Millennial Woes
2.46K members
92 photos
126 videos
1 file
490 links
A way for me to inform people of news, etc.
Download Telegram
to view and join the conversation
"Open the pod bay doors please, HAL..."
"Tell me about it, bro - women are so strange...!"
Can you help Bitchute to develop?
It really speaks of an astonishing tendency towards cowardice and dishonesty that Jordan Peterson calls in-group preference a "pathology".
It's a bad day for rice relations.
-Judaism, Christianity, and the Death of Nations-
Livestream tomorrow with Laurent Guyénot, PhD in Medieval Studies

Questions and donations through Entropy:

Fri., Sep. 25, at 8 am ET / 13:00 UK / 14:00 CET
How are you meant to get from the middle to the top floor of the Harry Potter bus?
The hippie-to-libertarian pipeline:
"Many of O'Rourke's essays recount that during his student days he was a leftist, anti-war hippie, but that in the 1970s his political views underwent a volte-face. He emerged as a political observer... rooted in libertarian conservatism."

Libertarians have offered very little resistance to the progressive onslaught. Where they have, they have been easily defeated.

More interestingly, libertarianism has often been the grounds upon which conservative self-defence against progressivism has been neutered.

EXAMPLE 1: The progressive demands gay marriage. The conservative tries to fight back, but is scolded by the libertarian who says that the state should have no say in marriage.

EXAMPLE 2: The progressive brings in a million immigrants. The conservative tries to make them leave, but the libertarian says that the state should have no say in demographic matters. Indeed, demography is a non-issue; the only important issues are economics and freedom, and more people equals more wealth!

EXAMPLE 3: The progressive advocates globalism. The conservative tries to protect local communities, but the libertarian says that statism is never the answer. If those local communities can't compete with Chinese sweat-shops, fuck 'em.

None of this is a surprise. Having been deracinated by their hippie experience, libertarians were both unwilling and unable to defend anything other than "freedom". This fully coincided with the demands of the Left between 1960 and about 2005. At that point, the Left declared their predominance in the institutions and did a switcheroo, now advocating that culture be re-shaped, often by restricting freedom.

This brings us to the second phase. Having been used (as a useful idiot) by the Left to neuter conservatism "from within", Libertarianism itself now comes under attack by the Left. This is the phase we are seeing now, embodied on Youtube by figures like Sargon of Akkad, and in the real world by figures like Donald Trump.

The libertarians have no arguments against leftist re-shaping of culture, since they had never staked any claim on culture. Indeed, by their own standards it would be hypocritical for them to do so. Time and again, the libertarian's moral intuitions are scuppered by his moral affectations - but he prides himself on, even defines himself by, those affectations, so he can never abandon them.

EXAMPLE 1: The progressive advocates low-grade scummy rap music. The libertarian says that this will damage the moral fabric of society and will lead young people down a bad path. The progressive asks the libertarian how he can know what is or isn't "a bad path". The libertarian has no moral framework with which he can justify using that term, so has to back down. He ends up saying that other people should be free to listen to whatever scummy music they like, but that he will discourage his children from listening to it. In other words, he has been completely defeated: his children will be engulfed by mainstream society and will be listening to scummy music all through high school and especially college, and will fully imbibe the worst of its messages.
EXAMPLE 2: The progressive celebrates casual abortion. The libertarian says that this cheapens life and will lead people to make lots of mistakes. The progressive uses the same trick as above, interrogating the libertarian on how he can know what is and isn't a "mistake" for people, and, even if he can, what right does he have to limit people's freedom to make mistakes? Doing so would, even if he could justify it, be a violation of the libertarian's own principles - ie. that personal liberty should be maximised. At this point the libertarian clearly has to back down. So it's interesting that the progressives rarely apply any of those arguments nowadays. They used to, but stopped around 2005, and instead began to invoke their own moral framework: women are marginalised, men are dominant, and to force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy is to further victimise/oppress her. This is an emotional rather than moral argument, and it causes an emotional response in the audience. The progressive's decision to use the emotional rather than the moral argument is crucial: it illustrates why libertarianism REALLY fails against progressivism. It doesn't appeal to people's social/altruistic/communitarian instincts, whereas progressivism does, and by doing so, it appears MORE moral than its opponent.

