Memory correlates with Genius. High-IQ males tend to have an extraordinary ability to remember. Normies, by comparison, forget everything. What effect does memory have on one’s ability to know?
But memory is not to be confused with “experience.” Some people reference their “experience” or “feeling” to shut down reasoned argument. Who could be behind this fallacy?
And: Counter-signaling. White people show their class-status by rejecting the values of other classes. Uppers counter-signal middles who counter-signal proles and visa-versa all the way back. Why do we do this? When will it stop? And ultimately, whose value-system is right?
Let’s face it. The herd instinct is strong in us humans. Very few people are willing to break free from what is popular. Even more so very few people are even curious enough to question the merits of WHY something is popular. Repeatedly I meet otherwise high-IQ, high-performing huwyte Americucks who refuse to even hold a civil conversation about anything that goes against the “diversity is our strength” and “Jews are the chosen people” narrative. You would think a future medical school student, or a pharmacist, or graduate of a hard science like biology would be able to entertain the idea that evolution applies to humans as well as to other lifeforms.
Most people, after enough nuanced conversation, can be brought to understand basic HBD and admit that not all populations (i.e. racial and ethnic groups) behave the same. However, for huwyte Americans in particular, the status of Jews as unquestionably righteous in every aspect is unshakable. I really can’t blame normies for thinking this as I too once held identical beliefs. From the time I was in grade school, teachers, Hollywood, the news and even the modern Catholic church constantly beat it into my head that 1) Jews never did anything wrong EVER. 2) They are God’s chosen people 3) To criticize the Jewish narrative of history and reality makes you a NAZIWHOWANTSTOKILL6MILLIONJEWS!!!!
Over 70 years of social conditioning is hard to undo. For me, it took college statistics, thousands of hours reading evolutionary psychology texts, as well as years of noticing the over-representation of Jews in college social science departments, the media, finance, the legal profession and Hollywood that proportionally went far beyond their tendency toward a high verbal IQ. However it was the behavior of every-day Jews I encountered to really wake me up to what was going on. If not for me taking notice of Jews and their ensuing neurotic and subversive dialectic I would probably not be here.
But we all must remember–we are not normal, we are outliers on a bell curve of normalcy. Most people don’t notice the things I notice. Most people don’t realize that their evolved sense of morality is now being used against them. But what I still can’t understand is why, recently, a former friend of mine–who prides himself on logic, civility and nonviolence–suddenly became illogical, uncivil and aggressive when I made a slight joke about National Socialists’ uniforms being the product of a popular fashion designer who is now lauded by the homosexual “community.” I mean come on. What are you, homophobic?
My only guess is that with the death of Christianity in the West, a new religion of philo-Semitic diversity has taken its place. In this religion Jews are God and Hitler is Satan. To even joke about these issues is to speak heresy and risk a public stoning.
Prefatory note: All conversation Â in this article is paraphrased. I was not recording or taking notes, so the material in quotes is not verbatim. But neither is it a Thucydides-style fantasy. The tone and content are accurate. A couple other minor facts have been changed to stymie any JIDF fags who are reading this.
I have been trying to run this trip on the cheap for two reasons. First, I am constitutionally penurious, and second, I feel a stronger sense of mission when I am subjected to substandard living conditions. Asceticism, imposed or willed, clears the mind. After all I am not in Sweden to have fun.
At first, my plan had been to stay mostly at hostels. This would allow me freedom of movement in accordance with my miserly needs. I can go without bobo comforts like refrigerated food, daily showers, HDTV and a kitchen SodaStream. This is my European Holy War, not a damn vacation.Â
The main issue with hostels is security. I am carrying several hundred dollars worth of technology, that cannot fall into the hands of a kebab or a vacationing Australian. Yes, hostels usually offer lockers, but it becomes a nightmare anticipating how to pack, transfer and hide cellphones and laptops and envelopes full of monopoly money– all the while travelling alone and trying to carry out your daily functions. Plus, if something does get stolen, or even just lost, there is no recourse. The thief could have been any one of the bozos in the room, or any one of the staff. Hostels are not all that cheap anyway.
My first night in Stockholm I gave hostels a try, and it still cost me about $30. But for the last week, I have been using AirBnB. Granted, it is all very hipster–you are staying with random people you have contacted through an online app. They could strangle you and smoke your corpse in the pantry and no one would know for weeks. But that is a risk Iâ€™m willing to take, because AirBnB is very economical. In Orebro, I rented my own room in a 5-bedroom apartment for two nights for about the same $30. My flat-mates naturally gave off the stench of hyper-modern, hippie-eco-faggotry, but they were very nice. Furthermore, Iâ€™d have a few faces to finger if any of my of my dank-meme-spreading tech-tools went missing.
