A maverick Jewish voice on how to treat Europeans is good for all of us to hear

I am not Jewish but I am from a very small European minority and I have been thinking like this for as long as I was conscious of these issues. Why would any small group want to undermine the larger group that surrounds it? Why not be helpful, friendly, and gracious? Without harmful hidden motives.

It’s the same for all other groups. You can support aggressive resource grabbing (which benefits greedy people at the top) or you can do your best to get along. It’s hard to get along. Believe me, I know all about that from all the angles, including trying to get along with Jews. In the end, it’s best to get along.

Here is the maverick voice with a link:

In my view, in 2018 what’s good for the Jews is for us to stop thinking about what’s good for the Jews and start thinking about the right to self-determination and survival for the people we live amongst: the people who have facilitated the most stunning successes of our tribe’s history in diaspora to date, Americans, Europeans, and people of European descent. (Source)

The same reasoning applies to all groups everywhere for both practical and spiritual reasons. I follow Asian American news fairly closely. So many complaints about YT (whitey). Why teach yourselves to be like that? It makes you blind to the many people who care about you.

Provocative analysis of cultural identity

A comment I read this morning has an insightful summary of what cultural identity is. And how it self-generates and self-perpetuates “…well beyond the control or foresight of anyone,.” (Source)

This complex of [cultural] ideas generates intense psychological pressures and allegiances and mobilizes some of the most primitive energies of the human psyche – safety, danger, clan, tribe, blood, status, power, domination – and leads to a clear pattern of behavior that is decentralized and not under anyone’s control but is still a very clear system that can be analyzed and identified. (Ibid.)

The entire string of comments is well-worth reading and can be found at the link above. [No permalink, so Ctrl F a snippet of the quote above to find the starting point.]

These comments are on Jewish culture and history but they apply just as well to any cultural “construct,” all of which are the stronger precisely because they are social constructs.

The commenter quoted above leans toward a negative appraisal of Jewish culture and history, which I largely agree with, but if it’s up to me I would say that virtually all successful cultures (“successful” being ones that perpetuate) have analogous negative features.

Incidentally, I believe a great deal of Buddhist practice and the practices of other religions are based on disentangling practitioners from cultural constructs to discover their authentic beings, souls, or the will of God.

Religions do this because in many ways cultures are toxic to the higher mind, the metacognitions of thusness and individual authenticity.

That said, cultures do teach us and raise us and we cannot develop without them. Religions are also cultures. And that said, we are capable as individuals of both learning from our cultures and growing well beyond them.

In this respect and in light of Buddhist practice, I am very leery of any and all kinds of cultural identities or individual identities fashioned as allegiance to a culture, especially an aggressive one. Sadly, it is also true that if you have no identity your culture will be lost or destroyed, so we all really do need some sort of “defensive identity.” In this respect, I can happily identify with most of the world Buddhist community and most of the traditional American Constitutional system interpreted conservatively. I also have a mild-but-strong-enough defensive white identity because that group is fast approaching eight percent of world population and I want it to survive.

Study reveals why we trust some strangers and not others

“…Now researchers have revealed that strangers are more likely to be trusted if they look like someone who has earned your trust before – and more likely to be distrusted if they resemble someone who has betrayed your faith in them.” (Source)

Antonio Espín, a behavioural economist from Middlesex University, London, said the study’s implications could be wide-ranging. “Interestingly, since the main reason for facial similarity is shared genes, the study not only advances our understanding of why we trust or distrust specific strangers but also has broader implications, for example for ethnic or racial discrimination and in the evolutionary arena of partner selection.” (Ibid.)

Study here: Stimulus generalization as a mechanism for learning to trust

Something most white people don’t understand

From a recent email:

Like the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, Vietnamese consider their compatriots as not just belonging to the same race, but family, and in the most literal sense, too, for they call other Vietnamese, “đồng bào” [“same womb”], which is derived from the Chinese, 同胞. This notion is obviously more myth than science, for the Vietnamese nation has absorbed plenty of foreign blood through the millennia, via the usual channels of conquest and immigration. Without the bonding concept of đồng bào, however, Vietnam would have disappeared eons ago.

Vietnamese citizenship, then, is much more than a legality, but established through the age-old recognition that people who appear similar and, even more importantly, speak the same language naturally belong together. Often, they must also fight together to resist being swallowed up or destroyed by another race. Race consciousness is at the heart of racial survival. (Source)

Polarization is good

Kevin MacDonald

…The result is a level of political polarization not seen in this country probably since the Civil War. But the polarization is what had to happen for any possible movement in the direction of the Alt Right. The absolute worst thing would have been a Hillary-vs.-Jeb-type election where America keeps sleep-walking to Armageddon. The mobilization of the left has made clear the fault lines. This is about removing the traditional culture of America, and it is about removing Whites from the center of the American story. It is about replacement — first the monuments, then the people.

