THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby omaxsteve on December 18th, 2015, 11:25 pm

ICfreely wrote:My fictional ‘Jeremy Epstein’ is based on a real person. He was a laid back skater/surfer type kid. I called him ‘Spicolli.’ Everyone, especially the girls, loved him. He was also a razor sharp class clown! When picked on, he had a knack for embarrassing teachers by exposing their own ignorance. He really locked horns with our Jewish English Lit. teacher. Based on her recommendation his parents took him to ‘one of the best’ psychiatrists in town. His Jewish psychiatrist put him on Ritalin.

It was lights out! He basically became zombified. Then came the anti-depressants. Finally, he drove off a cliff in Malibu & died. A Jewish victim of Jewish psychoanalytics. I guess I named him ‘Jeremy’ because that Pearl Jam song reminds me of him. How does that fit your personal worldview/theories Jumpy? How about you Steve O?


I am not sure what you mean, IC, when you ask how that "fits my worldview"

My personal opinion is that too many kids are put on Ritalin, but I have no way to know if it was the Ritalin, the anti-depressants, other drugs, alcohol, purely an accident, or any one of many other possibilities that led to your friends unfortunate death. He may have been bi-polar, which is a mental disorder that includes among its symptoms both depression and a tendency to suicidal thoughts, but again, we don't know for sure that he purposefully "took" his own life.

How does the fact that both he and his psychoanalyst were Jewish come into play here? Werr either one of their religious affiliation a contributing factor to this tragedy? If you believe so, please explain.

As for my worldview, I try to judge people on the basis of their personal actions, not on the basis of their ancestors actions, or their religious, racial or ethnic affiliation. I was brought up that way, and I believe the world would be a better place if more people felt the same. I don't feel any sense of guilt , or shame, because of the evil actions of people that I do not know, where my only connection with them is that we are of the same religion, just as I take no credit for any successes, or achievements, made by unknown and unrelated members of my religion.

There was a very interesting exercise in discrimination performed by a teacher, Jane Elliott, in 1968, that I believe demonstrates both the lure and danger of discrimination towards a minority group. You can read about it here;; http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lesson-of-a-lifetime-72

Perhaps after reading the article above , you will have a better understanding why I find this whole thread "objectionable" and it really does not matter to me that is directed towards Jews. I would feel exactly the same if the group being targeted in this topic were Muslims, dark-skinned people, Mexicans, or any other group.


Regards,

Steve O.
omaxsteve
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: March 29th, 2010, 1:44 am

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Seneca on December 19th, 2015, 10:59 am

omaxsteve wrote:There was a very interesting exercise in discrimination performed by a teacher, Jane Elliott, in 1968, that I believe demonstrates both the lure and danger of discrimination towards a minority group. You can read about it here;; http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lesson-of-a-lifetime-72

The correct URL is
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/l ... -72754306/
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Apache on December 19th, 2015, 11:03 am

omaxsteve wrote:There was a very interesting exercise in discrimination performed by a teacher, Jane Elliott, in 1968, that I believe demonstrates both the lure and danger of discrimination towards a minority group. You can read about it here;; http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lesson-of-a-lifetime-72


Not only do you link to the Smithsonian, but you get CF readers to waste time reading an inaccurate story of an unscientific experiment that is simply a PR exercise in supporting Elliott's anti-white experiment. Bloom inaccurately states that the experiment initially picked brown eyed children as more intelligent than blue eyed people, but it was the other way around. I then lost patience and stopped reading Bloom due to his dishonest reporting and took a look at Jane Elliott's Wikedpedia page instead.

Elliott lied to the children by stating that melanin, which is responsible for making children blue-eyed, was also linked to their higher intelligence and learning ability.


This is the experiment you want CF readers to focus on?

Elliott is considered to be the "foremother" of diversity training, with the "Blue eyes-Brown eyes" exercise as the basis of much of what is called diversity training.[9] She has done such training for corporations such as General Electric, Exxon, AT&T, and IBM, as well as lectured to the FBI, IRS, US Navy, US Department of Education, and US Postal Service.[3]


Being a corporate whore doesn't make Elliott's experiment valid in any way.

