Academic Agent – Ingroup Preference Vs the Free Market – Jun 15, 2021 — Transcript

 

[Academic Agent discusses how orgjew gets jews to work as a team, aka, nepotism, while sabotaging Whites through pushing individualism on them.

KATANA]

 

 

Academic Agent

 

In-group Preference Vs the Free Market

 

Jun 14, 2021

 

 

 

 

Click here for the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpafUzMayYg

Published on Jun 15, 2020

 

YuoTube Description

 

Ingroup Preference vs. The Free Market

3,563 views•

Premiered 7 hours ago

Academic Agent

59.7K subscribers

JOIN

SUBSCRIBE

Event: https://scyldings.com/events/

Purchase the complete Trivium here: https://www.academic-agency.com/bundl…

Foundations of Rhetoric: https://www.academic-agency.com/cours…

Foundations of Logic: https://www.academic-agency.com/cours…

Foundations of Writing here: https://www.academic-agency.com/cours…

Foundations of Economics: https://www.academic-agency.com/cours…

Channel membership: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyaw…

MERCH: https://teespring.com/stores/aas-hous…

Subscribestar: https://www.subscribestar.com/academi…

Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/Acade…

Donate: https://fundly.com/help-aa-1

Entropy: https://entropystream.live/app/Academ…

 

_____________

 

TRANSCRIPT QUALITY = 5

1 Star — Poor quality with many errors, contains nonsense text
2 Stars — Low quality with many errors, some nonsense text.
3 Stars — Medium quality with some errors.
4 Stars — Good quality with only a few errors.
5 Stars — High quality with few to no errors.

NOTE: Users can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment section. Thanks.

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(14:09 mins)

 

[00:00]

 

[Intro imagery and music]

 

 

In this video I want to interrogate Anglo-American assumptions about individualism and meritocracy, which are supposedly fostered by the free market.

 

I am going to imagine two groups. A minority, special interest, group, and a much bigger majority group, which I will call the “out-group”. This is for the purpose of thinking through the problem. These two groups are hypothetical only and do not bear any relation to any real world groups. If you find yourself imagining that these examples relate to real groups, then it is your own mind doing that. And you have to ask yourself, why it is doing it.

 

So let us begin. Imagine these 100 circles are the members of a year group in a boys school.

 

So each circle is a young man. Three of these boys belong to a special group. Let’s call them Ben, Sam, and David. In all other respects Ben, Sam, and David, look and talk like their classmates. But they belong to a special group. Their parents all know each other.

 

And so the key difference is in the messaging they receive at home. Ben, Sam, and David are each told by their parents that they are part of a special group and are better than their classmates. This is reinforced on the weekend when they go to meet boys and girls from other schools that are also part of this special group. Meanwhile all the other members of the class are told at home, and at school, that they are individuals who will succeed, or fail, based on their individual merits.

Ben Sam and David receive the same messaging at school, but in practice their parents ensure that they are given special treatment by pressuring the headmaster. We might see how belonging to this special group might advantage these three boys from an early age.

 

Let us consider sport. The best in the year group is Billy, then Victor. Ben and David are in the next group down. And Sam is only mediocre. However it just so happens that David’s uncle is the manager of the sports team. And so, just like that, Ben, Sam, and David are always picked for the team.

 

Now as they get older we might see this effect multiply. Let’s consider their grades. Top of the year is a boy called Jim, then John. Sam is quite bright, but he’s not quite the brightest. And then David and Ben are lower down again.

 

But then when it comes to applying for places at Law School, Jim and John both want to practice law, as do Sam and Ben. It just so happens that Ben’s father is the head of the law faculty at an elite university. So when the applications go in Jim and John are both rejected, while Sam and Ben secure places on the strength of Ben’s father’s recommendations. Jim and John both end up at a second tier university.

 

Meanwhile, Joe David, and Graham, all want to become journalists. But it just so happens that Sam’s father is the editor of a major newspaper. So naturally David gets a work placement at this paper, while Joe and Graham have to start at minor local papers.

 

Fast forward 20 years and the pecking order of the school leaderboard has changed around. Now David is a nationally syndicated journalist, who is very influential, and read by all the right people. Many of whom naturally belong to the special group.

 

Sam is a powerful lawyer who is often called upon to help draft laws by those in power.

 

Ben is now a leading human right’s Lawyer engaged in driving an agenda for change, at a national level.

 

Jim and John end up becoming working lawyers but for average firms. Joe becomes the editor of a local newspaper. Graham meanwhile, can’t make it in journalism and went on to teach English at school level.

 

Now let us imagine that these results among people who belong to the special group are replicated at a national level. Whereby something like three percent of the population becomes the top three percent of the population.

 

Has this happened, because A, these people are more talented and more intelligent? Or B, because these people have superior in-group preference? Is this A, simply the marketplace at work? Or is it B, because these people have superior in-group preference?

 

[05:08]

 

Now consider that in addition to these differences in outcome.

 

Ben, Sam, and David, leverage their positions to further the power of their special group. David uses his national platform to advocate for laws that will be of benefit to the special group. Ben and Sam use their respective positions to implement said laws. In fact, the extensive network of those people in the special group, co-ordinate between politics, law, academia, and the media, to ensure that those changes are, in fact, made.

 

They also leverage their power to ensure that anyone in the out-group who make up 97% of the population – people such as Jim, John, Joe, or Graham – would be professionally hurt and even censored from opposing such laws.

 

Now although deep down they disagree with these changes Jim, John, Joe, and Graham, find it difficult to mount any sort of counter-offensive. First and foremost, each of them believes that they are “individuals”, living in a society of “individuals”. They believe that they have achieved their positions through merit. And they don’t want to hurt those careers they’ve worked so hard to achieve. In any case there’s no such thing as a “group”.

 

So what is it that binds Jim, John, Joe, and Graham? Absolutely nothing! Within their own framework there is nothing that they can say binds them at all!

 

It strikes me that in any scenario in which there is an ostensibly free market, but in which money, can be levied, whether through the media, academia, legal channels, or directly through politics, to influence government decisions, this situation will always massively favour a tightly organized, special group, at the expense of everyone else, both in theory and in practice!

 

In fact, one might argue that this sort of situation produces an incentive for the special group slowly to transition the system from being a nominally free market, to being more socialist, and command and control, in orientation, by formalizing their superiority using inequitable rules. Which is to say by making themselves an actual ruling caste, as opposed to people who, on the face of it, do well, albeit using an informal power network.

 

Thus, the nominally free market state can be used as a kind of Trojan horse to transition into a more socialist state. Especially if the political system relies on persuading large groups of people, using the media, as democracy, of course does.

 

Now this might appear to be little more than egalitarian whining on behalf of the majority group. For example, why shouldn’t the special group rule if they play the game better than anyone else? A fair question. Until we recognize, that is, that the special groups of vested interests are very damaging to the majority group. And to the nation as a whole.

 

This presents a significant problem, because it is practically impossible for the majority to organize in the same tight-knit, and coordinated way, as the special group can. Egalitarianism actually works as a hindrance here, and the special group can prey on lingering internal class resentments to his advantage, thereby masking it’s own supremacy.

 

The myths of individualism and meritocracy work to their advantage. Because it allows the aforementioned informal network to flourish until such a time comes as they may formally enshrine their power in law.

 

Therefore it is in the majority group’s interest to recognize their own special group! Let’s call it the “upper class”, or you can call it the “ruling class”, who might realistically compete with a currently dominant special group. This requires those in the lower classes of the majority to accept that there will be certain built-in inequities. Let’s say hereditary land ownership, or opportunities that are available only for those in the ruling class. And also to divest themselves of liberal notions, such as individualism, fairness, or meritocracy.

 

[10:03]

 

Only with a vested and powerful minority ruling class could the majority hope to oust the special group. Which could only be done by building a rival network and practicing the same ruthless in-group preference and lawfare. Including passing laws that are inherently unfair, as the special group does.

 

As ever, let me know your thoughts in the comments. And please, for the purposes of this video, do not try to assign particular people, or groups to the examples I have outlined here. I will delete any comments that do that.

 

Keep the conversation unspecific, and theoretical. And I think we’ll have a better discussion. Thank you!

 

Friends, Romans, countrymen, come this way. Lend me your ears, secrets of ancient rhetoric can now be yours for a trifling sum! The art of persuasive argument is all around us. In fact, we are surrounded by it. We live in a rhetorical age. But this is seldom taught, and even more seldom explained. It is not for you to know they said.

 

The master of grammar knows how to write with clarity, precision, and correctness.

 

The master of logic knows how to disarm his opponents with reason alone. And both can be powerful adversaries.

 

But the master of rhetoric can outflank both! Caring as he does little for their rules, and even less for their defeated tears!

 

The master of grammar asks:

 

“Is this sentence correct? Is this sentence clear?”

 

The master of rhetoric wonders:

 

“Does my speech have the power to sway the passions? Can my words move the crowd? Yes it can! Yes it can!”

 

The master of logic trains his mind to eliminate fallacies and formulate correct and well-defined arguments.

 

The master of rhetoric knows that the reasoning mind can be flooded with emotions, that the flood can short-circuit logic and overwhelm his opponent, who will crumple!

 

They will wonder why their well-written, well-reasoned arguments were so defenseless against the rhetoric’s apparent ability to bend reality to his will.

 

Do the faces in the crowd not see through this dark magic?

 

The master of rhetoric laughed at their wonder! He looked at the bemused despairing face of the master of logic, and spoke:

 

“Harness that wonder my friend! It was your own beloved Socrates who said ‘The only true wisdom is in knowing that, you know, nothing! And wonder is the beginning of wisdom!’.”

 

He turned to the master of grammar:

 

“So lucid and correct your prose, but why does nobody listen to you? It was your own favorite, George Orwell, who wrote, ‘Perhaps a lunatic was simply a majority of one?’. Do not rail at the crowd for what is in their nature. Understand what they are, and they will listen to you!”

 

And with that, the master of rhetoric was gone!

 

Find out what else he has to say by signing up to Foundations of Rhetoric! Fulfill your destiny and complete the Trivium!

 

Be sure to like this video and subscribe. And if you really like my content maybe consider joining the channel, or donating, or maybe even buy a mug!

 

I am grateful for all of your support, … Now get out!

 

 

[14:09]

 

 

END

top

 

 

============================================

YOUTUBE COMMENTS

top

 

93 Comments
SORT BY
Add a public comment…
Seventy-Three Elephants
5 hours ago (edited)
There are many studies that confirm this pattern and similar patterns. Basically, in a competition between an ethnocentric group and a non-ethnocentric group, the ethnocentric group has a huge advantage that overcomes virtually any obstacle. (This in-group advantage could apply to other groupings too, besides ethnes, but the studies I’ve seen mainly apply to ethnes.) Read more
17
REPLY

John Smith
5 hours ago
It’s worth pointing out that ingroup preference and meritocratic performance can both be at play and can actually amplify each other. Being smarter on average and playing favorites allows you to really dominate in the marketplace.
14
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
PhilosophicalZombie
3 hours ago
That is a fortunate confluence of conditions; and it self-erodes by definition. Because when you take the strain off the merit part for itself, then you take away the incentives for it to grow and continue. And then, of course, the effort and time and money a.s.f. of course trickles over to the other side, right onto the homophily.
And then you find yourself in a cul-de-sac and you die off.
It doesn’t matter whether if it is positive or negative; any disruption to the Price Signal is an inaccuracy, and therefore by definition a negative. If you don’t awarely place merit and quality and efficiency on a “higher shelf,” on a higher level of market by definition which comes before your selection or preferences, then you lose it. If you don’t consciously and by virtue of the very design of the system or market operation itself put it in there so that merit can totally override the in-group selection if a clash crops up, then the Spiteful Mutants will emerge and the system will descend into garbage that keeps choking itself with inefficiencies, stemming from some obsession with or prioritization of irrelevant crap. Read more
1
REPLY

Tobias Reiner
1 hour ago
You severely underestimate the innate self-improvement quality that lies in unbridled racial pride. Only a racial supremacist can understand the immense drive and cycle of constant reinforcement for self-improvement that develops once an attitude and real belief of racial supremacy takes over your subconscious mind.
This is no joke. A race that fully believes itself to be superior becomes a near indominable force. Our ancestors were testament to this fact, conquering almost the entire world through an unwavering believe in their racial superiority.
And we lost this position the second we collectively decided to give up this believe and fell into racial equality, slowly ruining us ever since. Read more
REPLY

Egrḗgoroi
6 hours ago
Well done AA. He who controls the flock, owns the field they graze upon.
19
REPLY

Adam
6 hours ago
One of your best videos ever. Similar to Woods’ video on Russian oligarch… I’d say this is a necessary video for all who enter into this sphere.
14
REPLY

Hide 4 replies
David Rosenberg
5 hours ago
Tactical
2
REPLY

Equality 7-2521
4 hours ago
The Russian oligarchs were in the same special group.
1
REPLY

Adam
4 hours ago
@David Rosenberg  hmmm. Wat mean?
REPLY

Adam
4 hours ago
@Equality 7-2521  interesting… Wat mean? No right answers.
REPLY

Camen Miles
6 hours ago (edited)
During the entire duration of the shilling all I could imagine was AA:
⚡POWAH! UNNNN-LLLLIMITED POWAAAAAAH!⚡
The line about their defeated tears almost made me pull onto the shoulder with laughter. Read more
13
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
Academic Agent
6 hours ago
LMAO
6
REPLY

