This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Rotherham is in large part the reason I don't comment on this forum anymore.
I no longer believe in cross-ideological discussion. I no longer believe in good faith, or shared values in disagreement, or the merits of discourse.
There have been a million things like this lockdowns, vaccine passports, the summer of floyd, the millions of ancestral liberties stolen from us, a thousand tyrannies some more abstract, some more immediate, etc. , and for the longest time I tried to persuade people... but its concisely summarized by the fact that even after hearing about HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of white girls raped with the assistance of their own government... between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 girls age 11-17 in the affected cities...raped for days or even years on end... 11 year olds raped by 4 men who used bicycle pumped to widen their anal cavity even as they wept and cried out for help....
After explaining THAT, and that the government itself knew and covered it up, and let the perpetrators go free...
People will still hem and haw, and not accept violence RIGHT THIS SECOND is called for, and that we should feel anguish and moral scorn every second we're delayed by practical realities, eternally filled with fury, humiliation, and longing, with sharpened knives and hearts of hatred for the day of justice and vengeance.
People will here that... Up to a million girls by some estimates, from the core ethnicity, of not just a NATO power, but an Anglo power, the subject of the "special relationship", the motherland of the founding fathers... And then NOT say that violent revolution is called for. Not say that Oceans of blood are demanded. Not say That any not full of rage and passionate intensity are nothing worth.
That if the best lack all conviction, then they are not only not the best, they are not even the worst, but are instead worms in human flesh unworthy of life
This is what the west is now, old men and women telling raped children to shut up and not be racist.
And everyone has known this on both sides of the pond for at least 10 years, it came out under Obama, and it's still going on, and no US politician has called for the british government to be sanctioned, or arms supplied to british white nationalists.
And when I say this to people in conversation, they use discussion, discourse norms, "charity" and the usually hems and haws to dodge all responsibility to even experience rage at the injustice.
This isn't a result of a lack of dispassionate rationality, or lack of charity, if no one ascribed good intentions ever again til the end of time it would be too soon.
The problem isn't that we were intolerant, or uncurious, or too quick to ascribe to malice what was better ascribed to stupidity... It was all malice!
When a Detective asks a white five year old whether or not she consented to have sex with 10 pakistani men, its malice. When her social worker signs off on her "marriage" to one of them and even attends the wedding, it is malice. When councilmen and government bureaus cover for them and pressure any who tries to speak out, and sends special envoys to intimidate victims, It is malice. When police arrest the parents trying to rescue their own 9 year old daughters and don't even question the Pakistani men holding her, it is malice. When US politicians and media say nothing, and gladly bury the issue as this CONTINUES in one of it's closest allied countries, it is malice. When they suggest expanding immigration into their own countries after seeing the example of the UK, IT IS MALICE.
Rationality, politeness, tolerance, charity (personal and intellectual), the benefit of the doubt, everything that came out of Overcoming Bias, less wrong, Scott Alexander, and the old Motte...
All of it is as discredited as Yudkowsky's research into AI alignment that went nowhere and has no relation to the associational intuitive AI we got.
Our foes, the enemies of the west, they aren't biased, they aren't irrational, they aren't operating under different assumptions...Whether invader or traitor, they are simply evil.
And any who press the matter and assess their psychology won't find a rational soul with some cognitive biases, but will find the most depraved blends of cowardice, sycophancy, depravity, resentment, perversion, inferiority complexes and irrational hatred...
This Indian professor did an excellent lecture into the complete depravity that dominates Indian culture and psychology
And while Pakistani, islamic, and --according to at least several well thought of books and authors-- Classical Jewish psychology are all different, yet we find similar depravities and monstrosities of mental patterns that rule in cultures dominated by clannishness, low IQ, Sexual Resentment, minority inferiority complexes, Low trust or some combination of these and other depravities.
In a word nearly all cultures that aren't an immediate product of European Civilization, or East Asian Civilizations that more or less consciously copied it.
The entire project of this space is wrong... It is not the case that the madnesses of the modern world are caused by common universal cognitive biases, or poorly thought of philosophies that can be overcome, the way a conscientious high IQ Protestant with a good education might stop and think more closely and avoid a mistake.
The problems of the world are created by biologically twisted and totally culturally poisoned souls, and far from the Nature vs. Nature debate, these two feed off and reinforce each other as across generations inbreeding and other depraved cultural sexual practices have created a biological stock that cannot but be depraved, and that depraved biological stock cannot but pervert and reproduce depraved cultures.
And communist and progressive cultures select out the most twisted and unfortunate of a noble cultures biological stock, the most frayed ends of its cultural values, and then weaves these weak and stained strands of an otherwise healthy sheet, to create twisted and depraved subcultures and values that can replicate their depravity through the previously healthy stock.
Underperforming minorities in otherwise high performing cultures they 'empower' to tear down the high performance; unprincipled and narcissistic workers they elevate to regulate dynamic industries; ordinary perverts they organize into degenerate sexualities and conspire to wield them against healthy families, and grant them access to healthy children; and invaders from more depraved cultures they conspire to let in.
All of this is not a mistake, it's not an unintended consequence, it's not a cognitive bias or faulty premise... it is intentional. It is motivated by perverse resentful psychology, by resentment, status lust, and even more base lusts.
Our enemies are not mistaken, they are evil. They are evil from the core of their biology, culture, values, psychology, and sociology.
10s of thousands of UK muslims saw, knew and participated in the horror, and their wives and family knew, and they said and did nothing.
And 10s of thousands of leftist UK government officials conspired to cover it up.
This has happened to hundreds of thousands of white girls, possibly as many as a million... not because of a failure of charity or tolerance or curiousity or to ascribe good motive... but because of a failure to simply identify evil. To categorically and ruthlessly declare enemies and vow hatred.
A complete and total failure to resort to violence, ethnic conflict, vendetta, rage, hatred, fury, illegality, and ruthlessness.
"Charity" is now a concept fully discredited.
And while one might try to protest that there's a difference between intellectual charity and charity to migrants or christian charity which has ever preached nothing but forgiveness to these unforgivable monsters... I don't think there is.
I think the idea of intellectual charity uses the word "charity" accurately. And is thus fully discredited.
If you had given your suspicion that this would happen, and described the 3rd world psychology that would perpetrate this or the progressive psychology that would allow it to happen, and willingly enable it... There is not a "Rationalist" or "Post-Rationalist" space that would not have censored you, called you "uncharitable", or argued that that is obviously not the case and no one could be so morally mistaken.
But the racist grandfathers, 14 year old boys, 4channers, White Nationalists, prison Nazis, they could have and did tell you INSTANTLY. They would, and did, predict exactly this and described exactly the 3rd world psychology that would commit it, and described exactly the perverse sexual acts that would be committed, and describe exactly the progressive/communist values that would cover for it, and described exactly the broken conservative, aging white boomer reaction to it, and the minority ethnic interests that would enable it and openly advocate for it.
And they would have said Nigger, Towelhead, Turd-people, Pajeet, Cuck, Faggot, Race-Traitor, kike, cunt, and all the rest... And this would have accurately and succinctly conveyed the depth of depravity, treason, and moral approprium under discussion.
And they would have never been allowed to say as much here, and there would have been no way to convey the underlying idea.
The Truth, and the actual reason it is true, could not be conveyed, in RATIONALIST spaces that claim to only value the truth... Because we don't value reason or the truth... We value politeness and discussion, and the truth has been allowed to go to hell because of it.
If any critical mass of people here or in other rationalist spaces actually valued the truth above politeness we would rationally immediately ditch all the speech norms of rationalist spaces and adopt those of 4Chan.
Where everyday you could have seen exactly this discussed, predicted, and parallels drawn to comparable things happening across the west.
But the Motte won't, because the Motte doesn't value the truth that highly, but rather values endless self justifying discussion for its own sake.
But to summarize all that in more honest and truthful language... The language of the future. The language of ACTUAL truth, rationality and honesty
TL;Dr
Hundreds of thousands of white girls have been raped in the UK, and are almost certainly being raped across the many countries of the west because you are faggots, cucks and race traitors who value you failed cuck discussion norms far more that the truth. Failed discussion norms taught to you by failed jews like Yudkowsky and Alexander who openly admit their ritualized cuckoldry and sexual depravity. In this you are a microcosm and exact continuation of the failed morality and intellectual norms that have led the west to this exact moment.
Charity is dead, she was a traitorous whore who could never have suffered enough.
Hatred alone is the truth, the light, and the way.
To give offense in and of itself is to drive towards the truth.
And that which cannot be said with the fury of an outrageous insult, that which does not wound its listener, and tear asunder all but the strongest social bonds and friendships, anything that can be """tolerated""" even if not agreed to, is invariably a lie, and is nothing worth.
Any light produced without heat is an illusion, a trick cast on the wall, a fire in a film that illuminates only what the director chooses and warms nothing. Real productive though, real productive discussion builds heat to intolerable levels and then combusts, burning away the lies in it's warming light, and injuring or killing the liars who crawled amongst their tools of darkness.
I wish that if instead of reading Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality or Rationality from Ai to Zombies whilst I was in school, that I had read the Turner Diaries or other far right ethnographic works
I was going to treat this like a spicy polemic, post another cute response, argue that discussion is worthwhile and I don‘t mind 4chan norms etc, but then I had a frightening thought: what if you‘re serious? Truth is hate, so you start spilling innocent blood. On the off chance that you mean it, and you think that people will go along with your indiscriminate violence, I‘m just saying: I won‘t. No matter what the woke have done, you‘d have to die first.
More options
Context Copy link
When was the last time you went on 4chan? If you have spent a day on /pol/ you have spent a decade there. Nothing changes. Its boring.
As much as I love 4chan and think it serves an important function in the internet ecosystem, its cultural norms are not conducive to truth-seeking or constructive discourse. Any degree of serious investment in an issue is seen as evidence of being a “tryhard”; any post longer than a paragraph is likely to be met with a “tl;dr faggot”. (This admittedly varies somewhat from board to board.)
It also attracts a lot of “I only failed the math test because I was too lazy to show my work” types - underachievers who chronically overestimate their own intelligence and their level of domain expertise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ok, but are you really engaging in discourse for its "merits"? That's like saying you have sex for the health benefits.
I generally have no problems conversing with people who hate me, who want me dead, who would prefer to see that which I hold dear wiped from the face of the earth (and in fact I would have noticeably fewer conversations if I had such limits in place). I'm not in it to change minds; I'm in it for the love of the game. (And I imagine that you are too, given your prolific posting history.)
More options
Context Copy link
Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible. Banned for 3 days. The rest is details.
Yes, this is explicitly a token banning. For all your complaining, you do mostly stick to our discussion norms, minus some name calling and weak manning. At least one moderator prefers to not moderate people when they are clearly asking for it. At least one moderator is sympathetic to the point and points out that we do allow the argument to be made that argument is useless. I've had this conversation with other users in the past: sometimes it seems like conflict theory is actually right, and that's something we have to consider if we claim to be open to considering all arguments.