For this corporate exercise, Elliott divides a multiracial group based on the color of their eyes and then subjects the blue-eyed individuals to a withering regime of humiliation and contempt. In only a few hours, Elliott's treatment makes the blue-eyed workers become distracted and despondent, stumbling over the simplest commands.[11]


As the majority of people with blue eyes are Caucasian the "exercise" is racist in and of itself. If Jane Elliott was in a room with me and subjected me to "a withering regime of humiliation and contempt" because I have blue eyes I would be smacking her in the mouth. The woman is insane.

Academic research into Elliott's exercise shows moderate results in reducing long-term prejudice[13][14] but is inconclusive on the question of whether the possible psychological harm outweighs the potential benefits.[15][16] She has been accused of scaring people, breaking the school rules, humiliating children, being domineering, angry, and brainwashing. Two professors of education in England, Ivor F. Goodson and Pat Sikes, argue that what Elliott did was unethical, calling the exercise psychologically and emotionally damaging. They also stated ethical concerns pertaining to the fact that the children were not told of the purpose of the exercise beforehand.[3]


What a great example you've chosen. :D

Measured results of the diversity training for adults are moderate. The outcomes of a 1990 research study by the Utah State University were that virtually all the subjects reported that the experience was meaningful for them. However, the statistical evidence supporting the effectiveness of the activity for prejudice reduction was moderate; and virtually all the participants, as well as the simulation facilitator, reported stress from the simulation.[14]


Another program evaluation in 2003, conducted by Tracie Stewart at Georgia University, showed that white students got significantly more positive attitudes toward Asian American and Latino/Latina individuals but only marginally more positive attitudes toward African American individuals.[13] In some courses, participants can feel frustrated about "their inability to change" and instead begin to feel anger against the very groups to which they are supposed to be more sensitive. It can also lead to anxiety because people become hyper-sensitive about being offensive or being offended.[12][13][14] There are no good long-term outcome measures of effects, if any, of these training initiatives.[12]

As a result of the 1990 research, Murdoch University did not include the "Blue eyes-Brown eyes" method in their list of successful strategies to reduce racism.[17]


OmaxSteve wrote:Is it possible that this ongoing , rehashing, of "the dastardly Jews" story has derailed the main purpose of this forum?


That's twice you've attempted to persuade CF to concentrate on other topics.

OmaxSteve wrote:a happy hanukah


It's Hanukkah, not hanukah.

OmaxSteve wrote:One of the important lessons I have learned here at Clues Forum is to question everything.


Which you singularly fail to do with the Elliott experiment.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on December 19th, 2015, 11:33 am

Apache wrote:As the majority of people with blue eyes are Caucasian the "exercise" is racist in and of itself. If Jane Elliott was in a room with me and subjected me to "a withering regime of humiliation and contempt" because I have blue eyes I would be smacking her in the mouth. The woman is insane.


Apache, I am in awe of your GREAT post!

Now I understand why I thought you were a man. I think that, in addition to your value as a brilliant researcher, you have more balls than anybody else in this forum. For what I've seen here so far, the only ones who can be in your league are Simon most of all and a few others, possibly including myself (I know I shouldn't say this, but I see no reason to hide my self-esteem behind false modesty, which I consider another form of the "political correctness" that's killing us).

You really moved and inspired me with your courage and determination, and I want to thank you for that.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby pov603 on December 19th, 2015, 12:04 pm

I thought the article was worth the read. You can, of course, interpret it a number of ways but that's almost the point isn't it?
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 770
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on December 19th, 2015, 12:07 pm

pov603 wrote:I thought the article was worth the read. You can, of course, interpret it a number of ways but that's almost the point isn't it?


I imagine you're referring to the Smithsonian article, right? As for interpreting it in a number of ways, that is the point of what, exactly, if I may ask?
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby pov603 on December 19th, 2015, 12:31 pm

Yes. One can interpret it as an exercise to show children the ease with which one can start to discriminate against others on the slightest pretext (which I think was the point). However, one can also believe it to be an exercise to illicit a feeling of self-loathing which for me, would actually demonstrate one's own insecurity. But that is only my interpretation.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 770
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on December 19th, 2015, 12:53 pm

pov603 wrote:Yes. One can interpret it as an exercise to show children the ease with which one can start to discriminate against others on the slightest pretext (which I think was the point). However, one can also believe it to be an exercise to illicit a feeling of self-loathing which for me, would actually demonstrate one's own insecurity. But that is only my interpretation.


