Featured

Sticky: New Policy: All Commenting Is Free for the Time Being and Foreseeable Future

At least for the time being and forseeable future, I am revoking my policy of charging $10 for lifetime commenting privileges for frequent commenters. It was instituted when I had 3,000 visitors a day. But at this new site, we are down to an average of ~200 visitors/day. It’s true that last month that went up to ~900 visitors/day, which was very, very nice. However, the eight month total is still averaging 200 visitors/day.

The old commenting system where frequent commenters had to pay will not be instituted again until I reach ~3,000 visitors a day, which could be quite some time, considering that we seem to be stuck ~200 visitors/day for some time now. So you all might be able to comment  here for free for some time now.

Anyone not commenting because they think it’s not free is more than welcome to come back.

But even though commenting is free probably for some time now, it would still be very nice to get donations to keep the site running. See the post below for an explanation on how to do that.

Featured

Sticky: Support Beyond Highbrow

I often do this work all day long. It’s what I do. I also have some other income. I have a very small trust fund, and I work a bit on the side. However, my health prevents me from working full-time at a regular job.

Perhaps you worry that you are making me rich. In that case, I will tell you how much money I make so you won’t have to worry about that anymore. I live on about $14,000/yr.

If you value this site and the work I put into it, for which I get very little reward, please consider a donation. Even a small amount would be nice. Donations motivate me to write more, and when they’re not coming in, I don’t want to write so much. So when you donate, you are keeping this great site going.

And you are also contributing to the research that powers this blog with so many brilliant and scintillating topics that it will make your head spin. I mean, it’s not just highbrow, it’s Beyond Hghbrow. And so are you.

How? Go to PayPal and navigate to my email:

Go to PayPal and navigate to my email address to donate to this awesome site!

Donate button coming soon!

Want to support this site and not send a donation?

Go here.

All proceeds help pay me for this interesting service, and on your end, you can host that free speech stuff a lot better than with having a mainstream host.

A Look at Transmen and “Lesbian” Transwomen

RL: It seems to be an extreme form of homosexuality, and their brains are actually female-shifted. That is, they don’t have female brains or male brains.”

Claudius: I didn’t know this. Interesting. It matches up with what I said. They are just super-duper gay. I like these trannies. They seem very nice, albeit a bit gold-diggerish, but whatever. I could be friends with these people.

I like the real, true, pure trannies too. I’ve heard this group makes up 11% of the tranny population. The other 89% are all autogynyphiliacs, and yes, they are statistically more dangerous to women than CIS men. In one cohort, I think over half of them had a record for sex crimes! I’m serious. They put them in women’s prisons, and a number of them have raped women in there. They go to women’s shelters when they are homeless and tend to make the real women really uncomfortable.

The lesbian trannies are a pretty large group because most of the autogynyphiliacs are straight or at least bisexual. So a lot of this group are attracted to women and call themselves lesbians, except real lesbians absolutely despise them and say they are creepy men pretending to be women. These real lesbians even lead movements against the lesbian trannies, for example, a number of the radical feminist TERF’s are like this.

The lesbian trannies has started to rail against the “cotton ceiling,” by which they mean the real female lesbians who refuse to date the fake female tranny lesbians. They’ve even held demonstrations against this ceiling, and they like to crash lesbian and ultra-feminist gatherings (same thing).

The Michigan Womyn’s Festival, for example, a radfem feminist gathering of mostly lesbian women, got invaded by lesbian trannies a while back. They cracked down hard on them a couple of years ago, and now all lesbian trannies are banned from the festival. I have no idea about how the women running the festival feel about transmen.

A lot of TERF’s feel sorry for transmen and say they are victims of patriarchy, which makes it so miserable to be a woman that a lot of women just say, “Screw it. I’m going over to the enemy. I’m going to be a man and cash in on all the male privilege.” Because of course any problems a woman has with anything on Earth are clearly the fault of us men, right?

Except most real men are probably not real fond of transmen. I’ve known a few of them and even talked to a couple and am even considering fucking one if she still has a womanly body.

A lot of transmen are straight women and when they go tranny, they call themselves gay men. The ones who become really masculine usually end up getting fucked by regular gay men, who don’t seem to care that transmen mostly still have vaginas. To gay men, it’s just a gay man with a vagina. Big deal. Gay guys will screw anything anyway, and this looks enough like a man for them, so they’re down.

The really masculine transmen often have their tits chopped off, which sickens me, and their faces develop a male appearance. They often get a lot of facial hair hair all over their bodies too. So it looks like a dude with a pussy basically.

A lot of them are horny as Hell and looking to get fucked by anyone, mostly guys I guess, but most men seem to be doing a hard pass on these freaks. I sure as Hell would. I wouldn’t fuck a guy with a pussy with a ten foot pole and an 11 foot extension. I’m homophobic as it is in the true sense of the word and that would feel so gay to me, I just could not handle it. It would feel like fucking a guy, and that would set off my homophobic alarm pretty bad.

A Theory about Race, Personality, and Civilizational Trajectory with Assistance from Spengler, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche

A great new and very long comment from someone who is apparently a new commenter. A fascinating theory about race and personality and how they tie in with civilizational trajectories, be they forward, backward, or flat. He utilizes and owes a debt to Spengler first, then Schopenhauer, and last Nietzsche to help flesh out his theory.

I’d really like to see what you all think of this post. Please feel free to comment if you can make it through and figure out what he’s talking about. It’s a bit dense but it’s not really that complicated and a lot of you ought to be able to understand it pretty well.

Brian: This is a theory that’s been turning around in my head for around a decade, and I won’t go over every detail, just the gist of it, since to think out every caveat would take too long, and it’s not like a primary interest of research for me, but suffice it to say there is Spenglerian influence here, and through him, Nietzschean and Schopenhauerian influence. I’ve often called it the “I think we’re turning Japanese” theory.

The idea here is that Whites are in the middle of a spectrum between Blacks and Asians, where Blacks are the most chaotic, as you say, and Asians are the most orderly and staid, personified by the Spock stereotype.

The Germanic peoples, who pretty much seeded all of Europe during the Migration and Viking period, were, 2000 years ago during Rome’s heyday, barbarians, quite wild, living for the day, warring with each other to the point where, aside from the Battle of Teutoborg Forest, they could not unite with each other to fight a common enemy, which made them easy pickings for Rome.