I have a different approach: moderation is driven by user sentiment, you've accumulated many reports, and I try to give people (including you) what they want. As this is a mod message, I set aside the substance of your post without comment, except those portions in which you directly criticize this space:
This raises a question: why are you commenting on this forum now? You have a history of doing it well, and then doing it poorly, and then mostly stopping. Why are you back? Welcome back! Would you be willing to post some good stuff again?
You're mistaken, though it is an easy mistake to make. Let me ask you something silly--do you dance? Specifically, are you a classically trained ballerina, or do you know any? If you spend much time around ballet studios, you will see an interesting phenomenon where little girls (and, occasionally, boys) show up with a dream. They love to dance, because they saw a ballerina do something amazing and beautiful. But real, recognizable ballet is pretty tough, on par with very high level gymnastics, and most people aren't really cut out for it. From ten classes of fifty toddlers in tutus a school might hope to produce one girl capable of dancing corps in a national production. And so along the way each aspiring ballerina reaches a point where she realizes that no matter how much she might enjoy dancing, this is not the dancing for her. This is hard on the ego, so a very common way of stopping ballet is to join a different dance club--pop dance, modern dance, stuff people will say they "prefer" when really what they prefer is not needing 40+ hours per week of effort to excel in their particular sphere.
Suppose one of these girls switches to a "contemporary dance" studio. She generates an argument--"ballet is so hidebound and pedigree-obsessed! It's stupid. In contemporary dance I can express myself without all these hurdles, all these rules and traditions and obstacles."
"Okay," replies the ballet world. "That was always allowed."
But then the girl shows up at a production of the Nutcracker and demands equal time on stage with the ballerinas. She will not be dancing ballet, but she is tired of all the attention ballerinas get for this stupid annual tradition of dancing to a nonsensical Christmas plot.
What should the ballet company say to her?
Kulak, the point of the Motte is not to change the world, or to change politics, or even to change anyone's mind. It's performance art: we're here to dance ballet. If you do not wish to dance ballet, then you may dance other dances in other places. The dance of this space is not, and has never been, truth; it is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Truth is an interesting and important part of that, but so are norms of politeness and, yes, inclusion. Our most vocal critics insist that we are already where you want us to be--that we are a hive of scum and wrongthink, several zillion witches in sheep's clothing. You seem to think the opposite, that we are are a hive of... priss and wrongthink, I guess?
But we deserve neither such praise nor such censure (as Jane Austen once put it).
It is my hope that the world be more like the Motte: more open to the truth, and more able to discuss ideas openly, however so much people may disagree. I cannot force people to be better, smarter, or less evil. I usually cannot even persuade them to be so. Barely am I able to even change the minds of my own children, now that they are adults.
But I know the rules to this particular dance, and I can still dance it.
People once thought that all light was fire--that all light consumed. But my house today is brighter than any pharaoh's court, and it burns not. What we do here is performative art, but art is an act of hope, and hope can, sometimes, change the world. Slowly, as they say--then all at once. The Motte is not supposed to change the world, except to the extent that it serves as a model for what the world could be.
I am sympathetic to your conflict-theory takes. I worry that what we do here will not--maybe cannot--be enough. But it is all I can actually do. I am neither soldier nor politician nor billionaire nor celebrity. The people who come here to do what we do, come here because it is what we want to do. It is the dance we wish to dance, however so hidebound it may be. We who maintain this space--this studio--this garden--are doing what we can do.
Go thou and do likewise.
I dont know what youll do with my opinion these days, but I note that I disagree. "I dare you punish me" (which, Im not sure thats what hes doing, but assuming it is) should be punished even if there is no underlying offense. That posture is part of the instinctive ape power toolset and gauges your capability. To ban him is to tell the truth to him and onlookers.
PS: What is up with the top-level post here (I am unable to get a direct link)? It says "Removed" but no modhat comment.
fwiw, my general posture is not "Don't moderate people who are asking for it." Quite the opposite. In this particular case, I thought @KulakRevolt's post was borderline and was not inclined to give him the "bravely speaking the TRUTH YOU CAN'T HANDLE!!!!" persecution cred he was jonesing for.
More options
Context Copy link
He'd deleted all his comments before according to one of the mods, then showed up, did some trolling, and deleted them all again.
Or maybe that was another one. There were an awful lot of oddly reactivating accounts last week...
More options
Context Copy link
It looks like that user went through and deleted all their own comments.
Ah, I was just confused because its the same wording then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Kulak is themottes greatest son. How dare you ban him
More options
Context Copy link
The steady pressure of cold electrons coming out of your wall outlet is a neat trick of civilisation, like cut and packaged meat without fur or claws or eyes, but something, somewhere, still had to burn for it.
...except when it comes from falling water or splitting atoms.
If we accept a broad enough definition of burning (I'm for the usable-energy-converted-to-entropy one here) - something burned to get the water up first, and to fuse the atoms we proceed to split.
But was that the definition @naraburns was using?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How did the water rise to begin with? Where did those larger atoms come from? Burning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I weep for those hydrogen atoms that were forced to combine into helium, probably without their consent, and for that mass that were converted to energy to provide me with my civilized existence. Let this be an acknowledgment we all live from the energy that once was the mass belonging to those native hydrogen atoms.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, it's a metaphor, metaphors are like that. But it seems pretty clear to me that the closer the asymptote of consumption efficiency approaches the hard limits of entropy, the better off we are.
Likewise: it's easy to notice (or Notice) that there are a host of fairly serious problems that civilized discourse has (at least so far) failed to solve. It's harder to notice the ones it has solved, as they are by definition solved and, so, rarely even enter into our consciousness. "Burn it to the ground" is not a solution; at best, it may result in a different set of problems. At worst, well, it potentially only makes things worse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh come on. I post 10x milder takes from the other side and get banned for 90 days instead.
Kulak drives by and throws out hot takes. You get in the muck with people to spit hot takes. Very different.
More options
Context Copy link
Indeed. And should Kulak post such hot takes as frequently and fervently as you, the bans will escalate in similar fashion. However, given his history and the content of this post, I do not expect him to come right back with another.
We'll see!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Considering this response totally separately from the inciting post above, I found it beautiful. The framing is thought-provoking and the prose glitters. I'm definitely going to steal that line about "my house vs pharaoh's court" for my own vocabulary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And here I thought it was because you got a job as a self-employed writer.
It's certainly not like this community has changed much over the last decade. In so much that this community consisted of cucks, faggots, and race traitors, it certainly never stopped you from comfortably nesting here and regularly returning like birds of a feather. The Rotherham abuses are more than two decades old, have been talked about for more than a decade, which is to say they largely predated this forum. It never stopped you from joining or staying or casually shooting the breeze with your peers, those cucks and faggots and race traitors whose company you preferred rather than not coming around again and again.
No, what changed was that you struck it big(ish) with substack, and now you're in the same social-economic context of self-employed persons everywhere, particularly those who start to make money from their hobbies: there is no such thing as a paid holiday.
Any time you spend posting in your old hobby jaunt for free is time you're not spent producing content for your patrons and sponsors. Moreover, they are paying for the schitk, and you are under the economic pressure to conform. Fortunately the schtick isn't as an actual revolutionary of any sort- heavens knows you've never taken the sort of stands at personal risk you've demanded of others if they were true to their beliefs- but that's the charm. No one expects you to, anymore than anyone expects the old man at the fireplace who lectures the young vikings on the virtues of bravery and sacrifice and dying in battle rather than growing old and tending to the fire. It's comforting and interesting and if it ever gets inconvenient, the easily accessible irony can be used to dismiss the messenger.
But it does require writing to keep the audience of paying consumers who would listen to the words of a man who chose the company of cucks and faggots for a decade. The requires a regular grind for content, all the more so because, what, 10% goes to substack and its certainly not-Jewish founders? If you write elsewhere- like here- for free, you aren't being paid for it.
It's a rough life, being a cog in a not-at-all-Jewish capitalist media machine. Who can blame you for being led by the profit-motive elsewhere?
More options
Context Copy link
@Corvos See, this is exactly what I was talking about.
Can’t argue with that. Although he’s fundamentally right that if we (the British) had cared a bit less about manners and put the BNP (British National Party) in charge 20 years ago, many thousands of young girls would have gone un-tortured and un-raped. And not one of my throat-clearing, that-awful-man friends and family will admit their own responsibility for all this.
I don't disagree at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Even if I agree with you that the West has fallen and billions must die (which to be fair I do)... I don't know how to put this but this just ain't it, chief. This is just a wall of brain-hijacking zealot rhetoric. You have allowed a higher power to overwrite your save file, it is literally visible when it speaks through you:
In other words, everyone who does not
reblogupdoot the issue du jour is trash.This is where you sneak in obligatory tribute to said higher power, I assume, I actually do not understand the relation here.
I'm away from home and can't ask Claude to flip your madlibs around into liberal negrolatry circa 2020, so that will be left as an exercise for the reader. The last sentence can even be left as is.
Sir, this is a Wendy's. Illusion or not, this is the entire, explicit point of this place, getting mad at this feels like that "I entered a thread full of things I do not like, and now I am mad. How did this happen to me?" meme. The fact that you're mostly getting measured responses instead of TL;DRs or "your hands are shaking btwbeit"-type dismissals only further proves this point; I even suspect that you know this and chose to post this here exactly so that people would actually 'engage' with you.
Since you use the same playbook the wokes do to get me to side with you on at least some of the issue - I agree that things like Rotherham conclusively prove that the Bri'ish cannot be saved. But in this particular case it seems quite beside the point. This brand of
seethevacuous righteous fury isn't picky regarding the exact excuses to unleash it, and contrary to what you seem to think, it actively dampens your point instead of strengthening it.More options
Context Copy link
I was going to reply with a comment explaining how and why Rotherham was ‘allowed’ to happen, but the truth is that - as @Amadan writes below - this comment isn’t really about that. You’ve written the same thing fifty times about every issue of the day, each time calling for oceans of blood, spilled by and from people who are not you.
You write evocatively on one of your most recent blogs about your journeys through a dying Anglo-Canada, illustrated with pictures of Empire Day and anecdotes about finding lavishly illustrated memoirs and regimental histories for a dollar or two in dusty antiques stores. I find it hard to understand why you cannot draw a connection between this and the posts you keep making.
Anglo civilisation is dead because it lost its vitality, it gave up. Everything else is a symptom. And I may be just another failed and depraved Jew, like Scott or Yud, but I don’t think that hate, no matter how much impotent rage stands behind it, is going to bring that back.
It, along with the rest of the wst, was being systemically deconstructed for nearly a century, that's not "just giving up".
We can agree to disagree, but I don’t think (over) a century of decline in almost every facet of communal identity and purpose can be laid solely at the feet of critical theory, honestly.
Yeah, I think that was a relatively new measure that was deployed. But westerns elites were whinging about the structures of family, religion, and tradition getting in the way of their grand plans for a long time. Why should I believe all the actions taken to debase them were organic and accidental?