Thank you, pov603. I respect your interpretation (in fact, I even re-read the article to check it out before writing this post), but for me this is clearly a truly racist exercise to elicit self-loathing in white people (and blue-eyed in particular), also because it's part and parcel of a cultural climate generally hostile to white people of European descent, whom for many years now have been brainwashed (most effectively by the Jewish-owned and controlled media) to accept "multiculturalism" (i.e. their genocide) out of guilt for being or having been the "bad" and "racist" white masters and slavers of the world. A conditioning I'm strongly convinced we should eradicate completely from our minds if we want to even begin trying to avoid the bleak "multicultural" fate that awaits us.

As for the exercise demonstrating one's own insecurity, well I think it's only natural to feel insecure when strongly disapproved by others, especially from authority figures and especially for children, so I don't see the necessity to demonstrate such a point, especially with more than questionable techniques like those used by Ms. Elliott.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby pov603 on December 19th, 2015, 1:30 pm

Jumpy, I totally agree with you that there is an agenda (not necessarily hidden either) in trying to undermine 'white western society/civilization' so to speak. People do, I believe, at home in the UK (though I don't live there) feel very unsure, unsettled as to their 'place' in the world or even in their own country. I think the refugee/migrant situation is an example of the people being 'played' by tptb. My parents were immigrants to UK and suffered forms of racist abuse, not based upon colour and there is still elements of it in play today though I would say the UK is, in many ways, a fine example of tolerance and integration. Sorry if that sounds contradictory. The thing to remember, which was made I think by a previous U.S. President (and paraphrased, unfortunately, by the British PM; Bliar) is how many people want to come into your country? That should give people a good indication of the status of their country (as viewed by others) and should be something that the residents should take to heart (I don't want to say 'to take pride in'). One thing though that keeps coming back to me is that the 'west' if taken in general terms, is a 'white-made' society, I know it could be argued, forged on the backs of brown, black, yellow races, nevertheless, if viewed against the backdrop of 7 billion people, 'whites/westerners' only account for maybe 1 billion of those. Therefore it is 'us' who are the minority yet we are made to feel like 'we' are the cause of the world's woes.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 770
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on December 19th, 2015, 2:29 pm

pov603 wrote:One thing though that keeps coming back to me is that the 'west' if taken in general terms, is a 'white-made' society, I know it could be argued, forged on the backs of brown, black, yellow races, nevertheless, if viewed against the backdrop of 7 billion people, 'whites/westerners' only account for maybe 1 billion of those. Therefore it is 'us' who are the minority yet we are made to feel like 'we' are the cause of the world's woes.


I totally agree with the whole of your post, pov603, although I've quoted here just the last bit to save some space.

I think we, as whites, should take pride (even if you don't want to say it ;) ) in our accomplishments (which other races evidently admire, or envy, otherwise, as you point out, they wouldn't want to come in our countries), and even in our tolerance, but we should also make sure that this tolerance is not taken advantage of any more than it's already been.

We are culturally and morally inclined to accept as part of our societies anybody of any race and color who's willing to abide to its values and its rules, and even to improve them (and in fact I'm actually including in my "white people" definition all really integrated and civil people of any race, color and creed), but we should stop those who are destroying them from continuing to do so.

I know this sounds like an almost impossible thing to do with practically all of our media people, politicians and decision-makers being in the pockets of JPMs and of the much more numerous traitors who collaborate with them, but can we at least become conscious of the necessity of doing it? At least here, in a highly intelligent and perceptive community such as CF?

Even if we've been the cause of some of the world's woes, by now we've more than made up for this "fault", and we shouldn't let hostile groups make us forget that we've also been the cause for the most progressive and advanced things in the world, to the benefit both of us and of anybody else (ending slavery is a most notable example of this).

So let's shed the guilt, return it to the sender, raise our head and let's be proud of who we are. We've been so heavily conditioned that such an invitation will sound "questionable" even to most white people, and probably even among the well-intentioned readers of this forum, but everybody else is proud of who they are, and especially the ethnic group which clearly seems to me less deserving of this kind of pride, so why shouldn't we?

We can get better, of course (and our research into the machinations of the world's PMs certainly helps a lot in this sense), but only from a position of self-esteem, with our heads up, and not from a position of guilt and shame, with our heads down. After all, we can go only in the direction our eyes are pointed towards.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Kham on December 19th, 2015, 5:03 pm

Whites, blacks, yellows, browns... This race paradigm was set up by those in charge. There is no scientific proof of race. By using the rhetoric of our controllers we limit our thinking to those same confines.

