No point in arguing

Something I’ve been noticing lately is that intelligence really doesn’t matter that much when it comes to determining what people believe. People with a 90IQ tend to believe the same stuff as people with a 120IQ, the prior just narrate the same beliefs in a less sophisticated manner.

Global warming is a decent example. A 90IQ low status white male will insist it’s a hoax, at 100 they go for “they used to predict global cooling/changed the name to climate change”, at 110 they bring in the “China and India” story, then at 120 and above they will start to insist that technology will fix it.

But the vaccines are ultimately no different. IQ really has little to do with whether you got vaccinated or not. A 90IQ low status white male will bring up some story about magnets and 5G, at 100 they’ll refer to a clotshot, from 110 onwards they bring in somewhat sophisticated arguments about mRNA persistence etc and then at the very end of the range you’ll find yours sincerely of course.

But this is not just low status white males suffering from this, the opposite occurs too. A 100IQ young blonde woman with an easy life will record some Tiktok video singing “these are a few of my favorite vaccines” to the tune of “these are a few of my favorite things” from the Sound of Music with her cat sitting next to her. A guy with a PhD in immunology will insist that the vaccines prevent the induction of autoantibodies.

In other words, we’re all trapped, by something that causes us to make up our minds, regardless of how much cognitive capacity we have available to make sense of the information we receive. You can validate that this is going on, by virtue of the fact that knowing someone’s opinion on one subject tends to reveal his opinion on every other subject too.

If you don’t like the vaccines, you don’t believe in global warming either and you don’t like having drag queens parading through your street either. And similarly, if you don’t like the vaccines, then you dislike Biden (who had nothing to do with them), while you probably believe that the whole US government is plotting against Trump (who pushed these vaccines through, continues to defend them and seems to have played an important role in getting these things out there despite safety concerns that should have been obvious to regulators).

“Wait!” You say. “I’m not a Trump supporter!” No that’s right. Above a 95IQ, a low status white male won’t openly admit to being a Trump supporter. Rather, you just get the usual shenanigans: “I don’t support him but we did not have any wars and the Permanent Washington Deep State violated our laws and set a dangerous precedent-” Yeah yeah, we get it. You’re the red tribe.

These are all things that are not really supposed to have anything to do with each other. And yet, they clearly do. And if you still have any independent capacity left to make your mind up about anything, you would realize this means you can’t really trust anything you believe about the world. It means that your mind is made up, based on unrelated factors.

So what sets these groups apart? It would be easy to say that “we” believe the system is corrupt, whereas “they” naively have trust in it. But if you fall for that line of thinking, you’re still a moron, because “you” and “they” just have a different mental image of what “the system” really is.

To a low status white male, “the system” consists of academia, mainstream media (ie not obscure blogs like mine), NGOs etc. To a blue-haired they/them wokie, the system consists of fossil fuel companies, farmer lobbies, Silicon Valley tech moguls like Musk (as a low status white male you don’t consider Elon Musk part of the system, despite him being the richest man on the planet), the Republican party, along with cultural tendencies that low status white males will claim don’t really exist, like institutionalized white supremacy.

To low status white males, Dutch farmers are not subsidized modern day aristocrats part of the “system”, rather, they’re the oppressed minority destroyed by WEF elitists who want to make us eat bugs. To a blue-haired they/them wokie, the “system” by definition includes the agricultural lobbyists who live off government subsidies and successfully convinced low status white males to eat a diet of beef and dairy that they rationalize to themselves as “keto”.

I have seen low status white males who feel very strongly about climate change peddle the sort of rhetoric implying that “Greenpeace” is part of the system, or even that “Extinction Rebellion” is part of the system. To anyone on the left that’s hilariously absurd. Whatever it is that we don’t like, we always seem to imagine as being in control of the world.

So regardless of what opinions you might have, by virtue of having opinions, you’re going to end up feeling like you’re part of a marginalized oppressed minority, against whom the whole system is organized. In fact, I had a friend who was a millionaire by the time he was 27, who felt like a marginalized oppressed person. Why? Because he will have to pay inheritance taxes, “over money that I already paid tax over” (his words).

The other tendency I notice is that we all end up believing that whatever we already like would be the solution to everything we don’t like. As an example, low status white males seem to gravitate to the Keto diet, regardless of what they’re trying to achieve. I had an LSWM colleague at work, who was a skinny guy with glasses, who also began practicing the Keto diet, because it would give him more energy by powering his brain through ketosis.