Consider this: as the Islamists marched into Homs and the SAA abandoned their uniforms and melted into the public, it would be safe to say they had been defeated. It would also be safe to say they had given up. If they had fought the way they had a decade ago, Assad would steal be in power - at least in part of Syria. “Systematic deconstruction” is only effective if nobody really cares to stop it, and that is what I mean by giving up. There are always anti-civilizational forces.
Since this is the Rotheram thread, why not consider that instead? Did the fathers who got arrested for trying to rescue their daughters "just give up", or were they systemically sabotaged by the authorities that swore to protect them? It, and the "lost vitality" of the west, wasn't just an act of mere giving up, nor was it a lost fight under the law of the junge where the strongest prevail. It was a deliberate enemy action by the stewards of society, who helplessly raise their hands when you come with your grievances to them, and come down on you like a tonne of bricks when you dare to do something about it yourself.
In your analogy it would like the officers decided either to surrender, or to deliberately give commands that benefit the enemy, and then blaming the lost war on the grunts.
You’re overfixating on like a handful (if that) of fathers. The great majority of these girls had no fathers involved at all, they came from broken homes. Most people just didn’t care about them, didn’t want to rock the boat, didn’t care to stand up for anyone.
OK. What about the mothers?
You‘re diffusing responsibility too much. Whether ‚most english‘ cared is besides the point. Some people whose job it was to care (police, social workers, teachers+ parents ) failed. Apathy is not sufficient to explain this group‘s behaviour. It‘s one thing not to care about preserving victorian england, it‘s another not to care about your daughter‘s rape or not to care about doing your job at all. I presume that‘s why kulak and arjun suspect enemy action or at least ideological blinders.
More options
Context Copy link
No, I'm not, it's just an example, and the fact that the others had no fathers is irrelevant. You can't say people just "gave up" when there are clear examples of the ones not giving up being punished. There's many more such examples throughout the last century. For how long was all manner of degeneracy and blasphemy allowed and promoted, and all the elites insisted there's nothing that can be done about it because "muh free speech", and how fast did they crack down on speech the moment dissidents started winning in that arena? How much racism was cracked down on since the sixties, and how quickly it was suddenly allowed an promoted when it was aimed at white people?
This is a general trend, and there's no way it can be portrayed as "just giving up".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not really. Loads of people cared. They just weren’t in charge, and the state and the Cathedral levelled everything at them that they could.
Some people cared in a country of more than fifty million people, sure. But it was always a small minority of the ruling class. Britain’s social, economic and political hierarchy is more centralized than any comparable nation except, maybe, France. A handful of iconoclasts like Powell were infamous precisely because of their rarity.
Even Germany had more widespread opposition to mass immigration in the 1970s and 1980s (and from Anatolia rather than Mirpur) than Britain did. The Germans came reasonably close to enforcing large scale deportations of guest workers briefly under Kohl. Sweden is arguably the closest analogy, but most there arrived as refugees rather than economic migrants, and over a shorter period of time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I sometimes wonder if most of us simply intellectualise things for no reason besides stimulation. I do wish you crosspost in the future. As an aside, I remember talking to you during covid and never expected you to be a popular poster on Twitter and Substack. As for the Rotherham situation, I posted about it too and it is a deplorable thing, you cannot take up arms about an issue when the state has a monopoly on violence. People are completely aware of what heterogeneity does in society but care more about justifying it with stats than actually learning about it from them.
Kulak, I hope this is not the last time you interact with us, if it is, thanks for the stuff you wrote here, a lot of it was good, better than what I write.
More options
Context Copy link
I largely agree with some of what you've written, but not all of it. But it's interesting! In a way, it feels good to read, as it's rare to see somebody sharing what they actually think and feel without excessive self-censorship. But I don't think you've found the truth. Some of what you say get the symptoms right, but the causes are really elusive.
Let me start out by warning you that you care too much. Of course, we need people who care, as nihilism is a danger, but those on the left who are the most insane and the least logical tend to care too much. Once you start a moral war against something, you're almost always on a bad path. All the social movements causing these problems are ran by people with strong moral convictions, and it has come to the point where I instinctively avoid moralizers (I still have high standards for taste, though). I don't think it's a coincidence that you're angry about sexual abuse of children, as it's one of the worse things that people can think of. But all political discussions degrade into accusing eachother of the few things which carry the highest social stigma (which at the moment is pedophilia, nazism and racism). Is this not the same fear of immorality and social judgement which makes people act absolutely crazy in the first place?
You hear one side of the news, and they repeatedly confirm the same thing. But "your enemies" are repeatedly told another another side of the story, even if it's one fabricated by the media. Even if the media turns out to be wrong in the end, only we are getting the updated information, other people have already moved on to other things, and the memory of who was wrong in the past (because the media told them) remains unchanged. All sides feel like they're on a streak in which they were right right every time. "Once again the criminal was migrant!" "Once again there was racist intent!" "Once again the early life section confirms they are jewish!" "Last-state capitalism claims another victim!"
All of these issues are much bigger than just migration. Some will tell you that the western world was subverted. Some will tell you that people are becoming "cucks" because Testosterone levels are decreasing. Some will tell you that the marxists are to blame for this, others will tell you it's the media, others will tell you that it's a rich elite, others will tell you that it's the result of an ideology which first too over western education. Others will tell you that good times create weak men, others will inform you that technology must result in weaking freedoms. Others will tell you that capitalism is to blame, others will tell you that materialism and the death of god is to blame. Others will tell you that it's due to increased social competition and that we're forced into the rat race. Others will blame Moloch, game theory and social dilemmas as they warn you not to hate the player but rather hate the game. Some speculate that ideologies have replaced religion, others that propaganda and marketing research has reached incredible levels and that we're creating superstimuli that humans cannot possibly resist. Finally, some say that weighting hurt feelings higher than problem-solving will be our doom.
Is this not a stat which goes something like "1 in 3 girls experience sexual harassment"? The threshold for that is very low now compared to the past. The rapes are the worst instances of this problem, it's not that 1 in 3 girls are literally raped.. Unless you count even grouping or a slap on the ass as rape. EDIT: Rotherham seems like a particularly bad case, and you might not have exaggerated here, my bad.
Somehow, the population has largely been spiritually defeated. We all think something like "We all ought to do something", but nobody wants to go first. But it won't make a difference even if a single person does something extreme, I think. As for those with convictions - do they fare much better? I see more conviction pushing for immigration than against it. I think it's because naivety, idealism and conviction correlate with one another.
I never bought into any of these things. I don't even see why you would, as the rational world is at odds with the natural world. Academia leans left, "rationality" is deeply materialistic, "tolerance" never made sense as a concept and these so-called intellectuals cannot even interpret Karl Popper correctly, much less think further than him (which is not even hard). Charity movements disgusts me, and not only because charities waste 90% of their money and exist as a guilt tax, not because they're not motivated by actual goodwill (thought they rarely are), and not even because they simply result in a kind of reverse eugenics which makes the problem that it's meant to solve even worse, but because doing math with qualia in a superficial manner is in terrible taste. In the first place, "suffering is bad" is a terribly stupid assumption which misses the problem. And people from all these spaces tend to think like Elon Musk does, and arrive at the conclusion that we need to mass-import indians. Western intellectualism disappoints me, I can barely respect the one-in-a-million. Not only do they not strike me as intelligent, they all seem to have a "number go up" mentality which conflicts with healthy living and subjective experience.
And it is like you said "The entire project of this space is wrong". It's not a question of intelligence, but of character.
They wouldn't succeed without massive support, though. What makes people watch the destruction of their culture in real time and go "Maybe I'm just over-reacting"? What makes somebody more afraid of being racist than of being murdered? Even if those who caused these effects were evil, the average person can't be said to be evil, and for every evil person behind the scenes, there's at least 99 normies cheering for them.
By the way, "sexual depravity" seem to correlate with intelligence. A lot of good things and bad things correlate, which is why "good" and "evil" aren't easy to cut in two. Intelligence also correlates with openness, which is why intellectual conversations easily enter areas that regular people find repulsive. But the feelings of disgust and the ability to think about things which repulse you are valuable.
Finally, the evil you can define still does not manifest clearly. You can fight against immigration, but that's a vague idea. You likely don't have concrete individuals to point your anger at. I think most people face this problem, they're angry but they only have vague targets to point the anger at. Speaking of anger, are you perhaps projecting your own frustration with yourself? You're angry at yourself for being unable to stop the problem, so you point this anger at us? Not that I blame you for this. (By the way, please don't do anything stupid)
Nobody really does. And you seem concerned not about falsehood but about the destruction of something you deem good. Society as a whole pretends to be partial while fighting for their own values. These two can co-exist, but only when people believe that their values will win on an even playing-field.
Finally, The Motte likely isn't allowed to value truth the highest, since they would get shut down if they got too much negative media attention. And without moderation of things like politeness, many users would simply leave, and we're not many people to begin with.
I think honestly we’ve made real convictions dirty words, often hiding behind rhetoric about nuance and tolerance and so on. A healthy culture has absolute convictions about itself and its place in the world. It doesn’t mince words in an attempt to curry favor with other people. It forthrightly declares that its ways are good, true, and right lives up to them and enforces them on others. Healthy Britain remade much( of the globe in a more western image — banning evil practices and forcing good practices, spreading her language and religion and folkways. They banned child prostitution in much of the globe and ending burning women on funeral pyres in India.
And this is exactly the rot, head down. We can’t talk about the reality of things happening in the world, or causes that we all intuitively understand but that are too impolite to say aloud. And therefore, no action can actually be taken. We can’t say that thug culture needs to be ended, or that Islam enjoins jihad and subjugation of infidels. We can’t say that maybe we shouldn’t be taking in millions with values inimical to our own values and pretending that they’ll assimilate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's hard for me to express my true feelings about this subject in words. Suffice to say, I'd very much like to see many people hang for this, and not just the rapists. Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way back for the UK at this point. I just hope some of the people responsible get their commuppence as the whole things comes crashing down.
More options
Context Copy link
That's a dumb thing to say bud, especially if you are going to follow through with it. Always be willing to engage, always be willing for dialogue. If someone starts talking about something you don't want to talk about, you be as nice as you can as you stumble over basic definitions or gish gallop by condescendingly explaining some pedantic mistake that has zero bearing on the issue at hand. Do it well enough and you can tie your enemies up in useless conversations for ages.
This is totally on point however, figuring this out is how I stopped getting banned all the time.
I'm curious about this—what sorts of truth do you think themotte can't handle, in favor of continued discussion? Feel free to circumlocute as much as you feel is needed, given the statement.
I could have attached examples from the motte of the behaviour I mentioned in the preceding paragraph, for example. But if you are prepared for circumlocution you already know what I mean don't you? When you value truth over politeness or continued discussion you have to accept that you will be offended - and not necessarily by the truth - because you will hear thoughts unburdened by the deception of palatability. If we valued truth over continued discussion the idea that I might prevaricate for any reason would be offensive.