White guilt ... Is a subliminal directive, a term designed by the controllers. If the media never used the term 'white guilt' then most likely westerners would never have even thought of taking on the responsibility for slavery. I know I personally did not participate in such actions. Why should I feel guilty for the heinous crimes of those bastards that dealt in slavery? Because we were told to feel guilty by the media on account of the term they invented called 'white guilt'.

Seems to me that in order to think the clearest on any topic, one must shed all the rhetoric given to us by the controllers of society. The invention of rhetoric in the first place was to control the minds of the masses.
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on December 20th, 2015, 2:10 pm

Kham wrote:Whites, blacks, yellows, browns... This race paradigm was set up by those in charge. There is no scientific proof of race. By using the rhetoric of our controllers we limit our thinking to those same confines.


Actually, Kham, you got it backwards. The rethoric of our controllers is that race doesn't exist, and that's why racial discrimination (a positive term in my opinion, because being able to discriminate, to distinguish is always good, and doesn't necessarily imply a judgment, so I'll use it instead of the negative "racism") is "bad" or even "absurd". Of course, this is because they want us to accept white genocide as "multiculturalism". The next step is to convince us that different sexes (they call them "genders", a neospeak word I generally refuse to use) don't exist either, and they've already advanced pretty far in that direction.

Always, of course, with the help of "science", or I should say fake science, which is the current materialistic religion, an integral part of their bogus paradigm. And you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker, I'm afraid, if you say that race doesn't exist.

I'm a little reluctant to even try to give you proof of the objective, observable existence of different races, if you don't see it, but I'll suggest you to read the following article, if you are willing to shed your conditioning: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07 ... construct/

On the other hand, you can read https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ab ... e-in-races to see what the "controllers" would want you to believe.

And by the way, if you've read at least some pages of this thread, you should know that these "controllers" belong to the most racially-conscious and supremacist ethnic group on earth, so their double standards in this, like in a lot of other matters, should itself be a clear indication of how things really are.

Kham wrote:White guilt ... Is a subliminal directive, a term designed by the controllers. If the media never used the term 'white guilt' then most likely westerners would never have even thought of taking on the responsibility for slavery. I know I personally did not participate in such actions. Why should I feel guilty for the heinous crimes of those bastards that dealt in slavery? Because we were told to feel guilty by the media on account of the term they invented called 'white guilt'.


I agree with you here: differently from the objectivity of race, "white guilt" is a media construct, a "subliminal directive", as you say, but also an explicit one.

Kham wrote:Seems to me that in order to think the clearest on any topic, one must shed all the rhetoric given to us by the controllers of society. The invention of rhetoric in the first place was to control the minds of the masses.


Yes, you're right. So now please walk the talk. ;)
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Seneca on December 20th, 2015, 4:09 pm

omaxsteve wrote:
There was a very interesting exercise in discrimination performed by a teacher, Jane Elliott, in 1968, that I believe demonstrates both the lure and danger of discrimination towards a minority group. You can read about it here;; http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lesson-of-a-lifetime-72

Perhaps after reading the article above , you will have a better understanding why I find this whole thread "objectionable" and it really does not matter to me that is directed towards Jews. I would feel exactly the same if the group being targeted in this topic were Muslims, dark-skinned people, Mexicans, or any other group.

threa
Regards,

Steve O.

So I read the article. What it shows for me is how vulnerable people are to influence from authority figures. How easy it was for the teacher to encourage the children to hurt their peers. This is the same outcome we see with the Stanford prison experiment and the experiments by Stanley Milgram (with the fake electroshocks). Milgram stands out because he acknowledged the importance of the authority factor where in the other cases, especially the Stanford prison experiment and the version of the BBC, this factor was hidden. Instead the focus was on how evil "spontaneously" arose in otherwise normal people.
Makes me wonder how much of the worst cases of racism are the (historical) consequence of mind control by the state in its broad sense, including organised religion, the media and other criminal organizations and the ultra rich. State sponsored anti-racism is probably not the best answer to state sponsored racism. I agree with Kham and jumpy64 that its better to shed all the rhetoric, even if they don't yet agree what the rhetoric is.

But after reading the article I don't have a better understanding why omaxsteve finds the whole thread objectionable. As it happens, I know what it feels like to be culturally discriminated against. At age 3 or 4 our family moved from Belgium to the Netherlands were we were the only Belgians I knew. The actions by teachers and children had a big impact on my life, but I am not complaining.

