#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
The sixth Voxiversity video is now live! This is a graphic narration of my foreword to Moira Greyland’s THE LAST CLOSET: The Dark Side of Avalon. It features Moira’s music, as well as a number of family pictures she provided, and the video is all the more powerful for it.
Episode Six: The Last Closet
Especially not to the God-Emperor’s Warmaster:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis explained Thursday why he directed a strike that reportedly killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria back in February.
Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. has a deconfliction line with Russia to ensure that the two countries can communicate in order to avoid direct conflict with one another in Syria. He said that a group of “irregular forces” were in conflict with U.S. forces, and once it was ascertained that those forces were not Russian regulars, Mattis directed a counterattack.
“The Russian high command in Syria assured us it was not their people, and my direction to the chairman was for the force, then, to be annihilated,” Mattis said. “And it was.”
It never pays to play tricksy word games with a warrior. Be direct. Be honest. And learn to understand when you are defeated and behave accordingly, lest you be destroyed.
Some Guy doesn’t understand why I hold certain people to high standards:
Some of us, myself included have a hard time dealing with your very cut throat attitude towards other people when they have crossed a line that you draw in the sand. Sometimes, admittedly because I am not the consummate intellectual that you are, I have a hard time understanding why you draw the lines in places that you do and why you defend those lines so incredibly hard. I understand you desire for the truth and in this, I actually agreed with your position. You mathematically proved that Jordan did not know what he was talking about.
Allow me to make an analogy. If you are involved with a woman, you might overlook any number of minor transgressions. Maybe she’s a little short with you. Maybe she’s a little too flirtatious with some other man when she’s had too much to drink. Maybe she’s a hugger who hugs everyone and you’re not. You overlook these things. After all, she’s generally been a big positive in your life, even if you know there are some things in her background that might be a little shady.
There is no question that the next Nobel Peace Prize should go to Donald Trump:
North and South Korea will seek a peace ‘regime’ to end the 68-year Korean War, their leaders announced today, after Kim Jong-un agreed to a ‘complete denuclearisation’ during historic talks. Kim became the first North Korean leader to step into the South for 65 years as he met with President Moon Jae-in for a peace summit.
The two sworn enemies exchanged a warm greeting at the 38th parallel in the truce village of Panmunjom before the pair held talks and planted a commemorative tree together. The dramatic meeting has been seen as a precursor to planned talks between Kim and US President Donald Trump next month.
This afternoon, Kim and Moon embraced warmly after signing a statement in which they declared ‘there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula’. The two countries said they will push for talks with the US, and potentially China, to officially end the 1950-53 conflict, which stopped with an armistice and left the Koreas still technically at war.
They also agreed to rid their peninsula of nuclear weapons but did not provide any new specific measures outlining how to achieve the objective.
Kim said: ‘We are going to be one again, as we share the same history, the same language, the same culture, the same blood. We are going to happily look back at the hard times in the past when we achieve a new future. No pain, no gain. Let us go forward, step by step for the bright future together.’
This is a staggering development of the sort we have not seen since 1989. I expect the Nobel committee will give the award to Kim and Moon, of course, but the world knows who really deserves it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is already one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States of America.
And he hasn’t even delivered on either of his signature campaign promises yet. But he will.
Critical G flips the narrative entirely by observing that it is in the best interest of the Jews to be told the unvarnished truth rather than reassured by obvious falsehoods that have been perpetrated for decades.
High-IQ (140) full-blooded Ashkenazi here — long time lurker, occasional commenter —, and I can tell you that @VD is totally right. I’ve been thinking about these matters for a long time, and I can tell you @VD does us all a far greater favour by stating the unvarnished truth than JBP does by perpetuating a falsehood. I share the following thoughts and observations to back up what @VD has been saying.
(1) Jewish average IQ of anything higher than about 106 is a myth. I grew up amongst, and went to school and university with, both Ashkenazim and Mizrahim. Yes, a lot of us are smart, but we are nowhere near *that* smart. Maybe the neurotic Jewish emphasis on education results in higher than whites’, but that’s not solely a question of natural general intelligence.
