Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
#1
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is a very interesting phenomenon when you actually delve into the specifics. On the surface, it makes sense: children are vulnerable while young, and require care to ensure they don’t randomly die. The highest SIDS risk for children is in those under 6m of age, and pretty much completely disappears by the age of one. Pretty scary right? Imagine your baby being carried to term, born, and then ‘randomly’ dying in the night. Everyone needs to be worried about random child death! Except, what if there are some hidden factors not discussed? If we look at other medical phenomenon, say AIDS and COVID, it’s clear that there is not an equal risk of ‘randomly’ dying from COVID or AIDS across every single person. Obese, diabetic, and generally unhealthy people have a higher risk of dying from COVID (certain races too), and homosexuals are more likely to die from AIDS. That being said COVID was marketed as total death for all, no fine detail ever expressed about comparative death rates, and originally fear was spread that AIDS had an equal risk to all (some too now for Monkeypox), so what about SIDS? Does every baby have the same risk of randomly dying? No, they don’t. There are several factors at play, and SIDS (largely), like the downplaying of AIDS effect on homosexuals, is a phenomenon that really only effects certain demographics and is downplayed because of progressive reasons. Let’s have a look at who is more likely to have a child die from SIDS, what risk factors actually put your child at risk, and why SIDS is discussed in this obscure manner, instead of honestly.

First, here is some of the typical obscuring language that is used. An Australian government health website states that “By removing known risk factors and providing a safe sleeping environment, most of these deaths are preventable.”[1] So, on the basis of this sentence, it appears that SIDS is an environmental problem considering that “most” of these deaths can be prevented. That is true on the basis of in most cases, if you put a baby in the right environment, they won’t die, however is the cause of SIDS deaths environmental? Here are some of the risk factors for SIDS covered in a medical journal article: “inadequate prenatal care, low birth weight (<2499gr), premature infants, intrauterine growth delay, short interval between pregnancies and maternal substance use (tobacco, alcohol, opiates).”[2] You might notice right away that none of these risk factors involve laying a baby the wrong way, putting pillows in a cot, etc., all environmental factors. They are instead referring to more genetic and lifestyle factors. In fact, you’ll understand all you need to know about SIDS from this single line from a journal article on SIDS titled ‘Sudden Infant Death and Social Justice’ which states that “these [SIDS] deaths are most common among poor and marginalized people in wealthy countries, including U.S. Blacks, American Indians/Alaskan Natives, New Zealand Māori, Australian Aborigines, indigenous Canadians, and low‐income British people.”[3] Again, none of these factors are environmental, which is how SIDS is often discussed, that you ‘must sleep your baby the right way’ as if the sole cause of SIDS is equal, instead of it largely being localised to certain groups. In much the same way that the obfuscate homosexual AIDS rates/death with the euphemised “people who engage in homosexual sex”, thereby deflecting from demographics and centralised groups, we move into theories of causality where deaths/illness occur not from specific inability to be healthy/make healthy choices (such as putting your child to sleep correctly) but instead from more general, almost miasma like theories of health, wherein certain arrangements of reality lead to death, not that certain people arrange society in ways that cause death.

