is that the people with all the money put a bunch of money into co-opting leftism/socialism/Marxism to cultivate a "non-Communist left" or "cultural left". A "woke" is left very effective at diverting mostly youthful leftist energy into social justice causes that don't ultimately threaten the capitalist order at all. The current state of the American left is very disorganized and cares much more about "social justice" than it would have otherwise. Why do we see "woke" advocacy everywhere but no advocacy for nationalization of banking, workers rights, removal of economic rent or any other Marxist cause? Why did the Ford foundation fund both the Frankfurt school and the Nazis? "Wokeness" is a diversion to pacify the left not to destroy the right.
Conservatives are chronically allergic to criticizing capitalism (look at Rich Hanania's reader survey. His readers worship capitalism). If you would simply open your mind and look at the facts it's obvious that "wokeness" is a byproduct of a confused, misled and disorganized left who hardly understand socialism. Of course Rich and Chris either know this, but can't say it because it would give credence to Marxism, or they really are just that dumb, it's hard to say.
Funny how you, a supposed pro-free speech libertarian, banned me from posting on your substack.
Funny how you ignored all my points and instead attacked me personally. Typical of a libertarian, to pretend to know anything about Marxism.
Funny how you called me a racist but are advocating for abolishing the civil rights act.
Believe it or not, some of us on the left have culturally conservative beliefs. In fact most countries in the world are more culturally conservative and more economically leftist than the US. My beliefs are not that unusual. I might not agree with Emil on everything, but he definitely raises some good points on certain topics that are well researched.
Hanania used to publish articles on explicitly neo-Nazi sites as "richard hoste", came close to denying the Holocaust and wrote "White nationalism is the only hope that part of what made the American nation great will survive somewhere" while endorsing ex-KKK leader David Duke. If he's not a racist then no one is...
"May, he tweeted that “we need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people,” lamenting that “Blacks won’t appreciate it, whites don’t have the stomach for it,” in defense of a wildly misleading and racist chart about “interracial crime.” Also in May, he referred to Black people as “animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits.”"
He's still a racist. He just no longer admits to being a white nationalist.
I'm pretty sure that Emil supports "more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people", so I don't think you are going to get anywhere with this.
As someone who used to read counter currents around the same time as Mr. Hanania, I can tell you that there was a lot of uncomfortable truth discussed there (as well as nazi nuttery). Very few English language (lay) publications were writing about HBD. Now this knowledge has expanded beyond these fringe, right-wing organizations, I'm happy to see. When you're young and hungry for truth, you're sometimes impelled to consult eccentric sources.
One point: I don't think whites felt guilty about blacks at all during the Civil Rights movement when racial quotas, welfare, racial justice NGOs, community organizers, basketball courts, etc. were created – in general, the establishment of entitlements.
Blacks were rioting all over the place in the 60s. Johnson's Great Society expediency was accompanied by rhetoric projecting an image of benevolence to counter Cold War accusations of racism. The guilt bit was tacked on after the fact to make whites feel not so cowardly.
Teachable moment: Blacks learned that whites can be intimidated into coughing up money through violence, or threats of.
>Wait it out? The fertility of communists is quite low, so one can wait it out. In theory. Recent arrivals from other countries make this process slower. This is the Ed Dutton Byzantium approach.
The mutational pressure is currently larger than the selection pressure, so waiting will just give more leftists.
I agree with sacking academia but not just because it's a bastion of mentally ill people, rather because it's a waste of money.
There is research showing the increase in academia from 1960 explains at most 3% of the rise of leftism, so this statement
>"On the other hand, the average supporter's intelligence may not matter so much if the intelligentsia of society leans strongly one way. That is of course what we see, among the intellectual elites of Western society -- the priest class --, conservatives are hard to find. This is an application of smart fraction theory to politics and it's probably largely correct."
Insofar as it is a statement of Cathedral theory, the idea that academia is sovereign, is incorrect.