Solid majorities of Americans oppose removing the statues, and at least a plurality oppose the NFL protests — the percentages would sure be much higher if only Whites were polled. This means the traditional American majority is moving down the road toward being explicitly aware of what the game is. Reasonable White people watching this unfold cannot possibly believe that the glorious multicultural future will be anything but a disaster for White America. The hatred for White America that has been so obvious to Alt Right activists is inevitably seeping through to “just plain White folks.” The hatred will only intensify when Whites have less power. And when the 2018 and 2020 elections happen, there will be tremendous pressure on candidates to take stands on these issues. (Source)

No language in the world allows it

I am reasonably sure that no language in the world allows the kind of query that FIML practice is based on.

The reason for this probably lies in the origins of human language and culture, a developmental period during which languages were much simpler and were used mainly to indicate real things in the world or give commands.

At later stages of development, language became a tool of whatever hierarchy prevailed in the moment. To this day, Confucianism is still a rule book for hierarchies.

That said, languages are always potentially very supple, so there is no need for humans today to be restricted by archaic forms of speech and thought.

And that said, it is important to understand that your psychology has been deeply conditioned by the archaic and hierarchical cores of your language.

I bring this up because this side of human psychology makes it difficult for people to do FIML practice correctly.

To the speaker, the basic FIML query will instinctively feel like nagging, being petty, being whiny. To the hearer, this basic query will instinctively feel like a challenge, an insult, an affront.

These basic instincts must not be allowed to block FIML inquiries. Personally, I believe FIML has not been discovered before because no one ever went beyond these basic instinctive reactions.

So, expect to feel affronted and expect to feel like a petty nag, at least for a while. With practice, these feelings will go away. At the same time, the importance of the information gained through FIML queries will become increasingly obvious.

Once the hierarchical cultural and linguistic instincts that have developed in us, and upon which our psychologies depend, have been overcome, a new use of language will become possible.

This new language is capable of sufficient micro subtlety to allow us to objectively observe how our minds and psychologies actually function in real-time real-life situations.

No theory of psychology and no amount of introspection will take you to the actual data of how you function. Only a practice like FIML can do that.

USA: 73% Say Freedom of Speech Worth Dying For

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Americans agree freedom of speech is under assault but strongly insist that they are prepared to defend that freedom even at the cost of their lives if necessary.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that an overwhelming 85% of American Adults think giving people the right to free speech is more important than making sure no one is offended by what others say. Just eight percent (8%) think it’s more important to make sure no one gets offended. (Source)

Disgust and sex

Disgust is a primary emotion.

The others are anger, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise. There is some controversy about how to group these basic emotions, but generally, expressions associated with primary emotions are recognizable across all cultures and are experienced by all functional human beings.

A new study has found that stress, which is probably interpretable as disgust in this case, was experienced by all of the (heterosexual) men being studied when viewing male-on-male kissing.

From the study’s abstract:

The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, may experience a physiological response indicative of stress when witnessing a male same-sex couple kissing.

The study is here: What do two men kissing and a bucket of maggots have in common? Heterosexual men’s indistinguishable salivary a-amylase responses to photos of two men kissing and disgusting images.

Co-author of the study, Karen L. Blair, says:

It is difficult to specifically state what this means. It could mean that participants found the images of male same-sex couples kissing to be equally disgusting as the disgusting images. It could mean that they had an anxiety response to the male couples kissing and a disgust response to the disgusting images, but that physiologically, we could not tell the difference between these two emotions. (Straight men’s physiological stress response to seeing two men kissing is the same as seeing maggots)

Make of this data what you like.

Just two months ago another study found that disgust plays a significant role in how people respond to people from other cultures or who look different.

An article about that can be found here: Multiculturalism fails due to “behavioral immune system”.

In my view, it is hard to argue with primary emotions. Our neocortexes may want us to be perfectly tolerant and judiciously blind to all human differences, but maybe that’s not actually possible?

Edit 07/22/17: “Yuck, you disgust me!” Affective bias against interracial couples

Poll: Europeans Want National Governments, Not EU, to Decide Migration Policies

People in Europe overwhelmingly oppose the European Union’s (EU) handling of the migrant crisis, and want national governments to have final say over their countries’ migration policies, according to a new survey.

U.S. pollster the Pew Research Centre found three quarters of respondents said they want their own governments to make decisions on migration of non-EU citizens into their countries. (Source)

Narcissism, a semiotic interpretation

The simplest definition of narcissism is “narrow or reduced interpretation(s) of psychological signs.”