Another example is the QAnon phenomenon, which began evolving towards a kind of neocommunist cult. Once Trump would finally expose the satan-worshipping pedophile billionaires, their wealth would be seized and distributed to low status white males. No such thing happened of course, but the cult had the tendency to offer solutions to every problem.

Similarly, there’s a tendency LSWMs have, to declare everything they don’t like to be “woke”. Once “woke” is finally defeated, this means every societal problem is solved. But what is “woke” exactly? Woke is just exactly whatever it is that the low status white male you’re talking to happens to dislike. Big loud-mouthed black woman? Woke. Blue-haired they/them girl with amputated tits? Woke. Some academic who ties himself to a train to stop fossil fuel transports? Woke. Pride flag? Woke. Immigration? Woke. It’s all woke.

Of course on the other side this happens too. The solution to overpopulation is stuff they already like (education and empowering women). The solution to climate change is also stuff they already like (veganism). And it’s easy for me to bring up factoids and numbers and pie charts to insist that this makes perfect sense. But the other side can do that too and I’m trying to look at this from an emotionally detached third person perspective.

At the bare minimum I can say that if low status white males would look at the other side, they would notice the same convergence that the other side notices among low status white males. You can’t seriously convince the average low status white male that veganism would address climate change, because he’s smart enough to realize that if there were no climate change, or the Earth was cooling down, you would still endorse veganism.

The problem is that from within the tribe, this all makes sense. To a low status white male it’s perfectly obvious and internally consistent that if the “deep state”, the “global elite” and/or “woke” were defeated, all the world’s problems would be solved.

To a blue-haired they/them wokie, everything would similarly be solved if white supremacy were dismantled. Because again, they converge everything too. Veganism is a feminist issue. Pollution is a racial justice issue. Andsoforth.

But maybe that’s just the way things really are? Maybe veganism is just the climate change solution, climate change is actually just racism and it’s all misogynystic too?

Well we know that the convergence is to some degree not inherent to these topics, because in other cultures, they don’t converge in the same way. In India, banning meat is a conservative thing. It’s a way to establish ethnic dominance over Muslims. And so here we get the woke hijabi archetype, insisting that eating meat is her “human right”.

In other words, it’s not objective reality and the facts we derive from it that establish whether something is “woke” or “based”, it depends on the cultural context within which it takes place. In India, eating meat becomes very woke and progressive, as here “liberalism” still means permissiveness. It’s similar to how in Nazi Germany, smoking cigarettes was a leftist thing.

And so theoretically, you could make veganism and climate change activism very based, trad, redpilled and alpha. You could have blue-haired they/them wokies insist on their right to buy halal meat, as marching low status white males insist that it is unacceptable cruelty against cows.

I don’t have that sort of power, because I just have a blog. But if you had enough bots, it wouldn’t be hard to achieve this, because everyone just converges on what they see everyone else doing. Low status white males look around on Twitter and think to themselves “I need to follow the keto diet, that’s what all the other alpha males are doing”. Or at least, at a subconscious level. At a conscious level they just think they share the same high intelligence that allows them to see through the faulty FDA food pyramid that dares to suggests you need to eat things like bread, vegetables and fruit, full of *gasp* carbs.

But what I do know is that you can’t have a functional society like this. And no, it wasn’t always like this. In the US, Democrats and Republicans often voted with the other party. They just voted based on what they thought was good. That’s how you got someone like the Democrat Gaylord Nelson, who voted for strict immigration laws, because he thought migration would be environmentally destructive.

But by now there isn’t really any debate left, there are just two groups of people hurling insults at each other. I have tried asking low status white males what would convince them their government needs to rapidly bring carbon emissions down to zero. The answer tends to be that there’s nothing that would change their minds. That means this problem just isn’t going to get solved.

You’re not going to convince the other side of anything either. There are sacred cows you just can’t touch. Could it be that we’re not born with a blank slate? Could it be that we’re a product of thousands of years of evolution? You just can’t go there. It’s impossible to get them to consider that perhaps Dutch people produce the Netherlands and Somali people will produce Somalia even in the Netherlands, just as British people could produce Rhodesia in Zimbabwe, while Zimbabweans produce Zimbabwe.