When examining SIDS there are two primary elements that should be examined to understand the ‘syndrome.’ The first, as I have briefly touched on, is that SIDS realistically is eugenic on the basis that the greatest risk lies with low genetic stock parents. We see this most clearly in the racial demographics, but other factors such as short interval between pregnancies (i.e., poor family planning, more r-selected parents, lower IQ) and substance abuse. However, just because bad parents create conditions that kill their kids doesn’t mean that good parents might not also engage in risky behaviours that also kill their kid, right? This leads to the second element of SIDS that is not discussed, which is that many of the ‘risky’ behaviours we denounce now are in many cases used by demographics with low SIDS risks. Back in the ‘Sudden Infant Death and Social Justice’ article you’ll find the following line: “In 2016, the U.S. AAP also issued guidance acknowledging similar risk factors but maintained a more authoritative, less nuanced anti‐bed sharing stance (Ball, 2017a). For instance, it advised all parents to conduct night‐time feedings in the adult bed but then to return the infant to a separate sleeping area (Task Force On Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, 2016).”[3] Other articles seemingly confirm that “infant-parent co-sleeping as a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome.”[4] So it appears bed sharing, or rather that harmful environments in general cause SIDS, so presumably even intelligent, White parents could accidentally kill their kids. Except this isn’t true either. “In Japan, many parents sleep next to their baby on bamboo or straw mats, or on futons. Some parents simply room-share by putting the baby in a crib or bassinet that is kept within arm's reach of the bed. Most cultures that routinely practice cosleeping, in any form, have very rare instances of SIDS. SIDS occurrences are among the lowest in the world in Hong Kong, where cosleeping is extremely common.”[5] There is a degree of pilpul used commonly to try and again obfuscate that it is not a general, equal risk of SIDS when bed sharing but trying to offer a distinction between bed sharing and co-sleeping. One article describes co-sleeping as “sharing a sleeping surface”[6] which is apparently different to sharing the sleeping surface of a bed, since the sleeping surface was a Japanese futon. Despite common bed sharing/co-sleeping, Japanese people have a 1/20th rate of SIDS compared to blacks in America, 1/8th compared to Whites.[7] Ultimately, it is demonstrable that co-sleeping/bed sharing, in some cases, does not present with a high risks of SIDS, so it cannot ultimately be just environmental. Coupled with the fact that demographic factors such as race and IQ level are ultimately more causal (by this I mean control for environmental factors has less of an impact than control by demographic factors) it is clear that SIDS is not the type of issue that it is commonly referred to as. SIDS is instead indicative of negligence and poor parenting (some studies also indicate a certain percent of SIDS deaths are murder, but are covered up/not properly diagnosed as infanticide[8]) and not actually a devastating and random chance that your child will die.

But why does this matter? There are a few crucial reasons. First, knowing that low IQ and non-white (tautology) parents have a greater risk at having their own children die is informative, from a racist perspective, but also from a generalist perspective. More of these people (immigrants) creates a larger burden for healthcare, ensuring parents are ‘informed’, but it also creates more dead children in your country, which ostensibly most people wish to avoid. However, the most important reason that this knowledge is valuable, and should be discussed in the proper context, is that it has an overwhelming impact on new mothers when they are forced to internalize the idea that they have a risk of killing their own children. What a pernicious thought, that you cannot even sleep in the same bed as your child, without putting their life at risk. I’m sure you can already understand what social forces welcome such a burden, to pathologize a natural and healthy urge of mothers. Worse is that it is the parents at the highest risks of SIDS that will ignore their risk, through their own stupidity, but the more K-selected parents will fret most. SIDS risks are inversely correlated with the amount of worry the parent will expend on it. This ‘equalising’ rhetoric of modern health, being unable to frankly address problem demographics and factors at their root (something we saw all too plainly with COVID) means that the burden which should most heavily be felt on the lower elements of society is redistributed to the normal, better elements, so that nobody has to ever point out that it is because of your race, or low intelligence, that you are more likely to have your child die. Like distributing police equally among every demographic, instead of targeting demographics at a higher risk of crime, you are forcing innocent people, who have less to do with the problem than others, to shoulder a burden they should not, and there is no worse people to add extra psychological harm onto than new mothers, especially in this case mothers of a higher calibre than the actual people having their kids ending up dead. Again it is indicative of general social dysfunction that not only are people unwilling to discuss, as a matter of fact, what the actual dynamics of a problem are, but also that professionals engage this problem in a dishonest manner. 

Small disclaimer: I did not discuss smoking at all, however this is a genetically 'neutral' factor in that by all reports it is smoke residue from 2nd and 3rd hand smoke that have an impact on a newborn's respiratory function. This means regardless of your intelligence/race, it is an actual environmental cause. There is of course some correlation anyway between lower IQ/life outcomes and smoking habits, therefore overlapping to a certain degree, however, it is largely irrelevant to the inability for medical professionals to discuss this matter frankly, but should still be accounted as a neutral factor and not totally ignored.