Attercop
1 hour ago
@Academic Agent  bye bye atni semeti
REPLY

Xenophon
5 hours ago
“The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation” – the optimum strategy is convincing everyone outside of your in-group that in-group preference is evil while continuing to employ it for your own in-group, but also pretending that you aren’t doing so and destroying anyone who draws attention to what you are doing. Read more
5
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
marccas10
5 hours ago
In a nutshell, bravo.
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago
On the other hand, the former elite lost because it could no longer wield its form of control – military might, geographical separation of homeland and wealth-producing colonies – as a result of technological advancement that turned warfare in to something that demoralised the conscripted masses, and then eventually the creation of apocalyptic weaponry in the form of the atomic bomb. When viewed this way, as competing elite factions seeking to control the masses for their own general aims, it becomes far less ‘good v evil’ as some seem to interpret it. Read more
REPLY

Alejandro Macias
6 hours ago
Such in group preference can also be class fluid. Meaning that its members are descendants from lower and middle class. Like how 90% of millionaires will lose that class title.
17
REPLY

Jake Nicholaides
6 hours ago
Without the same ruthlessness shown by our enemies we will allow them to exploit any openness or fairness
54
REPLY

Hide REPLY

PhilosophicalZombie
3 hours ago
No. Well, yes, ruthlessness; but not by “playing the same game.” Because the problem is; the moment that you introduce another “channel” or “market” in addition to the purely free and meritocratic one, it disrupts the price signal. Which then creates inefficiency, undermining precisely the very selection and distribution which makes the free market effective in the first place.
It does not matter whether if it is a positive or a negative; so long as it is a disruption, it contaminates the reading, and creates simply another instance of memetically/narratively homophilic tendency within the system. Which either leads to a cascade of another anti-meritorious selection through the system, just based on some other set of arbitrary parameters, and then into slow and miserable decline until it meets an effective threshold and then fails and blows up – or it clashes reactively with the already established opposed miserable group preferential POS cluster and induces an unstable hysteresis. And then the system also fails and blows up.
The ruthlessness we must apply is very simple, in a sense; It must be absolute and conscious and understanding intolerance for anti-meritoriousness and Skin In The Game-aversion in the first place. Not tolerating idiot ideas like e.g. “Democracy” in the first place – representative or otherwise – because they are based on flawed ideas of “rationality” and disregard for the power of incentives and system complexity in the first place. Because they are popularity contests as markets.
The rule must be explicit and instantiated before even things like Freedom of Speech and Religion and Property – because it is essential to maintaining those very things in the first place within the system; “No laws, politics, appointments, institutions or other unions, bodies or authorities shall be created or allowed which view reality, explicitly or merely effectively, as a question of consensus or point of view.”
And as for the people who think that sort of thing obtains, it’s an easy job of just applying the Negative Golden Rule; “If you do it to me, then you have revealed what rules or absence of them you operate under; thus I can do it to you. You seem to think that it is a question of gaming the rules, and have revealed yourself as a faithless actor; so we won’t show you faith. In essence, you have stated that you either don’t understand, or don’t think that my/our rules or system either has any point, or that it can even exist; and if you don’t, then you cannot be party to and successfully operate under it. So you cannot be part of it. You can at best be taken advantage of and then just left in the dust.”
The thing we need to prevent, at any and every point, is the influence or priority or even presence of the “social channel.” That is where the Spiteful Mutants crop up, and the channel they use to exercise “power” and influence; the “social” domain and market. Point of view and presumption and consensus and relation and all that other contingent shit; which is by definition anti-meritorious because it is that disruption of Price Signal. It’s by definition corrupt and corruptive and anti-truth because it is dependent on those contingent and relational factors; which are not universal or true in themselves and therefore are either irrelevant or bourn at cost, and will thus expire whenever the cost becomes too great or the conditions change. Read more
REPLY

Hunger
5 hours ago
“Ben, Sam, and David…”
Oh boy…I have a feeling where this is going!
36
REPLY

Hide 10 replies
Jasper Gran Soren
5 hours ago
Pikachu… NOOOOOOOOOO
2
REPLY

Shaun Patrick O’Jameson
4 hours ago
Masons, right?
1
REPLY

Rachel Wilson
4 hours ago
@Shaun Patrick O’Jameson  wrong…
REPLY

endorphinjunkie
4 hours ago
@Shaun Patrick O’Jameson  close, Skull and Bones.
1
REPLY

Not Sam
3 hours ago
Just a hypothetical example, nothing to see here
REPLY

Rachel Wilson
3 hours ago
@Tobias Reiner  excuse me, leave my sexy big nose out of this… 😉
1
REPLY

Tobias Reiner
2 hours ago
​ @Rachel Wilson
Ok, I just finished watching the video and respect AAs plea not to name the obvious. Everybody nose anyway.
2
REPLY

Rachel Wilson
1 hour ago
@Tobias Reiner  i nose that they nose, that I know, but it could apply to many “in” groups all over the world. Communists, G7, et al.
REPLY

Tobias Reiner
57 minutes ago
@Rachel Wilson  There are many groups, but there’s only one nose to rule them all. And no other group has the power to stick their nose in their business, while they have their nose in every other group’s business.
REPLY

Tobias Reiner
51 minutes ago
I don’t blame you for your nose. I do only blame you for trying to excuse and downplay the behaviour of your fellow nosists, rather than actively exposing their dirty noses, so your sexy nose isn’t tarnished by association.
REPLY

fleetcenturion
6 hours ago
The real question is, why aren’t there more organized ingroups, and what do others see wrong with being part of one?
25
REPLY

Hide 12 replies
Sa-Amir el-Hayeed
6 hours ago
@C A  exactly. Just look at how they operate. The -an-ti-defa-mation lea-gue openly states on their website, but if you say you want the same for your own group, they call you reeeeecist and anti-small hat
1
REPLY

Egrḗgoroi
6 hours ago (edited)
Vlad’s answer was to just put people on spikes as motivation to keep them out in the first place.
[edit] – in reference to fleetcenturion’s avatar.
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago (edited)
Because in-group preference leads to isolationism and a decining population/civilisaiton. It’s the purity spiral in another form. Inclusivity, the ability to mix and adapt to something new – people, technology, land, threat – is a key part of adaptation and, although changed, ‘survival’ of the group. It’s not foolproof of course, as we see that inclusion can also mean one group disappearing (disease, conflict) but the broad mass of the middle is what survives. In-groups generally splinter away and fail, or they have to be willing to shed almost all egotistical ties to who/what they are for the sake of ‘something’ of their to survive i.e. give up language, culture, dee en eh. It seems to me the basic dichotomy is between tribalism and something like civilisation. Read more
1
REPLY

Egrḗgoroi
5 hours ago
@Mr S  The moment two cultures mix, one dies out completely. This is true for most of human history. South America is a very good example of rapid cultural shift in short periods of time. A truely culturally mixed society cannot exist. The tension will push one direciton or the other until one is removed. Read more
8
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago (edited)
@Egrḗgoroi  One usually loses, or becomes subsumed within the stronger, more dominant one. The idea of ‘dying out completely’ is a binary way of looking at something that is in no way clear cut. I reject your idea of one culture conquering the other and one ‘dying out’ as that’s just not what happens. Culture is fluid, it adapts and morphs constantly to reflect social development (and regression), as well as the compliance it receives from the population.
It rarely works the way you’re suggesting (if ever, I think). The types of people within a civlisation willing to really enforce any culture – language, spritualism, behaviour – on to another group of people is almost always small and it is only through genuine superiority (which usually means access to materials, technology, but sometimes other things as well which I probably couldn’t state directly) that one conquers the other. And that usually means colonialism, which simply traps and distorts the lesser group in to a position of subjects – they don’t die out, they just become second rate, adapting and distorting over time under the new society they live in. But it doesn’t stay static. Even colonialism leads to a middle class, which is often something forged out of the space between the two groups once enough time has passed. Read more
2
REPLY

Egrḗgoroi
5 hours ago
@Mr S  Tell that to the Inca. Then the Mayans. Then the Aztecs. The rest of your wall is just conjecture and ideological bias.
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago (edited)
@Egrḗgoroi  Except it isn’t. You think those cultures are “dead”? They’re still very much present in the tribal behaviour of certain groups in that region of the world. Changed? Yes, clearly. Corrupted? Yes, that too. But the culture isn’t dead, it wasn’t completely destroyed. And what’s more is you’re ignoring the power of regeneration, of how culture is recorded and can experience a renaissance (I mean come on, the clue is in the name..!!!), or it lives on in some form in the common people, their superstitions, practice etc. You’re the one revealing your bias as you’re coming at this from a severely blinkered angle – one whereby you see a problem/threat, think that by declaring this threat to be one with only two possible outcomes, and thus is makes the rationale easy. If the only response to another culture is the death of your own, then what can you do? The answer is clear, the fear of death and the instinct for survival is probably the greatest a human being has. So it’s not a hard question to answer. Except that’s not actually what happens. Cultures change, mix, distort. That doesn’t mean it’s as seamless as the fabled melting pot but your own interpretation is miles off the reality and shows a distinct misunderstanding of history. Read more
1
REPLY

Shaun Patrick O’Jameson
4 hours ago
@Mr S  “in-group preference leads to isolationism and a decining population/civilisaiton”
Tell the Amish. Or Europe’s muslims. Read more
REPLY

Egrḗgoroi
4 hours ago
@Mr S  You’re glossing over the cultures I’ve offered as evidence. While I will agree that there are tiny pockets of Aztec culture still “preserved” in parts of South America, the Inca and Maya are all but museum pieces. Do you honestly see the Aztec culture once again becoming the dominant culture of the region? Or even the Castilians that replaced them? No. These cultures are all but extinct.
The individual in the culture and a culture’s “survival” insticnt are two different things and you are correct in terms of “culture” blending, up to a point. Once a tipping point is reached, the now “dominant” culture you’re refering, results in one of two things happening. Wide spread adoption of the new and abandonment of the old, or active supression.
We can play word games all day long but the truth of the situation, and your argument basically boils down to “submit”.
Good day, sir. I think we are done here. Read more
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago
@Shaun Patrick O’Jameson  Well quite. Those groups live at the luxury of the masses. The former made a tactical, and by no means silly, decision to ‘check out’ from progress yet they still benefit from all the advances in medicine, technology etc. The ones that were ruthlessly puritanical corrupted and self destructed. The other group is one that has lost language, identity, culture etc, and a number of other things in order to live off the wealth and prosperity of the mass. You’re not countering the point, there’s something to be said for particularism, I don’t doubt that, but survival will always rest with the large mass. It simply benefits those who are able to adapt to the changes and whims of the masses, and adapt their own behaviour/status before it becomes a problem. It’s the constant adaptation that leads to success. Read more
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago (edited)
@Egrḗgoroi  I’m not glossing over them at all. You’re using one (arguably two) examples in what is a rather trite point. Nearly all cultures will eventually fizzle out – but that’s because culture isn’t static! This presumably comes from a misunderstanding, whereby when we study history we think of culture and people as solid and defined things. But they are constantly moving, breaking, changing, and so on. Proto Indo European people and their culture developed in to in the modern Europeans yet, for all intents and purposes, their precise culture, language, spirituality etc is ‘dead’. Yes, people die. It’s hardly a groundbreaking idea.
So this idea that it is solely a culture clash that leads to this ‘death’ is, as I said, a reductive framing that is tainted by your own blinkered desire to justify the end point you have already reached: “we must fight otherwise we face death”. But it’s just not true, if what you’re actually talking about is the culture then, clearly, cultures adapt and develop with time. Yes, some win, some lose. Clearly, European culture lost in the early 20th Century and we’re now living in the ashes – but a lot of the culture still remains. It’s not completely lost and that’s precisely my point. It will fade eventually, in to the history books, because that’s the chart of human progress (and, in some cases, regression). But arguing for cultural stasis is just a projection of whatever distorted logic you’re not engaging with, presumably out of some sense of fear, or detection of threat, that you haven’t been able to reckon with or understand.
I’m advocating nothing and yet you have stated my argument for me. I can’t offer any better example that you are applying black and white thinking than with this. I have said nothing about what I think ‘we’ should do yet you think I’m suggesting submission. There are more than two outcomes and you’re just wrong about the ‘death’ of culture. Read more
REPLY

Mr S
3 hours ago
The real answer to why there aren’t more in-groups is because most of them fail. That’s why. That’s the truth. The durability of any particular group is in its capacity to adapt – simple social Darwinism. Being strong helps, clearly, but the adaptation to being weak helps as well. Durability is what dictates particular survival and it is clear that we are living in the moment of one particular group’s removal on the basis that quite literally every other group has an axe to grind with ‘us’. Read more
REPLY

Master Derpy
6 hours ago
Fight fire with fire. These tactics worked exceptionally well for the ingroup. If the outgroup utilizes the same tactics, but with majority support, victory would be sure to follow.
5
REPLY

Hide 10 replies
Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin
6 hours ago
We’ll have to do it surreptitiously, though.
REPLY

Academic Agent
6 hours ago
The majority cannot organise because it is too big and disparate.
12
REPLY

i.n.d.y_tv
6 hours ago
@Academic Agent  It is even fair to say that the majority are not part of us.
REPLY

Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin
5 hours ago
@Academic Agent  Can we make any use of the fact that the “silent majority” often support us? I wonder if Enoch Powell should have been more ambitious. Or, are the sheep ultimately just too cowardly?
1
REPLY

Jane Hrahan
5 hours ago
There is no “majority” there are only ingroups too stupid to realize they are ingroups, and ingroups smart enough to realize they are. The “majority” you speak of is an ingroup of quality using other less quality groups to create the illusion of a majority, genuine majorities do not and cannot exist, the minority always rules the majority. Read more
1
REPLY

A Fellow Traveler
5 hours ago
@Jane Hrahan  The effectiveness of an ingroup seems actually to be determined by its minority status. Power is zero-sum, so the more tight knit the group that brokers power, the less it leaks out, and thus the more effective the group. Read more
REPLY

Karl Burton
5 hours ago
@Academic Agent  Yep, get it. Needs 10’s
REPLY

Jane Hrahan
5 hours ago
@A Fellow Traveler  Not entirely true, its an increase to a point (5 people in an in group is more effective than 1 for instance), but it is a diminishing margin of return. As your group size increases the benefit decreases.
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago
@Karl Burton  I’m receptive to the idea of responding to the subversion and destruction of the old social order that led to some form of compliance/tolerance among the western populations. However, the idea that – in facing off against centuries of applied political and philosophical praxis, as well as millennia of religious understanding – with the idea of ‘self styled 10s who happen to reject modern indulgence and personal grandiosity’ seems a tad naive about what bonds people together and why. Read more
REPLY

Obergruppenführer John Smith
9 minutes ago
By definition the majority cannot organize as a minority. The solution to a parasite is not to start acting like the parasite, but rather to execute the immune response.
REPLY

Because it’s current year
6 hours ago
all im saying is it would be nice if we lived in a meritocracy one day.
23
REPLY

Hide 10 replies
Live
6 hours ago
The smartest thing anyone can do in a meritocracy is to keep smarter people out.
10
REPLY

Mr S
6 hours ago (edited)
@Live  That’s far from the ‘smartest’ thing to do. The better option would be to control and manage the handover of power/infuence in the manner that any father does to his son, or owner does to the buyer of an organisation. Time waits for no man, we all have our day, and the rapid rate of tech advancement that has taken place in recent decades means that even a few years can separate ‘generations’ of people in terms of practical capabilities. In terms of a meritocracy, what has intelligence got to do with being at the top? It seems fairly obvious to me that any society that is directly correlated to intelligence would be nightmarish, with some barely functional geniuses expected to manage or direct the fate of humanity. No thanks.
Meritocracy is a good idea but there is a difference between wisdom and intelligence. ‘Smart’ in this context is just a vague (and ugly) Americanism that isn’t clear in its meaning. Depending on what you mean, the wisest thing really could be to keep a ‘smart’ person away from positions of authority they lack the experience or capabilities to assume. Read more
1
REPLY

i.n.d.y_tv
6 hours ago
There is merit in familiarity.
4
REPLY

NukeCloudstalker
5 hours ago
meritocracy is only great insofar as it increases group fitness in intergroup competition. End of story. Idealizing it is great, but safe it for when we have secured our intergalactic lebensraum, ok?
1
REPLY

MGTOW Psyche
4 hours ago
sadly, incompetent evil people with big egos will always seek to crush those who are stronger than himself…
1
REPLY

DoctorAncap
3 hours ago
meritocracy is a leftists/neoliberal concept. Notice how you rarely see austrians talk about meritocracy. Why? Because merit is subjective. There cannot be a collective judgement of what’s “merit”, unless you are a leftists and you believe value isn’t subjective.
Also if one wants to see a society where individuals rise on their own merit, he has to go into the jungle and look at animals. Animals don’t have the capacity to accumulate wealth, nor to organize as groups, so whatever results they achieve is 100% on their own merit.
Too bad the non-meritocratic humans accumulate wealth, organize as groups and can do of meritocratic animals whatever they want. Read more
1
REPLY

James Adams
3 hours ago
^ you’re goddamn right, AnCap!
REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
@DoctorAncap  At a very basic level, merit is whatever survives and is capable of adapting in order to survive. That might mean high standards in a developed civilisation – i.e. cultures and manners as refined by the leisure class – at other times it might simply be durability, like the crocodiles managing to survive where so many other flora and fauna have become extinct. Allowing people and ideas to flourish, with the central principle of ‘whatever survives and adapts is meritorious’ is a fairly easy and understandable application of meritocracy. Read more
1
REPLY

Because it’s current year
50 minutes ago
@DoctorAncap  “The concept originates, at least by the sixth century BC, when it was advocated by the Chinese philosopher Confucius, who “invented the notion that those who govern should do so because of merit, not of inherited status.” (Meritocracy – Wikipedia) 2 second google search.
Merit is not a leftist idea not unless by that you mean the left of 300 years ago. and neoliberals are products of the gilded cage progressives who distained competition and allowed any one to get an unlimited corporate charter. The corporation by its history and essence is a monopoly don’t think that those systems are merit based just because people who support them claim they are for the individual. that is the pabulum new demagogues use to gain power. Read more
1
REPLY

Obergruppenführer John Smith
6 minutes ago
No, “meritocrac” is just another form of democracy and is bad and degenerate. Both theoretically and literally. Read Christopher Lasch.
I think there are a couple people with videos on this site that have done a good summary of his work Read more
REPLY

Alan Gilbert
6 hours ago
The old adage is true, “its not what you know but who you know”…..
35
REPLY

Hide 10 replies
Jasper Gran Soren
6 hours ago (edited)
The age of meritocracy. Because knowing powerful people is also a gift.
6
REPLY

JP Morris
6 hours ago
It’s not what you know, it isn’t even who you know, it’s who you blow.
3
REPLY

melfice999
6 hours ago
Similarly it is “Do as I say, not as I do”
1
REPLY

Mr S
6 hours ago
I feel like this is less relevant in the age of tech though. Connections can be built virtually in ways they never could before. Not to dismiss the role of networking, nor physical proximity and access to elite institutions and power. But it’s not everything. Read more
REPLY

JP Morris
5 hours ago
@Mr S  That’s the egalitarian lies getting to you. This is totally how the corpos and technocrats operate on the inside.
1
REPLY

Wednesday Night Business
5 hours ago
Sometimes, its who you blow.
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago
@JP Morris  At that level, yes. But it depends what you’re talking about, who, where, why etc. It is possible to form new networks in almost no time at all.
REPLY

snex
5 hours ago
Why do you keep buying products made by people who know other people rather than people who produce value for you?
1
REPLY

JP Morris
4 hours ago
@snex  Have you ever tried avoiding big corpos. It’s harder than it sounds.
REPLY

snex
4 hours ago
@JP Morris  What makes it so hard? The fact that they make things that you value? Tell me how untalented morons are able to make things that you value but true geniuses cannot.
REPLY

Mac Cadamn
6 hours ago
That was a large glass of wine the master of logic had in front of his chess board.
2
REPLY

Jasper Gran Soren
6 hours ago (edited)
This video obeys the rules of what my father taught me. Old testament first names are really nice. I’m going to download this video and subtitle it AA, and you can’t stop me.
16
REPLY

Hide 13 replies
Annette
6 hours ago
New testament names are also good.
2
REPLY

Austin Byrd
6 hours ago
Sad that god doesn’t exist though
2
REPLY

Annette
6 hours ago
@Austin Byrd  that’s up to you.
1
REPLY

Mr S
6 hours ago
@Annette  Not really. Either there is a metaphysical Creator or there isn’t. The whole ‘personal God’ thing was what led to secularism, which is probably a good thing in the long run.
1
REPLY

Karl Burton
5 hours ago
No speculation, please. Ta
REPLY

Jasper Gran Soren
5 hours ago
@Austin Byrd  Good for you!? LOL
REPLY

Fus
3 hours ago (edited)
@Mr S  “which is probably a good thing in the long run.”
We are in the result of this long run, don’t lie to yourself.
2
REPLY

Fus
3 hours ago (edited)
@Austin Byrd  Be depressed somewhere else please.
1
REPLY

Austin Byrd
3 hours ago
@Fus  not an argument
REPLY

Fus
3 hours ago
​ @Austin Byrd  Neither’s your birth certificate.
1
REPLY

Austin Byrd
3 hours ago
@Fus  lol
REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
@Fus  It takes an awful amount of softness to think that we’re living in a more difficult period of history than at any point in the last 1000 years. If you think this is worse then you’re just clueless.
REPLY

MALICEM12
1 hour ago
@Mr S  depends on how you define “difficult”.
REPLY

the woodlander
5 hours ago
What a bizarre time we live in, when we censor ourselves to this degree.. good intro level stuff that can be shared..
6
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Joachim
3 hours ago
true but the censorship has forced the RW community to become more creative and the quality of the content has skyrocketed in the past 2 years. I struggle to find anywhere else on the internet with such deep dives into philosophical questions. Read more
REPLY

Robert House
4 hours ago
Fortunately this is a purely theoretical exercise that doesn’t apply to any real life groups.
31
REPLY

Hide 5 replies
Egrḗgoroi
3 hours ago
“If you wish to see the fate of democracies, just look out the window.”
1
REPLY

Urban Development
1 hour ago
@Egrḗgoroi  the funny thing is true democracy is actually a wonderful system because given a choice, people have always voted for an autocrat who drives out corrupt oligarchs and establishes a hereditary monarchy.
REPLY

Just Chat
1 hour ago
Indeed.
REPLY

Egrḗgoroi
1 hour ago
@Urban Development  Its a vicious cycle. The issue with hereditary monarchy is eventually you get someone who shouldn’t be anywhere near the throne. And its too easy to just end up with a muppet monarch.
REPLY

Obergruppenführer John Smith
8 minutes ago
@Egrḗgoroi  the deep and unsettling truth is that any society not rule directly by God himself will eventually Decline and fall. The perfect system of government doesn’t exist. However, there is a difference between one that ends in a century and one that ends in a millennia. Well constituted monarchy, with a worthy aristocratic class below it, and strong connections to the base level of society is and always will be the most successful form of human government, and why 99% of all societies that have ever existed has existed as such. You do have a certain tension because strict hereditary succession is generally not desires for the reasons you suggest – and obviously the Five Good Emperors of Rome are a great example of how absolute non hereditary monarchy can work quite well. People can understand this and try to enforce a system of standards, but simple human biology believe people to want to favor their own kin and lead to some kind of hereditary preference (to be clear it doesn’t mean that the sun cannot inherit from the father, maybe he really is the best man for the job, but rather his heredity alone as the deciding factor is not a good thing) Read more
REPLY

Chris Raposo
1 hour ago
Man Canada in a nutshell extremely eye opening. Keep up the great work AA.
REPLY

Gen Fu
4 hours ago (edited)
Welcome to a pond of green frogs, and brown frogs.
The green frogs assume by allowing brown frogs fair opportunity, the best of brown frogs will become pond managers, and be the best pond managers. Thus, the well managed pond will be better for all the frogs who swim in it, and flies will be more abundant for all.
However, when brown frogs become pond managers, brown frogs ONLY assign only OTHER brown frogs the best fly-catching spots, and pond management roles. This leaves all green frogs picking from bad corners of the pond and catching LESS flies per average for them, than before they co-operated with brown frogs.
THEN the brown frogs start deciding to make changes to the pond, which mean LESS flies hover around the other pond corners, and MORE flies hover on their already fly-rich spots. The brown frogs get MORE flies now, despite already having the MOST flies. The green flies are now getting EVEN LESS than before.
The brown frogs now tell YELLOW frogs from another pond, to come into this pond, there are PLENTY of flies after all, look how fat BROWN frogs are! But, for some reason, the brown frogs send the yellow frogs to all the already-fly-sparse green frog spots. Now the green frogs have to SHARE the small number of flies they already have!
Green frogs begin getting hungry. “There aren’t enough flies here to feed us” they becry, to the death ears of the bloated brown frog managers. The green frogs start to ask: “Did letting brown frogs into the pond really make more flies? Or did it just change who received the existing flies?” “Were green frogs better off BEFORE working with brown frogs, and should green frogs STOP working with brown frogs alltogether?”
Why should green frogs choose to share a pond with brown frogs, if all they get for it are empty, hungry bellies?
Show less
5
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago (edited)
Not bad, but human civilisation isn’t enclosed within one pond. You’d have to factor in environmental expansion in to this analogy to make sense of it i.e. did some of the green frogs’ leaders relocate for better ponds in the initial process? Were some of the other green frogs periodically bribed in a similar manner, to avoid the fate of the lower order of the green frogs, either by leaving to other ponds or mixing in with the brown frogs? Was the food source now controlled and less random as a result of a system of automation that would guarantee a certain amount of flies, irrespective of the seasons? Read more
REPLY

Rohan Kale
6 hours ago
Groups also allow the ability to specialize and use division of labor, an individual is capable of only so much.
3
REPLY

RockawayCCW
2 hours ago (edited)
Coach Red Pill just made a video about this same topic. He argued that getting your kids into the best private school is about helping them get the right connections that will lead to lifelong success.
1
REPLY