The Celtic culture never took off into a high civilization due mainly to the Roman conquests of Gaul and Iberia and also of much of Britain, which eliminated the source-lands and most of the territory in which the Celtic culture had grown. So the civilization that arose after the collapse of the western portion of the empire was seminally Germanic: even France is heavily Germanic (land of the Franks), though it lies in between the more fully Germanic Northern Europe and the more Mediterranean Southern Europe.

Through the Dark Ages and High Middle Ages, the tribal polities of Northern Europe gradually coalesced into larger nations with, it must be stated, the help of the stabilizing factor of the Catholic Church. And by the Renaissance, Europe was becoming, artistically and intellectually, the most dynamic place in the world so that by Early Modern times, European art and science had eclipsed anything that had previously existed in the world.

Note how Asians beat Europeans in math and science in terms of raw ability, but Europeans have produced more than the Asians, which led to the core Asian lands (mainly China, Japan, and Korea) being not directly colonized by European empires but certainly feeling colonialism’s effects and even, especially for China, its boot heels. From the wild and more primitive European stock of two millennia ago eventually arose a civilization more advanced than what Asia had produced over thousands of years.

I suggest that the reason for this was that, although primitive, the Germanic peoples were also like a ball of energy that, if properly tamed, which of course means diminishing some of their raw energy, could produce an explosion of civilizational progress, and this taming is exactly what happened over the course of the Medieval Period.

The Church was a great factor, with its universalist vision of all reality being centered on a single thing, i.e. God (basically it’s a rational vision of the cosmos as opposed to a fragmentary and irrational understanding of it).

But another factor in this shift is likely social selection.

Over that 1,500 years of interaction with Rome and then of forging their own kingdoms after the constant interference from Rome had ended with the collapse of the western part of the Empire, European societies were able to grow into nations, become more complex and therefore more demanding about the intellectual demands on their own people and, whether through sexual selection initiated by women or through some other factor, began “weeding out” those who were too dumb or wild from the gene pool.

So by around 1500-1600, there existed a civilization with much of the raw energy of a primitive people but now harnessed and directed to intellectual and artistic ends, ready to make a gigantic mark on the world.

The point is that primitive peoples are like stores of raw energy or pools of potential that can, in the right circumstances, be transformed into a flourishing of civilization that even outdoes what groups with higher (or previously higher) IQ’s have accomplished. The white IQ might have increased during that transition from tribal chieftainships to modern states, with the selection pressures that such a transition brings.

Spengler believed that Western civilization was becoming old and sclerotic, ready either to dissipate or, like East Asia, ossify for a very long time, its main ideas having already mostly been expressed. He saw Russia as the next civilization to rise, since it was in that nether phase of being quite brutal compared to Western Europe and its descendant nations overseas, but nevertheless already being quite tamed.

Perhaps this explains why Europe, for centuries, has had a visceral fear of Russia, from the Great Game in the 19th century to the Nazi invasion and destruction of the country down to the present-day Establishment fear of Russia and Putin. Perhaps there is a sense that if Russia can break free of the West and get its act together, its potential is great, and in time – centuries perhaps – Russia could eclipse the ever-more sclerotic West.

But even more long-term, if this theory is correct, I can see Latin America rising as a major civilization. It would have to go through centuries of real nationbuilding first as Europe did in the Dark Ages and High Medieval Period into the Renaissance, but there is certainly great natural vigor among Latin American peoples, already somewhat tempered by the widespread infusion of Spanish and Portuguese (not to mention some German and other European) genes in those populations.

Perhaps in a millennium, when the raw potential has been converted into actionable works through a combination of genetic selection and cultural controls, Latin America will be a great civilization offering new artistic and scientific insights to the world and perhaps being expansionist, as civilizations born of wild people getting their act together tend to be. There seems to be a golden mean when a people is no longer too primitive but not yet too domesticated when that people makes its mark.

Which brings me to Africa. Africa today is comparable to Germania in Roman times: getting the first inklings of advanced civilization from the West, which had often mistreated it, and struggling to form real nations in the face of their own enormous divisions and external interference. Africans are chaotic but also wildly creative, especially musically – and music is the closest thing to the human Will or Engine of Life, as Schopenhauer teaches.

Africa in the coming centuries and millennia could go through a filtering that eliminates from the gene pool many of the wildest elements, for example through frequent warfare and sexual selection by women who demand more intelligent mates, as it becomes obvious that the trajectory of society is toward greater complexity.

The continued presence of Christianity and Islam are likely also beneficial for taming the most wild spirit of Africa, whose people are truly at present the most primal version of mankind. But in the intervening centuries or millennia some new religion might come along in Africa as shape the minds of the people as Christianity did to the Europeans during Roman times.

I would think that the Africans, in maybe a millennium or two, after the Slavic nations and the Latin American peoples have “come online” so to speak in the procession of great civilizations, could become the culmination of human civilization, since they are starting with the most raw energy that, were it tamed, would entail the greatest outpouring of intellectual and artistic – i.e. civilizational – creativity that humans could produce.

But a great deal of selection pressure and cultural maturation would be required before this could happen.

Later this century, Africans are expected to comprise ~40% of the global population and with demographic decline occurring in many of the advanced countries, the West could be swamped with Africans and could, over time, even dissipate as a distinct culture. This event would be comparable to the barbarians overwhelming the western portion of the Roman Empire and precipitating the Dark Ages.

But this fits not only my thesis but also the Spenglerian model to which it is mostly in debt. The ensuing collapse of the West could be the opening that Slavic nations need in order to truly rise and express themselves fully. The development of Africa into a high civilization is a process I expect to take many centuries amid the vicissitudes of other civilizations rising and falling.

As for current White civilization which is headed by “The West” or those nations descended from or heavily influenced by the Germanic peoples, I think we are turning Japanese. We are past the Golden Middle Period and into a period where much of our primal nature remains but is channeled by genetic and cultural discipline and we are in effect slowly evolving into more staid, quiet, competitive – i.e. more Asian-like – peoples.

You can see it with the younger generations who are subject to far more social controls than even I was when younger, and I am not that old. The younger generations seem socially skittish, often autistic, and very different from kids even thirty years ago. Of course much of this is due to technology, but much is also due to our societies becoming increasingly rule-based and micromanaged.

And it is our culture itself that is insisting on this bureaucratization and rationalization of social life, with technology being merely a tool to push this cultural tendency forward.

As one final note, my theory might not work if indeed the different personality types and intelligence levels of the major races cannot change over a millennium or two in such a way that a wilder and less intelligent race can be pared down through social selection to a more disciplined and intelligent race.

