Midterm predictions

Same popular vote as ever, but polarization on a level that will cause sabermetricians to introduce new vocabulary to explain how quickly the variance in the distribution is increasing even as the center of mass moves very little. That is, roughly the same number of seats for everybody, but with red areas becoming much more red and blue areas becoming much more blue. In red strongholds we’ll get a few Chad Buchanans and in blue strongholds we’ll see openly communist/muslim/etc. extremists like Ocasio-Cortez win. So, using the spectrum from this excellent paper (H/T Koanic)…

…this predicts our future will have more immigration restrictionism and more crackdowns on speech. It’s never fun for a naturally idealistic person to compromise but, pragmatically speaking, I’d make that trade in a heartbeat.

We’ll see the usual low turnout in the vast majority of races (contra the insulated technocrats who are expecting high turnout, voter enthusiasm, and a $COLOR wave), with unusually high turnout in a few key Trump referenda that will even out across the country. In statistical terms, think of a flatter distribution with much more variance and about the same center of mass. This will make for a hotbed of Frame Games because people will be able to find supporting evidence to believe whatever they want. In particular I expect the Alt-West will declare the Eternal Victory March of Truth and Light (due to living primarily in Republican strongholds) and work themselves up to their own little Cville where they learn why the NPC meme was “rediscovered” after lying dormant for years. As with the Alt-White’s fascism, this will cut straight to the core of their worldview and I’m curious to watch what they make of it.

So even as our external borders harden, the internal borders will be hardening faster and every side’s extremists will begin to learn the value of message discipline in 4GW.

Advertisements

Guestpost: Veganism is White Genocide

TL;DR:

Veganism is a genocidal ideology, because of:

-Ideological Endpoint 

1. Animal suffering is morally equivalent to human suffering.
2. Humans cause more suffering to animals than animals cause to us.
3. Therefore, fewer humans, fewer domesticated animals, more wild animals. It’s the only way.

-Practical Systemic Effects

1. Following a vegan program to its logical endpoint would obliterate entire species of animals.
2. Rejiggering society to eliminate “animal exploitation” would involve frankenfood and population reduction.
3. “MEAT IS MURDER” AKA “Meat should be illegal” AKA “Govt should suppress meat eaters with lethal force”

-Shit Vegans Say

“We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.” PETA, Vegan Organization

“‘The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man”; and ‘The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.”

The Society pledges itself ‘in pursuance of its object” to ‘seek to end the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man.” The Vegan Society, OG Vegans

EXACTLY WHAT IS SAYS ON THE TIN

What? Whaaat? Vegans? You’re telling me vegans are genocidal maniacs? But I thought they were holier than thou pacifists?

You heard right, hypothetical man. The end game of veganism is anti-human genocidal eradication in the name of reducing suffering in the world.

This is a strong claim, and I would not expect you to believe it without some strong evidence to support it. This will be provided.

Have you ever met a vegan? They are religiously devoted to decreasing suffering for those beautiful animals that are really, when you think about it, more pure than these evil humans. If you talk to a vegan, you will hear stories of the cruelty to animals that humans can dish out, the horrors of factory farming, and the terrible suffering of the innocent animals that… ugh, HUMANS, are constantly killing for food.

In the veganosphere, everyone agrees that vegetarians are just shitty vegans. The TRUE apotheosis of veganism is a world with small tribes of feral humans, (or no humans at all!), free of enslaved animals, no domestication, no harvesting our fur brothers and sisters for skin and industrial products. Fuck industry, man! And fuck Man!

Why is this? It’s possible for reasonable people to agree that tying a dog to a post in the summer heat with no food is bad, without agreeing that domesticating animals was a mistake. Yet PETA operates the largest kill shelters in the US under the ideology that domestication is slavery, and having pets is an abomination. Because they are good vegans.

IF YOU NEVER EXISTED YOU CAN’T SUFFER

From PETA: Animal Rights Uncompromised: ‘Pets’ | PETA | https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

“We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.”

“This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.”

Hopefully that’s as unambiguous as possible. PETA is a logical result of the principle that animal suffering is equal to human suffering, that humans are exploitinganimals by extracting their love energy and taking them away from The Wild.