I hope someone with an understanding of US media can answer Steve's questions posted here:
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p2398631
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby ICfreely on December 20th, 2015, 8:10 pm

Steve O,

'Jeremy' was 15 & clean until the Ritalin. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience and a crime against humanity! I'd be glad to elaborate in the 'Psychiatry' thread. I agree with you, Kham and Jumpy about not feeling any guilt for our forefathers alleged misdeeds!


Jumpy,

When in Rome do as Romulus (not Remus)! Got it! Having said that, 'pride' is one of the seven deadly sins for a good reason, is it not? Do I detect a little Jew envy? I wouldn't be surprised if one day you found yourself rollin' through the streets of Rome in a Chevy Super Sport bumpin' Too $hort (while updating your J-Date account), on your way to the 'Goy Pride Parade.'



P.S.
I know a Nigerian guy who hates the term 'African American.' He isn't too fond of Americans of African descent either. His motto is, "Never trust a nigga without an accent!" Go figure... :rolleyes:
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on December 20th, 2015, 9:49 pm

Guys, I’ve just re-read, with more attention, the article I linked to before when responding to Kham. It’s titled “Why race is not a ‘social construct’”, and I want to recommend it again at http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07 ... construct/

I find its arguments irrefutable by any sensible and truly independent thinker. I think the author, Greg Johnson, is a genius of an almost totally lost art: the art of COMMON SENSE, that we should all recover - freeing ourselves from the mental chains of egalitarianism, moral relativism, false or perverse individualism and political correctness intentionally created to bind us - if we are to understand how things are going in our current society and then do something about it.

In fact, he wrote at least another absolutely brilliant article titled “In defense of prejudice” at http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/12 ... prejudice/

Actually, it’s so great that I have to quote it here almost in its entirety, because Johnson says what I think (and more) much better than I ever could, especially in English :). And of course it’s totally relevant to this thread. It even specifically mentions the Jews, so… :P

Here it is, with just a little abridgment and a few underscorings in bold:

Years ago, a friend told me a parable about a species of hominid that did not live to inherit the earth. These hominids regarded each and every entity as entirely unique. When a tiger leaped out of the darkness and dragged one of them to his doom, this did not prompt any generalizations about tigers as a group. Thus when a new tiger began to prowl the shadows at the verge of the firelight, he was not judged on the basis of the other tiger’s behavior. Indeed, if the first tiger came back, they would not have judged him on the basis of his past behavior either, because that was then, and this is now: two unique, individual moments in time.

But even though tigers are not always man-eaters, and man-eaters are not always hungry, these poor creatures still went extinct, because their problems were not limited to tigers. They could not learn from any experiences at all. They were just too dumb to survive.

Survival, you see, requires the ability to learn from past experiences so that one can predict and even control future ones. To do this, however, one must recognize that there are not just individual beings, but kinds or types of beings. Individuals belong to the same kind if they share a common nature. And, since what we can do follows from our nature, we can infer that if a tiger is dangerous once, it will probably be dangerous again. And if one tiger is dangerous, it is probable that other tigers are dangerous too. Thus if one of us is killed by a tiger, we can take reasonable precautions to make sure that it does not happen again.

Drawing conclusions about kinds based on individuals is called inductive generalization. Induction allows you to infer that all members of a kind are “like that” based on one’s experience of individual members. These purple berries made me sick today, so they will probably make me sick tomorrow, since their nature and mine will probably not change overnight. And since you have the same nature as me, they might make you sick too. And since the purple berries on this bush are the same as the ones on the first bush, they’ll probably make us sick too. The flesh of this animal tastes good to me, so it will probably taste good to you too, since we have the same nature. And other members of its kind will probably taste good to us as well, since they have the same nature too.

However, induction also teaches that natural traits tend to graph along bell curves, with a large number of typical cases in the middle, and small numbers of atypical cases on each end. Typical purple berries will make us sick, but on every bush there might be some that have no negative effect and others that are downright toxic. Thus, inductive generalizations hold “not always, but for the most part.” In terms of any given trait, “Not all X are like that.” But most of them are.