(2) I ran the numbers on Israel’s IQ and came to Vox’s conclusion, i.e. the Ashkenazi average can’t be higher than the 102-106 range. I am skeptical of Israel’s national average being as low as 96, but even if it were as high as 105, Vox’s argument would still stand. Given the three variables — Ashkenazi IQ, non-Ashkenazi IQ, and Arab IQ (which can safely take as 83) — the higher the average Ashkenazi IQ, the lower the non-Ashkenazi IQ must be, and an average Ashkenazi IQ of 115 results in non-Ashkenazim having a lower IQ than Arabs.
As the vast majority of Jews outside of Israel are Ashkenazim, the rest of my comment pertains to Ashkenazim only — which actually supports Vox’s argument.
(3) Although our general IQ is only a couple points higher than whites’, I do think our verbal acuity is at least a standard deviation higher. I don’t have numbers to back it up, just my personal experience looking at it from within and without. That is (and this is a double-edged blade), we are extremely talented when it comes to language, debating, polemics… and propaganda, lying, and swindling. A fighter for truth has the same weapons as the most fork-tongued deceiver, the difference being in their respective commitments to Truth or the Message.
(4) The myth of Ashkenazi super-intelligence is as harmful to Jews as the myth of IQ equality between blacks and whites is to blacks. It gives rise to anti-semitic beliefs in the super-human evil cunning of Jews, and it also turns Jews into a philo-semitic fetish. I get very annoyed when a philo-semite tries to place me on a pedestal, and my admonitions to be proud of your own culture often fall on deaf ears.
(5) Owing to the myth of Ashkenazi super-intelligence, we labour under unrealistic expectations to be naturally gifted and clever in every which way, and I am convinced a lot of Jews in prominent positions suffer from imposter anxiety, much like those blacks who are undeservingly admitted to elite universities.
(6) I have a pet hypothesis that blacks in America are ultimately unhappy because they know they will always have low sexual market value no matter how prosperous they be. Telling a black woman that she has it better than her sisters in Africa, when 90{c2bf88dee429485d3b0f61325a10c26cb2e215274027e21905ef5aec05bbd0e7} of desirable men automatically downgrade her SMV, simply doesn’t speak to what really makes her unhappy. By the same token, I think we Jews, in our heart of hearts, feel the same way. We’re simply not as tall or good looking as the northern Europeans, and we know it. In Israel, the things we’re embarrassed about — big noses, frizzy hair, etc — are the norm, and Israelis, for all their obnoxious tendencies, at least do not suffer from the Diaspora Jew’s neurosis about looking Jewish.
If you know many Israelis, one thing you immediately notice is that they exhibit very little of the neuroses, the false bravado, and the prickly defensiveness so often evident among Diasporans. They tend to have a little swagger to them, a genuine self-assurance that I find quite likable. They love to talk about Israel, and you can barely speak with an Israeli for five minutes without him inviting you to come and visit it.
This often reminds me of Garrison Keillor writing about Lake Woebegon and the signs on the outskirts of town: A TOWN ON THE GROW! Israelis are rather like the Middle Eastern version of 19th century American town boosters, a little gauche for the tastes of the cultured individual, perhaps, and yet their enthusiasm for the country they are building is genuinely infectious.
They are, in a word, self-confident. They know they are not parasites. They know they have sweated, fought, and bled for what they have. They are proud of what they have built in the desert, and rightly so.
And as for the Palestinians, let me assure you that the Israelis I know have shown considerably more concern and compassion for the defeated people they have displaced than I have ever heard any American show for how the American Indians are treated today, never mind in the past.
What is the difference between these two halves of the same nation? The Israeli has skin in the game, he is fully committed, and he knows it. The Diasporan is a nomadic pillager, his commitment is conditional upon his perception of his momentary best interests, and he knows it. It’s the difference between being a bossy backseat driver on the weekly run to the supermarket and taking the pole at the Indy 500; which responsibility do you think is going to build more self-confidence. We often talk about the deleterious effect that parasitism has on the societal host, but the parasite pays a heavy price too, because his state of being shatters his psyche and erodes his soul. Have you ever met an individual who does not economically support himself who is self-confident, psychologically mature, and secure in his abilities? As with a person, so it is with peoples; one has only to visit an Indian reservation to observe as much.
