Trump performs for the Chanterculture a very similar function to the one he does for his political supporters: giving loud public voice to culturally unsafe (racist, xenophobic, hateful, choose your adjective) sentiments. He serves less as a real politician with policies and strategy than as the protagonist in a counter-narrative of American culture that sees the forces of modern identity-based liberalism on the verge of genuine acceptance and, it fears, domination. The difference on the internet is, Trump doesn’t need to say anything at all — the creators of the new Chanterculture will say it for him.
In a private group called “Can’t Stump Trump” on the mobile chat service Kik, you’ll find teenagers — between trading weightlifting tips, preferences in female body type, and racist memes — heaping praise on the frontrunner in the Republican presidential race. They claim to support him because he is against “immigration from culturally incompatible ethnic groups,” because “he doesn’t support political correctness,” because “[h]e’s not a good candidate for people who care about others, which I don’t. No lives matter.”
COMMENTS:
* Young American and European males reacting negatively to the fact that the already thoroughly declined cultures in their OWN countries are now selling out to the interests of people who are in many ways foreign to them and intend to stay that way?
and using over-the-top humor in order to cope with an issue which most feel very seriously about?
WOW. Just WOW. It’s 2015.
Please, Mr. (((Bernstein))), enlighten us to the pro-diversity, pro-tolerance ways of Israel. Oh, wait…
* 4chan is full of people being contrarians for the sake of being contrarians. To an outsider not interested at all in nuance and very interested in clickbait outrage culture, it can seem like they’re being serious. I wonder why you’d- Oh.
* I don’t know about the Chan stuff, but it’s nice to see a useless buzzfeed “news reporter” wet his pants over people who aren’t particularly pleased with the PC / SJW matrix of bullshit that has been stifiling everyone for far too long. Oh yeah, and ‘Bernstein’ was totally unsurprising.
* A movement? Good try. Just sounds like young punks having fun, like they have since on the Internet since forever. “Chanterculture?” Don’t think that’s going to catch on either….
* “young English-speaking white men, perhaps the least victimized group of people in the world…”
That’s why studies have shown that impoverished white schoolboys are struggling more than any other demographic in British schools, right? I mean, having it drilled into your brain since kindergarten that whites are evil colonialist jew-gassing mass murderers and males are evil potential rapists and that you, a young child are collectively responsible and should feel guilt for these alleged crimes and are basically the reincarnation of hitler if you defend yourself, (oh and by the way, boy-oriented adventure books and recess games promote violence so here, have this doll), can’t possibly have severe mental and psychological consequences on this so-called “most privileged” demographic in the world?
* The most privileged demographic in the world, yet we’re being ethnically cleansed from every white country.
* Donald Trump is the only candidate in either party who is not owned by the special interests of the left and of the right. He represents America’s silent majority of decent men and women.
* The American left talks about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusivity’ while blocking those who promulgate opinions – or even simply ask questions – they dislike, creating virtual and not-so-virtual gated communities that echo those real gated communities a lot of them were raised in. How were oh-so-marginalized people like Quinn and Sarkesian able to pull strings to get a forum at the UN? Elitism and cronyism, of course. The young and the white are truly marginalized. They talk to each other because everybody else has shut them out.
* Intentionally finding the worst of the worst to tar us all with the same brush isn’t an intelligent move. Clearly you’re so biased in your position that you didn’t think to look at these issues from both sides of the coin.
I know what you think you’re fighting for, as I used to be like you. I used to follow all of the gay rights pages happily sharing cringeworthy memes about religious “bigots”.
I used to watch all of Laci Green’s videos and I alllowed my ignorance of her terminology to get the better of me, and instead of researching what I was being indoctrinated with, I blindly agreed and carried on.
If I googled “misogyny” at that time then I would’ve converted from the liberal side much earlier as soon as I realised how that word is overused and incorrectly used at any given opportunity.
I used to be a loud-mouthed obnoxious atheist. I’m still an atheist, however I haven’t posted any pro-atheist/anti-theist content anywhere for a couple of years at least, as I came to realise how I was on the wrong side of the battle.
Being involved with real internet subculture I saw content that persuaded me away from your side. Simply, I saw screenshots of liberal media articles. Stills of liberal media videos. Quotations from liberal media posts.
The only thing anyone ever needs to do in order to see the underlying bullshit is to consume your clickbait for long enough to see it for what it really is.
I’m not a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an anti-semite, or any of the other bullshit labels you wish to apply to people like me. I’m simply against your systematic introduction of the concept of thought-crime. No thought is criminal. No words are criminal, as long as they’re not hate spe- ah. The real issue.