EXAMPLE 3: The progressive demands reparations for black people. The libertarian says that statism is always wrong, taxation is theft, black people should improve their own lot, etc. But, in the world shaped by the progressive, this just sounds tone-deaf, ignorant, stupid and selfish. "Why don't you want to help those in need? Why don't you care? How can you be proud of yourself for not caring about the poor?" The libertarian has to back down. And he does so not only in defeat but in humiliation, for he has revealed that he is not interested in the plight of the oppressed, and that he has no solutions for them since he isn't even thinking about them. He looks blind to social realities and to the suffering that "real people" have to endure, whereas the progressive looks fully alive to these burning issues.

PJ O'Rourke actually embodies this in an article from just two weeks ago:
"As soon as children discover that the world isn’t nice, they want to make it nicer. And wouldn’t a world where everybody shares everything be nice? Aw... kids are so tender-hearted. But kids are broke — so they want to make the world nicer with your money."
This is a gift to the progressive, who can simply respond: "yes, we want to make the world nicer. Why are you more concerned about your own personal wealth than with making the world nicer?"
It's astonishing that O'Rourke is still naive enough to play into this. The whole of that article is similarly abominable. (Or should that be aboomerable?)

EXAMPLE 4: The progressive demands censorship of "hate speech". The libertarian says that censorship is always wrong, the best solution to bad ideas is more ideas, the invisible hand of the marketplace of free thought will sort things out, sunlight is the best disinfectant so we should let the bigots reveal themselves, etc. But, in the world shaped by the progressive, this just sounds idealistic and naive, as well as tone-deaf and ignorant. "Why don't you want to protect marginalised folks from bigotry, and the insidious effects of hate speech? Why don't you care? How can you be proud of yourself for not caring about the oppressed?" The libertarian has to back down.
EXAMPLE 5: The progressive demands that racist statues be torn down. The progressive moral framework is fully embedded at this point so, when trying to argue against tearing down the statues, the libertarian can't reject it, but actually has to appeal to it, and find a reason within the progressive moral framework why statues to racist white men should be allowed to dominate our towns and cities. He accepts that racism is very bad (Ayn Rand said so), AND that white society in the past was racist, AND that those statues represent men who were explicitly racist... but pathetically says that the statues still shouldn't be torn down, because they enable us to learn about our racist past so that we won't repeat it. First, he betrays his own people's story by saying that the main thing to learn from our national heroes is that we shouldn't emulate them (but that won't be a problem since the libertarian prides himself on not believing that he has "a people"). But second, he won't get what he wants anyway, because the progressive will simply point out that a quicker way to avoid emulating our racist national heroes is to stop calling them heroes, and the best way to do that is to stop having statues of them around our towns and cities. The libertarian has to back down. Such is the force of the BLM narrative that, when he backs down, he does so with a deep sense of shame and embarrassment: he has utterly failed to contend with the mores of a "something". His "nothing" was no match for it. It isn't 1967 any more and you're not arguing against crusty Christians. You ain't in Kansas now, you're in Seattle - and you're fucked.

Libertarianism was the means by which conservatism was castrated.

That much is clear. An interesting question arises, however. We say that the reason libertarianism can't fight progressivism is that a "nothing" can't argue against a "something". But how, then, was libertarianism able to argue against conservatism? Presumably, only because it had the right people backing it.
Let's hope she also burns in Hell.
I think there might be something significant about the very existence of the term "woke". Do you see thinkers on our side using it? I almost never do. Yet the Centrists use it constantly. There are entire Twitter accounts dedicated to making fun of "woke-ism", "woke-ists" and "woke-ology".