Uncle Tom
5 hours ago (edited)
This sort of scenario should be familiar to anyone who has studied military strategy. A well-organized force with strong internal discipline is always at an advantage when facing off against an enemy, especially one who lacks cohesion. See Caesar’s campaign against the Belgae for example of what happens to those who fail to apply collective action. Read more
1
REPLY

Some Guy Called Cerberus
6 hours ago
This is just the constant conflict between individual interest vs group interest (selfishness vs selflessness).
From a purely evolutionary perspective you want to be a selfish individual (close-knit cartels) in a selfless group (egalitarian society).
If everyone decides (or evolves) to be selfish, then the community as a whole will no longer be welcoming, weakening each individual. If everyone decides (or evolves) to be selfless, then most individuals will be easy pickings for the few selfish ones that appear.
So it gives us the current setup where our societies tend to push for egalitarianism and altruism, while a few percent of the population become very successful as selfish psychopaths.
It comes down to production and consumption of resources in the broadest sense (sexual access and status as much as actual wealth). Since one person can very easily consume the production of hundreds if not more people, each individual is incentivized to exploit the majority, by taking more “than their share”.
Since this relationship relies on the “livestock” outnumbering the “owners”, the “livestock” can never apply the same selfish in-group preference, because distributing their own resources over their own large population won’t be beneficial (it will be just a 1:1 transfer).
For the individual member of the livestock, there remains three options:
– Accept the game and play it, trying to enter into the oligarchy, or forming a new oligarchy to prey on the livestock.
– Accept the game and bear it, understanding that there is always going to be a ruling caste, and there is nothing to be done about it.
– Reject the game, and flip the table, by ruthlessly policing resource accumulation. This is the socialist route. It starts with trust-breaking and anti-cartel laws and ends with all kinds of racial and gender quotas and the abolishing of inheritance, and a total, forceful equalizing of society. Read more
5
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago (edited)
This is why I find the LARPing fetish for all things colonial to be bewlidering ignorant. The purpose for any elite is to control and survive by all means necessary – within reason. Failure to do this, or failure to ‘win’ within the elite, led to regular bloodshed. The lower orders, including the middle classes, are just living in their world. The modern world does offer individualism in order for a person to exist and succeed on their own terms – which cannot be said for the orders of the past. Understanding yourself as an individual, first and foremost, is paramount: above and beyond the group identity. It’s fundamental to humans and it’s deep within us, something that can be revealed through experience, struggle, meditation etc. As you say, there are only ever a set of compromised attitudes to take in relation to the realisation that, even as an individual, we have to live in a society and civilisation that relies on almost the precise opposite of the individual’s concerns and desires. The notion that old orders were somehow better than the current one are way off the mark. Read more
REPLY

The King of Games
6 hours ago (edited)
So what AA demonstrates here is how aristocracy has always functioned. Secret societies, fathernaties and legacy admission at university works like this for every aristocrat. All aristocrats know they are such and who is and isn’t their peer. Usually this is formalized and everyone knows this. The problem is that we have these deluded pretentions of free market and meritocracy. This is exactly how the network of 10s must function. This in itself is not bad. But it must be formalized. Make aristocracy great again.
Show less
17
REPLY

Hide 9 replies
Academic Agent
6 hours ago
Yes!
10
REPLY

A Fellow Traveler
5 hours ago
So our kids are going to be friends?
REPLY

The King of Games
5 hours ago
@A Fellow Traveler  yes
REPLY

Karl Burton
5 hours ago
@Academic Agent  I’m not a 10, but I think we’re on the same team. Go for it, and Godspeed.
1
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago (edited)
Your last line is embarrassing and the kind of foot-kissing, possibly LARPing attitude that makes this kind of analysis baffling. What are you actually advocating? A less meritocratic civilisation with an elite that you tell yourself you would be part of (you wouldn’t) because you support them when everyone else opposes them?! This is peak ‘first in line’ during the revolution kind of thinking aka useful idiocy. Read more
REPLY

The King of Games
5 hours ago
@Mr S  OK Gamma
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago (edited)
@The King of Games  Ok King. LARP to your heart’s content.
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@The King of Games  A sharp rebuttal indeed! But they do have a point worth considering.
REPLY

Obergruppenführer John Smith
3 minutes ago
The problem is that there’s a difference between a true aristocracy and a hostile foreign elite.
The aristocracies of the past certainly had their privileges – in fact many of those privileges were much more open and acknowledged then the elite have today, and in many ways that’s a good thing – but they also had a strong connection to all levels of society. Despite what Hollywood tell you they weren’t all sadistic corrupt nobleman just going around abusing people. They had a strong bond with the people who lived on their land, which they derive their power from, they were from the same ethnic group, they shared a faith, and they shared cultural attributes. No doubt they were set apart, and would not have even considered associating with commoners to a certain degree, but they didn’t hate them, and they understood it was all part of a well constituted whole.
The so-called Elite of today are nothing like that. First, they are literally the ugliest, the dumbest and the least honest. They aren’t aristocratic in anything but the most superficial sense of the word – they are the worst people, not the best. Second, they have no meaningful connection to the other strata of society. They are, as a guy in a Mario hat once said, “rootless cosmopolitans”. They move all over the world surreptitiously owing no loyalty to anyone but themselves. This is the exact kind of thing that encourages all the worst abuses of power and engenders none of the positive attributes of leadership.
This is definitive parasitical behavior.
Show less
REPLY

Christopher Mulkey
6 hours ago
You forgot the part where they become the victim of their own hubris and are punished for the ingroup selection… which happens like clockwork every hundred years.
44
REPLY

Hide 24 replies
You Know
6 hours ago
Please tell me we’re getting to that hundred year mark
13
REPLY

C A
6 hours ago
Until they finally work out how to make it stick.
By mass immigration, for example. So there’ll no longer be a majority to oppose them. Read more
10
REPLY

Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin
6 hours ago
Oh, I wish. I see no happy ending, though. This century doesn’t produce many painters anymore.
7
REPLY

Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin
6 hours ago
But they’ve infected everyone. Who’s going to do it?
5
REPLY

Eric Guier
6 hours ago
@C A  The Anglos tried that in India, it worked for a while.
3
REPLY

A Fellow Traveler
6 hours ago
@C A  Eventually if you keep importing poor people your country becomes just as poor as the donor nations. It’s like diffusion in physics. GDP isn’t a finite pie, it grows, but these immigrants also like the welfare state and increase the power of socialists, so immigration really does shrink the pie.
Point is, mass immigration is not sustainable, so it’s not a strategy for “making it stick” and their imported plebs will be the ones restarting that cycle, not the ones they are used to doing it. Read more
3
REPLY

C A
5 hours ago
@A Fellow Traveler  That sounds logical.
Maybe they’ll find the perfect burden-weight and stop there. Enough to hold us down, but keep us working.
I guess we’ll see. Read more
REPLY

A Fellow Traveler
5 hours ago
@C A  It’s not possible really to find a perfectly balanced anything in broad scale policy. It’s a castle built of sand, too many variables to account for, and the variables are changing while you are measuring them. Especially when it relies on relaxing top down control like with borders.
This is why philosophy and tradition are so relevant to governance, because they are generalized truths that do not rely on quantitative measurements but on qualitative truths about human nature, based on thousands of years of observation. Read more
1
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago
You’re missing the point where meritocracy applies to an elite and that it is via the ability to appeal to enough of the majority that dictates who and what succeeds in the minority elite. Hence the implicit agreement with, say, consumerism and atomised culture, rather than the masses turning their back on these offerings, going back to church, developing local communities etc. The people decide for themselves and any elite that appeals to a broad population will eventually come to power. Read more
3
REPLY

marccas10
5 hours ago
@A Fellow Traveler  You could have just said that it is a ponzi scheme with people. That is exactly what it is. Bring in a million new “Brits” and own a Supermaket chain or a massive clothing empire or Food company and you will get richer. It may be cash that is handed out in benefits so state funded profits but a new million in the bank looks just the same as the other £500 million. Read more
1
REPLY

Christopher Mulkey
5 hours ago
@C A  White pill surgical strike. Those who don’t have an ethnic connection to the country will not stay here when times get hard and will flee back to their homelands. They are still connected to those lands the same way we are connected to ours. Read more
1
REPLY

Christopher Mulkey
5 hours ago
@You Know  2028 is the winter of the 4th turning so prolly somewhere around there.
REPLY

Christopher Mulkey
5 hours ago
@Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin  America never did solve its problems that way. we always preferred deportations.
REPLY

Christopher Mulkey
4 hours ago
@Eric Guier  The difference is a majority of Indians loved the British…. even then they still got punted out.
REPLY

Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin
4 hours ago
​ @A Fellow Traveler  That’s the way I always view it: equilibrium forces. Unfortunately, it isn’t one that favors us if we allow it. Personally, I believe we should seek to optimize the reaction by only allowing in the most attractive, most skillful, etc.
The current way, on the other hand, is dysgenic. Read more
REPLY

C A
4 hours ago
@Christopher Mulkey  I do hope so.
1
REPLY

Christopher Mulkey
4 hours ago
@Mr S  Populations change. Political temperaments are inherited. Look at white birth rates. Mediocre. Now sort them by political ideology. Leftist don’t have kids. The rights has 3-5 per family. We will simple changed the political temperament by out breeding them. I’m gonna have 5 how many will you have? Read more
REPLY

Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin
4 hours ago
@Christopher Mulkey  The British, on a whole, weren’t that bad to people in their empire. And I say that as a descendant of the Mayflower. They could act unreasonable at times, but there was plenty of reason to like them.
REPLY

Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin
4 hours ago
@Christopher Mulkey  Oh, I agree that is more humane. But will anyone even follow through on that?
REPLY

Jasper Gran Soren
4 hours ago
They will learn the savagery of “the enemy of their enemy” and they will regret their choice. Then, after being spared once again, they will rationalize everything again and start it over.
There is no fixing, you need to instate physical removal in law. Read more
1
REPLY

Christopher Mulkey
4 hours ago
@Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin  They wont have a choice. It will be the human choice the same way using 2 atomic bombs in WW2 was. If they had let those marines on that island there wouldn’t be a Japanese people after that. When the normies figure out what’s going on (and they will) it will be a courtesy Read more
REPLY

Mr S
3 hours ago
@Christopher Mulkey  No this is nonsense, unfortunately. ‘Leftist’ isn’t some stable property that is inherited. The whole point about subversion to left wing ideology is that it attacks weakness and dysfunction – in some case induces it – and then offers the solution readymade in the form of social compliance with one of the ‘isms’. A lot of the middle class, left wing boomers came from working class, small c conservative, aspirational parents. I think The Sopranos is a great fictitious example of how nominal family values (supposedly the core belief system of their organisation…!) are impossible to pass down unless they are truly robust and openly organised i.e. like a religion. Politics isn’t a religion and people making a religion out of politics are fools. As for birth rates etc, I probably can’t say where I think we are heading but you’re miles off. Look up the acronym GMH – used by the C of E recently. In terms of identity, there is an interesting discussion to be had but I’m not sure if anyone else has worked it out? They must have done but I haven’t read anyone say or write about it – for obvious reasons. It ties in to gobal pop. decline within the next 200 yeras though, put it that way. Read more
REPLY

Eric Guier
2 hours ago
@Christopher Mulkey  Well judging by how many people vote for zionists and watch Hollywood the majority love the current ruling group too.
1
REPLY

Christopher Mulkey
2 hours ago
@Eric Guier  They owned 70% of assets in the Weimar republic too… didnt help them much. Bismarck liked them too but it wasn’t the conservatives that voted against Bismarck now was it… The Austrian painter was not elected by conservatives. Read more
REPLY

MrSonicAdvance
7 hours ago
Ooh! Spicy topic!
29
REPLY

Hide 4 replies
Nirvana
6 hours ago
lol
REPLY

David Rosenberg
6 hours ago
We are talking about quakers, right ?
2
REPLY

David Rosenberg
5 hours ago
🌶
REPLY

David Rosenberg
5 hours ago
@ELODIN  🧃 🥤
REPLY

Aethel Wolfe
6 hours ago
This is a ground up approach of Pareto principles applied to parents and schools. All they did in this example was said they are special, some of them were and some of them weren’t.
1
REPLY

Mercury Digicom
3 hours ago
Minority group perception of being excluded as a result of outgroup status could be a more nuanced reading of the theory you present, although you were very specific in your scenarios. Can a free market not handle group preference? I think it can. The big difference both individually and in groups seems to simply be intergenerational focus on education (and yes the politics and wealth that go along with that, depending on the market). Read more
REPLY

Artemis
6 hours ago
Never has it been more clear that AA wants to be the new ruling class.
9
REPLY

Hide 12 replies
Peter V
6 hours ago
And he should be
4
REPLY

Artemis
6 hours ago
@Peter V  I can think of no more feminine a REPLY

than this. Stating that another man should rule over you.
3
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago (edited)
@Artemis  lol. isn’t it like 90% of people are born followers?
1
REPLY

Peter V
5 hours ago
@Artemis  Why not? It’s the division of labour. I’d rather have some king fight leftists for me than doing it myself.
1
REPLY

PirateBBS
5 hours ago
@Artemis  Contempt for loyalty is infinitely more feminine than loyalty.
8
REPLY

Karl Burton
5 hours ago
It’s not clear whether or not you’re good with this. If you think you’d do a better job, fill your boots
1
REPLY