You folks have been pushing that line closer and closer until there’s nothing left to say at all. Anything that makes anyone feel uncomfortable is now somehow hate speech of some kind, and must be silenced.
This isn’t a movement to send women back to the kitchens and blacks back to the slave ships. This is a movement to send intellect and free speech back to institutions, particularly universities, and the media. You don’t realise it but you’re the new authoritarians, and the cultural libertarians want to bring back free speech for everyone -believe it or not, yourselves included. Your political peers may be really fucking stupid, but if everyone can speak, that means everyone can speak.
You’ve got the wrong idea buddy, but when shit hits the fan for you as soon as you say the wrong thing and lose your job and anything you hold dear, this side is always welcoming.
* A Jew against white identity and solidarity? No fucking way!
* White males aren’t reacting this way because they feel like victims- they’re doing it because they can. The narrative is bullshit. They don’t have to sit there and take it while people like “Bernstein” try to nanny them and morally condemn them. That’s why they make so much ironic content- those that try to condemn them really don’t have the moral authority they think they do, and their hypocrisy is hilarious. Gamergate was a year long laugh festival at leftist hypocrites.
* What we ”neo-Nazi White supremacists” believe about our race is the same what most other races in the world believe about theirs. We don’t want to become a minority in a nation built by Whites for Whites. It’ funny how most other ethnicities on earth have immigration policies in place to benefit them, but if Whites want to do the same, it’s the worst thing ever. Also, if you’re going to pull the ”muh slavery, muh colonialism” argument on me, you should know:
1) There were many other non-White civilizations in the world who practiced imperialism. Turkey was a particularly bad here, and I don’t see anyone demanding they need to open their borders and be bred out of existence.
2) Most European nations never practiced imperialism, yet leftists are still forcing mass immigration on us.
3) The countries of USA and Australia were built by Whites, not natives. Natives just happened to live on that land before they were forced out. And if you say that forcing them out was wrong and Whites should apologize, then you’d have to say that about numerous other civilizations. When are you going to demand the Turks give up their land to the Greeks who lived there before? ”You stole that land from X” is a silly argument.
Posted inDiversity|Comments Off on In 2015, The Dark Forces Of The Internet Became A Counterculture
Based on the results of classical twin studies, it just doesn’t appear that parenting—whether mom and dad are permissive or not, read to their kid or not, or whatever else—impacts development as much as we might like to think. Regarding the cross-validation that I mentioned, studies examining identical twins separated at birth and reared apart have repeatedly revealed (in shocking ways) the same thing: these individuals are remarkably similar when in fact they should be utterly different (they have completely different environments, but the same genes).3 Alternatively, non-biologically related adopted children (who have no genetic commonalities) raised together are utterly dissimilar to each other—despite in many cases having decades of exposure to the same parents and home environments.3
One logical explanation for this is a lack of parenting influence for psychological development. Judith Rich Harris made this point forcefully in her book The Nurture Assumption (an absolute must read). 6 As Harris notes, parents are not to blame for their children’s neuroses (beyond the genes they contribute to the manufacturing of that child), nor can they take much credit for their successful psychological adjustment. To put a finer point on what Harris argued, children do not transport the effects of parenting (whatever they might be) outside the home. The socialization of children certainly matters (remember, neither personality nor temperament is 100 percent heritable), but it is not the parents who are the primary “socializers”, that honor goes to the child’s peer group (a fascinating topic, but one that merits its own separate discussion).
Posted inBiology, Family|Comments Off on Why parenting may not matter and why most social science research is probably wrong
ESSAY: I am a criminologist by training, which means that I make my living trying to better understand the causes of criminal behavior. My research specialty in particular is something my colleagues and I call biosocial criminology. What is that, you ask? The simplest way to answer that question is to clarify what it is not — biosocial criminology is not one thing. It encompasses various flavors of psychology, biology, genetics, and neuroscience all aimed in the direction of understanding why human beings engage in a host of disreputable, dangerous, aggressive, and, of course, illegal behaviors.
The logic for approaching the study of crime in this manner is simple. Human beings perpetrate criminal behavior and humans are biological creatures. Simple reasoning would require that biology should play some role in the production of crime. For decades, however, our traditional criminology colleagues disagreed with us. They sternly rejected the chain of thought that I just described and chided those of us who maintained that biology was important. Even now, doubts persist about the importance of biology for the study of crime.