If this is not a long enough span of time for such a transition to unfold, then the rise of the Northern and Western European peoples from tribal barbarians 2,000 years ago to the epitome of civilization just a few centuries ago was not due to a lack of enough intelligence to produce such a civilization.

Instead it occurred because this spark already existed during the Roman Empire, except that its expression was limited by a lack of social development until those cultural constraints needed to mold it into an advanced civilization had taken shape.

If this was true, then difference between the primitive culture and the high civilization it became was sociocultural, not genetic.

But even if this were true, it could mean that Africa could still rise as a high civilization, only that it will take longer, since a lot of not sexual but social selection would have to occur in order for this to happen.

The Drive to Annihilation in the Male (Homicidal) and Female (Suicidal) Characters

The Annihilatory or Destructive Drive at the Core of the Human Character

Both males and females have a drive to destruction as part of their core Characters. This is obviously a downside of any human’s character, but both the Male and Female Characters and hence genders are probably 50% good and 50% bad. Think of the good side as the bright side of the moon you see at night. The bad side of the Character/Gender is like the dark side of the moon and hopefully it acts like it. You know full well it’s there even there even though you never see it.

At other times you see it in spades and many people, especially as they get older, turn the mirror around and only show the back side of it to people. All you see is the bad aspects of the Character/Gender. The good side is probably still there in most of them and you may even see it peek out most of the time.

Both males and females have a drive to destruction as part of their core Characters. This is obviously a downside of any human’s character, but both the Male and Female Characters and hence genders are probably 50% good and 50% bad. Think of the good side as the bright side of the moon you see at night.

The bad side of the Character/Gender is like the dark side of the moon and hopefully it acts like it. You know full well it’s there even there even though you never see it. At other times you see it in spades and many people, especially as they get older, turn the mirror around and only show the back side of it to people. All you see is the bad aspects of the Character/Gender. The good side is probably still there in most of them and you may even see it peek out most of the time.

The Annihilatory or Destructive Component in  the Male Character

In the male the drive to destruction is projected outwards, which is what males do with most destructive emotions. Sending negative emotions inside of yourself is considered to be pussy, weak, female, acting like a bitch, etc. “Manning up” usually means nothing more than projecting your crap outwards as opposed to inwards.

The Male Character has a destructive aspect, and it is black and dark indeed. It is frankly homicidal and most men are homicidal either consciously or consciously or at least they were as boys, when they projected their murderousness onto non-human creatures and converted it to fistfights with the males they are around.

However, it is very hard for a boy to be truly homicidal and murder another human being, either another boy or a man. Something stops them. This is odd because they spend a lot of time killing non-human things like bugs and they physically fight each other regularly. Yet the fights seldom end in serious damage and always stop short of homicide.

So in the boy, the homicidal impulse is there most of the time, but it is transformed into playing with army men and toy guns, berry and dirt clod wars with other teams of boys (this mirrors small-scale tribal warfare), physical fighting which causes little damage and murder of non-human lower-level creatures.

Yet as a boy grows into a man he is supposed to abandon this overt destruction and sadism of boyhood as retaining is seen as acting like a boy, not a man. Such a young man will be told to “Grow up!” by other men. The sadistic boyhood monster begins being berated in adolescence and at some point the blows may become physical. In this way, the core destructive sadism of the boy is transformed into the calm and controlled man.

Nevertheless, I don’t think the homicidality ever goes away. I spent most of my young adulthood in a homicidal frame of mind, directed at my enemies of course, always other men. Yet I scarcely harmed a soul and only acted on it once when I tried to kill a man who was trying, frankly, to kill me! And that was not fun. It was the worst experience of my life.

So even younger men who feel homicidal most of the time, which is practically normal, will almost never act on it and if they ever do, they are quickly transported to the 9th circle of Hell. The homicidality is meant to be fantasy only. The homicidality is supposed to go away in middle age but I suspect that it just goes into hiding. I know my Killer Maniac is in me as I feel him regularly. Yet he’s locked in a maximum security prison in my gut and like Hell he will ever feel the light of day.

At its worst, the other-destructive aspect of the Male Character is truly black and horrible and actually manifests as a desire to destroy on a significant basis, either objects, animals, or ohter humans. It’s an “obliterating” tendency. At its core, this black desire seems to be a desire to destroy the entire world and everything in it. Truly awful, but no man will come close to realizing it.

Radical feminists have done a good job of portraying the bad side of men and the best of them have commented precisely about this homicidal character and in particular about its totalizing obliterative tendency. I’ve seen it described as a desire to obliterate the entire universe. That is when I knew that this particular radfem truly had her finger on the male pulse.

The Annihilatory or Destructive Component in  the Female  Character

Men project their pain and women push it inwards into the self. This manifests in all sorts of ways that I assume the reader is more than familiar with.

Freud even suggested that the female, at her core, is essentially a masochist. This may be true that the aspect of her destructive character is masochistic. This follows from the description above describing the male destructive character as sadistic. Indeed many women behave in variations of a masochistic manner in bed, and masochism is deeply tied into female sexuality.

It’s usually milder than the truly hardcore masochism seem in female submissives, sex slaves, etc. involved in sick relationships with sadistic male dominants or doms, but the BD/SM dynamic is simply the basic male/female human dynamic taken to its logical extreme. Most folks are not BD/SM’ers, but a very mild form of it is virtually normal in the sexuality of both genders.

This destructive nature in the female is pushed inwards, hence women are rarely homicidal, and they are terrible killers anyway due to their physical weakness. Further women seem to have an almost genetic aversion to engaging in physical violence, probably evolved for good reasons.

A woman can and will kill you psychologically, spiritually, and verbally and the results are often severe.

But she will probably not kill you, whereas another man can murder you at just about any time and place. Most men understand this, hence their cautious, excessively friendly, and solicitous attitude towards other men. The message behind this groveling is usually something like, “Please don’t punch me in the face! Place don’t murder me, sir.” Any men who has not developed a healthy terror of other men will surely die young and will often meet a violent end.

The landscape of love is littered with the broken souls of men who have been frankly destroyed by females in this manner in the course of a relationship. One of the most important things to learn as a man is to toughen up enough so much that it is difficult if not impossible for a woman to commit soul-murder against you, since if you have any success with women at all, some will attempt this.

The more women you get involved with, the more attempts at soul murder are launched against you, hence Chads and Alphas are often quite cynical about women, having seen the bad side of the female in spades (in addition to ample heaps of the good side too).

The player simply thinks that the punishments are the price you pay for the considerable rewards. Most players have had quite a few women launch elaborate, often long-term and severe attempts at soul murder against them.