Also there is a fallacy in that statement. If the political camps have identical IQ distributions, then the intellectual elite of society are equally conservative and leftist. Professors are an unimportant subset of the intellectual elite who are selected on other traits like obsession with useless topics, aversion to making money, often verbal tilts in the most leftist fields (more quantitative fields are more conservative, and verbal tilts are correlated with mental illness we know are increased by mutational load).
So in general to fix the problem, we need to take power over these people because a democracy will just continue to slide left. But once power is taken we need genetic interventions or else it will likely last 3 generations or less, like the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the USSR, etc
There is no reason to assume that the IQ distribution of the political population is a normal one. We certainly know that different socioeconomic groups do not have the exact same voting patterns or opinions. In the past, working class people voted much more for left-wing parties, for example. Nowadays, we know that IQ is positively correlated with support for something like legal gay marriage.
Most quantitative fields are more conservative than sociology, but they are still overall very liberal.
Embryo selection and then genetic editing are probably in the future thanks to individual choices, so the lack of power of conservatives will not prevent this, but I somehow doubt that these technologies will increase conservatism.
Furtherly i doubt leftism is growing in global level. We can look political events last 50 years. There was an Islamic revolution in Iran. Soviet Union collapsed and Russia has a traditionalist government in nowadays.Taliban took over Afghanistan. In many countries (India, Hungary, United Kingdom, Italy, Turkey, etc.) the ruling party is conservative. AFD is growing in Germany.
The problem here is that you are not an unbiased layman, nor an expert, but rather a trustor, and this is causing very basic mistakes which are impossible to correct without you transitioning into unbiased layman or expert territory.
The stuff you're saying doesn't even make sense. The properly controlled-for correlation with paternal age tells us the average effect of de novo mutation on a trait. The study you linked is not relevant; it just says some mutations are positive, something which is covered in any 9th grade bio class. You clearly don't understand mutational pressure theory, but you think you do, which makes you a trustor by definition, which is dangerous.
You are also not an unbiased layman or an expert. In fact, you are much worse. You are an ideologue full of confidence in the obvious wrong things you constantly say. I at least try to have some humility and look at different sources, but apparently you don't.
If you want to know whether mutations are having a negative effect on the fitness of a population, obviously you have to look at positive mutations and negative mutations and whether they cancel each other out or if one ends up being more important than the other. Basic biology or even logic that you fail to understand.
You are so careless with your conclusions and so unconcerned with the truth, that, for example, you don't even bother looking to see if the brain structure-behavior association studies that supposedly found differences between liberals and conservatives in the volume of the right amygdala, have actually been replicated. Spoiler alert: These studies were not replicated, like many brain structure-behavior association studies at the time. Not only do you fail the basic task of checking whether the study you are relying on has been replicated, but you then add your very likely wrong mutational load theory, just as a cherry on top, as if you were an intentional parody of a ideologue who mistakenly thinks he is scientifically literate.
Isn‘t mutational pressure so high because of low selection pressure (low birth fatality). Birth rate mortality seems to stay low and not drop significantly anymore, so shouldn’t mutational pressures stay the same? Or do you hint at the high fertility of lowIQ individuals which presumably have higher mutational load?
If people didn't have woke ideas they would not have been able to interpret/twist the laws in the way they did, nor would it be so hard for the people to change the law.
Then once its law there is a feedback mechanism where wokeness is rewarded legally and anti-wokeness is punished legally. People notice this incentive system and come up with what rationalizations they need to co-exist with that incentive structure. Often they can't tell they are rationalizing, they become true believers, which provides more energy for the system.
I would describe Rufo as describing the reason/motivation for being anti-woke and Hanania as describing the means to be anti-woke. One without the other is useless.
I was going to reply to your comment to mine but it somehow disappeared. Certainly, poorer working class whites bore the brunt of the civil rights movement. But now it's moving up the food chain so even elites are beginning to take notice.
You make another good point about people rationalizing their behavior in order to accommodate unnatural or perverted laws or systems imposed on them by hostile elites.