While writing this, it struck me as ironic that an important father of modern criminology, Cesare Lombroso (Italian physician from over a century past), was one of the first scientists to proffer biologically tinged theories of crime. Although these theories were incorrect, they were key steps in the evolution of criminological science. But, as fate would have it, the very science birthed in part by the physician, a “biosocial criminologist”, would eventually grow hostile to biology. Lombroso and his arguments were caricatured, transformed into the laughing stock of the field [1]. First year theory students (undergraduate and graduate) are now treated to an annual skewering of Lombroso. Everyone in the class has a nice chuckle at his expense and the discussion moves along to the “true” sociological wisdom that waits ahead in the semester.
In any situation where two sides of an argument are competing for the intellectual high ground, it is natural to ask who was right. A massive study [2] just published in the academic journal Nature Genetics synthesized 50 years worth of behavior genetics research and settled the issue nicely. I’ll distill the findings down: there is virtually no human trait untouched by genes.
Whether the question concerns why some are taller than others, why some are smarter than others, or why some are more psychiatrically disturbed than others, the answer is that genetic differences play a role. There have also been four separate reviews of the literature examining behavior genetic studies on the topic of criminal and antisocial behavior specifically [3,4,5,6]. The conclusions are precisely the same as those from the Nature study. The reason why some are more prone to crime than others has much to do with their genes. Do not bother lazily invoking explanations like poverty, parenting, neighborhood factors, and the like. Start with genes and then go from there.
At this point, I can already hear the critics chiming in about how I’ve glossed over every bit of important nuance. Where is the discussion of gene-environment interaction and gene expression? Why have I behaved like such a genetic determinist? Have I glossed over some nuance? To some degree, yes, but I have a good reason for doing so. The purpose of our discussion is not to delineate the intricacies of gene-environment interplay. More importantly, frivolous appeals to near meaningless “it’s both nature and nurture” type arguments serve no purpose. Behavior genetic models are designed to parse genetic and environmental influences on outcomes at the population level so it is entirely meaningful to talk about both separately. Do genes and environments (as well as multiple genes in the genome) interact to influence behavior? Yes. Does gene expression change across time as a result of environmental exposure and because of the regulatory functions of other genes? Yes. Are these vital components to explaining large swaths of human differences in violent, aggressive, and criminal forms of behavior? The evidence does not suggest it to this point, but there is more work to be done.
Posted inBiology, Crime|Comments Off on How criminologists who study biology are shunned by their field
Observer.com: There is nothing “fun” about Making a Murderer. Where Serial was guided along by the calming voice of Sarah Koenig and the charismatic Adnan Syed, and The Jinx had a villain straight out of a Marvel movie in Robert Durst, Netflix’s foray into true-crime has nothing but a cold Wisconsin, a junk car yard, and utter hopelessness. When Netflix first released the trailer, I called it “Serial You Can Binge-Watch.” Please, don’t binge-watch Making a Murderer. Out of necessity I powered through all ten episodes, and spent the rest of my night staring out a window at the rain. Making a Murderer doesn’t send you off to the internet to discuss the details. It doesn’t inspire fevered speculation. Forget Ryan Murphy, this is an actual American horror story, and what it does inspire is fear. Namely, fear of an easily manipulated justice system, a nagging voice that says repeatedly “that could be me.” Steven Avery’s defense lawyer Jerry Buting sums it up toward the end: “We can all say we will never commit a crime,” he says. “But we can never guarantee that someone will never accuse us of a crime. And if that happens, good luck in this criminal justice system.”
Making a Murderer might as well have come sans soundtrack, because the only sound you’ll hear is your own voice, constantly saying out loud”Oh, come on!” It is a long, frustrating process, and I’m not sure what point is the most infuriating. Is it episode one, which covers the initial sexual assault case, where there is NO speculation or doubt. You know Mr. Avery is later exonerated, and you’re actually watching an entire county’s police force mangle, stumble, and completely botch an investigation. (A lot of people come off bad in Making a Murderer, but perhaps no one as comically so as Chief Deputy Eugene Kusch, who framed the original, completely biased sketch that sent Mr. Avery to jail for 18 years like a proud child putting a drawing on the fridge). Or maybe it’s the lack of physical evidence tying Mr. Avery to the murder of Teresa Halbach, and the breaking of pretty much all protocol by Manitowoc’s police department in obtaining any evidence at all.
Strangely, the most tragic figure in all of this isn’t Mr. Avery, it’s his then-16-year-old nephew Brendan Dassey. Mr. Dassey became a key figure in the prosecution’s case after the high school junior gave a statement saying he not only walked in on Mr. Avery standing over Ms. Halbach chained to a bed, but then participated in the woman’s rape and eventual murder. It seems pretty cut and dry until you get to the end of episode three, which is as horrifying and haunting as any piece of television in years. With nary a parent or lawyer in sight, investigators Mark Wiegert and Tom Fassbender take Mr. Dassey out of school and get a confession so coerced it’s actually sickening. It’s all filmed, so we get to watch as a 16-year-old with an IQ of 69 throws his life away completely because he’s too intimated to tell the truth.