References:
[1] Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) | healthdirect
[2] The factors contributing to the risk of sudden infant death syndrome - PMC (nih.gov)
[3] Sudden infant death and social justice: A syndemics approach - PMC (nih.gov)
[4] An 8 year study of risk factors for SIDS: bed‐sharing versus non‐bed‐sharing - PMC (nih.gov)
[5] Cosleeping Around The World - The Natural Child Project
[6] Circumstances and factors of sleep-related sudden infancy deaths in Japan - PMC (nih.gov)
[7] Infant Mortality | Maternal and Infant Health | Reproductive Health | CDC & https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0233253
[8] Ten Percent of SIDS Cases are Murder — or are They? - PMC (nih.gov)
#2
It probably starts from even before birth: atrocious lifestyles result in small defects in a child that stack up. Let's say a nerve is slightly jumpy, a little screwed you know, because momma did crack or whatever (who knows what miasma of nigger behaviors caused it) but controls the heart - since babies are very fragile, but also extremely rapidly developing entities - there's gonna be a lot of activity. Some random signal comes - oh no it made the heart do a double take and the baby fuckin dies (as a matter of fact these "microflaws" probably cause even adults to, much rarer, but still drop dead for seemingly no reason)
#3
Good write up. A darker theory I’ve heard is that some mothers accidentally/even purposefully suffocate their babies to get them to stop crying. Maybe they hold the baby a little too tight for a little too long late at night when they JUST WANT TO SLEEP and the baby won’t just BE QUIET - and he’s dead. When you consider the intelligence/psychopathy of minorities this seems pretty likely. No one would ever suspect a mother.
#4
That is the thing, a certain percent are certainly murder, because it is so easy to get away with. Put a heavy blanket on your kid, and the autopsy is going to show the same results as if it "naturally" accidentally was covered by a blanket and suffocated. Considering the videos you see of how certain races treat their kids, it's no surprise that negligence leads to such high rates of death. But on the inverse, you just simply have to realise a lot of the 'risky' stuff they tell you avoid is kind of a meme, since plenty of people do it and their kids don't die. As Svevlad said too, a certain percent do also just naturally die from being weaker. Again it is likely that those genetic flaws may be clustered towards the type of genetic refuse that have higher rates of SIDS.
#5
I recon that we will see an uptick of “SIDS” cases due to Roe. V Wade.
#6
I see you didn't mention vaccination in this post.

A study of SIDS and Vaccination with numbers from VAERS show that from 1990-2019, 78.3% of SIDS occured within 7 days post-vaccination.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255173/

Another study I just found trying to find the above study also showed some association between the administration of vaccines and SIDS.
https://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedi..._of.5.aspx

While I haven't looked deep into the subject, such numbers are rather worrying in my eyes.
#7
(06-27-2022, 12:13 PM)Alfred Carlson Wrote: I see you didn't mention vaccination in this post.

A study of SIDS and Vaccination with numbers from VAERS show that from 1990-2019, 78.3% of SIDS occured within 7 days post-vaccination.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255173/

Another study I just found trying to find the above study also showed some association between the administration of vaccines and SIDS.
https://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedi..._of.5.aspx

While I haven't looked deep into the subject, such numbers are rather worrying in my eyes.

I don't have enough knowledge about this specific possibility to make a good enough comment I fear. My initial thoughts though are that it both is reasonable, but also probably not the entire story. A few reasons why:

As with any vaccination, they key metric to use to examine possible side-effects and negative consequences comes from the number needed to treat (NNT) of number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of the specific vaccination. 1 NNT means that for every one vaccination, you immediately help one person. A 100 NNT means you need to vaccinate 100 people, to help one person. As such, with a 100 NNT, 99% of people are receiving uncessary medical care (with potential risk) just to ensure broad coverage and to help one person. DDepending on the severity of potential side effects, and mass vaccination campaigns for children, it is likely that there are a number of children who receive an unescessary vaccine, and some of those who are unnecessarily vaccinated with have bad outcome, and some of those will die. The NNT for the COVID vaccines, for adults, was 150-300+ from what I remember. For children, the NNT is infinite, since basically no kids died of COVID, so what is the vaccine preventing? Vaccinate tens of millions of kids to prevent ~10 deaths? That's nuts. You can check out the NNT for the normal flu vaccine for adults at [1], and you'll immediately see it's not 1, so a lot of people get unnecessary vaccinations. I did look up the childhood (<18) flu vaccination NNT once, and IIRC it was at least over 100, so basically useless. As I said, I don't know enough about NNTs and negative outcomes of other childhood vaccines, so can't say what possible link there is, but the very fact that we have a mass vaccination campaign, that most vaccinations do not have a 1 NNT, and there is enough biological diversity in human populations makes it certain that it's likely some children do have these negstive outcomes, resulting in death, that just get recorded as SIDS. 

Now, on the other hand, one factor that blows a hole in this theory is that Black Americans have a SIDS rate about 2.25x the White American population. Black Americans also have lower vaccination rates across the board, children and adults, so if SIDS was caused by vaccinations, we should see a higher correlation with races since race is a proxy for vaccination rate in this case. One way to check could be to examine SIDS rate by income group, especially if controlled by race, to see if there are any anomalies, but judging by the SIDS risk factors (young mothers being one high risk factor) it seems less likely that high income blacks would have higher SIDS deaths. 

