Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I recently came across a posting on Match.com from a woman who, should Braineack ever find himself divorced, would make the perfect Mrs. Braineack #2. She describes herself as "far-far-far-far-right," and is also, literally, a ****. (Google 1488.)




It's that last bit down there at the bottom-right which really caught my attention. The search which produced this result should have excluded poor people, people who want children, and people with low educational attainment. So, Match, your search engine needs some work.


But more importantly, it made me think about this fact: Here in the 21st century, people who claim to be aligned with white-supremacy / the basic tenets of Nazism tend also to be very low-achievers in terms of economic prosperity and intellectual capacity. Just pause for a moment and picture in your mind a stereotypical neo-****. Do they have a job? If so, does it require a high-school diploma? Do other people within the organization report to them? Do they have any (realistic) goals and ambitions regarding their career and their contribution to the economy as a whole?

I tend to assume that intelligence and economic prosperity are strongly correlated. And, by "intelligence," I do not simply mean IQ. This includes factors such as motivation, determination, ambition, attention to detail, etc., which are harder to quantify.


Now, during the 1930s-40s, scientists and engineers in Germany (who, by definition, were universally members of the **** party) were among the world's most prolific in the fields of aerospace engineering, civil engineering, manufacturing, rocketry, physics, chemistry, and medicine. As such, we can conclude that, during the actual **** era, being a **** was not strongly correlated with being of low intelligence.

But here in the 21st century, association with Nazism does tend to positively correlate with low intelligence and low economic prosperity.


And it occurs to me that this also describes another group: Specifically, ultra-leftists who, ironically, tend to use the word "****" as a derogatory term for people who are actually the antithesis of ***** in the present era.


Members of both groups share the following characteristics:

• Low-achiever.
• Blames another specific group for their woes. (Neo-***** blame non-whites, ultra-libs blame whites.)
• Considers themselves, and members of the group with which they identify, to be morally superior and inherently right.
• Regurgitates old rhetoric as though it were new and revolutionary thought.
• Is unable to propose rational solutions to problems, only to place blame.

(@Robb M. , bullet-lists are supposed to be indented. They show as indented in the composition window, but fail to indent in the actual post. Why is indenting such a massively difficult concept for IB to comprehend. Wait a sec... are your programmers *****? They're certainly of low intelligence.)



I'm not really sure where to take this train of thought from here. I just find it really interesting that the two groups which, objectively speaking, comprise the most extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum in the 21st century US, seem to have much more in common with another than the total of their differences. Realistically speaking, their differences boil down to just one variable: who do you blame for the shitty state of your own life?

Robb M.

definitely **** programmers. i think they still play wolfenstein too.

matrussell122

iTrader: (1)

She works 3 jobs 7 days a week and only makes 25-35k a year? That has to be 3 minimum wage jobs with really shitty minimums.

z31maniac

What is "1488" and "contribute to the 14 words?"

Not even with Incognito am I going to start looking up **** junk on the work computer.

codrus

It's just a bunch of codes for **** stuff to slip it by auto-censors. "Hitler" starts with H, and H is the 8th letter, so that's what the 8 stands for, stupid stuff like that.

As for for the left/right thing, labelling ***** (as in 1930s Germany) as "right wing" doesn't really hold up if you poke at it. It was "national socialism" after all, and the original platform that they published supported many "socialist" positions of the time. Realistically there wasn't much to choose between the ***** and the Soviets -- does it really matter if the state seizes and owns the means of production, or if the state seizes them and then hands them out to favored cronies (nominally "private"), for as long as those cronies continue to toe the party line? The only differences were in the rhetoric and the precise details of how they murdered millions of people.

(More generally, the whole idea of being able to place all mainstream political idea on a single axis spectrum from left to right is pretty broken)

--Ian

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

It's sort of the neo-**** equivalent of "420" within the stoner community. Similar concept, anyway.

14 (and "the 14 words") refers to a phrase coined by George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American **** Party, to describe the duty of American *****: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" It's become a sort of motto among American ***** in much the same way that people like Braineack use acronyms such as 2A and AOC as shorthand when discussing politics.