But thirty a night is still more than I want to spend. My inner Jew sang a Kaddish for every lost shekel. Where else could I cut corners? So for my next two night stay–in Uppsala, Swedenâ€™s former capital and home to a boring chain of man-made hills that the Swedes use to bait alt-rightist neo-pagans into believing are an Iron-Age site–I found accommodations for 22 dollars a night. The catch? My host was named Muhammad.Continue reading My Roommate was a Refugee. This is my story.→
Mieroopâ€™s work fails to define epistemology narrowly enough, and cultural relativism is to blame. Another problem is that, unless a philosophical treatise turns up in cuneiform, any evidence of Babylonian philosophy is indirect. But Mieroopâ€™s quest for Mesopotamian philosophy is not hopeless. With superior method, we might yet uncover something of the Babyloniansâ€™ intellectual life. I propose three methods: (1) Using better-documented philosophical traditions as control variables, (2) comparing Babylonian religious and literary texts with the fragments of the Presocratics, and (3) analyzing the thematic development of Babylonian literature, insofar as it can be traced.
The first is the least ambitious method. It would use better-documented, philosophical traditions to evaluate claims about Babylonian intellectual history. The better-documented tradition would act as a control variable. Too bad Mieroop did not think of it, because this method destroys a core assumption of his thesisâ€“that any complicated thinking presupposes epistemology. So then, is there civilization with complicated thinking, even systematic philosophy, but devoid of epistemology?
Mieroop suffers from cultural relativism, like much of academia. Cultural relativism (or just â€œrelativismâ€) stems from the assumption that we cannot value any of the achievements of Western cultureâ€™s over the achievements of another culture. To do so would mean we have acted out of pro-Western bias. But what if the Western culture did achieve something of objectively higher value? Would acknowledging western cultureâ€™s qualitative superiority in that particular matter mean we are biased?
To the preceding questions, a relativist would answer that no such valuation is possible, that we cannot value cultural achievements objectively. And he would be right, at least regarding certain realms of cultural achievement, such as literature. Â It is nearly impossible to compare one literary tradition to another. The scholar of literature faces all sorts of impediments: differences of tastes, language, historical and cultural references. Literary taste depends on culture and education, it is subjective.
But relativism is unhelpful in objective matters. It causes scholars to abjure making qualitative distinctions between the achievements of one culture and another, even in realms like mathematics and science that can be compared objectively. No one would assert that the ancient Egyptians attained a higher level of mathematics than the medieval Muslims. That is not to denigrate the Egyptians, of course their Muslim successors attained greater heights because â€œthey stood on the shoulders of giants.â€ But claiming that the Egyptians invented trigonometry would be ridiculous. Like mathematics, epistemology belongs to the objective realm. Certain methods of discerning truth are better than othersâ€“they can be more or less systematic, and lead to more accurate results. So while it is difficult to weigh the relative merits of, say, Greek and Chinese literature (a subjective assessment), it is not difficult to judge the Greek philosophical achievement as superior to the Somali.
A Review ofÂ Philosophy before the Greeks: The Pursuit of Truth in Ancient Babylonia by Columbia Professor Marc van de Mieroop. (Note: This review originally ran in November 2015 atÂ The Ritter Review, a blog set up by Greg Ritter before the founding of AI. We have reason to believe that the author has read it and reached trigger-factor 5. This is what happens when you exclude all the smart people from academia. heh).
by Gregory Ritter
Like many in academia, Columbia professor Marc van de Mieroop brings up a fascinating question, then manages to bungle his answer. In Philosophy before the Greeks: The Pursuit of Truth in Ancient Babylonia he asks whether the ancient Babylonians developed epistemology. Epistemology, or â€œtheory of knowledge,â€ is the study of knowledge, or as Plato defined it, true, justified belief. It has been regarded as central to all philosophy since ancient Greece. Because they developed epistemology, the Greek philosophers have held a unique place in intellectual historyâ€”indeed, for centuries, Western scholars have considered the Greek contribution to be fundamental. If the Babylonians got to epistemology before the Greeks, intellectual history will have to be entirely rewritten. Mieroop argues that they did, that the Babylonians had a developed theory of knowledge. But no one has discovered evidence of such, despite the hundreds of thousands of cuneiform tablets discovered since the mid-nineteenth century. So Mieroopâ€™s thesis is quite ambitious. He offers several arguments in its support. The attempt is noble, but the conclusions are outrageous. This failure can only be attributed to an unimaginative method and an inexplicable ignorance of basic philosophical concepts. In these shortcomings, his work is an example of academiaâ€™s over-specialization and relativist groupthink.