So while on the one hand I think it is likely that vaccination plays a role, as mass vaccination campaigns with ineffective (untargeted) vaccines are causing immune responses in a lot of people, for no benefit, even if it were random there would still be some unintended deaths. But at the same time, the fact that we see higher SIDS rates in the less vaccinated populations gives cause to believe that it is not solely vaccinations causing this. Also worth mentioning is that vaccines, and vaccination schedules, vary across the world, so it would be interesting to see global data on this front and whether there are any interesting trends. 

Regarding the studies you linked, I think it makes sense when understanding that vaccination will cause an immune response, meaning a more fragile child, the question is then what mechanism causes the death after this. Is it, that the child being more upset (due to small fever, aches) is held more often, causing accidental suffocation? Is it, if I imagine in the case of blacks, that sick babies are just neglected and crucial signs not seen, leading to unnecessary deaths? It's definitely worrying that SIDS correlated so closely with vaccine administrations, again making the regime of mass vaccinations when unneeded complicit, but we still require understanding what exaclty is it that causes SIDS post vaccination and whether it differs. One interesting element I'd like to see if there are studies on is whether there is any correlation between C-sections and SIDS. Natural born children, when passing through the vaginal canal, pick up bacteria living there, which they consume upon birthing, and it helps develop their gut biome. A C-section baby doesn't consume this bacteria, leading to a worse gut biome, and it's becoming more and more clear gut biome health is absolutely vital to general health. Maybe c-section babies have a worse immune response, higher SIDS, I don't know, just a loose thought I'd love to try and quantify when I get a chance. 

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3994812/
#8
(06-27-2022, 05:00 PM)Brucean Wrote: I don't have enough knowledge about this specific possibility to make a good enough comment I fear. My initial thoughts though are that it both is reasonable, but also probably not the entire story. A few reasons why:

As with any vaccination, they key metric to use to examine possible side-effects and negative consequences comes from the number needed to treat (NNT) of number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of the specific vaccination. 1 NNT means that for every one vaccination, you immediately help one person. A 100 NNT means you need to vaccinate 100 people, to help one person. As such, with a 100 NNT, 99% of people are receiving uncessary medical care (with potential risk) just to ensure broad coverage and to help one person. DDepending on the severity of potential side effects, and mass vaccination campaigns for children, it is likely that there are a number of children who receive an unescessary vaccine, and some of those who are unnecessarily vaccinated with have bad outcome, and some of those will die. The NNT for the COVID vaccines, for adults, was 150-300+ from what I remember. For children, the NNT is infinite, since basically no kids died of COVID, so what is the vaccine preventing? Vaccinate tens of millions of kids to prevent ~10 deaths? That's nuts. You can check out the NNT for the normal flu vaccine for adults at [1], and you'll immediately see it's not 1, so a lot of people get unnecessary vaccinations. I did look up the childhood (<18) flu vaccination NNT once, and IIRC it was at least over 100, so basically useless. As I said, I don't know enough about NNTs and negative outcomes of other childhood vaccines, so can't say what possible link there is, but the very fact that we have a mass vaccination campaign, that most vaccinations do not have a 1 NNT, and there is enough biological diversity in human populations makes it certain that it's likely some children do have these negstive outcomes, resulting in death, that just get recorded as SIDS. 

Now, on the other hand, one factor that blows a hole in this theory is that Black Americans have a SIDS rate about 2.25x the White American population. Black Americans also have lower vaccination rates across the board, children and adults, so if SIDS was caused by vaccinations, we should see a higher correlation with races since race is a proxy for vaccination rate in this case. One way to check could be to examine SIDS rate by income group, especially if controlled by race, to see if there are any anomalies, but judging by the SIDS risk factors (young mothers being one high risk factor) it seems less likely that high income blacks would have higher SIDS deaths. 

So while on the one hand I think it is likely that vaccination plays a role, as mass vaccination campaigns with ineffective (untargeted) vaccines are causing immune responses in a lot of people, for no benefit, even if it were random there would still be some unintended deaths. But at the same time, the fact that we see higher SIDS rates in the less vaccinated populations gives cause to believe that it is not solely vaccinations causing this. Also worth mentioning is that vaccines, and vaccination schedules, vary across the world, so it would be interesting to see global data on this front and whether there are any interesting trends. 