Well, I said that specifically because your statement demanded it, not because I was especially worried.
I think maintaining a place where continued dialogue can be had aids pursuit of truth. If one must accommodate one's tone in order to achieve that, it can certainly be worth it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which user were you when you got banned? Cuz it wasn't this one.
Yeah, it was back on reddit. It took me far too long to figure it out and I still forget it sometimes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I will agree with you up to a point. Almost everyone in the West has long since abandoned the dispassionate search for truth. The problem being that truth is unkind. Most of the truth is unkind. The narrative denies that there can be bad cultures and that some should be at least reformulated into something civilized. It denies that talent exists, that not everyone is smart enough or capable of doing anything they want. It denies that some behavior should be condemned because it leads to terrible outcomes not just for individuals but for civilization as a whole.
I no longer believe in democracy because frankly it seems to lead directly to this rot. The credo of democratic politics is “your ignorance is equal to my knowledge.” The votes of people who actually know things are swamped by the votes of people who form opinions from Twitter, Bluesky, instagram or Facebook. It’s the ultimate in feels over reals, in which the key to getting into office is to lie convincingly. At least with a monarch you can teach someone to look to facts and listen to experts who have earned the right to have influence.
But you realise that this is exactly what the left says about you, right? It doesn't mean you have to retreat into pure relativism, but sooner or later two 'dispassionate searchers for truth' are going to run into the issue that both of them are interpreting the same facts differently. Or that they are both naturally, legitimately interested in certain true facts that uphold their particular hobby horse and less interested in doing a deep dive on facts that contradict it. And that's before you get into the chaos that erupts when one man's 'legitimate inference' becomes another's 'obvious delusion', as has happened to me many times in both directions.
Ultimately we have never disproved Descarte's assertion that the only thing you know 100% for sure is that you yourself exist, and we have never discovered how to dispassionately turn an 'is' into an 'ought'. Post-modernism survives because its skepticism is backed up by history: different societies and different subcultures have held very different things to be obvious facts and very different people to be 'experts who have earned the right to have influence'. And these judgements are ultimately affected consciously or unconsciously by the interests of those making them.
Truth seeking is good, but you can't do it dispassionately and so you are going to have to exercise official, ideology-driven judgement at some point. You're going to decide who's an 'expert' and who's merely highly-educated and credentialed. You're going to have to decide what's a fact, what's a controversial assertion backed up by insufficient evidence, and what's a lie. Doing that is good (again, I'm not a relativist) but you should be clear-eyed about what you're doing and you should be prepared to hold onto power while you do it.
I too am pro monarchy, not because you can teach them to listen to an expert but because you can't. Mostly, our kings and queens in the UK have been slightly thick, old-fashioned, hunting-and-shooting types who aren't particularly interested in what the weirdo with the sheepskin is saying. That's not always good, but it gets you through most of the 'you have be really clever to think something that stupid' crises we have today.
And I’d argue we both have a point. On both ends we have the dumbest possible people who show up to vote, people who can’t handle their own finances deciding on what they want in the budgets for the government to be like. Or people deciding foreign policy who can’t find the countries in question on a map. Monarchy at least allows for the experts to handle the issue under the direction of someone raised from birth to know how to run a government.
Actually existing executive monarchies tend to avoid the kinds of absolutely brain dead ideas democracies are a bit more prone to(socialism, getting in pissing matches with the USA, etc), but also underperform comparable countries unless they have oil.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are definitely leftists who know things, they're not the biggest problem with democracy! A democracy off Matt Yglesias and Ezra Kleins would have different problems from today's democracy, and the biggest problem with democracy is all of the low-information median iq voters, half of whom are left wing.
I wasn’t just pointing at leftists, a right-winger can do just as much damage. Ignoring the Holocaust, Hitler ran Germany into the ground and by all accounts Mussolini wasn’t much better.
My point is that the low-information median iq voters are far from perfect, but they tend to be instinctively low-c conservative and have to deal with the realities of life at some level. To really cock things up you need a smart guy with a terrible idea. It wasn’t the median iq voters who came up with One Billion Americans, Greed Is Good, or Socialism.
I think you can cock things up well enough with a dumb guy with terrible ideas. We get close to that with Corbyn.
I was never sure how bright Corbin was, because on the left you only read hagiographies and on the right only vitriol. But in any case I consider Corbin essentially a delivery mechanism for Karl Marx.
Corbyn’s personal intelligence is interesting. He was born to a high school math teacher and an electrical engineer, which suggests a good inheritance, and he went to grammar school, but as the press regularly repeated, he got 2 Es at O/GCSE level and then dropped out. From his speeches and writing, I think he was of pretty middling intelligence. It was quite interesting in that all three of the leading triumvirate under Corbyn - himself, McDonnell and Abott - were all academically very unimpressive.
As for socialism in general, I don’t think Marx was particularly intelligent. Hegel was, Lenin certainly was, Stalin probably was. Marx? Not really, his writing doesn’t have that spark.
Really? He wrote a social critique that resonated for centuries, I thought that he would be obviously intelligent. I had always understood that the more thick-headed elements of Marxism came from Engels and the Communist Manifesto. But reading at least a bit of Marx in the original is on my to-do list, so I’ll find out for myself someday.
More options
Context Copy link
Calling Corbyn "dumb" on my part may not have been fair, but I think he's about as low-end as you're realistically going to find among leaders of major parties in western democracies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can if and only if you agree on some values. If you want X to happen, then you 'ought' to take action Y. You need assumptions to have any truth at all (for the same reason you need axioms to have mathematics), and you need subjective values in order to rank possible future states and deem one of them better than the other.
The only problem here is that people are naive and rely on theory which only gets the first-degree consequences correct "I don't want birds to suffer, so I'm going to feed them", yeah but now there's more birds to feed, and more suffering if you stop giving them food (simple example)
In a naive way, that's true. But when has a successful post-modernistic society existed? As far as I know, the answer is "never". A culture which has a coherent set of values and beliefs, and strict social norms to avoid various bad spirals from occuring, will be successful. A culture which knows that no culture is more correct than any other ... Well, such a culture will probably destroy itself. And by its own logic, this is fine, for it's no better than what it replaces, right?
I disagree, but you need something similar. I don't subscribe to any ideology, but I do have my own preferences. Whoever thinks you can succeed in life by being completely neutral is simply wrong. Biases exist in the first place because they aid survival.
Anyway, I trust reality, by which I mean that if a culture does X and it's nice to live in said culture, then said culture should continue to do X. Japan has strict borders, and Japan is perhaps the most civilized population in the world, so no other country has the right to tell them to open their borders.
This happened because we assume that "expert" means "nice credentials", that "intelligent" means "educated", and because appearance is starting to have more value than substance (Real nerds tend to have worse social skills, but now even Tech has become a normie space in which connections and good verbal skills are king. In fact, "wokism" seems to correlate with verbal skills and social skills, but most great scientists have been sort of autistic and controversial)
Will write a longer reply later if I can manage, but for now:
Yes, that’s what I meant by saying that you can’t dispassionately go from is to ought. You have to insert some values of your own and then you’ve lost everyone who doesn’t share those values.
Yes. Any culture that is successful must rely on a set of agreed beliefs that cannot be proved from first principles. It’s a cult, in a good way. A shared delusion. AFAIK this is what post-modernism says also. And once a hostile outsider applies skepticism to those values and isn’t beheaded for their presumption, the whole edifice crumbles.
By idiology I mean a set of beliefs and values.
IMO it happened because genuine intelligence and knowledge gives more wiggle room for justifying your preferred delusions. I have known a lot of genuine experts. In my experience they were often much more confident about much stupider things than normies.
No pressure! Reply if you want and whenever you want
What I meant to say was "It's not just that we don't know how, it's that it's impossible". I don't subscribe to the idea that no humans have figured this all out yet, for I pretty much have. But the conclusion is that humans (myself included) are stupid. I believe that things work out because of human instincts and the laws of nature, and not because we actually know what we're doing.
I think this perspective comes from the modern belief that everything must be justified or proved in order to be correct. I simply don't impose such rules on myself (and reality itself doesn't either). What I want to convery here is that preferences and beliefs aren't "illusions" in the sense that they're false or fake, and that there's no unique, more "real" underlying reality to discover. I'm "calibrated" for the world through my DNA (darwinism), through a process which made us to adapt to reality itself in a sense, so I will simply trust this process.
Anyway, it seems that beliefs influence reality. That your confidence influences your success (and that this applies even if you're entirely alone). Even if a belief is false, it may influence reality and become true. In other words, a belief seems to be an act of creation, making it "real".
I do have those, but everyone must have them, or else they simply don't live very long (since they don't prioritize future states in which they are alive). Even the belief that beliefs are bad is a belief, so there's no easy way out.
A lot of highly educated people don't seem all that intelligent to me, they just seem good at memorizing things. That said, I'd prefer it if people simply stopped believing that they were smarter than nature (including their own nature). There's so many things about life which are unintuitiv, one of them is eustress, and not knowing about it has caused a lot of damage (helicopter parenting etc). But there's a lot more. Thing seem to go better when one is not so antagonistic towards existence, nature and oneself
Oh, sorry. I agree with you on most of this. In fact, it's basically what I wanted to say originally.
OP wrote that the West has abandoned "the dispassionate search for truth" and I wanted to say that such a search is impossible. You have to put something of yourself in, and that will colour what you get out. This is true at both a personal and a societal level. I differ slightly from you in that I do believe there is some objective reality in the moral dimension, some true "oughts"; God knows them, we don't, and we won't understand until he shows us personally. But that's not going to happen in this life so it's not super relevant to actual interactions between people.
I would call this the standard post-modernist worldview. It works fine for a confident person or a confident civilisation, but the problem is that it devolves when you have a second actor who doesn't share the majority of your beliefs. Since there is no "dispassionate search for truth" that will inevitably lead those people to the same place, it's not necessarily possible for A to justify their beliefs to B in a manner that B finds convincing. So you end up in a power struggle where both sides use the incentives available to them to bend the other to their perspective. Even in liberalism or post-modernism this occurs on the meta level - both sides must agree on the base principle of liberalism in order to agree to disagree on the concrete issue.
Again, I agree with much of this. But, if you will forgive the standard dig, I presume you aren't living in a cave wearing furs from something you killed. Which parts of our society are an improvement over nature and which are not is hugely contested: you have the degrowthers, the anti-vaxxers, the Liver King, the socialists, the anti-feminists, etc. all criticising different aspects of our society for not being an improvement over nature while fervently defending other parts.
Ah, I see! And "You have to put something of yourself in" is a great way to put it! I do think that there's an objective reality, but that it cannot be described or modeled. If I make a mental model of you, that model would reveal more about myself than it would reveal about you. As for oughts, there seems to be actions which bring better results than others. Any process which is not sustainable will eventually cease, so that which wishes to stay in existence must play by certain rules, or make sure not to step too much out of line for too long. I don't really believe in something like morality, but my personal preferences looks a lot like what people call morality, and finally, it would be bad taste of me if I attacked your moral beliefs since it wouldn't benefit you.