Jorsalaheim
5 hours ago
@Artemis  Ancapism is just gay. Some must rule, some must follow
REPLY

Artemis
4 hours ago
@Karl Burton  I wouldn’t. That’s why I don’t chase it.
1
REPLY

Artemis
4 hours ago
@PirateBBS  Loyalty implies mutual benefit. What benefit would I accrue?
2
REPLY

Artemis
4 hours ago
@PirateBBS  and I’m contemptuous of subservience. Not loyalty. Subservience implies a lack of will or desire to be ones own king. You’re giving up that ability to someone else and that I won’t abide by.
1
REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
@Artemis  You don’t have to justify identifying the simping.
1
REPLY

Artemis
1 hour ago
@Mr S  if I can save even one…
REPLY

Richard Nordheimer
5 hours ago
An Irish man walks into a cinema, out of 110 cinemas he gets thrown out of 109 of them.
The Irish man cries out “Why do they hate me so?” but never does he ask himself if he is at fault for being thrown out in the first place Read more
5
REPLY

Hide 3 replies
Inukshuk67
3 hours ago
The Irishman was never thrown out of a civilized cinema.
Also, the strongest cinema owner invaded, bombed, enslaved and starved the other cinema owners because he wanted “a place in the sun”.
REPLY

Dagon’s Air
2 hours ago
@Inukshuk67  Ofir is that you?
1
REPLY

Inukshuk67
1 hour ago
@Dagon’s Air  who?
REPLY

Ebin Ebin
2 hours ago
A clever one can easily expand this understanding to such a conclusion that even democracies, republics etc. are all myths. Absolute Monarchy is da wae…
(Yes I’m serious.)
1
REPLY

Sonny Ferris
5 hours ago
This video absolutely describes Northern Ireland to a T, especially since the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998.
REPLY

Wtf! Am I actually right?
6 hours ago
Your advertising has become exceptional btw. 😀
6
REPLY

Michael Fox
6 hours ago
Only caught the end. Seems good.
2
REPLY

John Saxon
5 hours ago
So what we need AA is a religion that binds us all together, as opposed to this worthless individualism nonsense which just isolates us.
Anyone who knows anything about military history will tell you isolated enemies are easy to take out. Read more
1
REPLY

intboom
2 hours ago
So how do the ground rules work exactly? Can I mention the name of a specific, very famous expert in intersectional theory and Fragility, for example? Perhaps in relation to that particular person’s work in attempting to foster and promote acceptance of a particular majority group identity within that majority group, but only for the purposes of explicitly putting that group on the bottom of the pile?
Does explicitly enshrining unfair outcomes in culture via widely accepted academia count as enshrining them in law? Read more
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
I think the explicit purpose for that sort of behaviour is almost Machiavellian femininity as manifested through weaponised individualism. It’s probably only possible in a civilised world where there is no threat of in-group consequence or retaliation – or, at least, not enough of a threat to dissuade her from doing what she did. Hence the shock and horror at what she’s doing, yet the sheer inability to actually use that inherit sense of injustice to do anything about it, because of the genteel nature of society’s laws and the cultural apathy towards shame. Basically, she is riding the tiger while also encouraging it to devour what it was already stalking. Many women, at far higher rates than men, have had a similar revelation over the last decade and the advent of social media – that they can be rewarded beyond their wildest dreams by pushing past a sense of right and wrong. Read more
REPLY

endorphinjunkie
6 hours ago
I support the Free Market for my Ingroup.
21
REPLY

Hide REPLY

wa0w w0aow
5 hours ago
This sums up my views on economics.
2
REPLY

Reuven Polonskiy
3 hours ago
I am a part of such minority group and I would prefer that everyone would go tribal, because the Egalitrian social norms are spreading like virus and Eroding even parts of my community. I want it to be like it was in the past.
1
REPLY

Conqueror of Quebec
6 hours ago
Love these traditional biblical names, good aesthetic
4
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
Winter Phoenix Forest Kirin
6 hours ago
Yeah, I picked up on that too. 👌
REPLY

David Rosenberg
6 hours ago
So do I
REPLY

i.n.d.y_tv
6 hours ago
If a group wished to rival these people by adopting the in-group preference tactics they would have to first define who their in-group is; what makes someone part of them? Which goes back to a video you made previously about creed, blood and soil.
Ultimately I think there need to be layers of in-group preference and the creed, blood and soil must be arranged into priorities, with rules for supersedence, across a global in-group membership; despite nationalism being a useful tool for creating in-group preference, a global elite must be rivaled by a global elite, they must be out-competed across the whole front or they will reroute and work around any ground gained by their new rivals.
These are topics I wish to explore further on my channel. Read more
2
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
A Fellow Traveler
5 hours ago
WPWW XD
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago (edited)
Precisely. I’m seeing a lot of empty evocations but absolutely nothing about who or what the group actually is. The whole point about Europe’s defeat in the 20th Century was its own elite lost control of the high standards that colonialism once brought, where their rule was impossible to argue with on the basis of their superiority (case in point – Norman invasion of Saxon/’Celtic’ Britain, no one can really challenge them, hence superiority and rule). Given the old Euopean elite has decided to protect itself in the way it has, pivoting away from aritocracy and in to the new form of monetary and ‘democratic’ institutional control, what are ‘we’. We’re almost all former European subjects in some form or another, depending on where we live. So what else? Are we Christian? There’s a great basis for that given recent history and institutional presence. Yet it’s an Abrahamic religion that is universal in its nature, or at best contradictory. Are we pagan? Cultural paganism is co-opted by all manner of left wing causes, like environmentalism, and more importantly the real European religions and spirituality was destroyed nearly 2000 years ago. So who or what are ‘we’? I’m yet to see that answered other than the obvious point – which is a fundamental weakness when it comes to facing a majority out-group. If any minority group that has a particular weakness such as the Europeans do (not ‘true’ weakness, but rather a strategic one i.e. cannot successfully maintain identity when mixing with other populations) then it’s simple: it doesn’t survive. So what else are we? I’d like to see this answer addressed as it might make it clearer what this channel is advocating. I get the analysis of the elites, I’m not sure I can get on board with what’s being hinted at, for a multitude of reasons – not least that it was already tried and failed. Any coherent, intelligent ideas on this subject would be good to hear because at present, there’s far too much nodding and winking to something that is obviously never, ever going to happen (let alone work). Read more
1
REPLY

Classical Bias
5 hours ago
I’ve started a form of this at my work since I became a department head. Shame more of us don’t do the same.
REPLY

Joe Bloggs
5 hours ago (edited)
This theoretical example has no relation to the real world
Ben, Sam and David aren’t very good at sport……..
David is a journalist, Sam is a lawyer and Ben is a human rights lawyer……
1
REPLY

Karl Burton
5 hours ago
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I’ve been wondering what can be done. You may have hinted, and I missed it. At least now, I believe that there is something which can be done. Thank you.
REPLY

Reily Smith
3 hours ago (edited)
Wasn’t there a dystopian novel based on a merit system, from which we have obtained the concept of meritocracy? Edit: It’s called “The rise of meritocracy” by Michael Young.
REPLY

Calum Deighton
5 hours ago
I’ll need to rewatch this. It’s quite interesting.
REPLY

Bconn Gem
6 hours ago
This is basic chimpanzee politics, in-group preference was universal among all cultures until very recently. Any group that doesn’t have in-group preference will through the competitive evolutionary process be replaced by those groups who do.
23
REPLY

Hide 7 replies
Karl Marx
6 hours ago
White people were conditioned out of having in-group preference.
11
REPLY

ELODIN
6 hours ago
@Karl Marx  based karl marx
5
REPLY

Mr S
6 hours ago (edited)
@Karl Marx  This is too limiting. It’s also missing the point. Everyone has been taught to think like an individual – which is good and bad. If you are an individual then it may mean you escape the clutches of a dysfunctional or just low standard family, village, culture etc and strive to make the most out of life on your own terms. That’s particularly great if you have a desire for high standards and high potential. At the same time, in theory it allows someone to connect to the experience of life and come to some understanding of the nature of being which, if you follow the process to its logical conclusion, is an awesome and life affirming experience – the only problem, and it’s a big one, is the societal consequences of allowing a tiny fraction of people to achieve this. And far more people will settle for other end goals – like consumerism, social mobility, material acquisition, self aggrandisement etc. All of this is done in the name of the same individualism. I don’t buy this idea that it only impacts one group, although it is clear they are the most explicitly targeted (because they displayed the most in-group loyalty and robustness, with negative consequences in the last few centuries re: colonialism). It’s individualism that is both a blessing and a curse – the freedom to thrive or fail on something like your own terms. That doesn’t mean your statement isn’t true, I just don’t think it goes far enough. For the most part, everyone is conditioned out of in-group preference to some extent. Don’t just look at the evidence that supports other in group preferences in ways that the former dominant majority is no longer allowed to have. The whole point is inclusion and the global village – that means all in-groups will/must ultimately fail. Read more
REPLY

Balázs Müller
5 hours ago
@Karl Marx  White folks unite!!!
3
REPLY

NukeCloudstalker
5 hours ago
whites still have inherent ingroup preference, shown in dating, area of residence, culture etc.
The posing and going along to get along is the problem. Too many people are conforming to what they think everyone else thinks, because of MSM, SoMe and entertainment propaganda by the you know whos. (starts with j, ends with ew.) Read more
REPLY

Karl Marx
4 hours ago
@NukeCloudstalker  On a subconscious level, yes. But they don’t consciously recognize it as a good thing and advocate for it on a broader level. But they may start to once there is nowhere left to flee.
3
REPLY

MALICEM12
1 hour ago
@Karl Marx  agreed
REPLY

Marc Russo
3 hours ago (edited)
Can you explain though, why Ben, Sam and David are able to organize their group so effectively, but Manuel, Juan and Carlos seem unable to do so?
1
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Tomé Boaventura
41 minutes ago
now that’s a good question
REPLY

J Pickard
5 hours ago
As long as the earth revolves around this bright and warming star the people of this land are going to get burnt by nepotism.
REPLY

Deano k
5 hours ago (edited)
Everyone should have a high ingroup preference!
REPLY

Trash Panda
6 hours ago
It’s exactly like the many examples in why nations fail, it’s people who create extractive political institutions and protect their power
REPLY

Rhythm Stick
4 hours ago
The world is run in the interest of the top 3% of the most powerful country in the world. A special group indeed.
REPLY

Grimupnorth
5 hours ago
love the shilling!
REPLY

atfd 8273
4 hours ago
Would the ‘network of tens’ count as one of these preferential groups?
1
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
Definitely not. Real groups only. Ironically, Tony Blair is probably a great example of a ’10’, someone knowing what he is doing by getting his family in to the social class that will have access to the nuclear bunkers/spacecraft/exclusion from the depop should things go south and the masses have to bear the brunt. Read more
REPLY

Schadenfreude
6 hours ago
Make England Medieval Again
6
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
David Rosenberg
6 hours ago
Lol
REPLY

David Rosenberg
6 hours ago
1990s Pogs abd CD ROMS
REPLY

No one
42 minutes ago
In the video you warn that socialists could use this to take over our system, but it hardly reminds me of how socialists have gotten power so far. If anything this reminds me of the traditional ruling elites or just general privilaged people everywhere. More a description of what is rather than a warning of what’s to come. Read more
REPLY

Oblate Spheroid
6 hours ago
Great video!
3
REPLY

Not Sam
6 hours ago (edited)
Of course, this is all just hypothetical…
1
REPLY

mister misanthropic
3 hours ago
AA getting more and more based
REPLY

Paul Lambert
5 hours ago
Trying to make sense is about the best I can do.
Your video makes good sense to me.
REPLY

Obergruppenführer John Smith
26 minutes ago
Gradually, I began to notice.
1
REPLY

Liquid Swan
6 hours ago
Stop being a truck, be the Engine.
1
REPLY

Shōgo Makishima
3 hours ago
You should read the works of David Sloan Wilson. Groups can only achieve a evolutionary advantage through cooperation when they work against the interests of other groups. This way the benefits from cooperation outweigh the costs.
REPLY

greg smith
2 hours ago
i think there was another group at the girls school called ruth, Rachel and matilda.
REPLY

5ilver42
2 hours ago
this is a fair criticism of individualism… I will have to think on this for a while.
REPLY

Fulgur Interitum
4 hours ago
This fails to take into account market demand, assuming a free market. Nepotistic businesses are common in the third world, and leads to corruption and inefficiency. They would get out competed by a more neritocratic business. Only status businesses is it not an issue Read more
2
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
Igor Hartmann
1 hour ago
“Assuming a free market”. That’s a big assumption.
REPLY

Fulgur Interitum
23 minutes ago
@Igor Hartmann  that’s the point, pushing for free market laws makes these harder to maintain. Nepotism works best with government contracts
REPLY