A mere 8{c2bf88dee429485d3b0f61325a10c26cb2e215274027e21905ef5aec05bbd0e7} of Israeli Jews describe themselves as being on the left while 55{c2bf88dee429485d3b0f61325a10c26cb2e215274027e21905ef5aec05bbd0e7} describe themselves as centrist and 37{c2bf88dee429485d3b0f61325a10c26cb2e215274027e21905ef5aec05bbd0e7} as being on the right. This is radically different from Jewish opinion in any other nation.
– Pew Research Center
That’s the difference that skin in the game makes. It fundamentally changes one’s perspective, one’s time preferences, and one’s behavior. Critical G’s prediction is in line with this: “I make a prediction, which I hope to be tested one day: if the Western Jews migrated en masse to Israel, most of them would become right-wing nationalists. This is exactly what happened in Israel, and I bet you it would happen again.”
The Alt-Right is inevitable. Especially – not even – especially in Israel.
Critical G’s observation of imposter anxiety is a significant one. He believes that the only cure for this and the other psychological ailments of the Diasporans is for them to move on to Israel, and that such a mass exodus would be materially and spiritually better for everyone on all sides of the equation. Based on my observations and experiences, I think he is almost certainly correct. Diversity is no one’s strength and ultimately operates to the disadvantage, if not the actual destruction, of everyone it touches.
To Jordan Peterson’s milquetoast millennials.
All I can say is that if I ever screwed up as thoroughly, and as publicly, and demonstrated such a flagrant lack of intellectual integrity as Peterson has, I would damn well expect every single member of the Dread Ilk to jump down my throat with sharpened spurs on.
Instead, what do we see here? Oh, poor Jordie, it’s just so difficult for him? It’s so hard! How can a philosopher be expected to simply tell the truth? He’s done so much good that we shouldn’t criticize him when he’s running around calling people cowards and failures because they point out the obvious to him! Don’t be mean to Jordie and make him cry!
Excuses. Complaints. Rationalizations. Whining. Accusing. Anything but holding the man accountable for his deceitful words and his lack of intellectual integrity. I’m unimpressed enough with the man, but it’s his followers that really have me rolling my eyes.
WTF? Is the guy such a delicate depressed flower that he’s going to kill himself over being called on acting like an uncharitable and uninformed jackass? I thought this was supposed to be the fearsome debater, the formidable man of principle who isn’t afraid to go into the belly of the beast to tell it like it is?
Let me make one thing clear. I do not give a fragment of a flying fuck about poor little Jordie or any other public figure with whom I am not personally acquainted. I have not read his books nor watched his videos. I care about the truth and the Truth, and I do not cut any intellectual figure any slack in that regard, including myself. I ask for neither quarter nor mercy from anyone, least of all my supporters.
When I get it wrong and you can conclusively prove it, then show me! If you’re correct, I won’t attack you, much less call you a coward and a failure like Peterson did, to the contrary, I will be grateful to you for helping me get back on the correct path of true understanding.
This is an open thread to discuss Day One of the NFL Draft. And just to get the conversation started, if I was the GM of the Cleveland Browns, I’d take Barkley, then Mayfield, with Allen as my fallback unless Darnold was still available and Mayfield wasn’t.
I don’t think that is what they will do, however. I think they’ll take a quarterback at 1, then the Giants will take Barkley, as they should.
This expanding lawsuit against Harvard University is not entirely unrelated from the recent discussion of intelligence, success, and ethnicity:
The Justice Department is actively investigating Harvard University’s use of race in its admissions policies and has concluded the school is “out of compliance” with federal law, according to documents obtained by CNN.
The Justice Department’s battle with Harvard potentially sets the stage for the first major legal test of affirmative action policies under the Trump administration. Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that race can be one among many factors universities use in making admission decisions. Two letters from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division indicate that Harvard has challenged the department’s authority to investigate, and further state that if the school fails to provide documents to the department by December 1, the agency may file a lawsuit against the school….
Additional correspondence obtained by CNN shows that the Justice Department formally notified Harvard it was under investigation on September 20 and since that time, lawyers for the agency and the school have been trading letters over the scope of the department’s document requests, despite what Harvard noted were “its concerns about the highly unusual nature of this investigation.” The Justice Department’s interest in Harvard’s policies stems from a 2015 federal complaint that accuses the school of discriminating against Asian-Americans in admissions. When The New York Times reported in August that the Justice Department was looking for lawyers to work on “possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions,” the department said that the posting was related to an ongoing case rolled over from the Obama administration.