Inductive reasoning is, therefore, probabilistic. There is always the possibility that one is not dealing with a typical instance of a kind. But it is not likely, since the atypical is by definition rare. Furthermore, as we experience more particulars, it becomes less likely that we are dealing with outliers, and our generalizations about a type become increasingly fixed. We even come to have a sense of what outliers are typical.

Although this is not common parlance, one could refer to a well-established inductive generalization as a “stereotype,” which comes from the Greek stereos (στερεός), “fixed” or “firm,” and the Greek typos (τύπος), or “type.”

Inductive generalization does not just allow us to learn from past experience, which would be of merely theoretical interest. Induction also has important practical implications, for it allows us to predict future experiences based on past ones, thus allowing us to act advantageously, even intervene in the course of events and control natural phenomena.

Another word for predicting future experiences is pre-judging them. Another word for a pre-judgment is a prejudice. Now, some prejudices may be utterly baseless and irrational—e.g., prejudices rooted in bad inductive generalizations, superstition, or mental illness—and acting on them may lead to disaster. But well-founded inductive generalizations (stereotypes) are the basis of well-founded prejudices that can be highly advantageous—for instance, helping us to discriminate between dangerous breeds and gentle ones, poisonous mushrooms and edible ones, etc.

Induction, by giving us the ability to predict future events, is the foundation of practical reason, which is the primary human means of survival. Induction is also the basis of science and technology, which allow us to more deeply understand nature and thus to predict and control her better. Induction is thus the foundation of the ongoing conquest of nature that we call modernization and progress.

Stereotypes and well-founded prejudices may be a triumphs of inductive reasoning and the foundations of common sense, science, technology, and progress. But today, when it comes to judging human beings, we are told that stereotypes and prejudices are evil and that each individual should be judged on his own behavior, not on the basis of the past behaviors of his kind. We are told that it is an injustice to judge individuals based on group membership.

This viewpoint is a kind of perversion of individualism. I myself defend a kind of Aristotelian individualism. I hold that the purpose of life is the actualization of our individual potentialities for excellence. In terms of politics, a well-ordered society should encourage individual self-actualization and excellence, as long as it does not undermine the common good of society.

The perverse individualism I reject, however, has nothing to do with individual self-actualization. Indeed, it basically amounts to a moral imperative to be stupid, since it is an attack on inductive generalization as such, which is the foundation of practical reason, science, technology, and the modern world. Perverse individualism demands that we behave like the hypothetical hominids discussed above, which were simply too stupid to survive.

False individualism is really an applied form of nominalism, which is the theory that there are no natural kinds in the world, only individuals, and all concepts of kinds are merely social conventions or “constructs.” According to false individualism, justice requires that we ignore all groups — except, somehow, “humanity” — and judge each individual as an individual, without any preconceptions based on his membership in any merely constructed category, such as race. Nominalism, however, is metaphysically false. There are real natural kinds. Individual members of those kinds share natural traits that allow us to make probabilistic predictions about them based on what we know of their kind.

An individualist could, however, reply that even though nominalism is metaphysically false and there are natural kinds, we should still set aside our well-founded stereotypes and prejudices and judge each and every human being as an individual. In effect, we have to treat every individual as a potential outlier, even though most of them are not. Why? Because, apparently, every individual is of infinite value, so rendering justice is an absolute value and committing injustice is an absolute evil. We must act as if nominalism is true, because otherwise there is a vanishingly small possibility that we might be unjust to a stranger.

This position is a moralistic absurdity, for it simply cannot be practiced. There are seven billion people on this planet. It is impossible to treat each and every one as a special snowflake, and if one tried it, even with the limited numbers of people we encounter in our individual lives, it would consume all one’s time and make it impossible to pursue one’s own goals, i.e., to actually live. Because the purpose of life is self-actualization, and the time we have is short, we just cannot get to know everyone we deal with.

One of the ways that civilization advances is by giving us means of dealing with greater numbers of people than we can ever know as individuals. The market economy, for instance, allows individuals to interact with millions of others around the globe through a largely anonymous symbolic medium that, at least in theory, allows all participants to pursue their individual self-actualization.

Psychologists have observed that the human mind cannot deal with more than 150 or so direct personal relationships, which means that if we could deal only with people as individuals, civilization would regress to the complexity of a hunter-gatherer band or agricultural village.