88 has been explained by codrus. Heil Hitler.

So, basically she's saying that she wants to find a nice white guy to marry so that she can start pumping out nice, white children, and heil Hitler. (Subtlety appears not to be her strong point.)




And that's really half of what puzzles me. Assuming this to be true, we've gotta be talking about someone who is a part-time cashier at the pretzel shop at the mall, a part-time dog walker, and we'll assume that job #3 is that she's one of those people who tries to get their facebook friends to sign up for a multi-level-marketing scheme involving health shakes or cosmetic products.

Whether that's entirely accurate or not, it's clear that we're not dealing with someone who is very high on the achievement scale. And from the 1488-related stuff, I think we can safely assume that she holds extremely binary, one-sided sociopolitical opinions, blames others for her problems, and thinks life would be better if people who she considers to be unlike herself didn't exist.

And that is so VERY much the exact same as the definition of a modern SJW / Snowflake type that it really just astounds me.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I've heard the term 14 words before in a prison documentary. It's some sort of a motto or assertion or oath tied to white supremacy. Not familiar with the other.

But I don't think all stupid people are full of crazy theories. I think it just makes it easier. There usually must be some other mitigating event or influencer who takes advantage of them. They don't come up with it on their own. They are just fertile ground.

As a side note, I really don't like the political labeling system as it currently exists. She describes herself as a conservative and I see absolutely nothing conservative about her worldview. There is nothing conservative about being an extremist. When I think of conservatives I think of Andy Griffith and Aunt Bea, not skinheads and swastikas. Ultra conservative behavior is dressing like Mr. Rogers in a tie and sweater, not drinking or cursing, and having a hobby of model trains or woodworking or something, not burning crosses or fervently and actively committing acts of hatred against other people. Left and right doesn't seem to cut it as a descriptor. There has to be at least be quadrants or a circle or sphere or something.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I am definitely going to steal this quote.



Oh, absolutely not all stupid people are full of crazy theories. Most, in fact, I would posit are not. They just silently consume whatever rhetoric comes out of the box with lights in it, and clutter the politics thread with repetitious memes.

But I do argue that the reverse is true. 100% of people who are full of crazy theories have some kind of cognitive deficiency, and not all the same. For instance, if you are the kind of person who fervently and literally believes that an invisible guy created the whole universe six thousand years ago, meddled quite visibly in human affairs for the first 4,000 of those, and then decided to just disappear and pretend to ignore us, well... you might just not be very bright in terms of critical-thinking. On the other hand, someone who fervently believes that the US Federal Reserve, in collusion with Russian hackers and a secret cabal led by the pope's hairdresser, have been using chemtrails to poison the water supply with flouride in order to make people buy treasury bonds, well, you might actually be quite intelligent, just paranoid / schizophrenic.


It's difficult to model sociopolitical opinions in a geometric fashion while limited to 3-dimensional space, At minimum, you need to be able to map charitable/stingy, authoritarian/permissive, hateful/tolerant, and liberties/obligations along the non-surfaces of a tesseract.

portabull

hahaha

sometorque

iTrader: (1)

I've wondered this too. I've more or less come to the conclusion that people who subscribe to these crazy theories do so out of the convenience of not having to actually engage in challenging thought. It's easier to just say "all republicans are ****'s" or "all liberals are ANTIFA" then actually dive into something and make sense of the shades of gray. Then i remember a family friend of mine who has a masters and is a CPA for one of the Big 4 accounting firms who then goes on facebook and posts **** about chemtrails and pizzagate and wonder if one can be "book smart" intelligent but not have critical-thinking skills.

Sort of related, I had to report a client of mine last week for going off on a rant of various conspiracy theories that make Alex Jones look mainstream since diminished capacity is a liability for me and the brokerage firm i'm at. Fun times.

BGordon

You are all focusing in the wrong place with this woman.
40 years old and NO kids.
Just think of that.
She is practicing social Darwinism on herself.
No kids and no genetic material from her on down the line in the gene pool.
She knows she is batshit crazy and is doing the rest of us a favor.