Nimloth
5 hours ago
Ben, Sam and David. Very biblical names.
REPLY

Kyle Drake
6 hours ago (edited)
If you have the Attention listen friends. My Grandfather a man named Benjamin once became a Rich man. A man from the silent generation, he was the archetype of a Cowboy. A Rugged Individual who rode out into the wild an forged his own path. This man innovated a Industrial process and through grit as well as hard work he struck it big. And for a time joined to Elite of his Industry. But he was different, he had not the status of the other men. The son of a substance farmer he thought he was invincible. Soon These men took a trip to an evil place which has the ruin of many a poor boy and had some fun. However the others knew not to spend past a threshold, however they encouraged Ben to go big. The story of how a man goes Bankrupt is simple and tragic. First gradually, then suddenly. Read more
2
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
A Fellow Traveler
5 hours ago
There are many tools for an aristocratic/oligarchic group to take an unwitting individual apart. Every high school girl knows this.
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago
@A Fellow Traveler  The sadistic laughter of people who revel in the tearing down of other’s potential and/or hard work is one of the most evil things imaginable. It’s the root of conflict and the age we’re moving in to, where violence is no longer tolerated, means this form of crabs in a bucket is simply going to become the norm. Cancel culture is a perfect indictment of it – the average and/or less able, tearing down through a sense of vicarious empowerment, as if they gain a chunk of the prestige that they have just destroyed. Read more
1
REPLY

Austin Byrd
6 hours ago (edited)
If special interest groups prosper, then everyone has an incentive to be apart or create a special group. As long as we maintain a free market and the current top group doesn’t warp the very system through coercion, through government, then it self corrects. Now many might doubt the possibility of this happening, I do too, but what’s the alternative? Read more
1
REPLY

View 6 replies
Jacob
6 hours ago (edited)
0:38
This motion picture is protected under the copyright laws of Liechtenstein number 703 of the Holy Hoppe Empire and other countries throughout the world. Country of first publication: Liechtenstein number 703. Any unauthorized exhibition, distribution, or copying of this film or any part thereof (including soundtrack) may result in civil liability and criminal prosecution. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. No person or entity associated with this film received payment or anything of value, or entered into any agreement, in connection with the depiction of carrots. No attack hamsters were harmed in the making of this motion picture. Read more
REPLY

nzxtMonster
6 hours ago
Download this, put it on your phone, play for anyone yammering about individualism, “free markets”, etc etc. Then tell them that their entire worldview of individualism good, collectivism bad has been put there by the special group.
Find open ears. Youll be surprised who you can convince when done without edgy memes that scare normies. Read more
3
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
Academic Agent
6 hours ago
Binary… is that you?
1
REPLY

nzxtMonster
5 hours ago
@Academic Agent  Forgive me AA, if my take sounds binary. In the context of “normal” people, individualism and free markets aren’t advocated for based on their true merits. They’re advocated for due to the programming of the system. My preference for/against them is also irrelevant if I find myself operating in a system that praises them openly, while in actuality operating in a very different manner.
Socialism for me but not for thee, to steal a phrase.
Whether you want a return to individualism/free markets in a genuine sense, or you want a structure that allows you to play the game in a way that doesn’t default to “special group wins, you individuals lose,” either way, the first step is getting less…. acclimated… individuals aware of the true rules of the current game.
Apologies if I came off sounding simplistic/one sided, its merely that MOST people at present talking about free markets and individualism are running cold war era software, this corner of the internet notwithstanding.
Thanks for the vid. Good shit. Take care, should you see this. Read more
REPLY

Dusty Thyme
6 hours ago
Great video 👌
REPLY

Shōgo Makishima
3 hours ago
Let me help you out here. It is both. There is an IQ gap but it is too small do account for the disparity in outcome.
1
REPLY

Steven Jackson
5 hours ago
We have been conditioned to see these minority in groups as part of us.
Roman Christianity broke the caste systems that were propagating the supremacy of these in groups.
Ask yourself why the vedics of India’s brahmins share common theology with the rest of the zoroastrian influenced religions.
And why Christianity, a religion for the middle classes and their slaves took over so readily Read more
1
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
Mr S
4 hours ago
Say more about the Vedics?
REPLY

Steven Jackson
3 hours ago
@Mr S  easier to see the comparison this guy has done

Add to that the fact that the vedic texts were used to uphold the position of the Brahmins in the Indian caste system.
What do you think the old testament and torah was doing in the levant? Read more
REPLY

Evola’s Sunglasses
6 hours ago
The collective defeats individualism.
9
REPLY

Hide 13 replies
Austin Byrd
6 hours ago
In the short term? Yes. In the long term when we maintain our freedoms? No
2
REPLY

Karl Marx
6 hours ago
@Austin Byrd  In eternity.
7
REPLY

CyberNinjaZero
6 hours ago
@Austin Byrd  Cope
5
REPLY

David Rosenberg
6 hours ago
Damn Quakers
REPLY

You Know
6 hours ago
@Austin Byrd  what freedoms?
4
REPLY

nzxtMonster
6 hours ago
@Austin Byrd  your “freedoms”, like rome, will soon be a memory, individual.
6
REPLY

A Fellow Traveler
6 hours ago
… it’s complicated. Collectivism and individualism both have their own entropies that are addressed by the introduction of the other.
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago
Individualism is essential for generating an understanding of what is true/good about life. It’s integral to challenge yourself and struggle to reach some kind of revelation about the nature of being and that can only happen as an individual. You can convince a whole crowd of people to behave in ways that hurt them, as individuals, on the basis of teaching them to think and behave collectively. In fact, I would say we live in an age where this is quite easy to see. Individualism leads to leadership, collectiism is just a state of bonding to a leader. Both are necessary at different times, but a person should ultimately pursue individualism until the time comes for collectivism, otherwise they will be easily seduced by self-destructive collectivism. I would say not only is this in evidence in the wider world but some of it is also present in the comments, with some picking up on the suggested ideas that others lead them to support… Read more
REPLY

Austin Byrd
4 hours ago
@nzxtMonster  I’m saying if we maintain freedoms, then individualism easily trumps collectivism long term.
1
REPLY

nzxtMonster
4 hours ago (edited)
@Austin Byrd  i tend to agree. I certainly prefer meritocracy and something akin to austrian economics and commodity money. Individualism has given us many gifts. Unfortunately, we may not have the luxury of those sorts of beliefs anymore.
Its one thing when travel is limited via pre-internal combustion engines, information travels much slower and transactions are kept on paper.
In digital world, powered by jet engines and fiat based global reserve currencies…. banker domination seems virtually guaranteed without some cultural undercurrent, ie collectivism, incentivizing elites to cross the rubicon and take back sovereignty from international finance.
Necessity may dictate our path. And considering there are no more frontiers for rugged individualism to conquer… (spelling edit) Read more
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@CyberNinjaZero  Buzzword.
REPLY

CyberNinjaZero
2 hours ago
@Wolfie Street  Truth
1
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@Mr S  Or you could just sit around and eat burgers n chips all day.
Self actualisation isn’t for everyone, as you know.
REPLY

Tim Boler
2 hours ago (edited)
This analysis assumes there is just one dominant in-group rather than multiple competing in-groups.
1
REPLY

Hide 3 replies
Mr S
2 hours ago (edited)
Precisely. It’s heading down a stupid path that needs a thorough analysis and better understanding of the group that’s being nodded and winked at in order to avoid doing and suggesting very silly things. For all the romanticisation of European elitism that goes on in this side of politics, there also seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the role the former aristocracies and indeed successful European commoners have played, as well as the role of the emerging elites which are clear enough to see in the last few years, in comprising the supranational institutions of our age. Read more
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@Mr S  What a word salad of pseudo intellectualism that was.
The ODD getting to you again Mr Silly?
REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
@Wolfie Street  I’m sure the worst thing you can do with a MH or PD diagnosis is to project it on to other people instead of getting the help you actually need? Is following me around with your fowl behaviour making your life better? Is your life that sheight? How sad. Read more
REPLY

Ned Jeffery
2 hours ago
It strikes me that all you are doing is describing oligarchy. And making the assumption that it is self perpetuating. Reality is children rarely live up to the power status that their parents held, and new ruling elites eventually take their place.
REPLY

AlwaysHopeful87
5 hours ago
Factions dominating society was a concern of the US founders.
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
Mr S
4 hours ago
Indeed. The Founding Fathers were wonderfully idealistic but their project barely lasted a generation. It was too hopeful and almost immediately capitulated to a more pragmatic form of governance.
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@Mr S  A classic regression to the mean.
I’m sure you can relate.
REPLY

A Fellow Traveler
6 hours ago
Not to be a “both sides” ist but if the special group is white people, then leftists are all aboard with this analysis.
Although white people are a majority in the west for the moment, so they might modify it to “Wealthy, white, Christian men descended from slave owners.” …. and I’m not sure they see themselves as a group.
As Moldbug says, America’s Brahmin caste is open to most racial or religious backgrounds. But that’s not to say that every Brahmin is so blind to racial and religious group preferences. There could easily be a minority of Brahmins who take advantage of this. Read more
2
REPLY

Hide 4 replies
Mr S
5 hours ago
The conflation of the USA and Europe is one I see regularly and it completley dismisses how America was always intended to destroy the old colonial and aristocratic orders of Europe. Of course the USA is pluralist, it had to be in order to inherit control of the world as a superpower – one that came at Britain’s expense. It was looking like an aristocratic European family could end up reinforcing their colonial order for centuries with the use of technology and material abundance, had we not gone through the first war. In reality, that could have been very painful for the subjects, though very pleasant for the upper echelons, yet it would not have been a meritocracy by any means and the danger for low or mid standard civilisation and leadership having their positions artificially protected by tech would be a big risk. It’s one that is still relevant today, but with different leaders. As far as I can tell, every elite is fully on board with an inclusive and postcolonial understanding of people and they have some kind of point – in theory. Read more
REPLY

Jane Hrahan
5 hours ago
Too many white people to be an in group. There is no such thing as a majority ingroup, all in groups are a minority subsect, and all people are part of at least 1 in group whether or not they know it. The only difference is some in groups know they exist and are organized while others are not aware of this. Read more
REPLY

Shaun Patrick O’Jameson
4 hours ago
I don’t see those people creating laws to favour their group and disadvantage others. Desantis banning CRT might be considered an example, but it’s a defensive move to restore the supposed meritocracy, rather than something to advance his people’s interests. Read more
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago
@Shaun Patrick O’Jameson  Precisely. All that’s left is a defence of universal equality, which was a concession and improvement on the idea that everyone deserves a shot and it will make the world a more meritocratic place. It didn’t seem to account for the minority groups teaming up (hence the ‘diversity is our strength’ slogan, which is absolute genius in its double meaning) and changing equality in to equity, and then equity in to whatever comes next. To regroup, you have to recalibrate away from the majority, while not disavowing the benefits (like advocacy) that come from having a stake within the majority and the mainstream. I just don’t see how this is going to happen to be honest given the unique frailty of European identity on a phenotypical level. Or, to put it another way, if the ideas that failed when they were supported by the dominant majority, they’re not going to work as a targeted and dispossesed minority. Read more
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago (edited)
The answer to this video is simple: in-group preference works if the group itself has a robust and durable definition of the group, a definition that can survive population change, status decline and rise, and adapt to both poverty and minority status as well as one as the majority and with wealth. If your group cannot survive this, then it is clear: the group’s definitions and shared characteristics are not robust. They are not durable enough to survive and it is through adaptability that survival occurs. It is quite evident that more and more people have picked up on the uniquely weak group identity in the former majority population, hence its very rapid capitulation and failure to know how to address a loss of control. With this in mind, the inability to survive as a minority – as a failure to foresee or prepare for that eventual loss of power – guarantees the group’s decline. Hence, it either needs to adapt/change what it was, by losing a portion of the group in order to regenerate, or it will filter away in to the backwaters. Read more
REPLY

Hide 2 replies
Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
In-group preference works when that group has transcended the state of nature and the need to survive, and sit aloft and levitated in the box seats of the game they made and control.
I’ll give you enough credit that you don’t believe there is a simple answer here. Read more
REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
@Wolfie Street  Stop flirting with me. It’s never going to happen.
REPLY

Upharius
13 minutes ago
You don’t play these games, a free (if it existed) unregulated market controls for this, everything else is cultural. This video truly outlined endless conflict, slavery and war by asserting we must play these group games.
REPLY

Annette
6 hours ago
Don’t give power to the language of your rival. It doesn’t speak to you or benefit you in any way.
Interestingly what occurs when a majority becomes a minority? What jealousy is heaped upon it? Does it become special or enslaved? Read more
1
REPLY

View 2 replies
High Marshal Helbrecht
6 hours ago
i want some dark magic but i cant afford it.
REPLY

Aleksei Carrión
6 hours ago
Why are the parents in a position to pressure the headmaster?
REPLY

Hide 3 replies
Academic Agent
6 hours ago
Have power, know how to use it
4
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago
Now? A desire to remove any sense of the old order of authority (same goes for other longstanding/pre-mid 20th century institutions) within the population by emboldening the most egregious types to tear it down through a sense of ’empowerment’ or entitlement. We’re sliding down the other side in terms of British cilivisation, it’s just that rapid tech development makes it seem like we’re ascending. Read more
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@Mr S  The ‘old order of authority’ you talk of control the entire stadium where such ‘gladiators’ perform.
Are you not entertained? Read more
REPLY

James O. Incandenza
6 hours ago
Unspecifically and theoretically based
REPLY

Smog Land
6 hours ago
Yes, we need aristocrats and nobility. I would go so far as to say that the class system in the UK was a caste system in the biological and spiritual sense, and we were fools to abandon it.
1
REPLY