If you can’t tough it out and take it, these men simply stop the playboy game, marry up and go more or less monogamous. Those still in the game have been targeted many times and have plenty of war stories to tell.

The destructive aspect of the female character then is self-destructive. We see this in elevated rates of Depression, eating disorders, self-harm including cutting, and the high rate of suicide attempts.  Females attempt suicide five times more than men, but are usually unsuccessful and most attempts are theatrical and not intended to succeed. It’s more of a cry for attention to her pain from others.

But I am convinced that the drive to suicidality is at the core of the Female Character. I’ve seen far too many women, even those very close to me, become suicidal at some point in their lives. My own mother was for a while.

At one time, every woman I had dated recently which added up to four or five were all either actively suicidal or had recently attempted (usually theatrical) suicide. The attempters were older women age ~50 and the younger once were 18 and 19 year old teenage girls.

I assume the suicidality assumes a more serious and lethal character as the woman ages. Notably, all three of the older women had never had children. Having living children is one thing that keeps many or most women from ending their lives. Tehy are literally staying alive for their children. If a female has no children, she literally has no reason to be on this Earth, such is the intensity of the maternal instinct.

Furthermore, in these women, there seemed to be an actual love of suicidality as if they were in a love affair with this feeling. Hence I came to see it as an “essential drive” in women’s lives. Most women never suicide but the drive is probably there off and on throughout life.

Lesser forms of this include the extreme forms of self-sacrifice women engage in for others which is related to this remora-like attachment they form with others. The extreme attachment may not be for a husband or boyfriend alone but may instead be of the mother in the case of a teenage girl or for her children in the case of an older mother.

The female will literally sacrifice her life to save others, most particularly her children. You see this same suicidal destructiveness to defend the offspring from threats in many lower mammals. It is especially prominent and can even be lethal in bears.

It’s even present in lower life forms such as birds. A section of trail in the Sierra Nevada had to be closed because the trail went by a Cooper’s Hawk’s nest and the female kept dive-bombing hikers and aiming the talons at their heads.

Once I was fishing on the Eel River in California near Dos Rios where they Middle Fork enters the stream. Across from me on the other side of the river was a large bird that looked like an eagle. It was extremely agitated the whole time I was there, flying haphazardly in small circles and squawking incessantly. I later figured out that this was a nesting Osprey and that was the female Osprey. Apparently I was too close to her nest and this was making her agitated.

The self-destructive nature of the Female Character can be tied into the intense attachment they form for others. There are many cases in warfare of women avenging the deaths of their men in suicidal charges. A notable one occurred among Taiwanese aborigines when 100 women of a tribe suicidally attacked a Japanese contingent that had killed their men. All of the women died, but there may have been some Japanese casualties.

As we see above will give her life for others, especially her children. Most human mothers will either do this or say they will. And they have no fear of the death that will result.

I recently dated an 18 year old girl who had formed a severe attachment to her mother, whom she worshiped with reverence. One time she told me of this elaborate fantasy of hers, which involved killing herself, except that the suicide would be done somehow to protect her mother. She seemed to be a state of rapture when she described this plan to me. She was in love with this plan. This desire to kill herself to protect her mother seemed to be one of the most important and beloved themes in her life.

A Core Aspect of the Female Character: Solipsism and Strong Attachment to a Loved Other

Joe Bob: So if females are basically solipsistic, does this mean their natural tendency is to objectify men or see them as mere objects and not as subjects too?

The solipsism at the core of the Female Character is simply the  human drive for self-love or self-centeredness that we all have. Solipsism is the female form of this variable and narcissism is the male form. I think I’d rather deal with a solipsistic female than a narcissitic male though.

In response to the question though, hmm, I’m not sure. They do love us though, I’ll give them that much. They attach to us like remoras and they call this love. This is the most important thing in a woman’s life and in the Female Character. Men can take love or leave it, but for the woman, love is nearly as important as air or water. A woman without love can survive but she is a shell of herself.

The solipsism of the female just means she is all wrapped up in herself. It’s associated with vanity in the sense of staring in front of the mirror for long periods of time, but on the other hand, they also often hate themselves. Look at all the selfies women take and put up on Facebook. Look at how many of them are vainglorious sorts of poses almost like a model or an actress. Women often make faces in these selfies too – sometimes funny faces, but they often display a variety of different emotions in these faces, so these are “emotional portraits” in a way.

This same vanity and vaingloriousness is seen in women’s utter obsession with appearances, particularly their own. They spend huge amounts of time making themselves up, doing their hair in this way or that, adorning themselves with jewelry and wearing all manner of outfits. This sort of obsession with personal appearance is absolutely an aspect of the Female Character.

Females decorate themselves elaborately in every society that has ever been studied. In a way, they are “painting themselves” – they serve as walking painted pictures or portraits and the often see themselves as actual paintings on a wall except that they are moving around and conscious.

They compare themselves obsessively to other women and take what seems to men a near-psychotic obsession for the personal appearance of other women, of which they are more often critical than complimentary – “That hair looks awful!…Why is she wearing that dress?!…Boy she really botched that plastic surgery job, didn’t she?…She’s really let herself fall to pieces – look at how fat she is!”

The obsession comparison with other, combined with commenting on their features in an often harshly critical way, seems to be a way of competing with female rivals. The rivals are for men’s attention because no other sort of rivalry exists in women.

Women compete over men and little else and their competition over men can be absolutely vicious. They specialize and often delight in stealing men away from other men, and frequently do not trust other women around their men because they understand that all women are man-thieves.

Hence if they think they have a prize man (Chad) a woman will become fiercely jealous and protective of him to the point where she doesn’t even want to hear about past women in his life as even some woman from 20 years ago is still somehow fighting her and trying to steal her man away from her. A lot of fighting between women and hatred of women for other women derives directly from this competition for men.

When was the last time you saw a woman point to a picture of a woman and point out how beautiful and perfect she looked? When a woman sees a beautiful woman in a photo, she often gets angry and sees her as a competitor who might better her.

How many times have you had a (young) woman show you a beautiful woman’s photograph and then ask you who is more beautiful, the woman in the picture or the one talking to you?

Don’t fall for it! She will always only be satisfied with being a 10 on a 1-10 scale as anything less than a 10 feels may as well be a 1 to her. There is no possibility of any other woman on Earth being more beautiful than she is and pointing this out is a supreme insult! How dare you say she looks better than I do! Tears or rage may result. There’s no such thing as “Well, you’re both beautiful but she’s a bit moreso is all.” Nope. It’s either win the gold or nothing.