In fact, to even say this out loud forces me into the “anonymous low status white male” basket, where I’m also not welcome because I’m a vegetarian climate change activist. And that’s why nothing is ever going to get solved and we’re just going to hurl insults back and forth at each other, congregating behind our laptops in air-conditioned sky-high flats in Europe, where we will live off fungal protein produced in vats as the world around us dies in lethal heatwaves.

56 Comments

  1. We humans do not decide based on rationality. We decide based on instinct, and then we use our intellectual abilities to justify our instinctive decisions. That’s well known in psychology. And it’s always possible to justify both sides, because science can’t tell absolute truth. Each thesis has an anti-thesis. If you think science could tell absolute truth then you make science to a church, and scientists to priests.

    I’m also disappointed that you didn’t appreciated the newest move of us LIQLSWM, by admitting that global warming is real after TES showed us a plausible way how this could be with his Core Theory.
    I never read a statement from you about our planet coming out of an iceage, and also not about CO2 curves are running after temperature curves in most cases of Earths history.
    You recently asked me how I would explain cooling in the upper atmosphere. I denied this because whatever you would tell, you can’t explain the current ocean heating only with the atmosphere. But I would like to hear your explanation about ongoings in the upper atmosphere. But as long as you think you have found scientific absolute truth, you will never convience us LIQLSWM.

    And a word about Trump: As a long time reader of the most crazy lunatic conspiracy site of the US, godlikeproductions, I can say that half of us LIQLSWM seeing Trump as part of the vaxx-killer-mass-murderers, because of his Warpspeed-Vax initiative.

    Is it so hard for you to consider that you maybe are partially or completely wrong about CO2 heating?

    • >I’m also disappointed that you didn’t appreciated the newest move of us LIQLSWM, by admitting that global warming is real after TES showed us a plausible way how this could be with his Core Theory.

      Well see here’s the thing. If this is what was going on, it would not take until 2022 for some anonymous guy who spends every day posting graphs on Twitter he made himself that nobody really comprehends to figure it out.

      We’ve known about the climate problem for over a century now. You need to come up with some really good argument for me to decide that it needs to be re-examined. It’s like asking me to check out some new creationist theory. What’s the point?

      • “We’ve known about the climate problem for over a century now.” Then I won’t get too wrapped around the axle until it gets to be a problem we’ve known about for a millennium.

        • Yeah it doesn’t work like that. We’ve known about it for over a century, but the problem accelerated, because the population grew fourfold and began using more fossil fuels.

          It’s like leaving a candle burning in your house: “Well it’s been burning for an hour and the house hasn’t burned down yet, I’ll check in tomorrow.”

      • Quote: “We’ve known about the climate problem for over a century now.”

        You still do like as if there would be a fixed standard climate, which is only disturbed by human activities. If climate change is a problem, then we have this problem since 5 billion years (Earths age) and not only since 100 years.

        Look, we have Winters and Summers and the temperature range of the seasons is roughly 60 Degree Celsius, at least were I live. Sometimes it’S -20 C, and sometimes it’s +40 C.

        Please Rintrah, +1.5 C more is a joke compared to the seasonal changes. According to You each Summer and each Winter is a total climate catastrophe. I’m aware that 10 Degree Celsius more would make the equator area mostly uninhabitable, but large parts of the permafrost area would become habitable.

        Climate change is as normal as seasons, there is no problem.

        • >Please Rintrah, +1.5 C more is a joke compared to the seasonal changes. According to You each Summer and each Winter is a total climate catastrophe

          Are you really this dense?

          The problem is that you screw up the cycles. If I put light in your room at night, you couldn’t sleep, even if it’s just 1% of the light you get outside on a sunny day.

          Similarly, if you stop having freezing winters, you screw things up too: Invasive species stop dying, parasites can easily spread themselves, etc.

          • >> Similarly, if you stop having freezing winters, you screw things up too: Invasive species stop dying, parasites can easily spread themselves, etc.

            Obviously: first humans fled hot African savanna to conquer regions with freezing winters. There these early vegetarians built greenhouses to survive the harsh climate outside of the growing season. Heating the greenhouses is the real cause of global warming.

          • Is there any point at all you’re trying to make with your post, or are you just being annoying and dumb?