Mieroopâ€™s thesis has three major defects. First, he does not understand what epistemology is. Second, he overstates his case by failing to make a qualitative distinction between the rigorous Greek search for truth and Mesopotamian pre-philosophic learning. Third, he claims to disagree with earlier scholarsâ€™ assessments, but manages to reach to the same conclusions, albeit dressed up in cultural-relativist garb. This last defect, his cultural relativism, is the cause of the first two. Relativism prevents him from recognizing that the Greeksâ€™ philosophical achievements were of higher quality. He magnifies the Babylonian intellectual achievement by a herculean effort at blurring categories, leading to his argumentâ€™s internal contradictions. Continue reading Babylonian Philosophy? Part 1→
Stop watching sportsball, and start engaging in Sport. Professional and collegiate athletics is nothing more than the Cult of the Dindu. It undermines community, fosters weakness, and poisons your mind and body. Ritter and Singh talk about the ideal of sport: amateur, communal, educational.
As Hitler says in Mein Kampf part 2, chapter 2: “The People’s State ought to allow much more time for physical training in the school….Not a single day should be allowed to pass in which the young pupil does not have one hour of physical training in the morning and one in the evening; and every kind of sport and gymnastics should be included….It is not the purpose of the People’s State to educate a colony of Ã¦sthetic pacifists and physical degenerates.”
“This State does not consider that the human ideal is to be found in the honourable philistine or the maidenly spinster, but in a dareful personification of manly force and in women capable of bringing men into the world.”
Foreign language study is for chicks. It wasn’t always so. But in the last few decades, foreign language study (formerly known as philology) has gone from a systematic, logical, bro-friendly study to a mealy pseudo-discipline. The languages taught, the methods of teaching, and the types of competency aimed at are suited for girls. It’s feminized philology.
Part 1: Don’t study Spanish
Spanish programs dominate language study at the secondary level. Spanish-mania has destroyed language diversity in our schools. French and German have been losing ground for years, Japanese and Russian are virtually unheard-of and still fading. Only Arabic and Chinese have made some gains, but minimal ones at that. Latin soldiers on, mainly by claiming it helps with the SAT. Apparently no one can think of a better reason than SAT-prep to study one of the most important languages in the Western tradition. Greek is dead.
The vast majority of American students pick Spanish. When asked why, theyÂ will usually claim that they aren’t good at foreign languages, and Spanish is relatively easy. Spanish is certainly easy. Its higher-level vocabulary is drawn from the same sources as that of English. Its grammar is also nearly the same–theÂ only concepts with which the English-speaking student is unfamiliar are Spanish’s verbal conjugations and adjective agreement. I made this point once in a high-school class, and a Hispanic girl tried to argue with me. So I illustrated the relative similarity of Spanish and English by renderingÂ a Mongolian sentence word-for-word. “I yesterday the that-in-the-house-lives man saw.” (I’m sure she’ll get a scholarship to a mid-grade school anyway.) So yes, Spanish is easy.
The second reason for Spanish’s popularity is that it is seen as useful. A typically feminine rationale. When people call a language “useful,” they mean for getting a job. The US has no shortage of English-Spanish bilinguals.Â An Anglo is here at a disadvantage, because he will have far more ground to cover than a native Spanish-speaker.Â If you are taking classes because “it will help me get a job” you should not be going to college. Would anyone use such a ludicrous justification for taking a history or philosophy class?
“Useful” in an academic context should mean “gives one the widest access to valuable knowledge.” This is certainly not true of Spanish. Spanish has produced few canonical works of Western literature, and no serious works of philosophy. As for technical writing–history, science, mathematics, linguistics–Spanish simply cannot match the Big Three: English, French and German. That does not mean that Spanish is worthless. It is merely second-rate. As such, it is not a fitting basis for introducing American students to language-study.