Solipsism is not narcissism. The solipsist cares about other people and the narcissist does not. It’s just that the solipsist simply does not have the time and energy to think (or care much) about others because they are too busy doing the equivalent of staring in the mirror. It’s not that they don’t care about others. It’s more that they have no time or energy to think about it!

A lot of women’s focus is absolutely other-oriented and women often live their lives through others to the point of almost taking on their personalities. A teenage girl may strongly identify with her such that you wonder where the girl ends and the mother begins. And you better not talk shit about her Mom! She will never forgive you.

More traditional women attach themselves to the men they fall in love (in a near-remoralike manner as discussed above). They’re not parasitical as in a remora and their not sucking energy out of the man, although he may feel that she is due to the strength of her attachment. I’ve called girlfriends “Klingons” and “remoras” before.

This hurts their feelings a lot, but if you have a woman like this, you’re in love. She has literally attached herself to you. You’re Chad or you’re Alpha or you’re her dream man in any case and you are experiencing something that many men may never experience.

This often results in “stand by your man” behavior, which is absolutely a core characteristic of the female character, not a patriarchal perversion as feminists insist. Call yourself lucky if you have a stand by your man woman. Rest assured that she adores you. Cherish that moment. It may not come again for some time, as in years.

This also results in “living her life through you” or being “the woman behind the man,” as the traditional woman wishes to be.

A traditional woman will get you up in the morning, fix you up in front of the mirror, direct you to the closet to pick out your clothes for you and maybe even try them on you. She will gladly fix your breakfast and it’s for you, not her.

When you come home, she will sit, fascinated, as you tell her about your day at work. If you talk to her about your work at all, she stops all other functions and listens raptly as if her life depended on it. She will even research your work interests even if she has no understanding of them. That doesn’t matter at all. It will just leave her in awe. Not only does she have Chad, but Chad’s a goddamned genius to boot.

The Polls Were Actually Very Accurate This Year

Exit polls this year included early voting and mail in voting in most cases and anyway, they were all shifted blue, which makes no sense given the Republican-heavy election day voting. Furthermore, exit polls matched pre-election polls almost perfectly this year:

Pre-election polls: Biden +8.5
Exit polls: Biden +7.8

The .7 difference is within the margin of error.

In most states the match between pre-election polls and exit polls was also excellent.

There Is a Strong Link Between Narcissism and Male Homosexuality

Polar Bear: I suspect some are just obsessed with themselves.

The link between male homosexuality and narcissism is as old as Time itself and has been remarked on endlessly. Perhaps many things have basic Characters or Principles, not just the main races or the (only) two genders but also, say, Gay Men and Lesbians. Anyway, there is classic Gay Male Personality that is stable over time. Go back and read the old psychoanalytic literature about Male Homosexuality. They thought it was a mental disorder at the time, in part because it actually does look like one. Instead of a disorder, I think it is a “syndrome.”

A syndrome with some predictable characteristics and a classic personality structure. But those old articles are amazing because they could have been written yesterday. I remember I talked to my paternal grandmother a few times about men. She was born in the 1890’s and died in  the 1990’s. How much does someone who grew up during World War 1 know about gay men. But the things she said about them would have been noted by a sociologist studying West Hollywood in 1984. There’s a basic Gay Male Personality, and it’s relatively timeless like so many things about us two-legged monkeys.

No one quite knows why gay men are so narcissistic. Hypothesis: Gay men have cocks and a male body. Gay men are turned on by cock and male bodies. So gay men are in love with themselves and in a sense, when they fuck, they are literally fucking themselves also?

Curiously, there’s no link between lesbianism and narcissism, possibly because females are just not that narcissistic. The correlate of narcissism in the Female Character is “solipsism.” Until you figure out that females are solipsistic at their core, raw, primal nature, you will always have an incomplete picture of them.

Female Rule, November 2020 Edition

Polar Bear: I’ve tried talking to the tranny I knew as a man. He always used to laugh at my jokes, but now that he’s in a woman’s body, she’ll he seems distracted. A part of him seems not with it or even there.

Female hormones? A lot of women act like that. I call the mindset of the pure, primal Female Character as “dream state.” Not that that’s a bad thing, but you know, someone’s got to take out the trash.

There are societies on Earth that are Matriarchies. I can think of one in Africa of all places.

It’s almost a Utopia. There’s little crime, aggression, or violence. I don’t know if the women doling out sex to calm the guys down or what, but the men are pretty neutered, in a good sense. Everyone’s happy, kicks back all day, endless party and good times, except…not a whole lot gets done. But no one cares about that either because, you know, they’re too busy having fun. Party people would rather play than work. Also, oddly, education is very much de-emphasized and not a lot of learning or progress occurs. But no one cares about that either because, you know, in Utopias, people tend to be irresponsible.

I guess this is what Female Rule looks like in its raw, natural, benevolent form. You can see that it kinda doesn’t work though, even when its pleasant.

I figure Female Rule was tried at various times in the past. Men don’t want to do all the work. I figure a few times they just gave it up and said, “Fine! You ladies don’t like it? You do it!” Hence they had Female Rule. It’s particularly chaotic and dysfunctional in its negative form, and the men start getting pissed off because they’re not allowed to be guys anymore, so it’s really Nature Herself getting angry, not the men themselves.

But it doesn’t even work in its benevolent form. Instead of chaos, it just causes stasis. Men’s brains aren’t likely to cotton to either one.

Hypothesis: Female Rule may well have been tried numerous times in the past. Present day experiments indicate that it clearly doesn’t work, even when it’s kindhearted. Every time in the past, the men probably said, “All right ladies, party’s over! Sometimes you need a man to step in! Now you all hurry along now. We’re taking over. You women got a problem?”

The women all said, “Hell no,” because otherwise the men would have killed them.

And the group went back to Male Rule, whether in its negative or benevolent patriarchal form, because even though Patriarchy doesn’t work that great, it works better than all the alternatives, as they say about democracy. The group developed a tradition that women were great at a lot of things, but running things wasn’t one of them. Hey, women can’t do everything. So Patriarchy, pleasant or not, was instituted and came to be unquestioned.

Here we are the damned 21st Century, probably repeating the same retard experiments of our more primitive past, and we’re doomed to experience the exact same failures of History. Some people never learn.

There are only a certain number of ways to run a human society, and most of the functional ones have already been tried. Yet every new generation thinks it invents the wheel all over again. History is a process. It tends to proceed down paths already trod by our ancestors. Maybe it was done first in Babylonia 3,000 BC,  maybe in 1500’s Venice, or maybe in 1835 New England, but if it’s a form of Politics, no doubt it’s been done before. Forms of Politics tend to proceed in the same way every time every time they play and to the same conclusions as before. Hence their predictive nature.

The Joycean “cyclic view of history” springs from this endless, clockwork-like repetition. Historical processes are as formulative as the seasons and tend to proceed in a familiar and similar cycling form.

There’s nothing (more correctly: not much) new under the sun. Your forefathers were a lot smarter than you think they were. And we’re a lot dumber than we think we are.

Alt Left: The Elaine, Arkansas Massacre of October 1919

Here.

This is how White people treated Blacks under Jim Crow. And this was in 1919. God knows how Blacks were treated from 1865-1900. I haven’t heard a lot of reports. There are some fascinating recordings from former slaves recorded during the Depression by a make-work New Deal program during the Depression. They might have a word or two about it. You can’t understand  their Black dialect at all. I don’t even think it’s AAVE. I think it’s just a really strong Black Southern accent. All those videos need subtitles all the way.

Those Whites out and  out murdered in cold blood 200 and  possibly up to 800 Black men. For no Goddamned reason at all other than the Blacks forming a labor union to protest against debt peonage, which is otherwise known as semi-feudalism or possibly a form of out and out feudalism. Debt peonage continues to this day in places like Pakistan, the Philippines, and possibly other places. It’s a scam. Once you go into debt you can never get out no matter how hard you try.

No way were all those Black men killed to keep a bunch of niggers from going on a ghetto crime spree and victimizing all us Whites,  so we had to set an example and murder hundreds of them to prevent the ghetto street crime wave.  Nonsense. This was sheer enforcement of – and I really hate this phrase – White supremacy. It term is grossly abused by SJW idiots, but it definitely applies to some Whites at some periods.  There was also a mass murdering  fascist anti-labor motive going on too.

Screw this bullshit. I’m never going to support this sick mass murdering supremacist crap. Get out of here with that.

The Whites started some crazy rumor based on the fear of a Black uprising, except no Black uprising was planned. This a typical scenario for most wartime and political mass murders and genocides. The genociders and killers always project away their mass murdering by framing it as “They (the victims of the genocide) were going to kill us (the genociders) all!” It’s hard to get people to go massacre lots of other humans out of sheer cruelty.

But if it’s a “fight to the death, somebody’s going to die, and it’s them or you, I say it’s going to be you.” I have literally been in situations were 3-4 men were trying to kill my friend and I. I escaped in a vehicle but one of them attacked the vehicle from the front as we were escaping so I turned the wheel into him and hit him with the car. I was trying to kill the motherfucker. Hey, he was trying to kill me.

  1. One or more people are trying to kill you.
  2. You think real fast. You don’t have time to think about anything. All you think is, “This guy is trying to kill me, what do I do?”
  3. Your brain answers, “I’m going to kill this sonofabitch before he kills me.” You don’t think, “Whoa I might go to jail for homicide” or review law statutes or any of that. You don’t have time and it’s a dumb thing to do. It’s just kill or be killed, real simple. Given a choice between killing them and them killing me, I don’t know about you guys, but I pick killing them.
  4. Then you do it. You try to kill the guy, knock him out, or knock him down and hurt him so badly that he can’t get up to chase you.
  5. You try to kill him, and then you escape. As fast as you can.

 

 

Alt Left: More on Trannies, November 2020 Edition

Claudius: They (trannies) are gay hookers fighting for their libertarian right to transition so they can get straight male sugar daddies and clients. It’s a booming business. Just look at Thai ladyboys making a living off sex tourists.

That’s only 11% and it does look like some biological disorder. It seems to be an extreme form of homosexuality, and their brains are actually female-shifted. That is, they don’t have female brains or male brains.

Their male brains are shifted halfway towards the female brain structure, so in the areas where male and female brains differ, these men have brains halfway between male and female brains.

It’s absolutely a biological syndrome and I would give them the right to transition. There’s something clearly off with their brains. Also this type of tranny is very nice and even a lot of the TERF radical feminists don’t like them too much. They’re appalled by the belligerent and menacing behavior of the autogynophile kooks. Also, they love the word tranny. They call each other trannies all the time. They think it’s a funny word. It’s the autogynophile snowflakes that have decided that tranny is some evil bigoted slur that means you’re a Nazi.

But no one is born in the wrong body. No man is born with a female brain and stuck in the wrong male body and no woman is born with a male brain and stuck in the wrong female body. That’s just part of the crazy lying tranny propaganda, but a large percentage of the population actually believes this bullshit.

Claudius: The only crazy trannies are the straight males who are turned on by cross-dressing, the so called autogynephiliacs.

Yeah, but that’s 89% of them. Those are the nuttiest of all of them. They have more mental disorders than any other group we see clinically. They have very high levels of other paraphilias, and they commit sex crimes at a high rate. Many are on area sex offender lists. A fair number of them are actually dangerous.

They are also extremely loud, belligerent, and vindictive and even aggressive and menacing. They have taken over whole corporations. For instance, the Twitter moderation team has been infiltrated by this type of tranny and this person(s) uses their power to ban people from Twitter. We even know their names. This is the guy that got me banned from Twitter for life for telling the truth about trannies:

RL: There’s no such thing as transgender people. They’re all just mentally ill.

That’s what I said. For that crime, I now have a lifetime ban from Twitter thanks to some crazy autogynophile tranny piece of shit.

Alt Left: Liberal California? Californians Voted Rightwing on Eight out of 12 Propositions on the Ballot

Why people keep saying California is liberal is beyond me. My city is 80% Hispanic. But my county voted Trump +13. As soon as you get outside of the city limits here, all the precincts went for Trump. And the Whiter wealthier areas in my city also went for Trump. The Central Valley is not very liberal at all! Yeah my Congressman is a Democrat, but he’s a crappy rightwing Democrat, a Blue Dog Democrat who might as well be a Republican.

Let’s look at the ballot propositions. Either Californians are dumb and get swayed by the big money and their fake lying campaigns on the propositions or they’re just not that liberal. Because the vote wasn’t very liberal.

Californians Voted Rightwing on Eight out of 12 Initiatives

Proposition 15: A fake privacy law bolstering law written by criminals like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of the Silicon Valley crooks that actually weakened privacy laws passed! “Liberal” Californians sided with crooked tech billionaire enemies of the people to screw over consumers!

Proposition 16: Bring back affirmative action in employment failed badly. I like that result, but face it, it’s rightwing. So California “liberals” supported an anti-affirmative action proposition.

