Tag Archives: Signaling

RED DAWN 40: Memory, Genius, and the Curse of the Silver Souls

RED DAWN 40: Memory, Genius, and the Curse of the Silver Souls

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?

RED DAWN 37: Attack Of The Muzzielocks

RED DAWN 37: Attack Of The Muzzielocks

An alien race has overrun Europe, bringing crime, terrorism, rape and murder. Do the natives even realize what is going on?

On the way from Petersburg back to the USA, Vince harrows Austria and Bavaria. He tries to shake the locals out of lethargy, but to no avail. It seems that the only people who get it are Poles.

AND: The alt-right: rich boy of fascism? The antifa think so. As if that were a bad thing. Greg and Vince discuss the mindset of the politically active. Perhaps alt-righters and antifa have more in common than either would like to admit.

The “Social Construct” Trap

Leftists, and (((high verbal IQ))) types, love to create semantic traps whereby they can control, or ‘frame’, the conversation. A favorite is The Social Construct Trap, which works by giving us realists nearly irresistible bait–the claim that ‘X is a social construct’. (Where X is almost always race). Let us imagine a typical scenario, one which I’m sure many of us have lived: A couple of university students are discussing the role of poverty in life outcomes. One of them dares to venture that race has a role to play. The other student, recoiling in horror, invokes that talismanic phrase, “Race is just a social construct.” Our friend denies this. From there the conversation devolves into mere argument. Where did our friend go wrong? He forgot the rhetoric-dialectic distinction and he took the bait.

What, you may ask, is the problem with arguing against that stance, that race is a social construct? There are two subtle problems. The first is that this claim is simply a non sequitur. The example conversation is about the correlation of some phenomena ‘life outcomes/poverty’ and ‘race’. It is not about the ontological status of race, no more than it is about the ontological status of poverty. Our friend is as justified in saying, and perhaps more so, that poverty is “just a social construct”. He may respond like this: “You say race doesn’t exist because it is a social construct. Well, I think poverty doesn’t exist because it too is a social construct. You say humans have clinal variation, hence race is socially and arbitrarily constructed. Well, wealth and income show continual variation, so it too is socially and arbitrarily constructed.” This may be a fun rhetorical gotcha, but it hardly advances the conversation, given that some progtards would probably accept the non-existence of poverty, the non-existence of anything, just so long as they don’t have to accept race. Never mind that you are leaving some good arguments unused.

In many cases like this, our opponent is likely to let that word ‘just’ do most of the argumentative heavy lifting. “Race is just a social construct.” But what could it possibly mean to be just a social construct? I’m not sure we could say even unicorns are just a social construct. Horses exist, as do horns. This word ‘just’ or sometimes ‘merely’ is a major weak point, for all the work it does, like the reactor core on the Death Star. They probably mean to imply that what we call ‘race’ has no basis whatsoever in reality. Assuming they have any reason left, they should accept that skin color does exist, and that this has something to do with what we call race. If they accept this, then they must see that race isn’t just a social construct.

Race might, one must now admit, be considered, along with many other things like colors or money, in some sense a social construct. That is, human needs and capacities modulated through the medium of language give some shape to our world. The colors we perceive have, most assuredly, physical and biological foundations, but there are cultural variations in the number of color words. There is, supposedly a rainforest group that has many common words that pick out a wide number of shades of green. This should not come as a surprise considering their environment. Though English has phrases such as ‘forest green’ or ‘spearmint’ etc. these are more the talk of paint companies than of everyday life. My point being that many of our concepts have some aspect that might fairly be called social construction to them. (For more on this sort of thing, Google around for John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality; Berlin and Kay, Basic Color Terms; and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.)

Lucky for us the social construction of race is not the significant part of their argument. Either they think social constructs aren’t real (whatever the hell that means), in which case ask them for all their money or they think racial divisions are arbitrary, in which case ask them to take a step. The first part we dealt with, let’s look at the second. They argue that because there is no distinct or objective boundary between races there are no such things as races. As an analogy, blue and green do not exist because there is no set point at which blue becomes green. This some may recognize as the sorites or continuum fallacy. To use the famous example, I start with a heap of sand and slowly remove grains of sand one at a time. No single grain removal causes the heap to go from heap to non-heap; therefore, no matter how many grains I take away I always have a heap. This is obviously ridiculous, and yet this fallacy is one of the most common of our public discourse. As for asking them to take a step, we all know that that is impossible under our Zenoian physics, an analogous problem applied to distance (see the famous example of the tortoise and Achilles). (That was sarcasm, folks.)