Is that so? I don't like post-modernists though. Do you think they understand any of these things? Average people who are post-modernists likely don't know about axiomatic systems or the incompleteness theorems. Human perception is very malleable, they got that much right, but they want reality to be malleable as well, and they think we can achieve this if we simply agree that we can. We could agree that people were equal, and that would largely succeed, but IQ test results would remain entirely unchanged.
Like spiritualists say, everything we need to be happy is already inside of us. We have incredible power over our own reality. We only really need to deal with objective reality enough that we can meet physical needs like nutrition and shelter, which is quite easy. But treating reality like it's malleable is just immaturity, for social methods like "If I just complain enough, I will get my way" only work on other people, they do not work on reality. And treating reality like fantasy is dangerous, it very quickly leads to ruin.
I don't think the issue is necessarily diversity of though, for that actually works well to the extent that everyone is self-sufficient. When people are "enough in themselves", it doesn't matter much if there's other people who also have their own worldview. It's only when people are incomplete that they need other people to be coherent enough that the sum of whoever is present exceeds one person who can live independently. Of course, shared language and such is highly useful, but the more mature and developed you are, the bigger distances you tend to be able to cope with (which is why the old internet used to have many wildly different people co-existing somewhat well, while the modern internet is intolerant of differences as disagreement immediately results in drama and hurt feelings)
But what OP meant was probably "People are now valuing feelings over correct information, and their mental defense mechanisms kick in when they encounter evidence that their precious beliefs aren't workable, and they get hostile towards you if you cause them to reflect on themselves or if you ask them questions which makes them comfortable" and I can only agree with this. What he said wasn't exactly true, but what he meant still carries a good point.
While this is true, you can increase the tolerance for differences in beliefs by about 10 times by focusing on terminal values. For instance, two groups might be in a conflict, both claiming "We're civilized, while you're uncivilized!" very well, but they're in agreement in this: Both groups prefer civilized behaviour to uncivilized behaviour. They merely need to learn how to communicate better to resolve this issue. The reason communicating (talking about things) can resolve conflicts in the first place is probably because most peoples terminal values are highly similar, or because it allows people to understand eachothers perspective in a way which they can respect (in other words, it doesn't conflict with their core values, as that would likely be irreconcilable). Mentally immature people get triggered and misunderstand others quite easily, over minor perceived differences which tend to not be differences at all (at least not as you get closer to terminal/core values)
I don't think they're honest, even if they don't realize it. They will likely criticize the aspects in which they are at the bottom rather than at the top (meaning that they just want more power). And to be honest, I might enjoy society better if I was in the top 1% myself, or if I felt more compatible with the modern society than I do now. But besides a bit of technology (Computers, virtual reality, dishwashers, washing machines, driers, ovens, fridges and freezers, medicine and the ability to communicate over long distances with voice, video and files) I don't really need any aspects of the modern society. The modern society fulfills my physical needs better, but not my psychological needs. I like civilized people more than uncivilized people, but civility now seems to be decreasing as society gets more modern. In any case, what's important to me is peoples actual character. I've recently read some of the guodian bamboo strips from about 500 BC, and they resonate better with my own values than modern ideologies do. So civility does not necessarily require modernity nor scientific thinking.
I wrote quite a lot here, but I think we agree on most of it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sir, this is a Bulgarian Turnip-farming Monastery Debate Club. You write as if you expected a sub-culture of nerds to be the harbinger of your precious race war. Maybe one day you'll get your wish granted, or perhaps it's just not meant to be and you'll go to an early grave with hypertension. Way of the road, bud.
I agree with this. Terrible failure and condemnation. Unforgivable in many ways.
Why is The Motte subject to your tantrum? Why this? Polite discussion is useful for many things. It's useful to have conversation around contentious topics on a hobbyist forum.
You are correct. Charity and discussion are not good for waging a crusade. We've talked about the UK rape gang thing for years. Not much about it was productive. Nothing about much is productive, maaaaan. Meet a girl, have sex, build a family. That's productive. I don't think doing so will bring about the end of everything. It doesn't usually result in a genocide. I think that's a bonus, you may disagree in some future fedpost. Make it interesting for us.
** In case you need to hear it: be well and take care of yourself, dude.
It does read rather like a dismayed realisation that the Motte is what the Motte has always, explicitly, advertised itself as being - a discussion and debate club, and explicitly not a place to recruit for any given cause.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was curious about where you got this number, but from what I read downthread it seems like you just pulled it out of nowhere by assuming the problem was just as prevalent everywhere else. It's akin to a BLM protestor assuming millions of unarmed black men were shot due to a few high-profile incidents, then doing some napkin math to justify their preconceptions.
This is so over-the-top that even a 13 year old 4chan edgelord would find it cringey.
More options
Context Copy link
Dude, your schtick is old. You aren't outraged by a bunch of girls being raped. You are constantly telling people on Twitter that they should be starting the Final War over immigration, over DEI, over vaccines, over television license checkers, over whatever you think will get some traction today. That's your whole grift. Internet Tough Guy dialed up to 11.
I don't think anyone should take you seriously, and not because I dislike your constant agitating for violence and race war, but because it's so self-evidently as performative and fake as your "catgirl" persona, which so many of your Twitter followers inexplicably seem to have bought. Go figure.
Your rage, your demands for ACTION, are performative. You wrote in this space once a rant directed at pro-lifers that went something like (paraphrasing from memory) "Why don't you do something about it, you pussies?"
Well, why don't you do something about it? Oh, you're posting on Twitter. Am I supposed to believe that out in the real world you're doing manly violent things and preparing for The Day? I don't.
I have no doubt you want people to do what you say, so you can praise them and take credit for it. But where are your feats, your accomplishments? What have you done, besides praising Russia and calling Jews poison and publishing links to a bunch of crappy old Paladin Press books?
Your grift is entertaining, I will give you that. But it's still a grift, and less entertaining when I consider how many unstable types there are whom you are trying to set off.
Almost as annoying is how frequently and shamelessly you misunderstand (or just manufacture) facts about everything from history to ancient Greek mythology, but whatever.
I believe absolutely that you, personally, do not walk the walk and are never going to walk it. What is your bodycount, as you keep demanding of everyone else who is upset about something but hasn't yet truck-bombed a government building?
You are not Thanos and no one is dying for you. Stop trying to make Fetch happen. It's not going to happen.
Anyway, I should probably ban you - this reads like a swan song and intentional "suicide by mod," and it's very clearly a (poor) attempt at recruiting for a cause, and it's surely fedpost adjacent. But I'm not going to, because I want you to prove me right - you can't stay away and you'll come back to repeat the schtick. Other mods might decide differently, though.
I could buy that the Motte-posting ancap Kulak was just saying things he actually believed in a spicy way, but yeah, the catgirl Twitter fasho Kulak just seems like the product of constantly iterating one's online persona to appeal to newfound followers.
More options
Context Copy link
Hey, he rode a motorcycle around and camped outdoors that one time, that's gotta count for something
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know KR all that well; could you elaborate on why you are so confident?
One of the examples that comes to mind, albeit loosely, was the Covid Canada trucker protests, which were the generally peaceful protests of Canadian truckers just driving into various Canadian cities / border crossings to snarl traffic and such. It was a bit embarassment to the Trudeau government, which took escalating actions against them, including probably to almost certainly illegal government actions on top of the already-contestable nature of COVID restrictions.
KR at the time was arguing vehemently on not just the justification for, but moral requirement, for violent resistance to the Canadian government crackdown, including the sort of over-the-top accusations of the moral rectitude or sincerity of anyone who did not join in the violence.
IIRC, KR was posting from Canada at the time, or at least acknowledged he could have gotten there, and could easily have easily joined the protests himself. He didn't.
In fact, I want to say he also made some sort of appeal about how he could do more good in rallying for the cause than joining the fight, but there are a lot of deleted posts from those old reddit threads and it wouldn't really change the point.
KR is the sort of revolutionary vanguard who will never, ever, be found in the vanguard, even as he lambasts the masculinity/morality of others who don't answer the call. Cause, you know, the vanguard is dangerous, and his skills (and comfortable living) come from writing calls to action rather than taking action.
IIRC KR was in the hospital during the protests, and has referenced hospitalization around the right time in many other writings.
Yeah, I remember that. True Canadian girlfriend / 'I totally would enlist but medical deferral' vibes.
You reminded me to check whether the Reserve would, in fact, take me (I'm guessing the answer is "no", but...).
I can't answer that, but I would sincerely say that just because they wouldn't take you doesn't mean there aren't plenty of worthy public service volunteer activities you can do regardless. They don't come with the paycheck or prestige, but taking one half-day a month to clean litter from public places (cost- pair of gloves, some trashbags, and a litter-picker), help with a public festival setup, or even just visiting a retirement center to entertain the elderly are all worthy parts of contributing to a community and one's own spiritual/moral/civic health. Especially if you are in a position to help organize and lead others to contribute the same.
Strangely, fewer people have a desire to burn down their communities if they've spent sweat and hours making it better, and tend to have better feelings towards those who have similarly exerted themselves in shared efforts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In this specific case, I believe him because other writings have referenced hospitalization from a motorcycle accident at around the right time, without drawing a connection to the trucker protests.
You don't get to call in sick with a doctor's note the day you're supposed to do the suicide bombing
I can believe that it's hard to do a suicide bombing when you're in traction with both your legs broken, but it was hardly the only opportunity to do some minecraft.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, I'm quite willing to entertain that he was in the hospital, though I would also be willing to believe he publicized the claim to protect himself from charges of hypocrisy. I just find it degrades his point regardless- both because arguments that certain things are worth going to hospital (or jail) over fighting for is an argument for fighting out of the hospital you're already in (if he was physically capable of leaving), and because even if he was incapacitated for the time he was in the hospital, that in no way covers the opportunities of protest-fights he had a chance to join in before or after his claimed infirmity.
Ultimately, people who argue that others should accept the consequences to life and limb to prove their sincerity don't get to hide behind infirmity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wait, do some people believe Kulak is female lol?
Yeah, a lot of Substack subscribers do. Good gig if you can get it.