Well-founded stereotypes and prejudices make possible highly complex societies by allowing us to size up individuals at a glance and to choose to embrace or avoid them. Since natural kinds are limited in number, we actually create artificial kinds with visible distinctions — accents, clothing styles, even uniforms — that allow us to chart a course through complex social situations at a glance. For instance, a black man dressed in a ghetto clown costume signals danger, whereas a black man dressed in a police uniform signals trustworthiness.

Furthermore, if stereotyping is wrong, why do people go to great lengths to stereotype themselves? We all want to find like-minded people, and dressing in a certain way is one means to communicate the group we belong to, e.g., hipster, preppy, metal, redneck, businessman, career woman, slut, prole, gay clone, black thug, etc. Blacks go to great trouble and expense to dress like thugs, in order to communicate that they are dangerous, or that they aspire to be. Why do white liberals think it is disrespectful to take their signaling seriously? […]

Under what conditions do we want to be judged as special snowflakes? We all want a fair shake when we are applying for a job or are on trial for our lives. But even then, chances are we are trying to conceal as much as we reveal. Moreover, we know that employers often can look only at the most superficial criteria simply because they lack the time to dig deeper. But we hope that we can at least expect justice from the criminal justice system. Beyond that, when nothing really crucial is at stake, we are content to navigate with prejudices and stereotypes, i.e., to play the odds with others and accept that others do the same with us.

Since nobody can judge each and every person as an individual all the time, it stands to reason that people only trot out this imperative to use as a weapon against others. Universalists of both the Left and Right typically deploy it against any form of racism, nationalism, tribalism, or antipathy to various religious groups or categories of sexual deviants. Of course, if you prod these universalists just a little, you find that they have some rather poorly formed and emotionally charged stereotypes and prejudices about their opponents.

“Not all Xs are like that,” the universalists say, implying that it is a mortal sin not to appreciate the uniqueness of every special snowflake. And since group membership can never be a basis for excluding someone from our society, there can be no racially and ethnically homogeneous societies, and we cannot uphold any norms of social and sexual behavior. Thus perverse individualism is just a tool to make us incapable of resisting ethnic dispossession and social decadence. What kind of people preach (but do not practice) “blindness” to race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual identity as a moral imperative? Obviously people who are up to no good.

If you propose discrimination against pedophiles, you will be told that they aren’t all child molesters, and you can’t do anything against them until after they have been caught. If you propose discrimination against blacks or mestizos because of their propensity to criminality, you are told that they are not all like that, and we can’t do anything against them until they actually commit crimes. If you propose discrimination against Muslims on the grounds that their religion mandates lies, rape, terrorism, murder, enslavement, and the overthrow of all governments, you will be told that not all Muslims are like that, and we can’t do anything against them until after they have committed a crime. If you propose discrimination against Jews because they are a hostile elite working to corrupt our politics and culture and destroy our race by promoting white guilt, miscegenation, and race-replacement immigration, you will be told that they aren’t all like that, and it would be collectivism to treat them simply as an enemy group. We have to treat all members of problem groups as if they are innocent, until proven otherwise. It is immoral to try to separate ourselves entirely from problem groups. Instead, we need to give them a chance, which boils down to a chance to harm us. And that means no borders and no standards.

These perverse individualists might even try to argue that the soldiers of an invading army are not all out to kill us, so it would be unjust to kill them just because they carry arms against us. But at that point, we would see what they really are and stand them against a wall. Of course by then it might be too late.

I am a nationalist because I believe that racial, ethnic, and religious diversity within the same political system are not strengths but weaknesses. They are constant sources of simmering tension that frequently boil over into hatred and violence. Thus the best guarantee of peace and harmony is to create separate homelands for all peoples. A healthy society also requires norms regarding sexuality, marriage, and child-rearing. Thus a society has to practice discrimination. We have to discriminate between who is us and who is not. And within our group, we have to discriminate between the normal and abnormal, the optimal and suboptimal, the law-abiding and the criminal.

We can freely acknowledge that there are some good blacks, Muslims, and Jews. There just aren’t enough of them for our tastes. But even if these groups were equal or superior to us — and they are bound to be superior in some ways — in the end they are simply not us, and we wish to create societies for ourselves and our posterity. We are not creating a team for a sporting event or a spelling bee by recruiting exceptional outliers from a wide range of different groups. We seek to create homogeneous communities with full ranges of both average specimens and outliers, i.e., organic white communities, which are one in blood and culture but diverse in abilities, opinions, and interests, so that all of our people have places to call home.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests