I was just going to copy and paste a couple of quotes I wrote before but it's honestly not enough context in explaining so I'll have to quote more:
Let's talk about what pronatalism is more broadly. It is a movement dedicated to ensuring the preservation of a pluralistic and diverse Human species. People would be like why that? Why not just increasing birth rates because if we do nothing what's going to happen. Is we're going to have a crash in Human fertility, we're going to have a crash in the world economy both of which are things that are still going to happen if we do something. But a few groups will come to power and basically erase everyone else that's what it looks like is the path we're going on. We're going on sort of a monoculture of a species where one or two or maybe three if we're lucky. If our group just completely fails - cultural and ethnic groups will be the only things left of our species and they'll wipe out the rest. And that is absolutely terrifying to us because I think that one of our greatest strengths is our diversity and I also think that in this unengaged world the groups that end up wiping out most of the other groups are going to be quite technophobic. Ie we are moving back to a dark ages of extreme religious tribalism.
I actually have to take a moment here. So they're American. So the culture (America) that has 343432434342 cults is going to turn into a mono culture? Interesting. Good luck to the future victors I guess.
Tbh though what I actually see is US culture being adopted everywhere and the politics both left and right wing in other countries too.
And so what we are trying to do is build an alliance of the individuals who are high fertility and do want to exist in the future and the cultural groups that are high fertility and do want to exist in the future and this alliance mean something. If you are a culture sort of axiomatically you differentiate significantly from the dominant culture in our society right now. It is a very low fertility cultural group. This is what we call the cult or the urban monoculture or the virus whatever you want to call it. It is this large culture that exists in pretty much every major city in the world today.
And what this means is that the first enemy that the pronatalist movement is facing is this urban monoculture and that is because the urban monoculture being very low fertility can only replenish it's ranks by converting the children of nearby demographically healthy cultural groups and those are becoming increasingly rare so it is becoming increasingly aggressive in these conversion policies. [...] We often liken it to cultural genocide but it's not really traditional cultural genocide.
Yes it is driven by hatred and dehumanisation of these cultural groups, you know they see them as deplorable and savages as most people do while comitting cultural genocide but it's also a necessary genocide. It is a parisitic by design cultural group that can't exist without it.
I feel like even if this bolded part for many people is true (as this is true for how many people view their outgroup really,) he's also projecting a bit here based on you know the other things he says and defining certain groups as his enemy. Also this general framework for viewing the world is one I see replicated often which makes me less inclined to trust it. It seems like some kind of common narrative in the human psyche if that makes sense? It's the same model many people use to view gay people for instance. You can replace the groups and just keep the model. Vampires are part of the same story.
The virus thing pops up again and again as well. Like I think there's something in the Human brain that's evolved to sort of be wary of viruses and then as a result of certain environmental triggers it just starts to see other things as viruses.
It's not that we hate this cultural group right? But if you're going to save the fly, you kill the spider. If you save the flies without killing the spider eventually the spider dies anyway. You know, and so all of us, all of the pronatalist communities are banning together right now to defend ourselves against this one cultural group and we frame it very much as the enemy.
The important thing to note is 1 it is the lesser of the 2 enemies that the pronatalist movement is bound to face, it is the kinder of the two enemies we are bound to face, and it is an enemy that when it dies and it will die, because if you look intergenerationally things like Amish communities you can look at their deconversion rates they've gone down over and over again. Communities that live next to it are getting better and better at defending themselves. And that's one of the reasons it's so pro immigration right now because the only way it can get new children is by importing them from cultural groups that aren't quite as wary.
If you look at the pronatalist movement many are surprised by how heavy it is in 1st generation immigrant families and it's like yeah they are often the most pronatalist because they are recent immigrants from high fertility areas and they understand the value of their own culture and want to preserve it and they like the idea which is what America told them it was. [...] Come here you'll get riches, we're pluralistic, many different cultures exist alongside each other. And then they get here and it's like 'ok now that you're here your children are going to have to go to a school where their history and traditions will be erased. They will learn that they are allowed to identify however they want. They can identify as your ancestral culture but they are not allowed to differ in their beliefs around sexuality, around gender, around morality, around what should be the future of our species, on how we should relate to the environment, on the way you should interract with other religious and cultural traditions. And they're like woah I came because I heard that we could be different and all work together while maintaing our differences and then they look at the pronatalist movement and are like you guys are what America was telling everyone it was yeah let's join that thing.
I'm sure most immigrants from traditional cultures have never heard of this movement. It's mostly white, rich, highly educated people with idiosyncratic beliefs who are talking about this.
To some extent this enemy is whitless when it takes over an organisation, or a community. It typically makes it very ineffective. We can look at the large companies that have been affected by it. One of the things we've pointed out on this show is that once a communtiy adapts racist belief systems economically it tends to undercompete it's neighbours, and undercompete what it did historically and this is seen in the virus or the cult communities. Wokeism just labels everything the exact opposite of what it is. It's like one of the most racist widespread philosophies in the world.
So who is the other enemy. What is the real enemy that we are terrified of? The real enemy that we are terrified of comes from the fact that the two dominant cultural strategies now for high fertility are disengaging with the economy. Either preventing your members from working, or doing something that lowers the economic potential like preventing them from getting a traditional education. Anything that decreases an individual's economic potential is going to increase the fertility of a community. The other thing is to increase restrictions on how your community engages with technology. The more your community disengages with technology the higher fertility and this is true within communities you look at Amish, or mennonites [...]
So here he finally gets to that.
Incrementally any collection of groups - related families of groups - that increases it's fertility rate or increases it's fertility rate by disengaging with technology or economically crippling it's own members. The iterations of that culture that did that more extremely fertility wise outcompete those who do it less extremely. [..] The problem being that the less extreme versions are often soft in culture which means that they either bleed out in the main culture or bleed into the more extreme versions.
He talks about a lot of stuff that seems unconcious as though people are doing this conciously which is weird.
The other thing we've seen as a cultural stategy and likely even a genetic strategy because this does have a genetic link. Which is the far right authoritarian personality cluster which has nothing to do with right leaning politics and is found in left leaning individuals as well. It's what you would see in like an antifa member. It just means an extreme tendency to dehumanise people who aren't in your cultural group and an extreme tendency to perfer extremist hierarchical structures.
Then you might want to talk about authoritarian personalities instead. Also right and left wing authoritarianism are not the same and I think a lot of people who are extremists are actually hoping to collapse hierarchical structures entirely. Basically what he just said is nonsense.
edit: I'm actually not sure how you'd easily study antifa because antifa often deny being antifa like fight club or anonymous so obviously will attract many trolls because that comes with anonymity etc. But I am familiar with some of the recent research and it's not a singular personality type.
I think he's partly discussing this (which I think is a dumb name for obvious reasons):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-...thoritarianism
In psychology, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a set of attitudes, describing somebody who is highly submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior.[1] The prevalence of this attitude in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of worldview.[2]
The RWA scale was designed to measure authoritarianism in North America. It has proven to be similarly reliable in English-speaking countries such as Australia, but less effective in other countries such as France due to cultural differences and translation issues.[3]
Compartmentalized thinking
In one of his experiments, Bob Altemeyer presented his students a booklet which contained the following statements on different pages:
"When it comes to love, men and women with opposite points of view are attracted to each other."
"Birds of a feather flock together when it comes to love."
His students with authoritarian personalities were more likely to agree with both statements even though they are completely contradictory.[26]
Omg (distracted) this exact example (for actual right wing authoritarians,) doesn't surprise me at all lol because they're really fond of extreme gender differences (and maximising them,) but also of course racial and cultural homogenity so they'd actually have to believe both. But yeah personally I disagree with the first statement, but not the second.
There's also this term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...ce_orientation
Social dominance orientation (SDO)[1] is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups.[2] SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.
Individuals who score high in SDO desire to maintain and, in many cases, increase the differences between social statuses of different groups, as well as individual group members. Typically, they are dominant, driven, tough, and seekers of power.[citation needed] People high in SDO also prefer hierarchical group orientations. Often, people who score high in SDO adhere strongly to belief in a "dog-eat-dog" world.[3] It has also been found that men are generally higher than women in SDO measures.[4][5] A study of undergraduates found that SDO does not have a strong positive relationship with authoritarianism.[2]
There's also another term LWA (left wing authortarianism,) and then this study suggests SDO was related to authoritarianism although previous research mentioned above seems to have not found that among students:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34383522/
We find that LWA, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation reflect a shared constellation of personality traits, cognitive features, beliefs, and motivational values that might be considered the "heart" of authoritarianism. Relative to right-wing authoritarians, left-wing authoritarians were lower in dogmatism and cognitive rigidity, higher in negative emotionality, and expressed stronger support for a political system with substantial centralized state control. Our results also indicate that LWA powerfully predicts behavioral aggression and is strongly correlated with participation in political violence. We conclude that a movement away from exclusively right-wing conceptualizations of authoritarianism may be required to illuminate authoritarianism's central features, conceptual breadth, and psychological appeal.
https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/...gy/campus.html
Another key finding is that authoritarianism from both ends of the spectrum is predictive of personal involvement in political violence. While left-wing authoritarianism predicts for political violence against the system in power, right-wing authoritarianism predicts for political violence in support of the system in power.
In addition to the striking similarities between the two political extremes, the research also highlighted a key difference between the two: Left-wing authoritarians were more likely to perceive the world as a dangerous place and experience intense emotions and a sense of uncontrollability in response to stress. Right-wing authoritarians were more cognitively rigid, less open to new experiences, and less likely to believe in science.
The research does not delineate the prevalence of authoritarianism in society. Like any other personality trait, authoritarianism lies on a spectrum with only a few at the extreme top-end of the scale, Costello says.
I'm not surprised this research has historically had less use outside of the Anglosphere based on that wikipedia quote because it seems to really map onto extreme liberalism (high openness + low conscientiousness + neuroticism which I think is often associated though as I often point out not universally,) and extreme conservativism (low openness, high conscientiousness) and this particular political cultural framework that the personalities are drawn towards for whatever reason doesn't necessarily exist everywhere.
Also there are a bunch of different findings one below suggests left wing authoritarians are not motivated by hierarchy:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...44-023-04463-x
The results of multiple regression analyses showed that a strong ideological view, according to which a violent revolution against existing societal structures is legitimate (i.e., anti-hierarchical aggression), was associated with antagonistic narcissism (Study 1) and psychopathy (Study 2). However, neither dispositional altruism nor social justice commitment was related to left-wing anti-hierarchical aggression. Considering these results, we assume that some leftist political activists do not actually strive for social justice and equality but rather use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused needs. We discuss these results in relation to the dark-ego-vehicle principle.
There's also an obvious difference between say tankies and extremist anarchists. And it's sort of an oxymoron to keep using the word authoritarian follower instead of just 'extremist' at a certain point. Especially for people who are specifically driven by just being sceptical of hierarchies where they're not on top lol.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...rning_Approach
Development and Initial Validation of Two Brief Measures of Left-Wing Authoritarianism: A Machine Learning Approach
[...] This convergence extended to virtually identical cross-measure patterns of correlations with 14 external criteria,
including need for chaos, political violence, anomia, low institutional trust. In light of these results, the LWA-25 and LWA-13 scales appeared to function effectively as measures of LWA.
... Accordingly, future work is needed to clarify distinctions between left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism, and to separate these contemporary manifestations of authoritarianism from a general anti-establishment sentiment. Despite the apparent similarities in the violent and censorial means used to achieve their mutually exclusive goals, the extant literature reveals discernible differences in the correlates of right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism:
whereas right-wing authoritarianism correlates positively with the need for order 160 and negatively with both openness to new experiences 81 and belief in science 146 , left-wing authoritarianism correlates positively with the need for chaos 156 and belief in science 22 and negatively with institutional trust 156 . ...
I'm not going to lie. I lol'd. It really is like Sheogorath and Jyggalag.
Jyggalag was at one time one of the most powerful of the Daedric Princes; he was so powerful that the other Princes began to fear him and his power. He was believed by some to be the only Prince who knew his nature, and the knowing made him go mad.[1] As a result, they cursed him to live in opposition of everything he stood for, to live the life of a madman and bring chaos and insanity rather than order and logic. Henceforth, Jyggalag became known as the Daedric Prince of Madness, Sheogorath.[2]
However, Jyggalag is allowed to return to his original form once at the end of every era, an event known in the Shivering Isles as the Greymarch. During this period, Jyggalag's personality resurfaces and exerts control over "his" realm to summon the Knights of Order--his emotionless, vicious minions--to attack and burn everything in the Isles to the ground. Near the end of the Greymarch, Sheogorath "leaves" the Isles and Jyggalag appears in person to finish the Isles off. In reality, Sheogorath simply transforms into Jyggalag. Sheogorath then "returns" to recreate the Isles and its inhabitants, causing both identities suffering.
Spoilers:
Spoiler:
"Enough! I am beaten. The Greymarch is ended. For millennia this drama has unfolded, and each time, I have conquered this land, only to be transformed back into that gibbering fool, Sheogorath. It was not always so. Once, I ruled this Realm, a world of perfect Order. My dominion expanded across the seas of Oblivion with each passing era. The other Princes, fearful of my power, cursed me with Madness, doomed me to live as Sheogorath, a broken soul reigning in a broken land. Once each era, I was allowed my true form, conquering this world anew. And each time I did, the curse was renewed, damning me to exist as Sheogorath. Now, though, you have ended the cycle. You now hold the mantle of madness, and Jyggalag is free to roam the voids of Oblivion once more. I will take my leave, and you will remain here, mortal. Mortal...? King? God? It seems uncertain. This Realm is yours. Perhaps you will grow to your station. Fare thee well, Sheogorath. Prince of Madness."
This makes me wonder if everyone who defeats Sheogorath or really any daedric prince would just become the daedric prince like is it lich king rules lol? I guess that's not quite how it works though since the player didn't become Jyggalag. Although I really like that expansion pack I personally feel it's hard to think of the player as sheogorath because his presentation and personality is actually ironically perhaps so consistent across games including Skyrim which was released after this, and doesn't necessarily reflect the player character.
don't try to grow a beard
if you try to grow a beard you will fucking die
Many are saying this.
Of course everyone who has ever grown a beard has eventually died I don't like those odds.
This is actually very serious and I'm just like "omg it's just like a video game" everytime. Personally though I think of Jordan Peterson both aesthetically and in the sense of like him being a converging point personality wise and switching over the years because of the drugs (?) There's an actual research paper that cites him as an example of how you can become more right leaning after doing lsd that I stumbled on recently (!?) If I'm remembering correctly which is hilarious. Because most people assume the opposite and it has often been found that people do become more liberal after doing lsd but not always and they used him as some kind of case study I think.
Outside of East Asian cultures - they are unique and have different cultural practices. The more xenophobic a culture is the higher their fertility rate is. As we've mentioned again and again it also lowers the economic potential of a community.
I said except for East Asian. East Asian - we're going to talk about East Asian cultures in a seperate video because a totally different thing is going to happen over there.
That seems like a great way to avoid the discussion of how low their fertility rate is despite not being 'woke (tm)'
After assuring everyone that he was not talking about Muslims specifically (lol) "there are many xenophobic groups who are Christian, Buddhist, Jewish"
That's another thing about this cultural cluster is they have a practice which makes them axiomatically impossible to ever integrate with the pronatalist agenda. [...] A lot of them believe that at the end of the day there's just going to be one religion, often one ethnicity and one culture in the world. And some of them will just say one religion one culture in the world. That's it. As we say they are highlandering it. So in the short term they work as allies with us because we have the same enemy which is the urban monoculture but in the long term they will be at odds with us and all of the other we call them symbiotic cultrual groups which do not believe it is their job to wipe out all other cultures in the world. [...] There are some cultures who say they want to wipe out all other cultures in the world but don't seem to be able to act on it or don't seem able to motivate themselves to act on it anymore and so they are safe ish to work with in the short term. There are cultures we say OK we'll say OK but we can work with other groups because we're such a minority right now and we will only become dangerous when we become the majority and so you need to keep an eye on those groups. But again this isn't a one religious thing.
I think this question is going to become more interesting to us is what happens when one of these dominating cultural groups is also attempting a technophilic strategy. Currently none of them are not a single one [...] If you look at the other technophilic cultural groups they typically are not dominating as cultural strategies.
Simone (because the rest of these quotes are just Malcolm rambling on lol):
Well the cult, the woke virus riddled cult that runs society now is both dominating and technophilic but because it's low fertility-
Yeah it is both dominating and technophilic. That is a good point. It is an example of a dominating technophilic cultural group.
The only reason we don't take it very seriously is we understand that most other cultures that it uses to get fodder, to get Human capital, will eventually become resistant to it. So we don't think it has long term potential.
And so essentially the true enemy of the pronatalist cause. Not the immediate enemy which is the urban monoculture which we sort of see as the god emperor of Dune. The threat that brings us all together. [code geas reference and I'm getting bored transcribing this] to finally put aside their differences so that they can intergenerationally work together that is what it is serving as. It is serving as a very simplistic villain right now a villain on easy mode. That is meant to prepare us for the true danger which comes after us which it is to a large extent protecting us from which is a world full of technophobic, aggressive, ultra religious extremists that want everyone who's not them dead. And in the other video similar to this we talk about the network of haven states. These are small, technophilic cultural groups. That are communciating with each other, trading with each other, and that work together and respect their cultural differences and are working together to bring civilisation after we enter this next dark age.
And again you have the thing where Humans like to have a common enemy to unite against. This goes back to the virus thing in being a common 'pattern' and psychological need. (Now and then I zoom out too far and realise the futility of everything lol and this is one of those moments lol. Because people might not be able to function without an enemy. Even as he speaks talking about how 'they're going to unite all these people' he still has
two. and frankly huge groups at that.)
[...]
Anyway:
10/10 rhetoric. I have no idea why this isn't convincing many people.
Love the framework, but how are internet vs. irl groups balanced in this? When I'm touching grass, I see pluralistic Tradcaths and no desnat or transhumanists subgroups in the LDS.
Also, the monoculture won't go so easily, its relentless recruitment of girls is quite powerful.
Understandable. Basically no women like what you're selling and you engage in various forms of 'cope' to avoid that.
Reply With Quote