  2. Well done sir! I would like to consider myself as now being marooned politically and hoping for a system that allows people to vote on individual issues instead of an ideological party, so that people can start thinking independently. But this alone will not solve the problem, because many don’t want to or can’t think independently of what the majority in their area think. Yet still, discussions often devolve into attacking each other’s viewpoints in ridiculous extremes in a tit for tat. Some truths are too hard to accept emotionally for the optimal solution may involve deaths. Case in point, developing herd immunity with some necessary causalities or lockdown and wait for non sterilizing immune pressuring vaccines that will cause much more deaths in the long run? On the other side, what about all the up and coming middle class in populations of billions, can we all live in comfort at this population level without taking from the future or is there a hard choice to be made on this. For me, I find the pandemic biology a lot easier to spot since there are clear biological models that point to what will happen. For the other parts, it is more difficult because of all of the cultural, national/global, status, elites in money or government power, monetary crises, and wars that seem to muddy everything. Hard to tell what the hell is going on if you are to be honest. Easy to make overgeneralizing assumptions.

  3. As a burned out LSWM, I need a break from Zerohedge and vaccine doom porn on Substack. Your blog has inspired me to learn more about climate change, specifically about these amplifying positive feedback loops caused by increased atmospheric CO2 that until recently I was unaware of. So between James Hansen’s “Storms of my Grandchildren” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” which of the two would you recommend more? Or any other books? Interestingly, it seems that Hansen is pro-nuclear whereas Flannery is anti-nuclear.

    • Sorry, I can’t give proper advice on what to read.

      Frankly, to be honest, if you spend your days browsing zerohedge and substack vaccine doom porn, climate change might not be the best topic to switch to. Honestly, just look at something that’s genuinely fun.

      And if there’s entirely nothing you can think of that you would consider fun, except some variant of doomporn, you should probably get yourself some ketamine.

  4. > “And so theoretically, you could make veganism and climate change activism very based, trad, redpilled and alpha.”

    “The globalist elites are trying to destroy our Western traditional way of life. They want us to be dependent on machines that are made with Chinese metals and pump toxic chemicals into the air that destroy your lungs and turn the frogs gay, instead of being able to live in based traditionalist walkable villages. They want to make it impossible for you to go outside and get some fresh air through pollution lockdowns. Wake up!”

  5. I think obsessing about diet is a trait of not very clever people, or perhaps just people who maybe subconsciously realise they can’t change very much and aren’t very capable, and never will be. It is bizarre if you think about it, diets that aim to make the consumer “cleverer” or “more sporty, stronger”. To do the latter you have to exercise in a focused disciplined way. And then there is “cleverness” which is more vague. If you have a specific problem you must focus on it, not dick around with your diet in a strange attempt to solve the problem indirectly. Since WW2 diets in many countries have been more than adequate IMO. The supermarkets are rammed with cheap nutritious food, veg, fruit, eggs, fine cereal, enriched bread, whatever you want. That is probably what Mummy fed you on. Soviet era canteen food is also very good. (for example). I think focusing on diet too much is a trait of oversocialised first-world people who have never had their arse in the grass, so to speak.

    • Good point.

      But the aisles are also full with sugar and refined oils.

      I recently discoveted almost all energy drinks have Vit C, E and B12 in them. As if the industry noticed that they have to look after their customers…

    • You can be part of the system, while sympathizing with LSWMs. In fact, that’s basically the age-old caesar move. You occupy a prominent position within the power structure, but you want even more power. So what do you do? You tell the LSWMs that the whole system is corrupt and that the elites are bad, but YOU yourself are of course the exception, the one good elite who will fix the system.

      It’s what Caesar did, it’s what the New York real estate billionaire who was on every TV show throughout his life did, it’s what the guy who was on every magazine cover as the “genius entrepreneur” is now doing.

  6. Reminds me of what the ‘Lonesome Bird’ calls the “madness of having opinions”. Lots of overlap between your and his two obscure blogs (yours being less obscure, more prolific, and higher IQ, though). Brahma Sattyam

  7. Thanks, I really enjoyed this one. I think your higher level conceptual stuff is better than your granular down-in-the-weeds-with-data stuff, not least in part because there are a lot of bloggers doing the “hey look at the latest fertility graphs out of Sweden” type wank. Very few thinkers are taking a step back above that, like this article does.

    You stopped short of making it spiritual or metaphysical though and I would have liked to see where that might have gone.

    FWIW.

  8. 1 Timothy 4:3 addressed the Gnostic heretics of the day who were Vegans and who hated the material world along with the human body. With both Ascetic(no sex even within marriage) and hedonist strains. Who likely had Hindu origins.

    The Abrahamic faiths are meat eaters. And being herdsmen. Dairy and meat is par for the course.