Regarding the studies you linked, I think it makes sense when understanding that vaccination will cause an immune response, meaning a more fragile child, the question is then what mechanism causes the death after this. Is it, that the child being more upset (due to small fever, aches) is held more often, causing accidental suffocation? Is it, if I imagine in the case of blacks, that sick babies are just neglected and crucial signs not seen, leading to unnecessary deaths? It's definitely worrying that SIDS correlated so closely with vaccine administrations, again making the regime of mass vaccinations when unneeded complicit, but we still require understanding what exaclty is it that causes SIDS post vaccination and whether it differs. One interesting element I'd like to see if there are studies on is whether there is any correlation between C-sections and SIDS. Natural born children, when passing through the vaginal canal, pick up bacteria living there, which they consume upon birthing, and it helps develop their gut biome. A C-section baby doesn't consume this bacteria, leading to a worse gut biome, and it's becoming more and more clear gut biome health is absolutely vital to general health. Maybe c-section babies have a worse immune response, higher SIDS, I don't know, just a loose thought I'd love to try and quantify when I get a chance. 

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3994812/

I am not against vaccination in general, I haven't seen any reasonable or real refutation about them working.
However, I can see newly born children reacting badly to vaccines and suffering side-effects which can kill them but not older children or adults. It can also be that different races of children react differently to the same vaccines due to their genetics.
Another thing that would have to be studied is the SIDS rate of babies not getting vaccinated with those that do get vaccinated early on.

I haven't looked into the data and studies on this either. I never really considered SIDS much, except for when I saw the first study I linked several months back and remembered when seeing this thread.
#9
Isn't SIDS concentrated among certain darker peoples mainly? As was pointed out here by Brucean

Quote:Now, on the other hand, one factor that blows a hole in this theory is that Black Americans have a SIDS rate about 2.25x the White American population. Black Americans also have lower vaccination rates across the board, children and adults, so if SIDS was caused by vaccinations, we should see a higher correlation with races since race is a proxy for vaccination rate in this case. One way to check could be to examine SIDS rate by income group, especially if controlled by race, to see if there are any anomalies, but judging by the SIDS risk factors (young mothers being one high risk factor) it seems less likely that high income blacks would have higher SIDS deaths.

I think a better way to phrase it would be that babies die of NIGS from the usual suspects; rolling over onto the baby because you do not put them into a crib, not paying attention to the baby as it rolls over onto its face and suffocates itself ingloriously, quite literally shaking the baby to sleep and the medical examiner not catching that it is not a shaken baby but a NIGS case. I'm not going to assume that it is all just the mothers neglect (because only the cruelest of mothers will be willing to murder their children) but it is probably the same sub-90 IQ behavior that infects every other aspect of the darkies lives. The poor diet and poverty, the lack of learning and the eventual death by a cardiac event from guzzling down endless amounts of fat and sugar.
#10
smoking indoors with infants present is a behaviour indicative of an individual potentially possessing other maladaptive traits, such as "placing a blanket over your infant's body while they sleep", or "holding them too tightly after they wake you with their crying"
#11
(06-27-2022, 05:00 PM)Brucean Wrote: Now, on the other hand, one factor that blows a hole in this theory is that Black Americans have a SIDS rate about 2.25x the White American population. Black Americans also have lower vaccination rates across the board, children and adults, so if SIDS was caused by vaccinations, we should see a higher correlation with races since race is a proxy for vaccination rate in this case.

It might not be a very scientific explanation, but there's no reason why SIDS can't be running cover for both vaccination fatalities and irresponsible blacks. SIDS functions as a release valve for truths deemed unacceptable for polite society. There are few places in medicine where doctors have such authority to claim people die of "Sudden Death Syndrome". Even in highly political cases like the c00f's vaccine, not every death could be painted over; there was still a noticeable and unavoidable statistical increase in vaccine-caused injury. With SIDS, any medical professional is free to give a get out of jail free card to any situation untenable to their mental framework. Does society really want to admit to itself that so many mothers of a certain race are able to kill their own children without remorse? Does society really want to know that they're sacrificing the most vulnerable in an attempt to save the old and infirm? The medical community's primary goal, as with all institutions, is to save face. It's much more polite to say thousands of babies are dying of magic baby exploding syndrome than admit these things.
#12
Women of all races are fairly likely to murder their young children on a whim. "Postpartum psychosis/depression". They do this when there is no strong man around, knowing that the kid is fucked and a liability in terms of her getting owned and bred by an another strong man. Humans evolved for the male to stop the female from killing her young. "SIDS" is simply the medical establishment covering up an unpleasant hatefact that contradicts the progressive orthodoxy. The doctors just do not look very hard into why the infants died, because they are afraid of what they will find.
#13
(03-22-2023, 03:42 PM)chevauchee Wrote: Women of all races are fairly likely to murder their young children on a whim. "Postpartum psychosis/depression". They do this when there is no strong man around, knowing that the kid is fucked and a liability in terms of her getting owned and bred by an another strong man. Humans evolved for the male to stop the female from killing her young. "SIDS" is simply the medical establishment covering up an unpleasant hatefact that contradicts the progressive orthodoxy. The doctors just do not look very hard into why the infants died, because they are afraid of what they will find.

The Deep Postpartum Lore is some crazy stuff.

Quote:Mothers and grandmothers are not, of course, inhuman, and if given half a chance can be loving toward their children. Yet, as I summarized my three decades of research on the evolution of childrearing: “The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused.”61 The simple fact is that girls were brought up with worse childhoods than boys, more likely to be raped and prostituted by their family, more likely to be mutilated, rarely respected or educated or given a chance to develop an individual self. That as mothers they were post-partum depressed, required to plow and sew and work as well as care for children, and were constantly accused of sinfulness just by being female is widely documented. That she took out her pains on the only beings in her charge, her children, is unsurprising. There are good reasons why Medea, Procne and other mothers in Greek mythology killed their own children to spite their husbands for their infidelity. It should tell us something when one reads an historian calmly report: “Of 600 families from the second century B.C., only 1 percent reared two daughters.”62 It is only when one recognizes the mother’s own severe abuse and neglect from birth that one can begin to understand why they routinely killed, abused, tied up and neglected their own children. What is miraculous is that each new generation of mothers has tried to give more love and care to their children than they themselves had, so childrearing has progressively evolved over the centuries—albeit unevenly around the world.


Quote:Females in New Guinea are treated brutally. Since they are routinely viewed as secretly being witches “who can kill simply by staring at a person”22 (Killer Mother alters), they are often killed simply because they are imagined to have poisoned people.23 Mothers in New Guinea are horribly abused as girls, being routinely raped by fathers, brothers, visitors, peers, gangs. When they become wives they are treated brutally by men and have suicide rates as high as 25 percent. Mothers are therefore post-partum depressed, and they use their children for sexual stimulation—repeating their own abuse—and then abandoning them emotionally, so they vary between masturbating them and hanging them up in a bag on a tree all day long. Since the men routinely beat up their wives, there is no evidence of spousal intimate love, so mothers are continuously in despair; if they are not forcibly breast-feeding their babies or masturbating them, sucking on their penises,24 the baby is useless to them as erotic objects and not fed regularly. Small children are routinely allowed to play with sharp knives and burning objects without adults paying any attention to them.25 Mothers hate themselves and consider themselves “bad” for having been raped as young girls26 and for having to endure loveless polygamous marriages. Maternal “mirroring” is lacking, so children do not become secure with others and do not develop an independent self.27 Children even recently are 90 percent malnourished in New Guinea, studies show, even when food is plentiful, because mothers only feed them a couple of times a day, and they die from starvation while the mothers are puzzled what is wrong with them.28 The mothers’ force-feeding during erotic nursing “becomes a battle in which the mother clutches the child, shaking it up and down with the nipple forced into its mouth until it must either suck or choke,” but when not used as an erotic object, they are badly neglected, often “thrown away,” so that abandonment rates run as high as 75 percent as they are sent out for adoption or fosterage.29 When not hung on a tree in a bag or basket, the toddler is “discouraged from walking and not allowed to crawl, [forced to] sit still for hours and make queer noises.”30 All this overstimulation plus abandonment produces extremely insecurely attached children in the infanticidal mode of childrearing who are schizoid personalities with dissociated alters embedded in their amygdalan networks to “carry” the pain of their abuse.31 Schizoid personalities—with their animistic delusional magical thinking processes—are the results of parents who simply are incapable of loving. As Masterson concludes: “The Schizoid child feels there is no pathway to the parents. [They live in] social isolation [with] an impossibility of an intimate relationship.”32 They have no inner Good Mother, so their inner attacking Mother is experienced as a deadly voice inside: “Feeling alone is feeling afraid of death.”33 Masterson calls schizoid patients “safety sensitive because of their twin fears of being controlled and of being hopelessly isolated.”34 In tribal families, there is no hope for forgiveness, only “eat Mommy or be eaten by her.” Yakut shamans hallucinate schizoid self-sacrifice to “a Bird-of-Prey-Mother, which is like a great bird with an iron beak, hooked claws and a long tail [who] cuts its body into bits and devours it.”35 Tribal schizoids then switch into dissociated alter trances and repeat their fears in spirit possession rituals.36