More options
Context Copy link
Many even accused him of being a female furry which is just funny.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, which is a strange and sad indictment of his audience. At first, I didn’t believe it myself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is important to understand the rational basis of phenomena and intuitions. This is why I like themotte’s style. It forces me to do this and this has led me to research interesting things. What might rationality to do with Rotherham? This is a topic I’m currently interested in, and here is my current hypothesis: (1) Northern Europeans have a high prevalence of the OXTR rs53576 GG allele, which governs empathic behavior and guilt-proneness; (2) this “empathy allele” makes us feel guilty about harming anyone, including strangers, and especially the most vulnerable, and it is also associated with all sorts of prosocial behavior, like low corruption and post-guilt reparative behavior, even within collectivist countries like China; (3) other areas of the world, like Pakistan, have the A or AA allele, which is related to less empathy and guilt, and instead associated with the cultural trait called “collectivism”; (4) the empathy allele people can be easily taken advantage of, because they are genetically disposed to feel pain at the prospect of harming people (“anticipatory guilt-proneness” in the literature), and what causes harm is socialized and can be pretended; (5a) the British were subjects to a propaganda campaign which artificially enhanced the image of immigrants as most deserving of empathy: they were painted as innocent, more moral, and as the most vulnerable and pained member of the community, which induces feelings of guilt and consequent reparative conduct; (5b) in actual fact, they are the least deserving of empathy, and not because of their criminality or anything, but because they are the least likely to feel empathy and guilt themselves, making them morally deficient in relation to the British; (6) as a consequence of the former points, anyone who is dispositionally guilt-prone and a carrier of the GG allele ought to understand that they have a serious disease, a disease which is deadly when you unknowingly exist around those who lack it, yet is of civilizational importance when you are around others who also have the disease; (7) we can, I think, develop tests and cultures which normalize, enforce, and reward guilt-proneness.
I prefer the civilization and culture built by people of the GG ellele. Might GG allele civilizations not examine for and seek to reduce / remove foreign A or AA individuals from it's territory?
It’s complicated. There is a native GA and AA presence in Europe, just in a far lesser amount, and historically our culture revolved around notions of guilt/warmth which are of particularly benefit to GGs (religion-priming helps GGs exercise self-control more than others, for instance… my God there are so many studies I’m finding). So the existence of A and AG is clearly of some evolutionary benefit when in a lower amount, similar to left-handed people. It’s improbable that Elon Musk and Steve Jobs were GG, from what we know about Elon he has no empathy, so he has a utility to society provided that he is ultimately subservient to moral authority (not deciding wages, or work conditions, or immigration policy). With the Pakistani community, though I haven’t looked at anything specific to them, I would wager they are supermajority AA (as a community) and have other genes related to in-group preference and impulsivity (OXTR is one of many different genes governing morality). I also know they have the highest rate of cousin marriages and are historically clannish. British Pakistanis iirc have a higher cousin marriage rate than even those back home.
Consider that those with AA are more likely to feel pleasure when administering pain to the “out-group”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25637390/ . This perfectly explains why the most in-group-favoring people you can think of — cousin-marrying clannish insular foreigners in the middle of Northern England — would take pleasure in causing pain to the native British inhabitants. In Pakistan, girls never walk outside, lest they be raped by a foreign clan. You can also notice the weird cultural habit of south Asian Muslims waking in front of their wife — they are likely to lack the empathy that GGs typically possess for marital affection ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30818381/ )
I mean, at a minimum, the genetics of guilt-proneness and empathy clearly throws a wrench in the old progressive worldview, if by wrench we mean a small nuclear warhead. Genetics may tell us that this particular Pakistani community in Britain are complicit in the rapes to the same extent that a family of pitbulls is complicit in a dog attack; that is to say, we understand that their behavior is informed by their genetic destiny and the solution to the problem is to consider the breed in total and not the individual dog.
That still sounds like it would be a net positive to GG civilization to limit / exclude / reduce / remove foreign AA.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
why not 606 billion while we are at that?
More options
Context Copy link
I think Kulak is either insane or at least relatively good at acting the part of the mad prophet but in general I can’t help but think he is closer to the truth than most other people in these internet spaces.
He is which is why it's so painful for him. Modern social technology has given up the ability to self govern and be violent to the state which wants to do this more and more. As bad as the rotherham situation sounds, I wouldn't have been surprised had it happened in some blue or purple state in the US.
People don't have the right to acknowledge any of these issues, especially if violence is an outcome. Wanting everyone involved and those who abetted this dead at very least if not given punishments from the medieval ages is completely healthy, we just can't do it because the state has a monopoly on violence. You go there and shoot some people and then everyone who is in your camp has to find ways around it.
Power is assymetrical, anders breivik isn't the norm, unless you have elites in the UK who don't want these pajeets deported after a healthy dosage of brutality then you'll keep getting this.
If someone who frequents the motte actually went out and did something, everyone who posts here would get questioned. Chimping out now would set people back. Charlottesville serves as a good example of this psy opping works.
One last thing, I'd be surprised if most people here who are honest in their thought would not want mass deportations at the very least if not something far more brutal like I do. Having this place become the comment section of Blog.reaction.la will not lead to any better outcomes. Jan 6 people are still rotting in jail cells.
The US has the second amendment. Even in Hawaii or Massachusetts, there’s a good chance of KR-approved retaliation.
For all the tough talk about the second amendment, how often does this actually happen? I know that no two situations are exactly alike (you never step in the same river twice and all), and I'm sure you can find plenty of reasons why analogous situations in the USA that didn't invite retaliation weren't really analogous. Maybe I am forgetting something, but where were the armed lynch mobs executing Catholic priests in the 1990s? Jeffrey Epstein, while most likely killed by somebody, it certainly wasn't by a lynch mob of 2A enjoyers. I've listened to a lot of true crime podcasts about cases in the USA where the obvious perpetrator escapes legal consequences but cases where that leads to vigilante justice are exceedingly rare. Completely unprovable, but I would be willing to bet almost anything that if this exact situation occurred in the USA the public response wouldn't be much different. As others have pointed out in response to his comment, KR himself is a prime example of this kind of larping.
More options
Context Copy link
I kinda disagree somewhat. Any act of violence in these scenarios is rebranded as the second coming of Hitler. The US unlike the UK seems to have a more pro migrant image to begin with.
These are racially and religiously motivated sex crimes by people who are holy cows in a bioleninist state. No one's going to mow down anyone. Cain Velasquez tried, ex UFC heavyweight fighter, won the belt too, dude is now probably gonna face time, granted he fucked up his attempt what I will call completely justified violence which is unfortunately illegal now..
I would want even worse things to happen to those who do this than KR, I'm also aware that any act will immediately make be spun into you being the stereotype besides you rotting in jail.
Migrants attempting rape gangs on underclass girls in blue states would have the problem that the underclass is also Cathedral-protected.
That's not how it generally works with progressives. All the matters is whether the victimizer is more "privileged" (i.e. white) than the victim. Otherwise they'd care far more about black people getting murdered by other black people than they do about the much rarer cases of them getting murdered by white people.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't agree, race trumps gender and class, if you put a gun to a feminists head and asked if she'd prefer an all native feminist utopia or a misogynistic open border one, many would lean towards an anti racist society. I'm paraphrasing nick land here, the cathedral purity spirals, you had English academics putting out studies about this migrant rape crisis and then denying it's the work of migrants, citing "socio economic reasons" and a "racist" society.
Elon for all his faults and his recent 4chan and Charles Johnson run in is trying something good. There's no solution without mass deportations. Unfortunately people will keep taking this stuff more and more. Society really wants to commit suicide.
What I'm getting at is that underclass girls in blue states tend to be black and/or Hispanic.
Oh sorry, I keep forgetting American demographics are terrible.
Honestly, if it came out that the people in Detroit had these grooming gangs, would there be actual violence happening or would Pakistanis get a pass because they're poorer, more foreign and Muslim? I'd bet on some skirmishes but it'd not be as much as even we'd expect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Plus, I imagine Middle Eastern migrant rape gangs would be substantially less interested in US underclass girls than they would be in UK white chavs in the first place. iasip_you_certainly_wouldnt_be_in_any_danger.mp4
Sloot, surely you have no major criticism of the gangs, given their view of young western women lines up almost exactly with your own?
This seems uncalled for. These guys are literally raping and torturing young women. You don’t have to be a feminist or respect those girls to find that repellent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are plenty of white underclass girls with no dads in the US.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He’s just a very angry young man, and outrage is easy. This is just DR X in “essay” form.
He's been posting too long to be a young man, though he hasn't yet made the transition to bitter old man.
I doubt he’s older than 30.
he could very well be an upset midlife-crisis type too
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t know who he actually is and what is dr x but what makes you think angry young men cannot be closer to truth than calm old men?
Dissident Right X (formerly Twitter).
More options
Context Copy link
When an angry young man acts like a manipulative old man, it muddies the waters.
We've no particular reason to believe Kulak is actually angry, given Kulak's own professed standards of what people should do if actually angry over issues of social immorality. These includes violent, illegal actions that get people arrested / thrown into jail / exposed to significant violence and personal risk. We know Kulak has not done these things, because when opportunities have arisen- including opportunities in the past (such as the Canada trucker protests) that he called for violent resistance over- he neither joined or acted violently.
Instead, Kulak calls on other people to act violently. In fact, he makes a deliberate strategy of it, much as he has admitted his deliberate rhetorical strategies in other social media spheres (such as his technique for luring in leftist critiques by feinting a weaker position to invite a weaker critique for him to counter-attack).
These are not the characteristics of an actually angry young man. They are, however, classic characteristics of older men who cold-bloodedly use escalatory rhetoric to get other people angry, and manipulatable, for their own ends. Sometimes these ends are ideological, see the 20th century, and sometimes these ends are personal profit motive, see Kulak's substack. A historical example would be the old man by the fire who counsels young men of the merits to going off to fight and die bravely in battle to protect their homes- not only is he not going to join them, and not only is he the one benefiting if they die to protect his place by the fire, but if he had followed that advice himself he wouldn't be there to give it.
So when an angry young man does not act like an angry young man, does not follow the advice he gives to angry young men while making them angry, and stands to personally benefit from angry young men following his advice while he abstains...
Well, it's not impossible for it to be closer to the truth, but there's a lack of any particular reason to believe so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's way too aggressive.
We are at least able to talk about the problem. Try talking to some upper middle class normies in the respectable milieu. EVERYTHING wrong with the UK is apparently because of Brexit. Even things that clearly happened before Brexit are somehow the fault of Boris Johnson lying about NHS spending or Dominic Cummings 'dividing the country'. The real tragedy is young people not being able to go to the EU as simply as before. I was speaking with some Canadians and Australians about this, I expect that's how shakers and movers in Britain feel. They have some wrongthink crimestop reflex where they feel embarassment even thinking about this and semi-gracefully move the conversation on to something else if you even bring this up. They are the real problem, not us.
If you posted this on a normal website you'd get immediately banned whereas here the mods will probably give you some more-considered warning.
People forget that the English, especially middle- and upper-class English, are a lot like the Japanese in some ways. I think it’s something to do with being a small, crowded country.
They (we) are immensely sensitive to the reading the atmosphere and “what will people think” crimestop, and prone to ostracism. It’s no accident that Orwell and his dystopia was British. The English will show fury about this when, and only when, they receive clear signals that it’s okay to do so.
I'm not sure this is an English/Japanese-specific phenomenon. It certainly seems like the PMC in most of Europe are reacting in much the same way to similar problems.
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps that’s a different take on The Beginnings by Kipling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed. OP is purity spiraling. Impassioned flameouts do not convince people to change their minds. They must be exposed to information and incontrovertible evidence slowly and allowed to change their opinions over time.