There is no doubt that the mainstream media has all but instituted a “blackout” on crimes committed by black thugs, and it’s almost epidemic across all forms of media coverage, and if an incident does make it to the evening news or within a newspaper, look for it to be buried in the newspaper or perhaps “aired” once with minimum time devoted to the story.
Even a horrific incident of a 19-year old girl being burned “alive” doesn’t raise much outrage within the mainstream media if the murdered girl happens to be white and her assailants black.
The FBI has rounded up 17 black gang members in connection with the murder of Jessica Chambers in Mississippi.
She was a white 19-year-old girl who had disappeared from a gas station while she was filling up her car with gas; her body was found burning just a few miles from the station.
The thugs doused her with gasoline and then burned her alive.
The stunning facts are that these types of crimes are happening with more frequency and are seldom reported by the mainstream media, it’s the same mindset that is putting Americans at risk when those in charge refuse to identify those that commit acts of terror, because of political correctness.
FBI agents targeted suspected members of the Black Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, and Sipp Mob street gangs.
These men are violent murderers who deserve to pay for their crime. And this crime went virtually unreported by media.
Chaim Amalek writes:
Don’t be so quick to judge. Instead, read a book. “To Kill a Mockingbird” for starters, in which an innocent Black Man is falsely accused of rape by a wanton white woman not in control of her sexuality. Then go watch a movie. Again, “To Kill a Mockingbird” will work. Then watch that made for TV move from the seventies (?) about the Scottsboro Boys who were falsely accused of raping some white women in the south. Pause and reflect. Visit a museum of tolerance, if you have one. Listen to your heart. Then consider – what if this white woman dies trying to frame these innocent black men? Suppose, as a motive, that they had rebuffed her sexual advances (like in “Mockingbird”)? Only speculate that it didn’t work out for her. Had she gotten away with it, they would not have been the first black men to be framed by a white woman not in control of her own sexuality.
Posted inBlacks, Crime|Comments Off on White Girl Is Burned Alive, 17 Black Gang Members Arrested Yet Media Refuses To Report Story
…[W]hen you combine that demographic change with all the economic stresses that people have been going through because of the financial crisis, because of technology, because of globalization, the fact that wages and incomes have been flatlining for some time, and that particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck, you combine those things and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear.
Some of it justified but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That’s what he’s exploiting during the course of his campaign.
So Obama is implying that if we just enacted more redistributive big government programs, the white working class would love Third World immigrants and multiculturalism.
He made this point more explicitly in his famous speech on race when he first ran for President. Then Senator Obama noted that “Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.” Obama feigned empathy for these whites, acknowledging that
They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition… So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Yet Obama argued that conservative talk radio hosts exploited these fears, and that
these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze—a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.
Professional anti-racist Tim Wise [Email him] says the same thing more crudely: “[w]hite privilege, relative to people of color, has served as the transmission belt of false consciousness” and thus “the ability of working people to form effective cross-racial coalitions. . . is itself made less likely precisely because of white racism” [Ian Haney-López [Email him] wrote a 2013 book with the self-descriptive title: Racist appeals undermining the middle class, By Darrell Delamaide, Marketwatch, January 8, 2014]
Yet Trump’s racial appeals are not tied to typical GOP economic policies favoring the “wildly affluent.” And in fact, the Left is finding this aspect of Trump particularly difficult to handle.
The Atlantic’s Molly Ball has contrasted “the intellectual conservative movement, a decades-long project of institutional actors like the Heritage Foundation and the American Conservative Union, which seeks to push the party toward strict adherence with a set of ideas about limited government, strong national defense, and the traditional family” with the “populist, nativist strain” in the Party. According to Ball, “Trump’s dominance of the primary field is forcing the party to confront a frightening prospect: that the populist bloc may be the bigger of the two” [‘I’m Against the Muslims’: Trump’s Supporters and the Republican Divide,Atlantic Magazine, December 8, 2015]
probably 97 percent white people, a significant percentage of whom are now openly embracing their racial identity; that is, they’re supporting Trump as white people, because they feel he will protect their white privilege.
While Conservatism Inc. indignantly denies these claims, there is no doubt that Republicans have successfully attracted working class whites who do not particularly care for their free-market economic policies by making cultural and implicit racial appeals. (Which are not necessarily “racist”—although never acknowledged in current debate, whites have interests too.)