The other defense of Spanish is “I wanna travel.” Typical girl drivel. Spanish is spoken in Spain and Latin America. Newsflash babe: People in Europe (that’s where Spain is) speak English–at least virtually all of the ones you’ll encounter do. And Latin America, is, well, the Third World. Unless you wanna start a career as a pay-per-war merc or join a drug-lord’s haraam, you have no business there. Cancun doesn’t count.
I don’t speak Spanish, and have only rarely needed to. I used to work in a bookstore “Tu quieres comprar un diccionario” usually worked. My only use for Spanish since then has been to troll Hispanic kids. Once I was substituting for a PE class, “stand in line and tell me your last name.” Some dumbass Jose gets to me and says “Soy Jose.” I bark back “last name!” No comprende. So I put on my most Anglo-accent possible and demand “NOMBRE DE FAMILIA!” “Lopez.” Christ, that was hard. Now point to which one of the three Lopezes you are. btw, this is in one of the best public school districts in the country.
You don’t need to learn Spanish. If you wanna talk to Spics, learn the 100 most common wordsÂ and just speak English, but add an “o” to the end of nouns and adjectives. If you wanna read a Spanish news article, run it through google translate. Seriously, it’s that similar to English a computer can translate it almost perfectly. If you wanna read literature– I guess there’s Cervantes, but at that point, you’re tipping at windmills.
Ritter and Law interview Aeroman, a recently graduated art student. Â Topics include art-school degeneracy, performance art, and the potential for artistic regeneration. Aeroman, aka Aero, also talks about using art in the war of ideas.
One of the easiest ways to “take the red pill” is to get exposed to history and philosophyÂ that is not covered inÂ the usual American curriculum. American schools and universities teach the “progressivist-triumphalist” view of history, according to which, history has been one long climb to Utopia. Technology increases, freedom spreads, diversity enriches. Those who accept the premises of the progressivist-triumphalist curriculum are called liberals. While they may not agree on how close we are to Utopia, they all believe that we are closer than at any point in the past. We are “advanced.” We have come so far. We have learned from history.
Anyone educated in the US could be forgiven for believing the progressivist-triumphalist view. The curriculum presents all past societies as patriarchal, politically repressive, and un-diverse, and if diverse, then dominated by a singleÂ ethnic or racial group. All this started to change with the American Revolution, which laid the philosophical groundwork for the last 240 years of progress. Then the Civil War ended slavery and freed the blacks (partially). The 20th century saw movements to spread freedom and progress further–the feminist movement procured rights for women, the civil rights movement for blacks. Immigration brought diversity, which drove America’s industrial rise. When presented with such a view of history, it is only logical to conclude that American success is the result ofÂ these movements and events. The US is the world’s strongest economic and military power, and it is generally reckoned to stand at the forefront of social progress.
Few ever question the progressivist-triumphalist view. Is American success the result of the spread of social equality, or despite it? Even if he does wonder, the typically educated AmericanÂ does not have the intellectual apparatus or background knowledge to answer this question. For all he knows, America (and now perhaps Western Europe) is the only example of a society that has even tried to do away with patriarchy, racism and authoritarianism.
If he knows of a counter-example, like Athenian democracy, he minimizes its importance by imagining that it arose and disappeared because, tragically, it “came before its time.” He assumes that historical conditions were not right for a feminist or multiculturalist movement. Something about past people being closed minded. Or he imagines that the counter-example was merely an anomaly, that it emerged “despite” the prevailing racism, sexism and authoritarianism of its era.
He never considers that maybe, just maybe, people of different cultures and eras were not so different from us. They aimed at goals. They wanted safe families, economic prosperity, perhaps richesÂ and power. They wanted happiness. If they thoughtÂ they could achieve the good life throughÂ multiculturalism, feminism and democracy they most certainly would have tried.
And they did–we have experimented with feminism, multiculturalism, democracy. Their record is one of abysmal failure. Aristotle for example, dismissed democracy, because women and slaves end up gaining power at the expense of the natural aristocracy. And he was by no means alone in his bleak assessment. Plato, Augustine, Kant… name pretty much any great mind of the past, and you will find an anti-democratic, anti-feminist racist. Were these geniuses, on these particular issues, simply delusional? Or did they draw their conclusions from history?
Stay tuned for AI’s new series: “We’ve Tried this Before.” We will have examples of all varieties of freakery throughout the ages, and the stories of how they failed. We will refute the progressivist-triumphalist view with a “shower of authentic truths.” Only the most pozzed will be unable to grasp them.