But PETA is kind of radical. Maybe all vegans don’t think that way?

THE VEGAN DEFINITION OF VEGANISM:

Donald Watson coined the term vegan in 1944 when he co-founded the Vegan Societyin England. At first he used it to mean “non-dairy vegetarian”, but from 1951 the Society defined it as “the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals”

History of Vegetarianism – IVU History | https://ivu.org/history/world-forum/1951vegan.html

“‘The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man”; and ‘The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals…”

“…Where every other movement deals with a segment – and therefore deals directly with practices rather than with principles – veganism is itself a principle, from which certain practices logically flow.”

So you can see that veganism originated as that central principle. Vegans broke off from vegetarians from the start as a radical philosophy. PETA is just the original vegan talking points put into practice.

VEGANISM IS WHITE GENOCIDE

“Heifer whines could be human cries
Closer comes the screaming knife
This beautiful creature must die
This beautiful creature must die
A death for no reason
And death for no reason is murder”

-“Meat Is Murder”, The Smiths, written by Morrissey, Vegan

If any use of animals by humans is ‘exploitation’… if animal suffering is morally equivalent to human suffering… if “Meat Is Murder”…

Doesn’t that make the rest of us criminals?

Quick recap:
-Veganism, almost from the beginning, was a radical philosophy of ZERO animal exploitation by humans.
-The logical result of this “Animal Non-Aggression Principle” is that most human activity visits intolerable cruelty on animals, and must cease.
-Current Vegan activism today, in practice, results in systemic killings and human suffering

What would a vegan future look like? We can catch glimpses through how they treat ‘cruelty-conscious’ people in the present.

For example, a Vegan group harassed a ‘sustainably raised’ meat shop, eventually blackmailing them into putting a sign on the door saying that killing animals are unjust, no matter the method:

Vegan activists force California butcher to hang animal rights sign in window | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/03/vegan-protest-berkeley-butcher-local-shop-animals-rights

From the article:

“Feet away from the butchers carving pork loins and beef shanks, the owners of a California meat shop have installed a peculiar sign in their window: “ATTENTION: Animals’ lives are their right. Killing them is violent and unjust, no matter how it’s done.”

The odd poster seeming to discourage customers from buying their meats is the result of a months-long dispute between the owners of the Local Butcher Shop – which sells “locally sourced, sustainably raised” meat – and animal rights activists who have staged more than a dozen loud and gruesome protests outside the family-owned business in Berkeley.”

“The group argues that there is no ethical way to kill animals for food and are campaigning to make Berkeley the first “city free of violence toward animals” – meaning banning the sale of meat.”

“I don’t understand why activists would pick on a mom-and-pop shop supporting the most humane farmers, rather than the animal factories and meatpackers responsible for brutality on an unimaginably greater scale,” said Michael Pollan, the well-known American food writer and a University of California, Berkeley professor, in an email. “Unless you believe the complete abolition of meat-eating is a realistic goal, attacking this sector of the animal economy … strikes me as misguided.”

In other words, if you sell meat, no matter how consciously or sustainably raised it is… These vegans want to conquer and destroy you.

The end goal of veganism, the change they want to see in the world, is a world where all animal products are banned, all pets and livestock are killed or released to die in the wild, and humans subsist on a mix of vegetables and vitamin enriched soy meal.

That is, unless your farm or housing development destroys wildlife habitat (and pretty much all of them do).

Again, most of this stuff is already happening, just limited by vegan acceptance. Take a look at this Vegan Samurai, Gary Yourofsky:

The Most Radical Vegan Activist Ever | https://vegansamurai.org/2016/02/25/the-most-radical-vegan-activist-ever/

“One very inspiring aspect of Gary’s work is that he doesn’t limit himself to just promoting veganism.

He actively, physically confronts (real estate) developers, animal exploitation facilities, politicians, and others to protest various animal harms, including hunting, circuses, fur farms, and habitat destruction.”

“In one video embedded in this article, he speaks of his wish that people who eat animals or engage in animal exploitation be treated as badly as animals are treated.

He sometimes gets very worked up and appears to wish violence upon those who participate in or support animal exploitation industries.”