I see some seriously ugly women hauling a train of kids around WalMart spreading their ugly genes far and wide.
Usually my first thought is "What guy would have such low standards as to actually have sex with that to even get her pregnant. It could maybe happen once on a dark cold night after excessive drinking but how could it happen over and over."
Sometimes I see a guy walking with her and then it all becomes clear.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I draw a distinction between lazy and crazy.


Making blanket statements such as "All non-Hillary-supporters are bigots" or "All black people are criminals" is just ordinary, Braineack-style laziness. Too busy to think critically about issues, so just accept whatever your media-outlet of choice tells you, re-post the appropriate memes and clickbait links, and go about your business.

This is where I see people who actually make "I am a ****" part of how they express their identity, which is really the same as people who go our of their way to let you know that they are a vegan, or that they identify as a queer, non-binary, genderfluid otherkin. Applying labels to yourself to indicate conformity with some group is easy. Blaming scapegoats for your failures and inadequacies is easy.


Crazy is a whole other animal. If you're generating original content and trying to actively recruit people to join in your way of thinking, that's a non-lazy crazy. These are the folks who are not necessarily of below-average intelligence (in fact, many would probably rate very highly in an IQ test), but have some whole other sort of cognative disorder. Your chemtrails and pizzagate gate friend sounds like this sort. So are people who go do from door to door, trying to convince other people to believe in their specific version of God and / or give them money in order to further the cause of convincing others to do the same (eg: by mailing checks to a TV preacher.)

hector

BGordon, you know the joke about the WalMart greeter that only lasted one day on the job, right?
Guy comes out of retirement trying to make himself useful as the greeter.
Sees this ugly, fat, poorly dressed woman screaming, slapping, and cussing at her two kids as she approaches the store.
The man says, "good morning mam?"
She retorts with "what's so good about it?"
The man says "those are some cute kids you have. Are they twins?"
She yells at him "you some kind of retard! Can't ya tell they're 5 years apart?"
The man says "well yes but I can't believe someone would've fucked you twice!"

But yes it is rather funny that libs use the **** term all the time when they pretty much want to do everything the ****'s did. As Codrus noted, ****'s ain't no far right. They walked the same direction as the Bolsheviks.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Which, of course, is history repeating itself. Which is kind of funny in and of itself.

By the time that the embers of World War II had begun to smolder, the Bolshevik revolution had already transformed Russia into a socialist paradise. And yet the USSR and Germany were pretty damn far from friends by the time the shooting started.

Much like the situation today, where those at the far-left edge of the US political spectrum and those at the far-right edge consider each other to be evil, immoral, and corrupt, despite sharing nearly everything in common except for the colors on the flag and the identity of the Common Enemy.

Satisaii

In my long ago and nearly forgotten political science class, the political spectrum was shown as an Ω, which placed the far right and far left much closer than they would be comfortable with.

codrus

The interesting distinction is not left vs right, it's individualism vs collectivism. Are the rights of the individuals more important than the interest of the group as a whole, or the other way around?

--Ian

gooflophaze

Organization is indispensable; for liberty arises and has meaning only within a self-regulating community of freely cooperating individuals. But, though indispensable, organization can also be fatal. Too much organization transforms men and women into automata, suffocates the creative spirit and abolishes the very possibility of freedom. As usual, the only safe course is in the middle, between the extremes of laissez-faire at one end of the scale and of total control at the other.

hector

Collectivism might be great for insects, not so much for humans. IMO, of course.

gooflophaze

Huxley would agree - a few paragraphs further down..