Hide 3 replies
Xenophon
5 hours ago
And it was about the most enlightened and benevolent caste system in history. It used to enrage the left that while most industrial workers voted for Labour (hating their upwardly mobile middle class businessman bosses), the majority of servants voted Tory (trusting in government by their aristocratic and gentry masters) Read more
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago
It wasn’t abandoned willingly. Understanding how and why it happened is integral to getting a grip on modern British and postcolonial politics. It’s impossible to reckon with any political debate without understanding how what made the European social orders strong eventually became a weakness that could be exploited. Read more
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago
@Xenophon  It may also be interesting to note how the native servan class disappeared after the war, replaced by migrant workers instead. I wonder how they vote?
REPLY

Konrad Eriksson
6 hours ago
If the group is not already in positions of power does more ingroup preference give you any advantage that the market doesn’t and would more ingroup preference maybe keep the group from getting in those positions of power since it would become a threat to the current group of elites? Read more
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Mr S
3 hours ago
I would strongly recommend giving Dave Chappelle’s recent (year ago?) speech that is fairly well known a listen about the market value of a certain group, and how it doesn’t apply to the whole group. Therefore, the group itself is split between valuing the market that may well put some of the members at the very top of the market, while others would clearly advocate for in-group preference on the basis that everyone else despises them and wants them gone. Read more
REPLY

You Know
6 hours ago
We’ll own your governments, media, finance and you’ll be happy.
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
Alas, the in-group isn’t all caviar and champers. They are obliged and suffer great expectations upon them. A gilded cage of sorts perhaps of sometimes beneficial but often burdensome interdependencies. Not to mention the internal competition and ruthless and unscrupulous in fighting and back stabbing.
Whereas perhaps the individualist does not suffer these conditions so, and has more freedom. Read more
REPLY

clgahs hayes
6 hours ago
What’s the difference between this and crony capitalism which we see in a lot of African countries wear tribe members pick of their tribe members cause major problems and this
REPLY

Ryan K
5 hours ago
I think terming things like meritocracy, the free market, and fairness as myths is a little harsh. They are ideals that we fail to live up to. It seems to me that they way we must proceed is to create systems that are highly resistant to corruption of the ideals; although I do recognise that thus far we have not found success in such efforts. We know that we are a species of hierarchy what we must do is find a way to make that strong but not rigid. Above all else we must have virtue in ourselves and in our systems, there will never be a system that can replace it and there will never be a system that can function without it. Read more
1
REPLY

Hide 4 replies
You Know
5 hours ago
I think terming things like communism, the collective ownership of labour, and equality as myths is a little harsh. They are ideals that we fail to live up to.
REPLY

Ryan K
5 hours ago
@You Know  Not sure what your angle is. I was trying to avoid pointing at people as AA asked.
My personal bias is as follows: All forms of Socialism are evil be it Communism, National Socialism, or any of the other failed Socialist experiments that have murdered hundreds of millions of people over the last 120 odd years.
Whilst a Socialist may on occasion voice truths about the failings of other systems when they are not outright lying and relying on rhetoric to whip up mobs; said Socialist must be ignored as their intent is not to offer valued critique of the system in an effort to see it improved, the Socialists intent is to shake the system enough so that the Socialist can gain power and implement their evil agenda. Read more
1
REPLY

Mr S
4 hours ago
@You Know  They’re not myths but it’s hard to call them ideals either. They’re deliberately utopian principles and beliefs that were designed for unbalancing the contemporary mechanisms of power.
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@You Know  They are ideals that we are wise not to attempt.
REPLY

Last Man Standing
4 hours ago
Sounds like a Marxsist view of history tbh
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
Interesting take.
REPLY

Dan Cooper
13 minutes ago
Ethnocentrism + usury= winning! And lizard people, obs… ; )
REPLY

Pay Pig
4 hours ago (edited)
This seems too obvious to warrant a video…
1
REPLY

Phili Stein
6 hours ago
Chad Elite-class vs Virgin AA
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
Is it possible that meritocracy will out compete nepotism as it less vulnerable to regression to mediocrity and recruits better talent and capabilities?
If meritocracy is the ideal, then surely this would inevitably become the norm by preference. Read more
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Wolfie Street
1 hour ago
Infact in free markets, I believe the inevitable regression to mediocrity of in-group preference will render it incompetent in the face of meritocracy.
Nepotism and cronyism only thrives in control societies and economies with no competition where mediocrity doesn’t matter. Read more
REPLY

Conqueror of Quebec
6 hours ago
Lol let’s remain nrx to Feudalism Now
REPLY

Bryan
5 hours ago
That swedish minority in norway, causing all that trouble…
REPLY

Tobias Reiner
3 hours ago (edited)
In a system based on individualism, no single group can be allowed to give preference to or engage in activism for their own in-group. Either we all play by the rules, or any group that doesn’t must be completely excluded from the country. Otherwise, we must ourselves engage in complete in-group bias and return to the olden days. Read more
REPLY

Hide 7 replies
Mr S
2 hours ago
Now extend country to the world and you’re advocating for globalism, which is the irony in this sort of thing.
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
You have a point, as long as the in-group and their activities can be identified.
I imagine they are quite discreet. At least they should be.
REPLY

Tobias Reiner
2 hours ago
It’s not ironic. Globalism only works if no group is allowed to engage in in-group bias. So if they want to do globalism, they have to ruthlessly outlaw this behaviour in all groups. Which is impossible and dystopian, so we have to go back to exclusionary nationalism, to end innernational competition and return to a high-trust, homogeneous society again. Read more
REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
@Tobias Reiner  Possibly, although there is a clear case to be made for why the curret form of globalism is tolerated and even desirable in comparison to the alternative. I think you’ve set up a false dichotomy. Most people are happy with globalism and the natural progression of any elite is to extend one’s power and ability to drive standards/progress by controlling and influencing a larger population and territory. The cost is clear: the high trust society you are advocating is the price to pay for recalibrating the world order to avoid another manifestation of particularism that we saw in Germany. The worry is the end goal: or, perhaps more importantly, can the elite be corrupted by any one group looking to dominate and do what the aforementioned did but far more effectively and ruthlessly. Read more
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@Tobias Reiner  High trust never works because there is always someone ready to ruthlessly exploit it. Which results in ruthless outlawing of ruthless behaviour, which as you state doesn’t work.
Nepotism and cronyism only works in controlled society and markets. It will always regress to mediocrity by its nature and be out performed by meritocracy. Read more
REPLY

Tobias Reiner
1 hour ago
Both of your arguments have already been proven wrong by reality. There already is a tiny racial/religious group that has achieved dominance for over a hundred years.
It shall not be named because in this video AA specifically asked not to name it. It is so dominant that the sheer mentioning of its name in a negative way is forbidden. Therefore giving them a complete blank cheque to do whatever they want because nobody can talk about it without losing his position. Their names are typically Ben, Sam, and David, or Moses, Abraham, etc. if you need more obvious examples. And their inluence and power has not regressed, it has only grown over time.
This platform is also in their direct posession, censoring everything they don’t like. Hence why Benjamin, Samuel and David had to be talked about ficticiously. Read more
REPLY

Tobias Reiner
1 hour ago
Also, there is another, more natural form in which globalism can work, rather than by forbidding in-group bias, one can also remove all out-groups, and create an American style white globalism. Basically, America conquering the world and creating a single, mixed-white, American-style global nation.
That would be a well-functioning alternative to the grotesque multiracial globalism of today. Read more
REPLY

TheSkaffen
6 hours ago
The family preference group is the correct worldview and everyone should and does exploit it. Nepotism is everywhere but no-one cares because we know we would do it too. Politics drips with nepotism but who cares cos they’re all self serving liars anyway. Read more
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Mr S
3 hours ago
Yes, the family is the only real human bond that people really believe in. I don’t believe that people actually care about the nation state, there’s far too much evidence against this, in any nation, at any time. It is by extending the family identity to a wider community – i.e. calling people bother, sister etc – that a group of people can artificially feel a greater sense of togetherness than they otherwise might. It’s no surprise that the family is at the heart of Abrahamic religion – i.e. religious leaders as Patriarchs, Fathers, Brothers, Sisters. It’s the only true human collective we respond to in a post-tribal civilisation, which is simply a small collection of families joined together through likeminded cause and an extended family unit (this tribalism, of course, still exists across much of the middle east). Read more
1
REPLY

Alessio
7 hours ago
Muh man just learned about nepotism
6
REPLY

Hide 5 replies
Jane Hrahan
7 hours ago
This isn’t a new topic of discussion. This is a formalization of several earlier ones.
7
REPLY

Academic Agent
7 hours ago
Not simply nepotism but systemic and organised
14
REPLY

Jasper Gran Soren
6 hours ago
@Academic Agent  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMBddft0Rf4
REPLY

Alessio
6 hours ago
@Academic Agent  I live in Italy so I think we have different a different understanding of nepotism.
Here is off the charts, it was so bad that they put a law to stop it in schools (specifically in the south because you know is a shit hole) Read more
1
REPLY

Jane Hrahan
6 hours ago
Except I am sure in reality that law promotes whatever the real social in group is.
REPLY

Afroduck
5 hours ago (edited)
Why not simply outlaw these hirings etc. done due to in group preference at the expense of meritocracy as is often done i.e. anti-nepotism laws?
REPLY

Hide 7 replies
John Saxon
5 hours ago
How do you defeat those who say we need to give a ‘leg up’ to ‘disadvantaged minority’ groups.
Why would a group which benefits from biased hiring practices give up power. Why would women for example who benefit greatly from in-group preference stop winning and let men have a ‘fair share’. Read more
REPLY

NukeCloudstalker
5 hours ago
they are, and they are always circumvented one way or the other.
REPLY

Mr S
5 hours ago (edited)
Yeah good luck with that in the short term. This is a process that is centuries in the making, at the shortest. Getting to some form of universal upholding of true equality before and by the law is just practically impossible as long as there is one group that every other group wants to reduce, punish, destroy, subsume, co-opt etc. Read more
REPLY

Afroduck
4 hours ago
@John Saxon  Political power in the hands of those that understand the value of meritocracy and don’t engage in in-group preference basically.
If they are caught doing so then a society that valued individualism would recognise this as unfair and want them punished in one way or another. Read more
REPLY

Gen Fu
4 hours ago (edited)
You’ve clearly never tried to correctly pin this down with clear enough evidence for a verdict on any single case. The business could just say ‘He was more enthusiastic on the interview stage’, or ‘He was dressed more fitting for our company’. Even if you managed this, they’d just make sure to obfuscate the hiring practice as hard as possible until it’s impossible to discern how candidates are selected.
It’d just be playing cat and mouse. Read more
REPLY

Afroduck
4 hours ago
@Gen Fu  Those are definitely issues yes but I do wonder if they could be gotten around. Possibly by making it mandatory to record video of any interviews, I’m not sure though
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
Then how do you address the right for family to employ family, especially if they are the best option?
There is a significant flaw in AAs argument. Surely nepotism would fail in the face of meritocracy because the latter would by principle attract better talent and capability and eventually crush nepotistic based competition?
The difficulty perhaps is the power over law that the nepotists may hold to frustrate and undermine the competition. Read more
REPLY

D Bach
48 minutes ago
Careful now AA.
REPLY

GothsOnTheBeach
5 hours ago
M A S O N S
REPLY

Heksogen
2 hours ago
That’s how politics works, the suckers are people who are not part of the parties. Since there’s no way around this, it’s the human nature, the only way is to teach other people these simple life facts and make them acknowledge this reality. Then they will understand how to connect and organize better to further their common goals and interests. Read more
REPLY

S A
1 hour ago
By merits? By values.
REPLY

Nexist Xenda’ths
2 hours ago
People forget that the individual is not Isolate. If there were only one thing, it cannot be defined. We are only defined by the existence of the other. The Not-I defines the I. The individual is an intersection of groups. This fact is being used by Woke Culture to inflict damage and to deny advantages. The main problem with meritocracy is the universal character given by the application of egalitarianism. Within the in-group, we should utilize those who are best — always remembering that it isn’t a case of “survival of the fittest” but “survival of the fit enough”. Read more
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
No man is an island but if you think you are nothing without an external other you haven’t matured enough to see the reality that exists inside you – which is the beauty and awe of being human. Try meditation or something similar that brings your with body, mind, and emotions in to congruence. We are definitely individuals and a lot of our wisdom is innate – it is simply revealed to us through experience. Read more
REPLY

James Duston
6 hours ago
This group is the Trucks.
REPLY

Luca Magno
2 hours ago
OI!!!!!!
1
REPLY

Evan Harriman
6 hours ago
I think the effect mentioned is just too diffused and marginal in the grand scheme for example of “who makes it into the college.” Sure that kind of thing can happen, but the idea A: that it derives from this “special group” collaboration rather than just people who know eachother, and B: is of a large enough percentage of accepted applicants to be something of a driving force, I think is imagining mountains when there’s really only a few molehills. Read more
REPLY

Hide 6 replies
You Know
5 hours ago
You didn’t really propose a counter to idea A, you just described it with fluffier language. The who point of the video explains, is not that having ingroup preference is wrong or immoral, and rather entirely natural, but it’s that those of minority ingroups will and have subverted the ingroup of majority groups.
Nepotism doesn’t produce meritocracy. If one is proposing merit based societies as a good, then they ought not to hire based on “just people who know eachother”.
B: I don’t see refutation, just an attempt to psychopathise your opponents position. Read more
REPLY