Proposition 18: Allowing 17 year olds to vote in primaries if they will be 18 in the general in the fall (Big deal!) failed. That’s a very rightwing vote. California “liberals” voted rightwing again.

Proposition 21: Putting in some common sense rent controls in this insanely overpriced housing market failed again. It always fails! Some liberal state! The Legislature won’t pass it either because all the “liberal Democrats” in there are bought off by extremely wealthy landlords. Some liberals!

Proposition 22: Reclassifying gig workers are contractors so their crooked billionaire employers can keep ripping them off and paying them $5/hour, which is what Lyft and Uber pay their drivers (!) passed! “Liberal” Californians voted for big business crooked bosses and ripped off poor workers!

Proposition 23: Regulating the criminal dog capitalists who run crooked dialysis facilities preying on poor workers suffering kidney failure terribly! They’re not regulated at all right now and that’s terrible for sick workers. California “liberals” voted to keep the dialysis crooks unregulated!

Proposition 25: Changing the cash bail system which keeps workers accused of crimes in California’s”liberal” jails that are as terrible as a Hieronymus Bosch painting before they have even been convicted of a thing, sometimes for years, to let non-dangerous people who haven’t even been convicted of a thing out of jail until they go on trial failed! “Liberal” Californians voted to keep poor workers in California’s Dantesque jails just because they’re not rich enough to afford bail!

Californians Voted Liberal on Four Initiatives

Proposition 14: Funding stem cell research barely passed.

Proposition 17: Restore voting rights for felons on parole passed.

Proposition 20: Increasing penalties for some crimes failed.

Proposition 21: The vote to make some large property owners pay the going rate for their property taxes barely passed. The only “homeowners” it applied to had three or more houses! If you own 3+ houses, you’re a “homeowner?” Get out.

There were 12 ballot initiatives. “Liberal” Californians voted rightwing on eight of those 12 initiatives and voted left on only three of the 12, and two of those barely passed with the skin of their teeth!

California “liberals” are not even all that liberal. They’re more like liberal Republicans. The only way they are left is Fake Left which means SJW Left, which isn’t even left at all. It’s just a bunch of bourgeois “fake rights,” most of which attack Whites and men and vastly privilege sexual degenerates and mentally ill freaks who think they’re the opposite sex against people who are normal sexually and do not have a psychosis about their genitals.

Anyone who thinks that is “left” is insane. Remember the Communist countries of the 20th Century? Remember how socially conservative they all were?

Homosexuality was often illegal. Castro put gays in prison.

Trannies would be sent to an asylum where they belong.

Men were free to be men and women to be women.

No Communist country on the face of the Earth was anti-White. In fact, the USSR and the East Bloc were some of the most pro-White countries the world has ever seen.

Porn and gross, open sexual degeneracy and perversion were banned.

That’s the Real Left. The Real Left is left on economics but fairly conservative on the BS social issues..

Alt Left: Voting “Liberal” and “Progressive” on Heavily Financed California Ballot Initiatives Usually Means Voting Rightwing

Let’s look at the awful California ballot initiatives this year.

Proposition 15: Making businesses pay the market rate for their property tax, like – Everyone else? – will drive out Mom and pop businesses all over California. Mom and pop! Oh no! Poor Mom and Pop! Poor corner market!

Proposition 19: Making big rich landlords maybe pay the market rate for property tax, like – I dunno? Everyone else in the country? – will massively increase taxes on poor homeowners like Mom and Pop, forcing them to sell their homes and go homeless! Poor Mom and pop! They’ll have to move! But only if they have three houses already!…But that means they’ll have to sell one and move into the other two. But that will mean poor Mom and Pop will only have two houses to live in except for three! How will they survive? They’ll probably have to eat cat food or go homeless!

Proposition 21: Voting for putting some sane controls on the insane rents bankrupting Californians actually meant voting to increase your rent. It will drive rents sky high! You don’t want that, do you? Besides your poor landlord will have to sell one of his yachts! Oh noes!

I know the landlord-criminals always rent control makes rents go up, but how does that even work anyway. Rent control literally sets limits on your rents. I’ve met people who lived in rent controlled apartments in San Francisco and their rent was much lower than their non-rent controlled neighbors.

Ok, so rent control makes your rent go up! So, instead, let’s...not have any rent control! Then rents will totally go down and stay affordable and stuff! Whoops, I was wrong. They went sky-high because there were no limits on them.

So…no matter what you do, your rent’s going to go sky-high while your landlord gets to add new rooms to his mini-mansion! We can’t win! No matter what we do, we’re fucked! Time to pour another drink.

Proposition 22: Voting for giving Uber drivers some rights meant an all-out war on poor Uber drivers, forcing most of them out of their jobs! Help save the Uber drivers! Vote yes! Thank you Uber and Lyft!

Proposition 23: Voting to put a regulation or two on the dialysis industry meant an all out war on those poor suffering dialysis patients! Poor patients! They’re all gonna die! Oh noes!

Proposition 24:Voting for increased privacy on the Net actually meant voting for less privacy. Sponsored by Facebook and Twitter, the best friends of consumers who are totally out to protect your privacy!

My brother’s a hardline partisan Democrat, and I think he even voted rightwing on a couple of those crappy initiatives.

Every time I get fancy mail telling me to vote some way on a proposition, especially to be please vote liberal and progressive on this measure, I’m immediately suspicious. I figure it’s some Big Money scam tricking me into voting for their greedy BS, and I’m almost always right. That’s why I need those voter guides. Without those I’d be dead. But who reads one? It’s pretty hard for me with a genius IQ to figure out those evil initiatives written by (((crooked, lying, cheating, thieving lawyers))).

The initiative process has been completely upended. It was initiated ~1910 in this state to put measures on the ballot to control out of control scumbag robber baron corporations like Southern Pacific Railroad, which seemed like they owned half the state.

The initiative process was supposed to be a way for the ordinary working person to have a voice against the rich and the corporate tycoons because like Hell was he ever going to get a voice in the Big Money-controlled state government. It was supposed to be a progressive, grassroots citizens’ voice thing. Now half the propositions were put in there by huge corporations, usually totally deceptive propositions where they tell you to vote “liberal” except if you vote liberal, you actually vote for the rightwing big money initiative!

I was originally fooled by most of these BS initiatives. Most are written to be as dishonest as possible and the No campaigns are always very dishonest. You can always tell which ones not to vote for because those are the Big Money campaigns flooding your mailbox with slick campaigns telling you to vote for some groovy liberal and progressive things which is always neither. The good campaigns actually but out of the Left never have any money of course, so you hardly ever get brochures from them.