Both books are well wide of the mark because they both miss out what is by far the biggest ingredient of Woke (and any other kind of mass intoxication)....the groupthink PSYCHOLOGY of millions of ordinary people. (And ESPECIALLY those who have been through the university sheep-dip.)
'Great' thinkers - Marcuse, Gramsci etc or megalomaniac leaders - Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc........ Dark as those stories are, the truth is darker still....these demons would have been nothing without the tens/hundreds of millions of groupthinking, favour-seeking, grudge-bearing 'ordinary folk' seduced by their snake oil.
“Why did Hanania write the book? Well, it's common knowledge that Hanania thinks conservatives are stupid. He is right in one sense and wrong in another. On average, there's not much difference in intelligence on average. On the other hand, the average supporter's intelligence may not matter so much if the intelligentsia of society leans strongly one way.”
Of course that’s the sense I mean it in, I know about group differences obviously.
There may well be a some truth in the commenter"s claim that the likes of the Ford Foundation et al were using the" cultural" aspect as an anti Marxist move during the 60s .But what has happened since then?The utter failure of Marxism/communism in every country on the planet, mass immigration impacting on the lowest skilled workers, mostly white but also black too. One example the complete replacement of white and black meat processing workers across the US by Latinos, illegal mostly because of a 50c to 75c per hour lower wage. Brutal work obviously but pay packets ceased going into so many poor white and black households. While the asymmetry between the educational outcomes of the different races became more and more obvious. Now we have the business class and the "woke" cohorts virtually on the same page with DEI, ESG, critical race theory alongside the long standing affirmative action racket that acts simply as anti white imperatives. A shakedown of whites and those who have no wider family and friends in their hour of need end up as societies trash to the glee of so many.
I'm happy you've reviewed both books. I have them and am getting to them. I try to read in the order I bought books. It's an OCD thing. I think I will like Hanania's best because it seems like he may have some solutions. I don't think Conservatives are stupid, either. However, I do think they need more thought leaders. People with less emotion and more action. Sometimes, I can't tell them apart from progressives. It bothers me, but I don't feel a disdain for poor, working class Conservatives like Hanania seems to have.
"Woke" is just bonobophilia. Bonobos are ruderals in UAST Theory. The human historical cycle is Stress Tolerator spread, Competitor conquest, Ruderal boom bust, Stress Tolerator spread.
I like how you wrote this combo review.
IMO wokeness is the natural result of diversity. Liberalism fails in diverse countries because it can't deal with tribalism. Minorities are woke because it serves their collective interests. For example dual citizenship german turks vote for leftist parties in german elections but for the islamist nationalist Erdogan in turkish elections.
The ethnic majority would oppose this but they are initially divided by normal political divides and by the time they start to realize the problem any attempt to organize them as an ethnic group of interest is made de facto illegal.
At first using diverse shock troops allows what would ordinarily be a minority political party (US leftists) to achieve power. But like Rome filling out its armed forces with German barbarians, eventually they notice that they have all the power and don't need some effete people hiding in Ravenna.
Hanania is a vile individual. I wouldn't be in a hurry to endorse anything he has written no matter how truthful it may be. Unsubscribed
Vile indeed. Hanania has literally supported sexual assault and pedophilia.
https://twitter.com/InsanityIsFree/status/1710552336387739859
Rich Hanania and Chris Rufo are low-IQ libertarians (failed economic ideology) who support Israel's genocide of Gazans. I'm surprised they can tie their own shoes.
"Wokeness", "Cultural Marxism" and the other products of the Frankfurt school were created to destroy the left not the right https://mronline.org/2022/07/06/the-cia-the-frankfurt-schools-anti-communism/. (Frances Stonor's "The Cultural Cold War" is another great resource).
The tl;dr is that the people with all the money put a bunch of money into co-opting leftism/socialism/Marxism to cultivate a "non-Communist left" or "cultural left". A "woke" is left very effective at diverting mostly youthful leftist energy into social justice causes that don't ultimately threaten the capitalist order at all. The current state of the American left is very disorganized and cares much more about "social justice" than it would have otherwise. Why do we see "woke" advocacy everywhere but no advocacy for nationalization of banking, workers rights, removal of economic rent or any other Marxist cause? Why did the Ford foundation fund both the Frankfurt school and the Nazis? "Wokeness" is a diversion to pacify the left not to destroy the right.