The GOP may have dog whistled to “racists”—but the dog didn’t get any treats.
The last serious candidate to break this mold: Pat Buchanan. With each of his successive Presidential campaigns, he expressed more heresies against free-market conservative orthodoxy, while taking hardline stances on immigration and racial preferences. Citing Buchanan’s support for capping executive pay, protecting Medicare, and extending unemployment benefits, National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru proclaimed “He is in no important sense a conservative anymore.” Instead, “Buchananism is a form of identity politics for white people—and becomes more worrisome as it is married to collectivism.” [A Conservative No More: The Tribal Politics of Pat Buchanan, National Review, October 11, 1999]
Of course, until the 1965 Immigration Act–which brought in Ponnuru’s parents–white people basically were America, and this “identity politics” was known as “patriotism.
The Republican Party of Trump is becoming a white-identity party, like the far-right parties of Europe. Yes, it includes token members of other races, which accounts for Ben Carson, who’s just a political idiot, whatever his skills in the operating theater. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are in a different category as Cubans; in our political discourse, we throw them into the mix as Latino, but of course Cubans are very different culturally and politically from other Latinos; and besides, there are certainly racial categories among Cubans themselves, and Afro-Cubans these two are not.
But whatever one wants to say about those three and others like them, they’re part of a tiny minority in a party that’s probably 97 percent white people, a significant percentage of whom are now openly embracing their racial identity; that is, they’re supporting Trump as white people, because they feel he will protect their white privilege. And yes, this is very different from why black people voted for Obama as black people, and if you even need me to explain that, you’re totally lost.
Posted inRepublicans|Comments Off on GOP: A Neo-Fascist White-Identity Party?
In the United States today, however, there are lots of ways to make money off immigration by privatizing profits and socializing costs, but very few ways to make money pointing out how immigration is hurting the general public. (Trust me, it’s not much of a gig.) Something America very much needs is a two-sided market where experts can make money betting against immigration inflation.
A law requiring immigrants to buy insurance would, among other advantages, create a cadre of data scientists who are experts in predicting who would be the best and worst immigrants. Paying actuaries to be hardheaded about immigration would inject some valuable skepticism into our mind-sets.
At present, forecasting that some applicants for immigration would be better than some other applicants is widely considered racist and un-American, a violation of the Zeroth Amendment inscribed on the Statue of Liberty. More sane countries, such as Canada and Australia, have complex points systems for evaluating applicants based on statistical models of how much good they are likely to do current citizens. But Americans have been indoctrinated toward schmaltzy stupidity on the subject. Putting insurance companies at risk would encourage intelligence about selection, however.
Posted inImmigration|Comments Off on The Case For Immigration Insurance
We’ve known since 1964 that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. We’ve known for more than 40 years that alcohol damages the developing brain of a child. We’ve known since the mid-1970s that asbestos causes cancer and other serious diseases. Knowing what we know now, we do not smoke in enclosed public spaces like airplanes, we have passed laws to keep children from smoking or drinking alcohol, and we do not use asbestos as an industrial product.
As we become more intellectually sophisticated and advanced, with greater and broader access to information and knowledge, we have given up old practices in the name of safety and progress. Except when it comes to sports.
Over the past two decades it has become clear that repetitive blows to the head in high-impact contact sports like football, ice hockey, mixed martial arts and boxing place athletes at risk of permanent brain damage. There is even a Hollywood movie, “Concussion,” due out on Christmas Day, that dramatizes the story of my discoveries in this area of research. Why, then, do we continue to intentionally expose our children to this risk?
If a child who plays football is subjected to advanced radiological and neurocognitive studies during the season and several months after the season, there can be evidence of brain damage at the cellular level of brain functioning, even if there were no documented concussions or reported symptoms. If that child continues to play over many seasons, these cellular injuries accumulate to cause irreversible brain damage, which we know now by the name Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, or CTE, a disease that I first diagnosed in 2002.
Depending on the severity of the condition, the child now has a risk of manifesting symptoms of CTE such as major depression, memory loss, suicidal thoughts and actions, loss of intelligence as well as dementia later in life. CTE has also been linked to drug and alcohol abuse as the child enters his 20s, 30s and 40s.
The risk of permanent impairment is heightened by the fact that the brain, unlike most other organs, cannot cure itself following most types of injuries. In more than 30 years of looking at normal brain cells in the microscope, I have yet to see a neuron that naturally creates a new neuron to regenerate itself.
Posted inFootball, Health|Comments Off on Bennet Omalu: Don’t let kids play football