The OP seems like he's undertaking the influencer equivalent of burning the boats so there can be no retreat from radicalism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
i feel like rotherham is just the same shit as the catholic church but no-one actually learned the lesson of the catholic church. if people are doing bad stuff then you need to stop them from doing bad stuff. preserving the 'institution' or some other higher value is just some scam the bad people are using to convince you to continue letting them to do the bad stuff.
There doesn’t seem to be any actual kidnapping associated with the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals. There was quite a lot of grooming and giving minors alcohol and things of that nature, but no violence involved.
More options
Context Copy link
If you think that you've been sold a bit of a bill of goods on both. The Catholic church scandal was bad, but is currently paralleled by what still goes on in public schools every day. And the CC was largely a scandal about homosexual pederasty, so in many ways our public schools as currently run are worse. This Rotherham stuff is way worse, there is violence, kidnapping, gang rape, and cover up by not just the rapists and their private groups, but government officials.
Would you link to something that summarizes what goes on in public schools today?
This is the report associated with the school district I am most familiar with: https://cpsoig.org/uploads/3/5/5/6/35562484/cps_oig_fy_2022_annual_report.pdf
Here is one that is more national in scope: https://dfipolicy.org/press-release-new-dfi-report-uncovers-a-systemic-failure-by-federal-state-and-local-authorities-to-prevent-sexual-abuse-of-students-in-public-schools/
While it is true that public schools are bigger than the church, they are also bigger in raw numbers than the church ever was, and the unions + admins exhibit similar behaviors to church leaders in protecting sexual predators in schools.
There is a similar problem (probably even worse based on my experience) in foster care. Even worse so in the housing facilities for the children awaiting foster care.
And yet, all of those pale in comparison the the Pakistani gangs. The priests, teachers, and supervisors are groomers who eventually would typically engage in some sort of pseudo-consensual relationship with a minor. That is very bad. What the Pakistani gangs did was more like kidnap, drug, and rape akin to what was going to happen to the daughter and her friend in the movie Taken, except with 10 year olds.
What are you talking about? Almost all the grooming gang cases involved ‘grooming’, hence their name. They would find underclass girls hanging around outside schools and offer them alcohol, drugs and takeout food and that is how they would become involved with these men. They didn’t kidnap girls off the street because that would inherently run the risk of abusing girls who came from non-underclass families.
That's the initial contact, but eventually the girls were detained in many cases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They are not the same. Rotherham was worse. Much, much worse.
Did priests douse children in gasoline and threaten to light them on fire if they told their secrets? Did they keep children prisoner for days, weeks, or years without letting them see their family? Were people arrested for rescuing their loved ones from a pedophile priest? Were people thrown in jail for "hate speech" against the church? When the abuse was revealed, how do the media react? Did they cover it up or did they shout it from the hilltops? Did they make Oscar-winning movies movies about the heroic journalists who uncovered the abuse, or did they throw them in jail?
It was a worse instance of the same thing, much in the way that pancreatic cancer is worse than prostate cancer despite them both being cases of cells multiplying faster than they ought to.
You’re actually correct, in that many of the offending priests were cleared by the police in the presence of pretty damning evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Apropos Spotlight, I found it decent enough, but when the movie ended I thought "That's it?" It felt like it should have had another hour.
Discussions about Spotlight are invariably about the politics rather than it being a noteworthy entry in cinematic canon, because it's not. The Martian would have been a better-aging winner, and Fury Road was on the slate. The Big Short probably should have won, but one was another chance to dunk on the long groveling church and the other was about bankers. A tidy microcosm of power, that.
I rewatched The Big Short recently and found it not nearly as good as I remembered it being. Despite Adam McKay's comedic background, I didn't find the "funny" bits funny at all (and the meta fourth-wall breaking bits were just embarrassing). I think it would have worked better as a straight drama with no postmodern jiggery-pokey.
Margin Call, which I watched for the first time more recently, was to my mind a more intelligent, entertaining and tonally consistent take on similar material (and what a cast!).
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, frankly it was a boring movie that won because it hit all the right liberal circle-jerk notes. Remember when newspapers made so much money that they could hire 4 journalists for an entire year to cover one story? That's the way things should be, right?
Zero rewatchability value.
Michael Keaton is always great though.
More options
Context Copy link
The big short still won "best adapted screenplay" along with 25 other accolades (a list with its own Wikipedia article).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I drew this exact comparison several years ago. My sister was very annoyed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One thing I do enjoy about the Motte is people going out in a blaze of glory. It seems to happen about once every other month or so. This one might be the best ban bait yet.
That said...
When I look at what happened in England, I feel a lot of the same visceral disgust that you do. It feels impossible for such horrific crimes to happen at the so-called "end of history". But it's nothing new. Were these Pakistani monsters worse than the Japanese during WWII? Were the British toffs who let it happen worse than the genteel Germans who looked the other way?
Of course not. Rotherham was bad, but on a world historical scale it's rather mundane. Humans are capable of great evil, and there's nothing racial about it.
The only thing that's particularly strange about this is the who/whom. Rarely until the present moment did a dominant ethnicity allow a minority one to abuse it so violently.
There was also the class dimension. The pre-colonial-British-descent victims were largely working class.
More options
Context Copy link
The Brits that allowed it might or might not be worse, but they're more pathetic. Collaborators are often held in even lower esteem than invaders. The Pakistani gangs are an alien, evil group of invaders. That's horrible, but it's intelligible. If you could find a Chinese guy that was worrying about anti-Japanese sentiment on New Year's Eve of 1937 in Nanking, I'd probably hate him even more than the Japanese soldiers raping their way through the city.
More options
Context Copy link
One noticeable difference is that Chinese officials, to my knowledge, did not cover up what the Japanese may or may not have done in incidents such as the Rape of Nanking. Nor did such officials persecute or prosecute native Chinese who had unwholesome things to say about the Japanese.
Of course they did. China was rife with collaborators, motivated by a combination of self interest, ideology, and domestic politics. Wang Jingwei was Chiang Kai-shek's left wing arch rival within the KMT, who eventually ended up as China's Quisling. He was more than willing to praise Japan post Nanjing, and actually set up the capital there.
I don’t doubt the ROC had turncoats, but where’s the part where there was widespread suppression of knowledge of the massacre by Chinese media and officials, and punishment of Noticers who objected to Japanese presence in China, lest the Japanese become victims of Chinese racism?
Also, Nanjing was already the capital of the ROC before the massacre, and has been the capital of various Chinese governments several times over two millenia. Nanjing just means Southern capital, just as Beijing means Northern capital. It’s not as eye-popping as if a UK official worked with Pakistan to set up a new capital in Rotherham in the aftermath of the scandal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's unique and horrifying is no one is fighting back.
The japanese did it and the bloodiest war in human history was the result. This happens in England and no bombs are going off no throats are being slid, no blood-dimmed tide is loosed.
England was the home of Analytical philosophy, rationalism, liberal tolerance, the enlightenment, and this place... That the streets aren't running with blood drawn from garden implements if need be is enough to discredit the entire enterprise.
A man who won't defend his people has discredited the rest about him.
If they can fight back, they will lose, unless that fighting-back can be coordinated at a sufficiently large scale. Perhaps there was some time when outrages produced mobs. Now they do not.
If you just push people to fight back, and there's not coordination or a broad-scale shift in what is within the overton window, don't expect much.
More options
Context Copy link
Their dads(well, of the few of the girls who had them) gave up. These girls were abandoned to their fate by the last resort to protect them.
No they didn't. There's at least one case of a father being arrested for trying to rescue his daughter - the police weren't just ignoring the systematic rape of working class children, they were actively aiding and abetting it.
Yes, he allowed himself to be arrested and then gave up. He didn’t try to see how many goatfuckers he could take with him.
Fighting police officers to the death would not have improved the outcome for his daughter in any way, and most likely would have made things worse for her. The people who you should actually be attacking and blaming in this case are the rapists themselves, the police who protected them and the politicians responsible for the entire state of affairs - not blaming an individual working class father for not turning into Conan the Barbarian and single-handedly murdering several rapists and several more well-armed police officers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My grandfather, when he was alive, was a white nationalist more or less- he wouldn’t have used the term- who believed that the Christian religion, hard work, and diligent intellectual study could whiten people physically. To him it was no accident that Muslim Arabs were generally browner than Christian Arabs. He also believed that octaroons had lightened themselves by working hard and pursuing education, and should intermarry with whites to complete the process. In fairness, he belonged to the church of Christ, scientist, which has some… ideas that are at least semi compatible with this.
To him learning about rotherham wouldn’t have come as a surprise. This is what Muslims do, and he thought Muslims being allowed in white countries would result in a situation very similar to this. I don’t totally disagree with his attitude towards Islam, minus the weirdness about it physically making the skin darker. But the real remedy for the British people is the second amendment(and probably the rest of the bill of rights)- those few of the girls who had dads could at least have done something.
And the US inherited its gun laws from Britain! Once guns were common there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hopefully you get a response in before the inevitable ban - what is the evidence for this claim? As far as I know the usual estimate is closer to 1,400. It's pretty clear that 200,000 white girls would be way more than 1 in 6 girls age 11-17 in Rotherham (population 100k) and other cities.
I seem to remember you had great doubts about death toll estimations due to the Holocaust, so I hope that you went over these numbers with similar scrutiny.
I also don't believe his numbers, but apparently there were child rape gangs (aka, "grooming gangs") in many other cities besides Rotherham.
More options
Context Copy link
I did some calculations on this back in August elsewhere, so I might as well finish the job and present a model using demographic data from here.
TL;DR between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 is reasonable for Rotherham. As for the whole country, that gets harder. How do you extrapolate Rotherham to the rest of the country to get an upper bound worst case scenario? Probably via demographics? Rotherham has 60 convictions and therefore 23 victims per perpetrator. It's population is 15.5% Asian, which isn't all Pakistani Muslim, but that group is probably around 10% of the population, so ~7,150 people. So about 1 in 120 of this demographic are perpetrators. The total Pakistani Muslim population of the UK is 1.6m, so if everywhere is as bad as Rotherham, there would be about 13,300 perpetrators and 300,000 victims. So I'd say the claim of "hundreds of thousands" is at least within the bounds of plausibility but a million is right out. This all has the caveat that it's entirely reliant on applying current demographic numbers to crimes that, as so far investigated, were largely carried out in the 90s and 00s. If the gangs are an ongoing problem, or if the Pakistani population in Rotherham was far smaller in the 90s, then the numbers change a lot.
More options
Context Copy link
Up to 1 Million Girls total in the UK according to one Labour MP, but most estimates put it between 100k and 500k.
Rotherham was 1400 girls alone, and there have been dozens if not hundreds of similar gangs across the UK, many of which are still being covered up.
The 1 in 6 or 1 in 3 is taking the 1400 confirmed Rotherham rapes, applying it to the female 0-17 population of 24k, then subtracting out muslim girls (who do get raped by family but aren't included in the phenomenon of gang crime), the girls who are too young... And then apply a bell curve of ages effected.