The other half of the historic child mortality question. How insane everybody was. You have to figure up until the truly modern era much of Europe was not doing too great either. A point raised by a few more lateral thinkers is how much infanticide there was in the past that nobody was even really allowed to talk about. The private psychological strain of that would have surely had some scary results. If a lot of women feel lost, hopeless, and unsupported today, you can just imagine...
#14
Quote:“As the mother and friend continued to eat and chat, I moved to the shade of a tree, where I could watch unobtrusively. Into my mind there came a conversation I had recently had with a close friend, about the rightness or wrongness of killing deformed children in infancy. He had said that he had always thought he might leave a deformed baby with its face in a pillow, so that its death might look like an accident. I asked whether he thought a wife would ever agree to this, and we agreed that it is something a mother would probably never do. Alas for innocence and ignorance. We now know that thousands, tens of thousands of mothers, out of their own frustration and misery, have done and keep on doing far worse things than this to children who are not deformed at all. At the same time, he felt that to keep such children alive was so terrible for both mother and child that it would be better for the child to be dead.”
quote from How Children Fail, maybe Holt knew?
#15
(03-22-2023, 09:49 PM)Guest Wrote: quote from How Children Fail, maybe Holt knew?

This jumped out at me last time I flipped through the book. Holt was very good at looking candidly at human behaviour. Very optimistic about the potential of all children, but also rather negative on how most are treated in the world. Even by their families. There are a couple of accounts of mundane cruelty and disregard in How Children Learn that I found very illustrative. The man had a real will to see. Would try to make sense of things other people wouldn't think twice about.
#16
Certain vaccine campaigns seem to have been really bad for this, IIRC in the 70s. I haven't watched this in a few years. I don't recall hearing about SIDS for a long time. Who knows what the numbers are. Vaccines have always been an area for psychotic eugenicists.

https://youtu.be/vmCOurjo5Z0
#17
(03-22-2023, 10:13 PM)anthony Wrote: This jumped out at me last time I flipped through the book. Holt was very good at looking candidly at human behaviour. Very optimistic about the potential of all children, but also rather negative on how most are treated in the world. Even by their families. There are a couple of accounts of mundane cruelty and disregard in How Children Learn that I found very illustrative. The man had a real will to see. Would try to make sense of things other people wouldn't think twice about.


“The man had a real will to see” ok I wouldn’t go that far, His thinking is a step away from the kind of thinking that produces “Wez be stoopid and sheeit cuz whity’s raycist”. I mean schools traumatizing and abusing kids then stamping “RETARD” on their head and ruining their lives is something that should be avoided. Holt was a counter against this type of culture at the time but as we know the next step in the progression was GNC. A lot of schools today are still like this, and the counter against this today is thinking like Holts but with leftist race-communism ideas.  “The road to hell is paved with good intention” fits nicely with this. Maybe it’s not entirely his fault but I can’t turn a blind eye to an attitude that facilitates this behavior.

(P.S. I was not befuddled by your question on intelligence and was actually waiting in anticipation for it, but it’s too important of a question to not put more energy into the answer, I’m still reading some stuff and when I’m done I think I’ll be able to give you a proper theory of intelligence that will be comprehensive and satisfying, it’s coming)
#18
(03-22-2023, 11:31 PM)Trevor Bauer Wrote: Certain vaccine campaigns seem to have been really bad for this, IIRC in the 70s. I haven't watched this in a few years. I don't recall hearing about SIDS for a long time. Who knows what the numbers are. Vaccines have always been an area for psychotic eugenicists.

https://youtu.be/vmCOurjo5Z0

>Invincible Orthodoxy
>Elites are actually eugenicists
One of those is it?