Conservatives are chronically allergic to criticizing capitalism (look at Rich Hanania's reader survey. His readers worship capitalism). If you would simply open your mind and look at the facts it's obvious that "wokeness" is a byproduct of a confused, misled and disorganized left who hardly understand socialism. Of course Rich and Chris either know this, but can't say it because it would give credence to Marxism, or they really are just that dumb, it's hard to say.
Funny how Emil and I somehow attract the same kind of weird racist socialist type who only exists online and barely even there.
Funny how you, a supposed pro-free speech libertarian, banned me from posting on your substack.
Funny how you ignored all my points and instead attacked me personally. Typical of a libertarian, to pretend to know anything about Marxism.
Funny how you called me a racist but are advocating for abolishing the civil rights act.
Believe it or not, some of us on the left have culturally conservative beliefs. In fact most countries in the world are more culturally conservative and more economically leftist than the US. My beliefs are not that unusual. I might not agree with Emil on everything, but he definitely raises some good points on certain topics that are well researched.
This is not a free speech issue! Leftists have trouble with the concepts of private party and freedom of association, one reason I oppose them.
Why did you block me for saying abortion wasn’t a status issue lol
Lmao. Are you're not a racist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hanania
Well, these days "racist" means "anyone who disagrees with a leftist".
Facepalm.
Hanania used to publish articles on explicitly neo-Nazi sites as "richard hoste", came close to denying the Holocaust and wrote "White nationalism is the only hope that part of what made the American nation great will survive somewhere" while endorsing ex-KKK leader David Duke. If he's not a racist then no one is...
Has Hanania changed since his days as Hoste? Not really. https://www.readtpa.com/p/huffposts-story-on-rising-right-wing
"May, he tweeted that “we need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people,” lamenting that “Blacks won’t appreciate it, whites don’t have the stomach for it,” in defense of a wildly misleading and racist chart about “interracial crime.” Also in May, he referred to Black people as “animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits.”"
He's still a racist. He just no longer admits to being a white nationalist.
I'm pretty sure that Emil supports "more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people", so I don't think you are going to get anywhere with this.
> White nationalism
What's wrong with White nationalism? After all, Black nationalism, Asian Nationalism, etc., are all celebrated by our self-proclaimed betters.
Let me ask you a question:
Is it OK to be White?
As someone who used to read counter currents around the same time as Mr. Hanania, I can tell you that there was a lot of uncomfortable truth discussed there (as well as nazi nuttery). Very few English language (lay) publications were writing about HBD. Now this knowledge has expanded beyond these fringe, right-wing organizations, I'm happy to see. When you're young and hungry for truth, you're sometimes impelled to consult eccentric sources.
They're low IQ AND secretly hiding the troof! run program.
One point: I don't think whites felt guilty about blacks at all during the Civil Rights movement when racial quotas, welfare, racial justice NGOs, community organizers, basketball courts, etc. were created – in general, the establishment of entitlements.
Blacks were rioting all over the place in the 60s. Johnson's Great Society expediency was accompanied by rhetoric projecting an image of benevolence to counter Cold War accusations of racism. The guilt bit was tacked on after the fact to make whites feel not so cowardly.
Teachable moment: Blacks learned that whites can be intimidated into coughing up money through violence, or threats of.
>Wait it out? The fertility of communists is quite low, so one can wait it out. In theory. Recent arrivals from other countries make this process slower. This is the Ed Dutton Byzantium approach.
The mutational pressure is currently larger than the selection pressure, so waiting will just give more leftists.
I agree with sacking academia but not just because it's a bastion of mentally ill people, rather because it's a waste of money.
There is research showing the increase in academia from 1960 explains at most 3% of the rise of leftism, so this statement
>"On the other hand, the average supporter's intelligence may not matter so much if the intelligentsia of society leans strongly one way. That is of course what we see, among the intellectual elites of Western society -- the priest class --, conservatives are hard to find. This is an application of smart fraction theory to politics and it's probably largely correct."