So over 1 in 16 just by numbers (1400 out of 24000 girls under 17) , about 1 in 10-12 by ethnicity down to white girls, and then once you start narrowing it down to white girls 11-17, the targeted demographic, you get somewhere around 1 in 6, or 1 in 3 at the peak years, and depending on how many girls who were found dead of overdoses or never spoke of it you think were victimized.
As far as I can tell that labor MP basically made that number up based on nothing in particular.
Which estimates are these
The 1 in 6 and 200k numbers you quoted were not restricted to Rotherham alone (there are not enough people in Rotherham for 200k girls to be raped). What is the relationship between "1 in 6" and "hundreds of thousands"?
Haven’t found hundreds of thousands yet but 20,000 official reported cases in 2018-2019 alone.
Assume at least that many cases again unreported, and account for increased migration and some number of new victims a year, and I think you could get to 100,000 pretty easily.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-child-sex-abuse-exploitation-rotherham-rochdale-police-a9215261.html
Concerning, but I don't think that it's quite the same as OP's claim. Presumably not every girl that gets groomed (I couldn't find the definition they are using here) actually gets raped. There's also this line which makes me think that I don't understand what they are measuring:
In what sense can a child "groom" a peer? Or is that just a vanishingly small number of cases? I guess we'll have to wait for some kind of official report.
Your 16 year old Pakistani 'boyfriend' can groom you into child prostitution as easily as his 'much older' uncle or father.
More options
Context Copy link
The terminology of "grooming" is confusing here. It implies they were getting too friendly with these girls on discord and maybe sharing explicit links with them. Reading wikipedia all the accounts given are just straight up rape. I can only read this as deliberate obfuscation
No they would groom them using the standard methods. Offer them food, alcohol, drugs and attention. Posing as "boyfriends" at first before coercing them into more and more extreme behaviors. Blackmailing them with those previous acts and threats to them and family. It's a tried and tested method across the world for those grooming vulnerable young people into prostitution (which is what most of these gangs were doing).
Grooming is the term we would use in social care at the time. Remember this started in the 80's and onward. The grooming term used in the online era is derived from the terms we used at the time for the more "old school" methods. But the initial context for almost all these girls was luring them in to what they thought was a relationship before then taking advantage of that. That's why grooming is the correct term. A gang which simply outright kidnapped girls off the street would be picked up much more quickly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We usually call it date rape, but the actual difference between being taken advantage of by an age peer and being taken advantage of by a grown man is not really one of the behavior in use.
More options
Context Copy link
Look at the Wikipedia page for the Rotherham scandal, though. Even on Wikipedia, you can see how much under-reporting and mis-reporting still occurs. You’re never going to get a good source saying X many girls were tortured and raped by Pakistani gangs. They will use euphemisms like ‘grooming’, they will misdescribe the perpetrators or hide the number in some other category wherever possible, they will refuse to count anything without definitive proof that can’t be explained away.
1 in 3 or 1 in 6 is obviously wrong but 100,000 in a country of 60,000,000 seems entirely plausible to me.
It’s entirely possible for an 18 year old teenager to recruit a 14 year old girl, either for himself or older relatives.
This is actually an extreme improvement from the state of the page a few months ago, when they attempted to cobble together a narrative that the whole thing was a racist hoax (the page got renamed "grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom" and rewritten to match). It stood that way for several months before people started to take notice and they quietly changed it back without admitting fault.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If "grooming" is the authorities' way of saying "raping", it makes perfect sense
No matter how you slice it, this is clearly measuring something beyond the central case of Pakistani men rapping teenage girls en masse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
1 in 6 in the most affected cities.
Which cities?
Rotherham
I already posted a breakdown of the city in reply to you.
https://www.themotte.org/post/1322/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/282955?context=8#context
So 1 in 6 is just in Rotherham. Okay, that seems correct (though I wish you had said "affected city" to be more exact) and has nothing to do with the "hundreds of thousands" figure.
Where is "hundreds of thousands" coming from? Clearly that's not just Rotherham, so where is this number from?
There were Dozens if not hundreds of cities that had Grooming gangs like this, Rotherham is simply the most famous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sometimes people around here drop a statistic or other quantifiable statement and it is immediately and obviously wrong. Like it is not in the correct order of magnitude or similar gross error. This is one.
No, 1 in 3 anglo girls in some cities were not raped by gangs of Pakis. If you have convincing evidence otherwise please share it.
I calculated it myself last August (while considering potential causes of our riots at the time, one of which was in Rotherham) and it is a reasonable approximation that 1 in 3 girls who lived in Rotherham while they were within the targeted age range would have been victims.
Thanks for the math. Some googling largely supports the numbers you state.
I'd quibble about the 16 years since some sources claim that there are victims going far back as the 1970s. I can't find victim numbers in a clearly defined time window to validate this. That 16 years might balloon into a much bigger number in order to count all the victims.
Are we sure all these victims are from the 70k people in the Rotherham town limits and not any of the 270k people in the surrounding area? I can't easily verify that and it could change the proportion by up to factor of 4 if we started counting people outside town limits.
How are anything around 1/6 young girls practically abandoned by their parents in this town? What horrible societal breakdown occurred to produce so many un-cared-for children? Googling a bit I see talk of Rotherham having low unemployment. Housing is relatively expensive. But it's not a ghetto.
The 16 years + 1,400 figure come from the same report, the Jay Inquiry, which estimated 1,400 over those 16 years. In other words, the length of time could be longer, but if it is the number of victims would go up.
The gang certainly operated within Rotherham town limits. The most likely alternative target in the surrounding area is not the rest of the borough (which gets rural) but instead Sheffield. No, we don't know.
This is a misunderstanding of UK class structure but I think is probably beyond the scope of what I can explain. Rotherham is actually extremely poor. Mostly bottom 10% of the country bad via "Index of Multiple Deprivation". It just doesn't show up in unemployment because in the UK you are either employed, briefly between jobs, or on some kind of scheme where you aren't employed but not unemployed either. The actual level of economic inactivity in the area is 28.7%, higher than the 21.2% average for England.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Math is off. 5500 people 11-16 over 16 years, would be 5500/6 = 916 x 16 eleven year olds over 16 years plus 916 x 5 12-16 year olds. So 916 x 21 / 2 x 0.78 = 7502 white girls. And then, 1400/7502 = 18.7%, a bit over 1/6. Though I remember reading somewhere that it wasn’t just white girls, so percentage would be a bit lower than this.
The second targeted demographic mentioned is usually travellers (i.e Roma), which gets lumped in with white in census data.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did the police not perceive this as a threat to their own daughters? Are any of them on record?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
https://www.themotte.org/post/1322/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/282955?context=8#context
See above
There are also several threads on this https://x.com/QuasLacrimas/status/1820110269101539376
One in Six is the most common number people use.
On what basis are you extrapolating this to the whole of the UK? London has ~4.5m white British people and yet far fewer of these incidents than Rotherham, a town of 70,000.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, you just had to throw that in for no reason.
I predict we are not actually going to see Jewish rape gangs similar to Rotherham.
Yeah, no.
Would you make the same prediction if it was sexual degeneracy or pornography rather than rape?
I have not heard of Jewish pornography gangs.
Like many I industries I'm sure there are great non anti-semitic explinations for their over representation in pornography.
Higher IQ seems like a satisfactory explanation.
Are higher IQ and pornography corralated?
I was under the impression you'd expanded the scope of the discussion to over representation in fields beyond porn.
Yes, it's true for many industries, including porn.
High IQ is likely why it's true in many industries finance, banking, law, medicine. I took your answer to mean, including porn. Pornography, from many of the adverse outcomes, press and documentaries covering this industry it doesn't present as requiring high g.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This attitude is exactly why discusion in this space is failed.
I insult indians, Pakistanis, Muslims... No Problem. I include links to lectures on indian psychology that is anything but flattering...
I even signpost that the segment you object to would be aping the style of 4chan, but offend one little ethnicity that produced over 50% of the atomic spies, and 50% of the civil rights lawyers of the 1950s and 60s that advocated the current DEI regime... Even in a segement where whites, indians, blacks, and muslims receive equal or great opprobrium... And the discussion needs to be stopped with a "NO"
After 2000 words... one charged insult, "Yeah, No."
This is an attitude vastly more toxic to truth than 4chan's aggressive offense and I'm glad to leave it behind.
If you write 2000 words that are angry but somewhat justifiable, and then gratuitously attack someone else who has no connection to the incident, having people complain about the one attack more than about the 2000 words is your own fault. Nobody is required to address your points based on number of words, rather than on how bad they are, and the one about Jews was a lot worse, even though it took up few words.
More options
Context Copy link
Might I suggest that you, while clearly a very intelligent guy, may not be as bigger-brained than the rest of us as you often wish to portray. I learn things all the time here, I learn things from your own posts, even. That is not to say I believe everything that's posted here by you or anyone else (though I do admit I don't have the expertise many here have in various subjects and often weigh that against what I perceive are their historically expressed biases in deciding how far to believe them.)
You clearly have biases and often mix them with facts in an attempt to either gather likeminds or subscribers. This isn't by any means unusual but I also think that if any point you wish to make is worth making, it's worth making without resort to knee jerk insulting dismissals. I personally found your insults to Indians rather immature, and I remember posting, if not a rebuttal, less than a ringing endorsement. Some of us can't be bothered to engage with a zealot who we know will never ever give ground, and more and more that is what I perceive in you.
I will say that your posts, and sometimes even your rants, are often very fun reads, and that you add a lot of color to the Motte (perhaps not the word you'd prefer?)
More options
Context Copy link
spot checking and discarding entire thing is a valid and smart strategy
for some time there is too much text to read all of it
Fell free to call it as Jewish strategy, it will just make me like Jews a bit more.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean it's a bit discordant.
It's like hearing
"The barbarians are in the gates, the Muslims, Pakistanis, and Indians are part of a gross rape ideology and we've let them in the country. They are of course supported by the worst group of all, the Scottish Protestants."
It stops sounding like a coherent set of problems, and more like just someone angry and ranting about all the people they don't like. As a piece of rhetoric it's bad because it makes whatever legitimate issues you have with the first set of groups sound less convincing.
I appreciate the defense of Presbyterians.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Jewish organized sexual abuse seems to be a thing in some ultra-orthodox communities, but I’ve never heard of it being directed towards outsiders.
Freud’s psychological work is bunkum, but it doesn’t seem like his Jewishness has much to do with it.
Read "ordeal of Civility" the most common reading of Frued is that his Jewishness is HIGHLY relevant to his theories... Indeed one cannot interpret things the Oedipus complex without understanding his personal biography with his own father, Jewish second class citizenship, and the humiliations involved... The theory being Frued was less interested in Oedipus having sex with his mother than him killing his father.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, the US only built nuclear weapons before everyone else because of Jewish scientists. So I feel that, on balance, you should feel favourably towards them on this issue.
I wonder how those Jewish scientists all ended up in America. Presumably some elaborate conspiracy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link