The author of this profile basically says that while this guy is too extreme even for PETA, that’s exactly what makes him the Most Vegan Of Vegans:

“Sometimes I wince at the directness, fire, and in-your-face style he uses, but Gary Yourofsky has risked his life and freedom for innocent animals.

He truly embodies the qualities of a Vegan Samurai– he’s strong, unafraid, and willing to risk his safety and freedom to defend the defenseless.”

Take a look at Yourofsky’s main site, where he describes humanity as the filthiest parasites on the planet:

Tag, You’re It: Gary’s Retirement Letter << Gary’s Classic Facebook Posts << About ADAPTT << ADAPTT :: Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow | http://www.adaptt.org/about/fb–tag-youre-it-retirement-letter.html

“Since humanity thrives on abuse, discrimination and injustice 24/7, I no longer believe veganism can reduce or eliminate the depraved things we do to each other…

…we are the nastiest, filthiest, deadliest parasitic-organisms to ever infect The Universe! Fortunately, vegan lifestyles weren’t created for us. They exist to reduce and eliminate the depraved things we do to animals and the environment. So the fight to end speciesism must continue!”

Yesterday’s Vegan Society is today’s PETA. Modern day Vegans are either more radical than PETA or wishing they could be as moral and consistent as the super radicals. Any success or concession has immediately been used to demand more concessions and more radical changes because THE END GOAL HAS NOT CHANGED. Veganism is and always was about eliminating humanity, because people cause animal suffering by existing.

And since White People are a subset of humanity, and because that makes them just one more segment of the population to wipe out or conquer…

Veganism Is White Genocide!

-Effortpost by Boneflour, reprinted with permission from our Jewish overlords.

 

Podcast questions go here plz

I almost forgot we’re recording this week.

The logic of enforced conformity

Now that I know the purpose I can reverse engineer it.

If we’re assuming a low-trust group, then defection from prisoners’ dilemmas will be the norm. You can’t incentivize or disincentivize cooperation by definition (it is no longer “cooperation” in that case). Long-term behavioral training is very expensive, particularly when you’re starting with multiple defectors who will reinforce each other’s gangster assumptions, and low-trust societies are generally quite poor relative to average IQ (see: Asia vs. Europe, pre-modern era).

Blacklisting behaviors in such a society is untenable, because low-trust people will find workarounds more quickly than authorities can crack down (the required level of enforcement would quickly genocide of the citizenry). Therefore, the remaining options are to 1) whitelist behaviors, 2) determine criminality through means other than actual criminal behavior (e.g. caste, random selection, psychic woo), and 3) deconstruct the concepts of law, crime, and punishment into abstruse nonsense.

Policed conformity is the extent to which option 1 is chosen by the movers and shakers in any given society. So NPCs may be defined as a phenotype specialized for low-trust, totalitarian societies, and by extension the Neurotics from Overwatch Theory serve as enforcers of the whitelist. The reason these regimes are typically thoughtless is that “doing nothing” doesn’t usually make the cut for the whitelist, and thinking is indistinguishable from doing nothing. “I don’t pay you to sit and stare out the window, I pay you to innovate!” It’s entirely possible that a totalitarianism with mandatory periods of doing nothing would be somewhat viable, but that isn’t a very likely scenario.

Statistical comment for iSteve

I’m surprised that Harvard has let the black share get so high because my impression is that Harvard has largely been hard-headed about not doing self-defeating things with its admissions policy. Harvard, which is now 382 years old, has been pretty competent over the centuries in admitting students who will be good for the Harvard brand. But making one-sixth of their admittees black means they are getting deep in declining marginal returns.

Perhaps Arcidiacono is playing some kind of game with the data?

Steve Sailer
If Harvard Had Colorblind Admissions, Its Black Share Would Fall from 15.8% to 0.9%

Since it’s Harvard, they *could* get the number of talented blacks they need to keep up both standards and appearances by skimming a non-representative sample off the top of the talented tenth. There are approximately 40 million black people in the US, and therefore approximately 55,447 of these with IQs of 130 or better who would be happy to go to Harvard. Divide that by an average lifespan and you’ve got enough per year to maintain a smart freshman class each year. And this is not even counting Nigerians with student visas (there are really orders of magnitude more people in this country, and the world, than we remember sometimes). This is an advantage Harvard holds over less prestigious universities, because the strategy doesn’t scale (and actually begins to fail catastrophically at about the tenth-place college).