A Fellow Traveler
5 hours ago
I think, in terms of USING this as a model to benefit ones own ingroup, the influence on society is less important than the ability of the ingroup members to benefit each other.
When your group is persecuted, it matters less how much power you have relative to other groups, but more how secure your existence is, relative to being atomized. Read more
REPLY

Xenophon
5 hours ago
Ron Unz did some quite extensive looks at this in America and that certain group seems to be vastly overrepresented as to where they should be based on SAT scores only.
They effectively control entry to the American universities that are the entree to the elite. Read more
REPLY

Evan Harriman
5 hours ago
@You Know  I don’t really see that you understand my REPLY

, but I don’t want to be nasty or argumentative just for argumentative sake, so cheers to your response and carry on mate 👌🏻
REPLY

Evan Harriman
5 hours ago
@A Fellow Traveler  That’s a good final point you made, though I can’t help wondering whether it mostly applies to environments where political power via the state is being wielded. I guess cultural differences and discrimination (for example for new immigrants), could have this dynamic too, and indeed we did see ethnic sectioning during the European immigrant wave in American big cities. Would be interesting to study how much of that was influenced by public policy versus deriving spontaneously.
On the former point, idk, I guess in different use case sectors and professions, there will be some with more opportunity for this kind of thing to have practical effect, to not just be so marginal and inconsequential, versus others. The very top of the private equity management space for example, where capital and power is highly concentrated in smaller numbers of people. Read more
REPLY

Evan Harriman
5 hours ago
@Xenophon  who exactly??
REPLY

ryan hgghg
1 hour ago
2066, white lives’ matter.
REPLY

snex
5 hours ago
Why not push the sports team as your primary example? Probably because it’s much more obvious that if Ben, Sam, and David were drafted into the NFL because of nepotism, they’d be dead within a week. The same is true in the “real world.” The special treatment received by Ben, Sam, and David does not magically make them able to perform in the real world. If they do shoddy work, customers will ignore them and flock to the actual talent, who fortuitously have much less student debt than Ben, Sam, and David due to going to a “worse” university. If Ben, Sam, and David are on top of the real world, it’s either because they actually are more talented, or YOU paradoxically keep buying their output despite knowing how shitty it is. So which is it? Read more
REPLY

Hide 6 replies
Mr S
4 hours ago
The same is definitely not true in the ‘real world’. Incompetence is rife, particularly within the middle manager, well paid strata. Sport is still corrupt in very obvious ways yet there it is fundamentally closer to a meritocracy than any other group or institution. The more individual the sport, the truer this is, hence the appeal of fighting/martial arts. You can’t fake it. Read more
REPLY

snex
3 hours ago
@Mr S  And yet you keep buying products made by incompetent idiots rather than ones made by competent geniuses. Why is that?
REPLY

Mr S
3 hours ago (edited)
@snex  Me personally? Are you sure?
People are prone to manipulation and can be convinced to go for the magic beans. That’s fairly easy to understand. At this point, given the sheer material abundance for the working classes and especially the middle classes, we have turned purchasing in to a quasi-spiritual experience. Don Delillo’s White Noise is a great po-mo take on this. If people are buying ideas and feelings, rather than products, then you could argue that they are really ‘better’ at providing a service or product that people really want. But at what cost? And who is really benefitting from this? And more importantly, what role is being played by the mediocre – I would suggest it is one whereby they are grateful for their position and therefore do no question it. Otherwise known as ‘imposter syndrome’ in modern parlance, which is an amazing form of lying about an evident socio-economic and academic trend of promoting clearly incompetent people, then telling them that their anxiety with their status is not indicative of their incompetence but is instead…wait for it…you guessed it…it’s the old scapegoat again, internalised/latent XXX. Take your pick. Read more
REPLY

snex
3 hours ago
@Mr S  This all sounds like a convenient excuse for your own failures in life. “I’m a special genius but Ben, Sam, and David all have better salaries than me because nepotism.”
REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago
@snex  What are you even talking about? Do you believe we live in a meritocracy and ability to perform a task/job/succeed in career is directly correlated to overall potential and personal capability?
REPLY

snex
2 hours ago
@Mr S  If you are the smartest guy around, why can’t you get customers to buy your products instead of the products produced by idiots? “But muh advertising manipulation” is not an answer. You are smarter than them. Advertise better.
REPLY

Skadragon
6 hours ago
Free society tends toward totalitarianism so we should set up a totalitarianism? No. Just no. Even if i conceited a bit of the logic i would disagree on a moral level. There is an immense moral difference between an individual missing out on opportunities because of unfair practices and preferences in the system and the system barring some individuals from opportunities entirely. It is repulsive and “evil”. Read more
REPLY

Hide 8 replies
Academic Agent
6 hours ago
Where did I suggest setting up a totalitarianism?
10
REPLY

You Know
5 hours ago
Sounds a lot like you need to listen to a little less Ben, and to a lot more Jon.
REPLY

Mr S
3 hours ago (edited)
@You Know  He does have a point though. It’s definitely not a huge difference, and certainly not one of ‘evil’, but if there is a system where some people in the underclass can get through – and therefore get in to positions of advocacy for their own in-group, which they can work on through generations of networking and so on to improve their lot – and a system where none of the underclass can progress socially on the basis of who or what they are, then it’s clear which one people of the underclass are going to opt for. Understanding the postcolonial nature of Abrahamic religion is integral as it prepares to the inevitable decline by being marginally better than other systems or orders: it IS slightly better to offer ‘some’ rather than ‘none’, and on that basis you will win the hearts and minds of the masses you are trying to gain. Read more
REPLY

Skadragon
3 hours ago (edited)
@Academic Agent Yes, I was being hyperbolic. You want a caste system. You want new nobles. You want an official legal minority elite that you like instead of the one we have. Even if that were preferable no group no matter how well aligned and allied to your goals and interests is guarenteed to stay that way instead of turning to their own interests and againsts everyone elses. And using their given place to ensure it always stays that way. I mean we already set them up to rule lets just call it a monarchy and royally fuck ourselves. Read more
REPLY

Skadragon
2 hours ago (edited)
@Mr S  saying some individuals are inherently unworthy of opportunities and stature and others are is one of the very few things that I would actually call “evil”.
” Yes, you are smarter, more skilled, and more accomplished, unfortunately you were born wrong.” Read more
REPLY

Mr S
2 hours ago (edited)
@Skadragon  Yes, but your mistake is thinking the current world we live in doesn’t do exactly that to a vast number of people, precisely because it allows a certain portion of people within similar characteristics to succeed.
REPLY

Skadragon
2 hours ago (edited)
@Mr S  I am by far one who doesnt need to be told that. And as i have already addressed that exact thing in the first place as you acknowledged and replied, i think you are the one mistaken. But currently, in the US anyhow, it is a side effect and not rule of law. As i said in my first comment the difference there is immense. Read more
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@Skadragon  Not to worry, Mr S only comments to be contrarian because he thinks he knows best. I’ve yet to see a comment where he agrees or adds value. It’s pathological I’m afraid.
REPLY

Connor Brink
6 hours ago
Based.
1
REPLY

Lord Konzilla
6 hours ago
David? Hmm funny name
2
REPLY

progste
7 hours ago
Isn’t ingroup preference part of the free market?
2
REPLY

Hide 3 replies
Lane
6 hours ago
Not the “free market” definition in which the market is made up of individuals all working in self interest. In-groups can absolutely dab on individuals.
1
REPLY

Aethel Wolfe
6 hours ago
Problem is the more organized group can dominate the political market (so long as most of them actually are at the very least competent) Circulation of Elites is vital for this. Otherwise Revolution from a counter elite is necessary and justified. Ideally there would be a way to align the interests of the revolutionary counter elite with the rank and file nation as a whole, especially when the current elite has made decisions and decrees which negatively effect all others. Read more
1
REPLY

progste
5 hours ago
I think you are confusing the free market with a political system.
The free market simply means private property and freedom to buy and sell property or labour.
REPLY

Light
1 hour ago
What is a benefit for a majority lower classes to accept inequality and unfairness? Why would the ruling of this explicit aristocracy will be better for them than the rule of a hidden group?
REPLY

MechaSixVII
4 hours ago
This is an argument for socialism lol
REPLY

Michael Phillips
5 hours ago
If this would happen, the high positions of the in-group would be compromised if they allowed less effective members take high positions. More effective people can still create competition.
REPLY

Hide REPLY

Shaun Patrick O’Jameson
4 hours ago
National achievement would be compromised, but the special group would contiinue to take an excess of the undersized pie unless the majority group forms parallell institutions to challenge them.
REPLY

LIBERTY BELL STUDIOS
6 hours ago
It isn’t voluntary exchange that is being used to create a class system. It is the political process and government policy, ie., the state
1
REPLY

Hide 8 replies
Academic Agent
6 hours ago
But voluntary exchange affords the power and influence and money to make that policy!
6
REPLY

LIBERTY BELL STUDIOS
6 hours ago (edited)
@Academic Agent  the challenge is to limit the size and scope of government to prevent it from being captured and used by interest groups to further their own private ends.
1
REPLY

Egrḗgoroi
6 hours ago
@Academic Agent  that power and influence comes from being able to leverage debt. If you do not control your own money, you can never prevent the later consolidation of power and influence that debt allows. How many great leaders refused debt even when their nations were in dire straights? Read more
REPLY

Academic Agent
6 hours ago
@LIBERTY BELL STUDIOS  how’s that gone?
3
REPLY

LIBERTY BELL STUDIOS
5 hours ago
@Academic Agent  the development of a critique of the political process and state power has gone very well. I’m unable to report any progress on realising our vision for a free society.
REPLY

The AlienRobotAnthropologist
4 hours ago
@Egrḗgoroi  If you refuse to take on debt when the chips are down, you just get conquered by somebody who did take on debt.
If you limit the size of government to limit the harm it can do, you limit its ability to fill the power vacuum and avoid being subjugated by private entities such as organized crime (see Mexico), international corporations, or any other well funded organization. Read more
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
@The AlienRobotAnthropologist  What difference does it make?
REPLY

The AlienRobotAnthropologist
1 hour ago
@Wolfie Street  It makes the difference that Libertarianism is not a solution. It’s just political pacifism.
REPLY

Reily Smith
2 hours ago
Meritocracy is a bad idea anyway. It is reasonable for the left to argue you can’t have a true meritocracy and be judged on your merits if we don’t all start from the same position. Thus we’ll have to get equality of outcome so the past generations won’t give heterogenous benefits to the next. Read more
REPLY

Aleksei Carrión
6 hours ago (edited)
If the children are mediocre, how are they the children of parents that are obviously dominant?
If they’re mediocre, how do they advance on their own once their parents place them in advantageous positions?
If the children are a liability to their employers, how do their expect to pass that advantage to their children?
See, when you present a thought experiment without context, you can make the conclusion whatever you want. In the real world, nepotism requires actual goodwill, which fades over time if not maintained. One thing that your thought experiment makes abundantly clear is that the nepotism trio is not especially high-performing and is steadily being promoted beyond their competence level. Their results will therefore be poorer and poorer until they get ejected from whatever position they hold for being a liability. Read more
1
REPLY

Hide 5 replies
Jane Hrahan
6 hours ago
Purely hypothetical no real examples that one could note…
4
REPLY

robin water tree
6 hours ago
Why would you fire people who owe you their status? Uncle Lenin is very disappointed.
1
REPLY

Xenophon
5 hours ago
They’re not being promoted that far above their abilities though, they come from a generally high performing group.
As history has shown, corrupt and degenerate elites can persist for generations before being brought down. Indeed the quality of this hostile elite probably is declining over time, the harsh selective pressure for intelligence they used to apply to themselves has been gone for some time.
But they might have totally destroyed our civilization before they’ve weakened enough to be displaced.
Show less
REPLY

Mr S
3 hours ago (edited)
I think you’re on to something here and this is precisely why any analysis of elites that focuses on any one distinct group is flawed. It’s clearly, on some basic level, pluralistic out of necessity – it is a meritocracy driven by high standards, and a fundamental part of that is maintaining control by being at the forefront of technological advancement, economic control etc. That said, any one group that is within the broader elite can and regularly does make scapegoats out of one of their members – this is quite clearly happening as a result of postcolonialism with formerly acceptable people now being tossed out. At the same time, it is also clear to see in others groups as well, on the basis of violating the standards that will enable the elite to maintain high standards. That is a permanent status of elitism – the ability to adapt and shrink back/expel problematic individuals when necessary. It’s not inherently bad in and of itself. Read more
2
REPLY

Wolfie Street
2 hours ago
Regression to mediocrity perhaps?
REPLY

============================================

See Also

top

 

 

============================================

 

 

xx UNFINISHED TRANSCRIPTS — Volunteers Needed

 

============================================

 

 

PDF Download

top

 

  • Total words = 21,146
  • Total images = xx
  • Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

 

Version History

top

 

Version 5:

 

Version 4:

 

Version 3:

 

Version 2:

 

Version 1: Jun 20, 2021 — Published post.

This entry was posted in Academic Agent, Deception, Jew World Order, Jewish Problem/Question, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, Jews - Hostile Elite, Jews - Naming, Jews - Tool of, Liberalism, Plutocracy, Traitors - Journalists, Traitors - Politicians, Transcript. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.