This is a functional definition that provides insight into a wide range of human psychological reactions.

A broad example of psychological narcissism using the above definition is alcoholism which reduces sign interpretation due both to inebriation and toxicity.

Notice this definition does not presuppose anything psychological about the alcoholic. Alcoholism reduces sign interpretation due to the chemical properties of ethanol.

Alcoholism damages and simplifies the brain’s capacity to entertain multiple interpretations of signs. This is the core reason why so many alcoholics display narcissistic behaviors.

Somewhat similarly, small children can be functionally “narcissistic” because their brains are not developed. Like an alcoholic on the other side of life, a small child simply does not have the brain complexity to entertain multiple interpretations.

Narcissism is a simple and very basic operating system. This is why it is a normal option for both undeveloped and alcoholic brains.

The cure for narcissism is help the narcissist see multiple interpretations.

I believe that most if not all psychological analyses of individuals should be applicable to groups of people and vice versa.

Thus, a group with a reduced interpretation of signs will probably be a narcissistic group.

Groups that insist on a single interpretation of the past or the present are examples of this.

 

Raw tribal emotions

Raw emotions of ethnic and religious difference boil over in this video.

Notice the power of religious signs and symbols (semiotics) in stoking the flames.

These displays of emotion are fundamental to human nature. Even when you train them away through “education,” you only end up with more of the same.

PC culture was the result of anti-tribal education in schools. Yet it succeeded only in producing another “tribe.” This one rigidly organized around non-negotiable PC ideals.

If you question those ideals you are an enemy of that tribe.

The PC tribe is not centered on the signs and symbols of ethnicity. Rather, it is centered on a tribal use of the neocortex, where we process the semiotics of allegiance to a group.

The intolerance of PC culture and the violence of its bastard child Antifa show how powerful and irreducible tribal emotions can be.

Ashley Judd’s diatribe and the pink pussy hats that appeared after the election are another example of the raw emotions of tribal allegiance. Note the pink hats as semiotic identifiers.

You have to be intelligent to overcome a tribe, maybe in the top 10-20 percent of any population. But then, how do you deal with the other 80 percent?

Should you lead them?

No, you really shouldn’t and certainly not without their input. An ideological tribe is unstable and often capable of even worse violence than an ethnic tribe.

Example one: Communism, which shows how low human nature can be across many different cultures.

Example two: Our sorry intellectual “leaders” in academia who have led American society nowhere good.

Indeed, academia has “succeeded” mostly in forming only one thing—a $elf-aggrandizing tribe of its own, which is overwhelmingly leftist and intolerant of anyone who dares disagree.

Academia, of course, acts as backup to our equally tribal media and political elite.

Only a recluse can escape tribal reality. Only fools play “intellectual” games with it.

A Jewish perspective you may never have thought about

I post a fair amount of Jewish related material because I grew up in a large Jewish community and see them in a much more complex way than most non-Jews do and because they are very interesting people.

One thing I can tell you for sure is if you only read Jews about Jews, you will be missing pretty much the entire story of Jewishness.

That said, this article by a Jewish author—“Then they came for … me?” The SJW Frankenstein monster turns against its creator at Evergreen State—describes what I believe may be the beginning of a sea change in Jewish attitudes towards the Western nations they live in (not including Israel).

From the article by Marcus Alethia:

Like Weinstein I am also a Jewish, White-looking college professor. But unlike him I am not a leftist or a progressive. When or if The Mob comes for me, my Jewishness, such as it is, will be even less protection than his was. And his was no protection at all.

I think of events such as this as an ideological sorting opportunity. Weinstein thought he was a reasonable leftist, and possibly does to this day.  But as The Mob turned on him, Weinstein must have noticed that suddenly he was on the same page as people on the opposite side of the political spectrum. This wasn’t a deliberate choice, but a side effect of his willingness to stand up for his White students.

Whatever Weinstein concludes from his experiences, Alethia’s position is one that many formerly liberal whites were forced into years ago.

“The Mob” Alethia refers to doesn’t care what you think or what you have done for them. It only cares that you are not them and therefore fair game.

I might add that this line of self-centered reasoning was and is common among a certain fairly common type of Jew toward whites. You think it’s bad when “The Mob” sees you as fair game? Try having The Tribe see you that way.

I hope that Alethia’s “ideological sorting opportunity” is happening right now within world Jewry.

There are very few Jewish authors like Alethia who are willing to deviate from the false Jewish narrative of victimhood and consider the very significant violent and negative influences Jews have had and still have on the West.

By the way, that’s also why you need to read books by non-Jews like The Culture of Critique and Mountebank’s Monster and His Mom.