The fundamental problem with people who argue like this is their childish selectivity. If they were acting as a modern-day Parmenides, fine. But they are not, they are engaging in selective and self- serving skepticism. They aren’t acting as disinterested philosophers, but as motivated perpetuators of foolish ideas. The say race doesn’t exist, but happily endorse the notion of color, or of distance, or of time. The philosopher David Hume wrote, “Philosophy would render us entirely Pyrrhonian, were not nature too strong for it.” That is, we would be completely skeptical of absolutely everything, but the demands of life prevent it except as philosophical exercise. But when one hates nature and is always in revolt against it, what is left but as much madness as the unkind intrusions of reality allow? What to do with these people? Hume provides, more or less, the answer: “Commit them then to the ovens: for they can contain nothing but sophistry and delusion.”

Mugged by White Guilt

If you haven’t heard of this story, I present it to you with little fanfare. When will we reach Peak White Guilt? We’ll let the experts in the comments section decide.

This article has everything stereotypically associated with the Liberal Intelligentsia of the West in it. And it should make everyone reading this stop and shudder because these indoctrinated leftist clowns are graduating from school soon- (edit: already graduated and working at an NGO last I heard), and coming to a workplace near you. Here’s some juicy exerts:

Example 1: White Guilt

The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world, and thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past. As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.

Funny enough, he seems to make a case for “the white man’s burden” in 21st century neo-liberal terms. Basically, “black people need our help because whites hold all the power, and until whites do something to help blacks, nothing will change.” Of course, formally, SJWs would shudder at the thought of this neo-colonial mindset, and yet here it is, spelled out in black and white..

Example 2: Refusing to Account for Personal Responsibility

Young people who willingly or unwillingly go down this road have been dealt a bad hand. While speaking with a D.C. police officer after the incident, he explained that he too had come from difficult circumstances, and yet had made the decision not to get involved in crime. This is a very fair point — we all make decisions. Yet I’ve never had to decide whether or not to steal from people. We’re all capable of good and bad, but it’s a whole lot easier for me to choose good than it may be for them to.

What makes this funnier, is that talking with the DC police officer (I’m going to roll the dice and guess that he’s black), he gets told that socio-economic factors are not enough to remove the agency of choice or willingness to commit violent crime. But of course, the young SJW just brushes it off and blames it on “the system.” Which brings us to example 3…

Example 3: “Its the system, maaaan”

When we play along with a system that fuels this kind of desperation, we can’t be surprised when we’re touched by it. Maybe these two kids are caught, and this recent crime wave dies down, but it will return because the demand is still there, and the supply is still here. We have a lot, and plenty of opportunities to make even more. They have very little, and few opportunities to make ends meet.

A lot of Ivy League and top-tier university kids DO get a leg-up in life. And when they graduate, they will belong to the ruling class of this country and are the liberal left leaning intellectuals that are increasingly becoming a “Liberal Samizdat” in front of which we have to clap harder and harder to not be labeled “homophobes, racists, and sexists.” Even if the parents of these kids are rich conservatives, college will make sure that their children will end up like the mugged student: shrieking termagants begging for annihilation from the Uruk-hai.

Rush Limbaugh picked up on the story and chimes in: (Disclaimer: I’m actually not a big fan of Rush, but he’s spot on here)

Is this not pathetic? This is little glimpse here into the minds of our indoctrinated youth. You know, it used to be said that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. Now, if you want to mug a liberal, you go right ahead because the correct reaction is love for the mugger, understanding of the economic plight of the mugger.

One has to wonder if the Christian ideals of turning the other cheek have not finally reached saturation point, and now permeate the consciousness of the millennial generation. If this is true, the irony is that most millenials reject Christianity for being too barbaric and backward, without realizing that as a generation they represent the culmination of thousands of years of Christian teaching in the West.

Whatever is going on, it is incredible. It seems that even an encounter with near death is not enough to change the belief of this SJW. Such fanaticism is usually reserved only for the extremist sects of most religions, and yet here we find it as well, only in its secular form. This leads us to conclude that progressivism is itself a cult, dedicated to its own message, divorced from reality and dependent on faith alone, with its own strange rituals and initiations that one must go through to join the church.

There is a ray of light in all of this I suppose. The feminists on campus decried the article on the grounds that it was “victim blaming.” (Unfortunately many comments were removed, but not before your humble narrator picked out the juiciest ones.) Deconstructing their logic is a difficult task to be sure, but I surmise that they realized the following: a woman placed in that situation should not be blamed, so I guess we can’t blame this male who got mugged either. Although they then continued to agree that the fact that we are all white and privileged is a problem, and that systematized racism was the culprit behind the mugging. I guess both parties, the mugger and the muggee were the victims. Well there you go, liberal double-think at its finest…and they said 1984 was a work of fiction.

Remember kids- with white guilt everybody loses.