Insofar as it is a statement of Cathedral theory, the idea that academia is sovereign, is incorrect.
Also there is a fallacy in that statement. If the political camps have identical IQ distributions, then the intellectual elite of society are equally conservative and leftist. Professors are an unimportant subset of the intellectual elite who are selected on other traits like obsession with useless topics, aversion to making money, often verbal tilts in the most leftist fields (more quantitative fields are more conservative, and verbal tilts are correlated with mental illness we know are increased by mutational load).
So in general to fix the problem, we need to take power over these people because a democracy will just continue to slide left. But once power is taken we need genetic interventions or else it will likely last 3 generations or less, like the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the USSR, etc
There is not fallacy.
*Extreme Liberal White = 107 IQ
Extreme Conservative White = 98.5 IQ
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/02/conservatives-arent-stupid/
Soc
* Cognitive ability predicted economic extremism (β = 0.4 to 0.12).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289622000800
* factor of religiousness based on five questions correlated at −0.38 with IQ after adjusting for reliability (−0.30 before
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338125762_Intelligence_and_Religiosity_among_Dating_Site_Users
This theory about the disastrous effects of mutational load is dubious, to say the least. Here if you want to see a paper saying the opposite and discussion on this: https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1699196376612016488
There is no reason to assume that the IQ distribution of the political population is a normal one. We certainly know that different socioeconomic groups do not have the exact same voting patterns or opinions. In the past, working class people voted much more for left-wing parties, for example. Nowadays, we know that IQ is positively correlated with support for something like legal gay marriage.
Most quantitative fields are more conservative than sociology, but they are still overall very liberal.
Embryo selection and then genetic editing are probably in the future thanks to individual choices, so the lack of power of conservatives will not prevent this, but I somehow doubt that these technologies will increase conservatism.
Furtherly i doubt leftism is growing in global level. We can look political events last 50 years. There was an Islamic revolution in Iran. Soviet Union collapsed and Russia has a traditionalist government in nowadays.Taliban took over Afghanistan. In many countries (India, Hungary, United Kingdom, Italy, Turkey, etc.) the ruling party is conservative. AFD is growing in Germany.
The problem here is that you are not an unbiased layman, nor an expert, but rather a trustor, and this is causing very basic mistakes which are impossible to correct without you transitioning into unbiased layman or expert territory.
https://www.josephbronski.com/p/why-cant-it-be-genes
The stuff you're saying doesn't even make sense. The properly controlled-for correlation with paternal age tells us the average effect of de novo mutation on a trait. The study you linked is not relevant; it just says some mutations are positive, something which is covered in any 9th grade bio class. You clearly don't understand mutational pressure theory, but you think you do, which makes you a trustor by definition, which is dangerous.
You are also not an unbiased layman or an expert. In fact, you are much worse. You are an ideologue full of confidence in the obvious wrong things you constantly say. I at least try to have some humility and look at different sources, but apparently you don't.
If you want to know whether mutations are having a negative effect on the fitness of a population, obviously you have to look at positive mutations and negative mutations and whether they cancel each other out or if one ends up being more important than the other. Basic biology or even logic that you fail to understand.
You are so careless with your conclusions and so unconcerned with the truth, that, for example, you don't even bother looking to see if the brain structure-behavior association studies that supposedly found differences between liberals and conservatives in the volume of the right amygdala, have actually been replicated. Spoiler alert: These studies were not replicated, like many brain structure-behavior association studies at the time. Not only do you fail the basic task of checking whether the study you are relying on has been replicated, but you then add your very likely wrong mutational load theory, just as a cherry on top, as if you were an intentional parody of a ideologue who mistakenly thinks he is scientifically literate.
