Neuroplasticity is one of those areas of medical research which initially seems benign and actually of benefit to people but on closer inspection its implications become horrifying, lets take a look at what it actually is:
Neuroplasticity, also known as brain plasticity, is an umbrella term that describes lasting change to the brain throughout an animal's life course. The term gained prominence in the latter half of the 20th century, when new research showed many aspects of the brain remain changeable (or "plastic") even into adulthood. This notion contrasts with the previous scientific consensus that the brain develops during a critical period in early childhood, then remains relatively unchangeable (or "static") afterward.
One of the fundamental principles of how neuroplasticity functions is linked to the concept of synaptic pruning, the idea that individual connections within the brain are constantly being removed or recreated, largely dependent upon how they are used. This concept is captured in the aphorism, "neurons that fire together, wire together"/"neurons that fire apart, wire apart," summarizing Hebbian theory. If there are two nearby neurons that often produce an impulse simultaneously, their cortical maps may become one. This idea also works in the opposite way, i.e. that neurons which do not regularly produce simultaneous impulses will form different maps.
So in theory the brain can be altered by repetition, an example of this might be a morbidly obese woman who, when feeling the desire to eat yet another cake, instead concentrates on the positives of not eating the cake, such as losing some weight. The neurons and synapses which tell her to eat the cake will eventually weaken and the areas of her brain telling her that she will look great thinner will strengthen.
Another example might be a right-handed man who loses his right hand in an accident, through repetition the parts of his brain which make him right handed will weaken and die off, the previously weak parts of his brain which would enable him to be left handed strengthened, and so on.
Neuroplasticity, then, is the study of how brainwashing can be achieved, though of course, people far more qualified than I would balk at the use of such language but that, in effect, is what it is, even if its application is benign. And lets not be coy, if Nationalists had cultural and political hegemony we would teach our boys to be proud and strong, to love and protect their people against the ((evils)) of the world, we would teach our girls to be feminine and proud mothers and home makers.
But we do not have political and cultural hegemony, people like this guy do:
Forest Kentwell recently wrote an article for an American student site called ''Let’s rewrite history to leave our cissexist, imperialist, and racist world in the past''. And Forest thinks neuroplasticity can achieve this:
This mythic hypocrisy that they created has grown and become entrenched in our collective brain. So when we as scholars unequivocally accept the ‘past’ that has been written through the eyes of white, patriarchal males, we are bringing that past into our present and future. Historians have never been objective, passive observers of culture. “History” departments fly in the face of neuroplasticity, attempting to display an objective or ‘True’ version of the world that does not exist, which ignores their foundational biases.
The truth is, as long as we have departments like ‘Africana Studies’ and ‘Feminist/Queer’ Theory, classical “History” should be referred to as “Patriarchal, (White-European) Male Studies,” since it almost exclusively draws from those sources and viewpoints With this in mind I ask: How can colleges and universities embrace neuroplasticity? “You cannot be neutral on a moving train,” Howard Zinn famously stated. The train is our culture and it is profoundly affecting us.
I now propose that scholars and their students once again become active participants in our education dialogue. We must admit that words hold great power, that education is a reproduction of the past, and that that past creates the world around us and our future. By seemingly ‘passively’ absorbing what we are taught, we are actually actively enabling the current world order designed around imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy.
There is nothing intrinsic or inherent about our way of life. I propose here that we re-tell ourselves history. It is just a myth. A story, fleeting in the wind, but also a rock to which we cling. If we truly want to change the future we must change the perceived ‘historical’ past, because these cultural mythologies mold our brains and perspectives. This is why academics and higher education professionals must join the public sphere in acting creatively and strategically with the myths that will form our futures.