    • I think cultures in deserts will naturally gravitate towards justifying meat consumption, while cultures with fertile farmland will gravitate towards discouraging it.

  9. It’s hilarious to think that you actually believe you can fix climate change with everyone going vegan or vegetarian or shrooms.

  10. What about HIQLSWMs who have been redpilled on a number of issues?
    Would you put yourself in this category?
    To me, the painful process of redpilling is more interesting than predictable political tribal affiliations because you come out the other side with a bird’s eye view. You can then stand on two feet and observe the landscape with two healthy eyes.
    Even Ana Kasparian is now going through this process, beginning to wake up. Her latest interview is pretty amazing. Some people get angry. It will be interesting to follow her evolution.

    • >What about HIQLSWMs who have been redpilled on a number of issues?
      >Would you put yourself in this category?

      If I said yes, I could never look into a mirror again.

      I can’t think of anything more cringe than referring to yourself as a “high IQ low status white male who has been redpilled on a number of issues”.

      There’s no way to recover from that level of autism.

      • LOL
        You refer to yourself as autistic.
        You are clearly high IQ and say so.
        You are a white college drop-out and presumably low status.
        So what is your problem with my comment? You hate the idea of redpilling, shifting your views?
        Write a column explaining why, please.

        • There’s nothing worse than bragging about your IQ.

          It means you’re relatively intelligent, but have absolutely nothing good to show for it.

  11. I agree with what you said about Trump. He’s just another actor like Biden, they both play their roles to push the narratives of whatever above them.
    Aside from the vaccine that Trump took credit, there’s other things. I’ve recently looked back, and Trump was the one who sparked panic in March 2020 about “painful two weeks”, then initiated the mask maniac at EXACTLY APRIL FOOL’s day!!!
    The elites did make a fool of every single human being on the planet.

    • He shut down the flights from Europe too, a completely useless policy, because it was already everywhere. That then led European nations to shut down their borders with each other too, beginning with Denmark, which then triggered the complete panic.

  12. good post.
    Is it an age thing, you are still a young man, apparently we slow down as we age. As a slightly over weight, over 50, keto is a gift and the only way I have found to actually loose some weight, 15kg. Put it all back on again, but at least there is a way…

    • >the only way I have found to actually loose some weight

      Find me some obese elderly Okinawans. They all have “high carbohydrate” diets.

      Keto just slowly kills you, the link to high mortality has been shown.

      • To be fair, there are almost definitely race differences in carbohydrate metabolism. East Asians seem to have the greatest tolerance for carbs presumably as an adaptation to eating so much rice.

        • Sure. Australian aboriginals seem bad at metabolizing carbohydrates.

          But LSWMs are perfectly capable of it. They just prefer to eat meat and look for some diet that encourages them to eat more of it.

          • What would your advice be to a fellow Dharma-nerd who’s found eating meat the most difficult of all vices to leave behind? Ever since I can remember, I had no interest in any meal without meat. I also have weird synchronicities relating to it like a sister who isn’t capable of eating meat.

          • When I realized animals have to be killed for me to eat meat, I stopped eating meat at age 10 and never really gave it any second thought. According to the Buddha, the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion.

            There isn’t really any point to discussing most things with people who eat meat. Eating meat is very tamasic. It insulates the person who eats it, from having to understand the nature of reality. It’s like alcohol in this sense.

            While you eat meat, you are dominant, you dominate other lifeforms. When you don’t eat meat, you grow to understand what it’s like to be on the other side of that equation.

            That is why it is so difficult for most adults who have always eaten other animals to stop doing so, especially for men.

            Once you stop eating meat for long enough, you will start to understand the nature of reality. And that’s exactly what you don’t want.

            You are human now, which is a rare opportunity to gain insight. If you can let go of the desire to dominate other lifeforms, including other humans, if you can empathize with the ones who are subordinated and abused, then it should be easier to lose the desire to eat meat.

  13. “Similarly, there’s a tendency LSWMs have, to declare everything they don’t like to be “woke”. Once “woke” is finally defeated, this means every societal problem is solved. But what is “woke” exactly? Woke is just exactly whatever it is that the low status white male you’re talking to happens to dislike. Big loud-mouthed black woman? Woke. Blue-haired they/them girl with amputated tits? Woke. Some academic who ties himself to a train to stop fossil fuel transports? Woke. Pride flag? Woke. Immigration? Woke. It’s all woke.”