Here is an expert correcting your mistakes that I mentioned above if by some miracle you are interested in correcting yourself: https://twitter.com/vsbuffalo/status/1737922763384586323
Isn‘t mutational pressure so high because of low selection pressure (low birth fatality). Birth rate mortality seems to stay low and not drop significantly anymore, so shouldn’t mutational pressures stay the same? Or do you hint at the high fertility of lowIQ individuals which presumably have higher mutational load?
A analysis of mutational pressure would have to take into account how beneficial mutations balance deleterious mutations. If you want to see a discussion about this: https://twitter.com/JosephMatheson2/status/1700077924526022708
Both. Mutations can accumulate over generations if not purified.
If people didn't have woke ideas they would not have been able to interpret/twist the laws in the way they did, nor would it be so hard for the people to change the law.
Then once its law there is a feedback mechanism where wokeness is rewarded legally and anti-wokeness is punished legally. People notice this incentive system and come up with what rationalizations they need to co-exist with that incentive structure. Often they can't tell they are rationalizing, they become true believers, which provides more energy for the system.
I would describe Rufo as describing the reason/motivation for being anti-woke and Hanania as describing the means to be anti-woke. One without the other is useless.
I was going to reply to your comment to mine but it somehow disappeared. Certainly, poorer working class whites bore the brunt of the civil rights movement. But now it's moving up the food chain so even elites are beginning to take notice.
You make another good point about people rationalizing their behavior in order to accommodate unnatural or perverted laws or systems imposed on them by hostile elites.
Both books are well wide of the mark because they both miss out what is by far the biggest ingredient of Woke (and any other kind of mass intoxication)....the groupthink PSYCHOLOGY of millions of ordinary people. (And ESPECIALLY those who have been through the university sheep-dip.)
'Great' thinkers - Marcuse, Gramsci etc or megalomaniac leaders - Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc........ Dark as those stories are, the truth is darker still....these demons would have been nothing without the tens/hundreds of millions of groupthinking, favour-seeking, grudge-bearing 'ordinary folk' seduced by their snake oil.
People wanting to be political leaders and people who want to sell books fight shy of acknowledging this because it's more flattering to blame it all on a few bogeymen. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
“Why did Hanania write the book? Well, it's common knowledge that Hanania thinks conservatives are stupid. He is right in one sense and wrong in another. On average, there's not much difference in intelligence on average. On the other hand, the average supporter's intelligence may not matter so much if the intelligentsia of society leans strongly one way.”
Of course that’s the sense I mean it in, I know about group differences obviously.
I spelled it out because not usually clear from your writings to the average reader.
Yes but I don’t want people to get the impression that I don’t make that clear in my articles like Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV
There may well be a some truth in the commenter"s claim that the likes of the Ford Foundation et al were using the" cultural" aspect as an anti Marxist move during the 60s .But what has happened since then?The utter failure of Marxism/communism in every country on the planet, mass immigration impacting on the lowest skilled workers, mostly white but also black too. One example the complete replacement of white and black meat processing workers across the US by Latinos, illegal mostly because of a 50c to 75c per hour lower wage. Brutal work obviously but pay packets ceased going into so many poor white and black households. While the asymmetry between the educational outcomes of the different races became more and more obvious. Now we have the business class and the "woke" cohorts virtually on the same page with DEI, ESG, critical race theory alongside the long standing affirmative action racket that acts simply as anti white imperatives. A shakedown of whites and those who have no wider family and friends in their hour of need end up as societies trash to the glee of so many.
I'm happy you've reviewed both books. I have them and am getting to them. I try to read in the order I bought books. It's an OCD thing. I think I will like Hanania's best because it seems like he may have some solutions. I don't think Conservatives are stupid, either. However, I do think they need more thought leaders. People with less emotion and more action. Sometimes, I can't tell them apart from progressives. It bothers me, but I don't feel a disdain for poor, working class Conservatives like Hanania seems to have.
"Woke" is just bonobophilia. Bonobos are ruderals in UAST Theory. The human historical cycle is Stress Tolerator spread, Competitor conquest, Ruderal boom bust, Stress Tolerator spread.
https://leolittlebook.substack.com/p/bonobo-communism-chimp-fascism-or