But these more recent letters from the Justice Department, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, mark the first confirmation that the school is currently under investigation.
Who knows whether Harvard will be able to wave its magic wand and make it all go away somehow. But if they can’t, here is what the statistics very strongly indicate they are trying to hide:
This is a really good interview with Jaron Lanier which hits on three important concepts:
This dovetails with something you’ve said in the past that’s with me, which is your phrase Digital Maoism. Do you think that the Digital Maoism that you described years ago — are those the people who run Silicon Valley today?
I was talking about a few different things at the time I wrote “Digital Maoism.” One of them was the way that we were centralizing culture, even though the rhetoric was that we were distributing it. Before Wikipedia, I think it would have been viewed as being this horrible thing to say that there could only be one encyclopedia, and that there would be one dominant entry for a given topic. Instead, there were different encyclopedias. There would be variations not so much in what facts were presented, but in the way they were presented. That voice was a real thing.
And then we moved to this idea that we have a single dominant encyclopedia that was supposed to be the truth for the global AI or something like that. But there’s something deeply pernicious about that. So we’re saying anybody can write for Wikipedia, so it’s, like, purely democratic and it’s this wonderful open thing, and yet the bizarreness is that that open democratic process is on the surface of something that struck me as being Maoist, which is that there’s this one point of view that’s then gonna be the official one.
And then I also noticed that that process of people being put into a global system in which they’re supposed to work together toward some sort of dominating megabrain that’s the one truth didn’t seem to bring out the best in people, that people turned aggressive and mean-spirited when they interacted in that context. I had worked on some content for Britannica years and years ago, and I never experienced the kind of just petty meanness that’s just commonplace in everything about the internet. Among many other places, on Wikipedia.
On the one hand, you have this very open collective process actually in the service of this very domineering global brain, destroyer of local interpretation, destroyer of individual voice process. And then you also have this thing that seems to bring out this meanness in people, where people get into this kind of mob mentality and they become unkind to each other. And those two things have happened all over the internet; they’re both very present in Facebook, everywhere. And it’s a bit of a subtle debate, and it takes a while to work through it with somebody who doesn’t see what I’m talking about. That was what I was talking about.
But then there’s this other thing about the centralization of economic power. What happened with Maoists and with communists in general, and neo-Marxists and all kinds of similar movements, is that on the surface, you say everybody shares, everybody’s equal, we’re not gonna have this capitalist concentration. But then there’s some other entity that might not look like traditional capitalism, but is effectively some kind of robber baron that actually owns everything, some kind of Communist Party actually controls everything, and you have just a very small number of individuals who become hyperempowered and everybody else loses power.
And exactly the same thing has happened with the supposed openness of the internet, where you say, “Isn’t it wonderful, with Facebook and Twitter anybody can express themselves. Everybody’s an equal, everybody’s empowered.” But in fact, we’re in a period of time of extreme concentration of wealth and power, and it’s precisely around those who run the biggest computers. So the truth and the effect is just the opposite of what the rhetoric is and the immediate experience.
A lot of people were furious with me over Digital Maoism and felt that I had betrayed our cause or something, and I lost some friends over it. And some of it was actually hard. But I fail to see how it was anything but accurate.
This guy is sharing some important insights into the intrinsic danger of centralization, even when it is unintentional and inadvertent. It also underlines the importance of the Infogalactic approach, which rejects the concept of the One True Page that defines objective reality for everyone on the basis of the opinions of the information gatekeepers.
As you’ve probably noted, I have remained resolutely silent on the man. Tonight, at about 7:15 EST, I’m doing a Darkstream to address what I believe to be his inherent lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. Tune in via Periscope.
My analysis of the so-called “Jewish question” has been criticized by exactly the people you would expect to criticize it. I responded today with an update, making the mathematical case linking higher IQ to higher Jewish achievement properly:
In summary, his updated case is based on a false premise that is supported by inaccurate numbers which are based on irrelevant and outdated studies that never purported to claim what is being cited. It is the most intellectually shoddy case I have seen any public intellectual attempt to make since Richard Dawkins tried to prove that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual abuse in childhood by citing an apocryphal story about Alfred Hitchcock driving through Switzerland.
Peterson would have done much better to simply state that he is not free to state his opinion on the subject since he lives in Canada and is subject to Canadian anti-speech laws.