    Not right here. Woke is what the left turned into after it switched from redistributionist/more traditionally socialist stances to the “identity” stance developed by USA’s academia. It is a meaningful concept, not least because many of those who are anti-woke were in favor of socialism (Low Income White Males)

  14. Agree on the pointlessness af arguing. I coould add some psychological perspectives on the pointlessness of argumentation, but you make the futility is sufficently clear with your examples.

    My current theory, inspired by Jung, is that as modernity has suffocated genuine religion from the everyday life in the west, our religious instincts attach to everything we do. So diets become religions worth fighting and dying for. Politics take on religious significance that makes opposing views unacceptable, because it is not issues at hand, but your beliefs about the world that are perceived as the issue.

    It is our cultural burden that we flow into the crusading/jihadist attitude when encountering opposition. Only when everyone is thinking the same way as me will it be possble to have peace on earth. Infidels must be subjugated, converted, and if that is not possible, killed, so that my point is vindicated. We want to be part of us, a tribe/flock, as we are herd animals. Us/them division energizes herd animals, so it is liberally used in advertising, for example. This herd mentality is rarely discussed, it has both light and dark aspects. We want to uphold a beief in freedom of will, so the herd-animal aspects of our behaviour are ignored.

    So we have two major invisible elephants in our field of action: herd-animal features and religious instincts. Both are currently culturally ignored, so they are also difficult to talk about. But basically, for a human to feel healthy and be capable of evaluating different viewpoints in a balanced manner, we need an experience of belonging to a group of other humans, and an experience of holiness. It feels risky to say this, but I think crusades broke something in the western religious consciousness, that we still have not been able to figure out. We are only enacting and amplifying the unhappiness upon everything we touch.

    • >My current theory, inspired by Jung, is that as modernity has suffocated genuine religion from the everyday life in the west, our religious instincts attach to everything we do.

      I never thought of this before, but it explains an awful lot.

  15. You inspired me to my new “Super-Season-Theory”.

    I declare the existence of Super-Seasons, which are simply overlapping longer season-cycles, than the normal season-cycle of one year. Similar to the sun, which has an 11 year base-cycle, an overlapping 22 year cycle, and some more supposed cycles even longer.

    And in the same way astronomers say that astronomical seasons have an astronomical winter (when days become shorter), and an astronomical summer (when days become longer), I say too:
    A Super-Season-Winter is then when the climate is cooling, and a Super-Season-Summer is then when climate is heating. Because it’s a total new field in science, nobody knows which Super-Season cycles the Earth has.

    Therefore any idea of a constant climate must be discarded, because Super-Seasons make it impossible to have a stable climate.

    You, Rintrah, are invited to falsify my new Super-Season-Theory. Prove that Super-Seasons can’t exist.

  16. I’ve heard this attributed to pattern matching logic – in the face of an overwhelmingly complex reality, the accepted narrative is the one that lines up with the most of their prior observations.

    In the case of the equality believers they’ve already been primed to notice oppression of minorities and climate shit from being effectively socialized to notice them since childhood, in the case of center left moderates they’ve been similarly conditioned to see in terms of things like civil liberties and media corruption, the futility of college, etc.

    If a narrative is their guiding light for decades, they are unlikely to change it, as that would require admitting they’ve made a huge mistake for decades and that they basically got tricked, which their egos won’t allow, so in the face of contradictory info they cling harder to the narrative rather than adapting it.
    Most do not have the ability to go through life with a relatively blank mental model of life and an eager willingness to admit to the limits of their own knowledge, so use of tribal narratives persists as the default.

    Further, a lot of social acceptance and support is contingent upon their conformity to tribal narrative. I for example would alienate many of the trumpists around me if I too greatly emphasized the ways in which a racist pagan feudalist like myself is different from them. This is not unlike you losing social grace among filthy equality believers for dissenting on the topic of race despite agreeing with the majority of their other positions.

  17. >>”“Wait!” You say. “I’m not a Trump supporter!” No that’s right. Above a 95IQ, a low status white male won’t openly admit to being a Trump supporter.”

    Wrong. Totally, 110% supported Trump – not because I wanted anything he particularly stood for but because I just wanted to break everything. And I sort of got that, too. Hopefully RFKjr can get in next.

  18. Someone asked Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche the following question on Twitter:

    “Interested to know how a hypothetical new variant that escapes non-neutralising antibodies and thereby causes greater virulence/harm to the host can outreproduce the prior variants that did not. Selection will work against them, right?”