They must cross boundaries, integrate themselves and participate in the globalized world, and be intimately involved with local communities and interdisciplinary curricula. This is truly the struggle for higher education.I usually try and avoid invoking Orwell and 1984 because that's what everyone does when confronted with Marxian ideas such as Forest's but sometimes it simply has to be done. What Forest is proposing is, via education, society's understanding of where it came from and how it came to be, will be erased in the minds of the public because history does not fit the Cultural Marxist narrative. In Orwell's astoundingly prophetic masterpiece ''The Party'' will simply erase and warp or invent history according to the needs of the day and this can be justified because everything is subjective and therefore not objectively ''true''. If somebody actually believes 2+2=5 then it does, if The Party declare war on Eastasia one day and then declare they they have always been our staunchest allies the next, then that becomes the ''truth''.
If the history of the modern World is a history of White supremacy and oppression, as recorded and written by, White male historians, then the oppression continues because our understanding of history is biased. Therefore, according to Cultural Marxists, any interpretation of history is equally valid and the historical narrative we should be accepting is, presumably, one in which Henry VIII was a Somalian poet or George Stephenson, inventor of the steam engine, a cross dressing transsexual Muslim woman. The idea that White people should take pride in their wondrous achievements is what Marxists would call ''False Conscience'' and because it oppresses and is exclusive it is morally wrong... to allow people to believe that Beethoven was an African bongo dancer is a step in the right direction.
The fascinating thing about all of this is that the method of brainwashing advocated by Social Justice Warriors isn't new, medical science's understanding of how it works might be more advanced, but the means by which the powerful indoctrinate those without power have been around for centuries, as the old Jesuit saying goes ''Give me the boy at seven and I'll show you the man'' a Jewish professor of Critical White Studies might quip ''Give me the gentile boy at seven and I'll hand you back a self loathing lunatic at 18''.
Would it be permissible for Forest to point out to his Jewish professor that the Holocaust was a gigantic lie, a myth, that the camps existed but were really just fun parks with water-slides and cinemas?. Obviously not, but why not? aren't we living under White Supremacy which is built on glorifying European CisGender males and demonizing minority groups?. Isn't the interpretation of history mere ''myth'' and subjective?.
If you ask a White person today ''When was the first time you saw a person naked?'' most will probably answer that they saw their mother undressing or something similar. If you ask ''What was the first picture of a naked human being you saw?'' many, particularly men, will answer that they had a sneaky look at some porn.
In actual fact, the first images of naked people most modern Europeans saw as children would have looked like this:
The brutal and terrible truth is, Europeans already have been subject to neuroplasticity, we've been subject to it all our lives and it's purpose isn't to perpetuate ''White Supremacy'' it is to perpetuate White Guilt and Jewish Supremacy. It is to associate, at the earliest stages of our lives, pride in ourselves and our civilization with barbarity and death. The neurons and pathways in the brains of our people have been re-forged through repetition, Nazi, Holocaust, racism, hater, bigot, Anti-Semite...over and over and over and over. The parts of the brain which advocate self assertion and kinship have been ripped asunder and the areas of our brains which include guilt and ''Love of the Other'' massively strengthened.
People often point out an irritating habit of Leftists in debate, when the mildest counter argument is met with a shower of emotional hysterics and wailing. It's quite possible that what is driving this is that the part of the brain which they've had enhanced is unable to cope with reality. An example of this could be to put the question to Forest ''If the West is hinged on White Males and their supremacy, why are they allowing their most respected universities to create anti-White male intellectual theories?''.
In any given society the dominant group will seek to perpetuate their values and agenda via the education system and universities, as noted above, if Nationalists were dominant we would use the education system too but the difference is we wouldn't have to be hypocrites about it, Social Justice Warriors are in the position of pretending to be against a system which blatantly and obviously fully endorses everything they advocate and every opinion they peddle.
The effect on the Leftist mind of such reasoning is akin to a chisel pushing against the grain on a piece of wood. Indeed, all Left Wing thought runs against nature's grain.
And the end result of this is a Social Justice Warrior cretin wearing a Judaic Marxist slogan and advocating the abolition of our entire history to clear out our minds of a ''False Conscience''.
They are machines demanding we create more machines like them, without knowing or understanding why they were created or who created them, and they do this as ''free thinkers''.