(03-22-2023, 11:34 PM)Guest Wrote:
(03-22-2023, 10:13 PM)anthony Wrote: This jumped out at me last time I flipped through the book. Holt was very good at looking candidly at human behaviour. Very optimistic about the potential of all children, but also rather negative on how most are treated in the world. Even by their families. There are a couple of accounts of mundane cruelty and disregard in How Children Learn that I found very illustrative. The man had a real will to see. Would try to make sense of things other people wouldn't think twice about.


“The man had a real will to see” ok I wouldn’t go that far, His thinking is a step away from the kind of thinking that produces “Wez be stoopid and sheeit cuz whity’s raycist”. I mean schools traumatizing and abusing kids then stamping “RETARD” on their head and ruining their lives is something that should be avoided. Holt was a counter against this type of culture at the time but as we know the next step in the progression was GNC. A lot of schools today are still like this, and the counter against this today is thinking like Holts but with leftist race-communism ideas.  “The road to hell is paved with good intention” fits nicely with this. Maybe it’s not entirely his fault but I can’t turn a blind eye to an attitude that facilitates this behavior.

(P.S. I was not befuddled by your question on intelligence and was actually waiting in anticipation for it, but it’s too important of a question to not put more energy into the answer, I’m still reading some stuff and when I’m done I think I’ll be able to give you a proper theory of intelligence that will be comprehensive and satisfying, it’s coming)

This accusation flies around a lot but if you want to post about it properly later I can wait. For now I'll just say the essence of Holt is treating the individual and that any systemic answer is no longer Holt. The difference between "Schools are bad" and "These schools are bad, but perfect ideal schools will produce perfect ideal results. We don't have these because of racism and RethugliKKKans hoarding all the money for white supremacy".
#19
(02-03-2023, 07:39 PM)Datacop Wrote: It might not be a very scientific explanation, but there's no reason why SIDS can't be running cover for both vaccination fatalities and irresponsible blacks. SIDS functions as a release valve for truths deemed unacceptable for polite society. There are few places in medicine where doctors have such authority to claim people die of "Sudden Death Syndrome". Even in highly political cases like the c00f's vaccine, not every death could be painted over; there was still a noticeable and unavoidable statistical increase in vaccine-caused injury. With SIDS, any medical professional is free to give a get out of jail free card to any situation untenable to their mental framework. Does society really want to admit to itself that so many mothers of a certain race are able to kill their own children without remorse? Does society really want to know that they're sacrificing the most vulnerable in an attempt to save the old and infirm? The medical community's primary goal, as with all institutions, is to save face. It's much more polite to say thousands of babies are dying of magic baby exploding syndrome than admit these things.

Society has implicitly admitted that mothers are likely to kill their young children even if it is ashamed to explicitly say it. Most legal systems differentiate in their treatment of neonaticide (killing a newborn) and infanticide (killing a minor). On the gravity scale, neonaticide is seen as the lease egregious offence and the punishment can be imprisonment for as low as one year. On the other hand, pedicide is seen as the most socially undesirable out of the trio with some states even imposing a death penalty. In other words, a mother killing her newborn child can potentially receive the same punishment as a person who was found to be in possession of drugs. An interesting question which arises at this point is what makes the value of life increase with age in the eyes of the legislator? Is it the fact that whilst a baby is in a sense unlike us? It is oblivious to the world, it lives in a bubble outside of society, it observes but is unable to affect the flow of life. On the other hand, the minor is a more defined being that actively engages with the world around him and thus in a sense more familiar. Of course, this is a possibility, but assuming this to be the truth would lead to a debate much more fierce and difficult than the one about abortion. One that is perhaps impossible to resolve. At what point of its development does a child become a complete man? 

It seems, thus, more reasonable to accept another explanation. We know that pregnancy messes up the hormonal balance of the mother. We know that hormonal changes can lead to unpredictable behaviour, psychosis, depression, or any other mental illness. This is what was most likely in the mind of the legislators who were drafting these statutes. Most statutes dealing with the topic themselves usually refer to 'an altered state of consciousness' or 'mental distress'. There is still a problem, however, which makes a bit difficult to connect this to SIDS. Neonaticide is in its legal definition usually limited to murder which took place in the 24 hours after the birth. Thus, in theory, the post-birth distress which causes the mother to kill her child should be over in about a day. I believe this problem can be dealt with through simple logic. Even a simple Google search shows that postpartum depression can last for months and even years. Hormonal disbalances are not something which can be fixed in a day. Combine this concoction of messed up hormones with the fact that lower IQ people are in general much more prone to mental illness and you have a reasonable explanation for racial child death statistics.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)