I think we could see it as a sort of cope, or a decoy, or a distraction technique. Perhaps, in the same way that the Left need the "fake news" meme to explain away populism, the Centrists need the "woke" meme to explain away something else.
My response to Sargon's comments about Race Realism in this video:

- - - - - - - - - -

Sargon (still) says that IQ should not be relevant to immigration, because it doesn't matter in everyday life. "You're not given admission to a school because of your IQ, you're not hired because of your IQ, you're not arrested or let off because of your IQ. It's just abstract, it doesn't really mean anything." Every single one of those statements is false. School admission at college/university level (and often before that) is absolutely dependent on IQ. Getting hired for a job is very often dependent on IQ. Likelihood of arrest (ie. committing crimes) is often determined by proximity to the "sweet spot" of criminality, 85 (which just happens to be the average IQ of African-Americans).

IQ level is abstract, as Sargon says, but it is an abstraction very carefully derived from biological reality. It is an objectively-determined, scientifically-reached measurement of a person's mental capacities, and is very predictive of how they are likely to behave and therefore of how groups are likely to function in society, whether they care about their group identity or not (this has nothing to do with "identity politics").

IQ is the best metric we have for someone's chances in life. If we import lots of people from a low IQ gene pool, we will certainly be faced later on with having to explain why they aren't doing well in our societies. That's a fact. And if you can't use the race realist explanation, the only explanation left is that your society is racist and artificially keeping these people down. Well done, Centrists.

Astonishingly, Sargon then reels off a list of things he considers more important than IQ, seemingly unaware that every one of those things is highly correlated with IQ: "Do you have a criminal record? Are you doing things that are bad? Do you have extracurricular activities that are important or impressive? Do you have an impressive career?" Of course character and behaviour are important, but they are very accurately predicted by IQ level.

Apparently forgetting that he has just said that IQ isn't important, Sargon then presents a solution: we disregard racial attributes entirely and instead measure each potential immigrant's IQ level as an individual. This idea is unrealistic and also ignores the huge elephant in the room of ethnocentrism, but it also sets up an even more serious problem: we would be importing lots of intelligent people who would displace our own middle-class, while also causing a "brain drain" in their native countries, dooming them to impoverishment and dependence on us (which of course we would then have to explain away using any metric other than IQ/race).

Civic nationalism is unworkable and inhuman.

It's important to note that average IQ level is not the only difference between ethnic groups. Even if all groups had the same average IQ, they would still differ in other significant ways - time preference, empathy, creativity, openness, altruism, etc. These other differences would persist even if you set a minimum IQ level for immigrants.

But of course, this is all pie in the sky, because the horse has bolted. It bolted 70 years ago, and we now have many millions of low IQ non-white immigrants in our societies as it is, so Sargon isn't even addressing reality.

If we are to fix Western society, we have to get to a position where we can state the sad truth: millions of non-white peoples are faring badly in our society because they are not capable of matching us. By denying the links between race, IQ and performance, Sargon delays our reaching that position and actually solving society's problems.

- - - - - - - - - -
The other component of race realism (besides racial differences) is ethnocentrism. Non-European peoples are very ethnocentric. Again, this is a fact. You can laboriously train it out of them, but it resurges in any time of crisis - so all you are doing is nurturing a liability which will certainly, in time, erupt and destroy your society.

Also important is that ethnocentrism is not correlated with low IQ, as people like Sargon often claim. Three of the most intelligent immigrant groups in the West - Indians, Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews - are especially ethnocentric. Do you really want to import large numbers of people who are not only highly given to ethnocentrism, but also highly capable of out-playing your own people in politics and out-performing them in commerce? Isn't that basically insane?

The only way to truly eliminate ethnocentrism is to encourage/enforce race-mixing so that racial differences vanish and ethnocentrism becomes impossible. But this is also an insane strategy. With widespread race-mixing, we would end up (probably) less intelligent and (definitely) much less connected to our ancestors. Indeed, we would have no discernible ancestry, no heritage, no story, no identity except as consumers of meaningless product. That is not hyperbole; it is the only possible result of widespread race-mixing - and the harbingers of it can be seen in the identity crises suffered by mixed-race people everywhere.

Civic nationalism is a joke, but it's worse than that: it is a deeply sick joke. It demands distortions of human nature on a par with those demanded by Communism.

Yet Sargon dismisses race realists as "extremists"...