Biologically speaking, man is a moderately gregarious, not a completely social animal -- a creature more like a wolf, let us say, or an elephant, than like a bee or an ant. In their original form human societies bore no resemblance to the hive or the ant heap; they were merely packs. Civilization is, among other things, the process by which primitive packs are transformed into an analogue, crude and mechanical, of the social insects' organic communities. At the present time the pressures of over-population and technological change are accelerating this process. The termitary has come to seem a realizable and even, in some eyes, a desirable ideal. Needless to say, the ideal will never in fact be realized. A great gulf separates the social insect from the not too gregarious, big-brained mammal; and even though the mammal should do his best to imitate the insect, the gulf would remain. However hard they try, men cannot create a social organism, they can only create an organization. In the process of trying to create an organism they will merely create a totalitarian despotism.

...

Unlike the masses, intellectuals have a taste for rationality and an interest in facts. Their critical habit of mind makes them resistant to the kind of propaganda that works so well on the majority. Among the masses "instinct is supreme, and from instinct comes faith. . . . While the healthy common folk instinctively close their ranks to form a community of the people" (under a Leader, it goes without saying) "intellectuals run this way and that, like hens in a poultry yard. With them one cannot make history; they cannot be used as elements composing a community." Intellectuals are the kind of people who demand evidence and are shocked by logical inconsistencies and fallacies. They regard over-simplification as the original sin of the mind and have no use for the slogans, the unqualified assertions and sweeping generalizations which are the propagandist's stock in trade. "All effective propaganda," Hitler wrote, "must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas." These stereotyped formulas must be constantly repeated, for "only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea upon the memory of a crowd." Philosophy teaches us to feel uncertain about the things that seem to us self-evident. Propaganda, on the other hand, teaches us to accept as self-evident matters about which it would be reasonable to suspend our judgment or to feel doubt. The aim of the demagogue is to create social coherence under his own leadership. But, as Bertrand Russell has pointed out, "systems of dogma without empirical foundations, such as scholasticism, Marxism and fascism, have the advantage of producing a great deal of social coherence among their disciples." The demagogic propagandist must therefore be consistently dogmatic. All his statements are made without qualification. There are no grays in his picture of the world; everything is either diabolically black or celestially white. In Hitler's words, the propagandist should adopt "a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with." He must never admit that he might be wrong or that people with a different point of view might be even partially right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked, shouted down, or, if they become too much of a nuisance, liquidated. The morally squeamish intellectual may be shocked by this kind of thing. But the masses are always convinced that "right is on the side of the active aggressor."

Brave New World: Revisited. 1958. Good read, pretty thick with words, but not terribly long (30 pages or so).

It can be argued if vonBraun was a **** or if being a **** let him build rockets. I can't remember if it was Robert Oppenheimer or Edward Teller that once said they had a technical arrogance to building the bomb that blinded them to the ethics of whether or not they should.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's an interesting question, and one which I, personally, cannot answer unless you clarify the following:

Are you asking that question from the point of view of:

• A snowflake who believes that if you're not With Her™ then you must be Against Us,
• Braineack, who believes that if you're not Against Her™, then you must be Against Us, or
• Someone who is asking this question genuinely, and with an open mind?

Edit:

(@Robb M. , to be clear, the indentation of bullet-lists does not work. I mean, it doesn't merely not work in a way which suggests ordinary, malicious incompetence on the part of the IB development team, it actually doesn't work in a way which seems to imply that my mother was a prostitute. I find this to be extremely offensive, and I assume that this is indicative of Internet Brands' support for the annihilation of all life on earth, in keeping with the tenets of AOC's proposal for, well, the annihilation of all life on earth. Because, in all seriousness, I'm totally convinced at this point that your developers like to bite the heads off of live kittens during rituals of obedience to our dark lord Satan, based upon the misery and torment which all of the users of this forum have been subjected to over the past few months' worth of software updates. If you have even the slimmest shred of evidence to repudiate this assertion, I would ask that you post it here. Also, I would like to extend my sympathy to you personally, in acknowledgement of the fact that @IB Nolan abandoned all of us and shifted our burden onto you at a particularly tumultuous time in IB's plunge into the bowels of hell, which is essentially the http equivalent of ******* you in the *** with a 12th century mace with no lubricant. Despite that, the fact remains that this level of nonfunctionality sucks harder tha @hustler's mom at a Harley Davidson convention.)