    Thoughts?

    • The way I understand Geert now is that the increase in virulence would actually represent a competitive advantage under the current circumstances, at least in the *short-term*. I imagine it like this:
      The non-neutralizing antibodies are blocking the virus from spreading throughout the body of the vaccinees, which gives time for the killer T-cells to then kill infected cells. Since this reduces the duration/severity (?) of illness, such infected vaccinees also have less time/lower viral loads to infect others. This current type of protection therefore is detrimental for the expansion of the virus in the population.
      By becoming resistant to these non-neutralizing Abs, the virus can now spread more easily in the population again. Obviously, after a while this would cause large amounts of illness, which would end up reducing transmission again. So the waves would be rather short and then the virus would be eradicated (Geert also says that will be the end of the covid pandemic, i.e. by eradication). But currently more virulence would allow for a better replication in the population.
      I guess this applies to other possible mutations as well, e.g. mutations that supress the innate immunity (Radagast’s theory). The key point is that there is currently less virus circulating due to various types of immunity (natural, innate, incomplete from vaccines), and the virus will overcome this with more virulence to expand more again.
      Radagast please ban me if I got it wrong, I wouldn’t feel worthy of reading your blog if I still didn’t get the evolutionary dynamics right after reading about it for 2+ years kekw

      • I don’t know what resistance to non-neutralizing antibodies would look like. It seems to me that Spike mutations that would render some non-neutralizing antibodies useless would just open the Spike protein up for other non-neutralizing antibodies.

        On the other hand, I can think of plenty of ways in which the virus can overcome antibodies altogether: Serotypes, neurotropism and importantly, improved interferon antagonism. And it’s relatively easy to see how improved interferon antagonism would lead to a reproductive advantage: It just takes the immune system much longer to discover there is an infection, thus giving time for viral load to increase.

  19. I’ve looked into the matter somewhat but don’t have any defensible sense of whether climate change is real or hoax. What I do object to is the notion that sacrificing in order to give even more money to gov.com is gonna fix it (if indeed it is a problem). That is pure fucking farce.

  20. Maybe:

    By nature, we learn and socialize by mimesis (copying, immitating).
    Our brains also draw conclusions through experience and comparison.

    This law “in our members” makes it difficult to tell which desires are truly our OWN, which desires are MIMETIC (see Rene Girard), or a mix of BOTH.

    Speech, interaction, oral and written literature, all help us process our desires. The war of advertisements on us, poses an obstacle to that. Ads want us to remain in-fants ( = non-speaking) for ever. Today, everything has an ad aesthetic.

    “Mimetic desire” may be connected to “Status” which is a recurring theme here.

    Some striking examples of “mimetic desire” (some found in Literature) :
    1) the fruit in Genesis. Through lies, comparisons, status, the snake seeked to make it desirable.
    2) the ring in The Lord of the Rings.
    3) certain typew of woman, according to fashion (e.g. skinny; goth; high status; voluptuous; rare…). Mimetic desire works through show biz here, mostly.
    4) iPhones
    5) jogging
    6) jogging with headphones, smart-watches etc
    7) certain diets
    etc etc

    Mimetic desire leads to shortage; besides, rarity is a status-giver.

    Shortage leads to violence.

    Violence can be: arguing; bullying; physical; wild competition…

    The end can be an all-VS-all violence.

    Besides legal systems, there is also the scapegoating to avoid a total collapse. People will gladly resort to that.
    See how we (LSWM), and any group, can unite against a common enemy-scapegoat, and form stronger bonds through that.

    Recently, we saw the mimetic desire of vaccinating against covid.
    And the scapegoats that were the unvaccinated.

    There is no point arguing, whenever you see that the above are happening.

    Of course, the majority is usually bullying the minority, but the minority (e.g. unvaccinated) can also become violent.

    However, I think the minority often is just resisting, which can be healthy.

    Resistance (resisto = stand against), or suffering (suffero = lift a burden), means that you don’t indulge easily into the cycle of mimetic desire -> mimetic violence -> scapegoating…

Leave a Reply

The patients in the mental ward have had their daily dose of xanax and calmed down it seems, so most of your comments should be automatically posted again. Try not to annoy me with your low IQ low status white male theories about the Nazi gas chambers being fake or CO2 being harmless plant food and we can all get along. Have fun!

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.