The question is whether they are *actually* using a smart process, because that would require a more explicit conspiracy among more admissions people. Usually these sorts of conspiracies are communicated in hushed whispers and covert signals, so it’s hard to imagine there’s finely tuned statistical reasoning behind their decisions.

For you thards out there who are wondering why anyone would care about all this…the implicit argument is over who will rule the country as a caste of unelected bureaucratic elites in years to come. In America we select our elites through a semi-technocratic, Mandarin-style process that has become more and more rigid over time (this is the implicit thesis of Charles Murray’s work). The ivies, and Harvard in particular, are the first filter in the selection process for state department employees. So if more blacks are getting into Harvard you can reasonably expect more of them in the future deep state as well, not to mention the religious leadership of academia.

There’s actually a strong Alt-Right argument to be made in favor of current Harvard admissions policies, because a merit-based system would be a deal with the Yellow Devil and seal our country’s fate. But you can’t have that kind of debate openly because that would be giving the game away. Remember the number one rule of competitive melon magic: The Show Must Go On.

tfw no pixie gf

I like cleverness, and I indulge it, but I tend to steer clear of it offline, unless I know my audience will appreciate it. I particularly avoid it when seducing girls, unless the girl is a type I’ve learned from experience will cherish my whimsical quips (artsy, smart, dressed in odd yet feminine clothing (pixie chic)).

Chateau Heartiste
When Cleverness Is A Liability

One possible takeaway here, presuming I’m correct about the values which inform male neanderthal dominance hierarchies, is that the pixie chick may be a female neanderthal hybrid type This would explain, among other things, why I was convinced it would be obvious to everyone that Brittany Pettibone is a 10 when everyone else actually thinks she’s a 7 or 8 (to be explicit, the explanation would be genetic similarity). If there’s any truth in this, it could go a long way toward explaining the manic pixie girl archetype in all those garbage romance novels for men (loosely defined).

Melony melonmen tell me that thal girls are often preferred as wives for reasons of loyalty and potential for interesting conversation over decades of marriage. This is probably why girls in the upper classes tend to have/mimic the signals of this type (e.g. artsy interests).

Conformity as conservative signalling strategy in a low-trust group

This incredible book explains everything an aspie has trouble understanding about human behavior. Here’s how a low-trust environment produces conformity in the smallest detail to avoid accidentally signalling covert malevolence within a rationally paranoid criminal underclass.

The second mistake occurs because of overinterpretation, namely when something that is not a signal is mistaken for one. In a menacing atmosphere people develop a heightened sensitivity to signs, which transforms mere allusions into intimidating or challenging gestures (sometimes mistakenly so). This, on the one hand, aids the signaler, as it extends the pool of signs from which he can choose to produce a threatening effect with minimum effort—the raising of an eyebrow can become a compelling menace.

[…]

One can understand why mafiosi develop a stony face; even their eye movement appears exceedingly parsimonious. They are very attentive to many aspects of their demeanor and their appurtenances. Standardizing—everyone doing and wearing the same things, because everyone is watchful about deviations—is one way of “silencing” the communication effects that could be accidentally generated by variations. On the other hand, it is easy to see how receivers’ paranoia can lead them to overinterpret certain gestures and attach a meaning to trivially mundane actions. The testimonies of mafiosi who turned state’s evidence show ad nauseam that every sentence they exchange is scrutinized for potential ambiguity and hidden messages. They are obsessed with details, minute alterations in attire, slips of the tongue.

Diego Gambetto
Codes of the Underworld, pg. 172

So that explains, among about a million other things, why making the OK signal on camera will trigger a witch hunt to send you to the gulag. It also explains nigh the entirety of East Asian culture.

To briefly sum up what I’ve learned from this book: homo sapiens is a born and bred criminal signalling savant, cro magnon is a value system that emerges when you put people in an open room-style prison with high turnover for two hundred generations, and melonheads are all grypsmen aspiring to become the warden.