About That Super Nice White Neighbor of Yours…

Polar Bear: Ned Flanders is Whiteness personified. I had a neighbor just like him growing up. He was extremely grateful for any help or kindness. Being nice and neighborly is part of being White. Maybe a bit of softness “Gorsh, can I get away with that?” Overly positive, naive, and selfless. Forrest Gump is another example. Sweet as a box of chocolates.

It’s actually true. At least with the White middle class anyway. They’re actually supposed to be that way. It’s part of the culture.

I don’t know much about the White upper, lower, or working classes. The lower and working classes might not be so much like this. They’re a bit more down-to-Earth. The White upper classes might not be as nice. They treat their homes like castles that no one is allowed to enter on penalty of death. It’s almost a damned affront to even ring their doorbell. Everyone is supposed to go home, burrow into their castles immediately, and never come out. Why do you need to borrow anything from your neighbor? You’re rich, dammit!

One thing though. That super-nice White neighbor might not let you into his house. Or will he? A lot of them were extremely nice, but they wouldn’t necessarily let you in the front door. It was almost some sacred inner sanctum.

Of course there are assholes in White middle class neighborhoods. Whites are humans, right? I remember once somehow my Mom’s car took off backwards down the street. My little brother and sister were in the backstreet partying it up as the car careened down the street. I think my Mom and I ran down the street after the car, probably yelling it at to stop. Lot of good that would have done, huh?

It traveled about a football field’s length before it crashed into a curb and went over into this lady’s yard. She had some flowers out front and it crushed a lot of them. She almost never came out of her house. Only time she came out was to yell at us kids for playing in the street. God knows why? Too much noise? She was mean as a snake and ugly as a witch. The whole neighborhood hated her.

A lot of the neighbors came out when they saw the car careening down the street backwards. They all converged on the lady’s property. Everyone was looking at her smashed flowers. She wasn’t home. Everyone quietly agreed, in conspiratorial whispers and shared winks, that no one wouldn’t say one word about what happened to her stupid crushed flowers. This is how the rules are enforced in White society. You act too antisocial and the whole neighborhood gets you back.

I haven’t the faintest idea what Black or Hispanic neighbors are really like. I live with them now and they’re not friendly but maybe it’s different for a Black in a Black hood or an Hispanic on a Hispanic block.

Black neighbors probably differ between urban and rural Southern areas. Alpha could maybe tell you what it’s like to grow up in a small Southern town. She grew up in Mississippi!

Arabs, Eurasians, Latin Americans, and maybe Asians (?) make great neighbors. The listed groups are different form middle class Whites. They are more “mi casa es su casa!” They’re hospitable. The Arabs had to be that way. You’re lost in the desert, dying of thirst, and there’s that guy with his tent and his camels ahead. He damn right better be nice and open his home to you for as long as you need because next time it might be him lost in the damned desert and he would need to rely on the kindness of strangers! Arab hospitality may have been born out of necessity.

Do You Grow on People, Turn Sour on People, or Neither or Both?

I’m living with a bunch of Blacks and Hispanics now and they’re not too nice. Most of them act like they hate me. Some won’t even greet me when I say hello. Others definitely don’t even want me trying to talk to them. But none of them know me at all. They’re just going off first impression crap, which in my case is a bad idea.

The illegal alien upstairs comes over sometimes. We give him some food and he gives us some. His neighbor the Hispanic bitch hates me. She actually called the cops on me one time and tried to get me arrested. The Black lady next door is pleasant enough but she never lets me in.

Terrible First Impression, But You (Very) Slowly Grow on People

The people who lived upstairs before the bitch were really cool. He showed up at the door once with a bong.  Everyone came in and smoked pot with me. He acted like I was the nicest, greatest, kindest, most lovable guy on Earth. God knows maybe I am. I’m shy enough, that’s for sure. So many people hate me but I don’t think they know me. I used to have this young Hispanic guy, a gang associate, come over. He and I smoked pot all the time.

And older Black woman used to come over too. She was a mixed bag. One time they were both over here smoking pot and the Black lady said, “We’re the only two people in this whole damned complex who understand Bob.” She was probably right. I probably am misunderstood. People who hate me usually don’t even know me well. A lot of people don’t like me too much at first, but after they see me regularly for a while, they start to really like me. Maybe I make a shitty first impression and you want to hate me, but after you get to know me for a while, you realize that’s all bullshit and I’m the nicest guy you’ll ever meet.

Great First Impression Sours: Everyone Loves You at First, but after a While, Some Start to Hate You More and More

I also deal with the opposite, especially at work, where I’m the greatest guy on Earth the  first day of work and everyone loves me, but after a while, more and more people seem to start to slowly hate me, at least a bit. I have no idea why that is either. I am kind of an ass, but it isn’t actually a real thing. It’s fake assholery, if that even makes sense. I don’t even feel good about it. I feel terrible about it and fight it all the time.

I figure I can last a year or two  at any job before the boss hates me so much I get canned. It’s always me and the boss. I don’t do bosses. They all remind me of my father who I hated as a teenager and I’m in arrested development, in a permanent state of adolescent rebellion with a severe authority figure problem. Oh well. I wouldn’t have it any other way!

It’s always been love or hate me since I was a teenager though. I seem to elicit strong feelings in either people. No one’s neutral about me! Especially men.

Anyway, Misunderstood is my middle name. Always been that way. C’est la vie!

Do Very Handsome or “Pretty Boy” Men Elicit Odd Feelings From Straight Men?

I used to say men either acted like they wanted to beat me up or fuck me, or sometimes both at the same time.

I was said to be very handsome when young. Actually even young women say I still am (a 23 year old lesbian, of all things, was gushing wildly about my looks the other day), but lot of good it does me at this age.

So maybe this is what goodlooking men get from other men. John F. Kennedy, one Hell of a looker himself, complained that very handsome men are often thought to be homosexuals. And this was in 1960! I guess I’m not the first one who figured this out. None of us are, with anything. Think about it next time you feel like a Goddamned genius.

Perhaps they’re attracted to us a bit on some level and they either project that away: “I’m not gay. You’re gay. I’m not attracted to you. You’re attracted to me, fag! I’m going to kick your ass, faggot!” or they just feel it, “Damn, I’m not even 1% gay, but you sure are sexy! You’re as pretty as woman!” I can’t tell you how many straight men have hit on me. It’s so weird.

It’s like I bring the fag out of men. I still trying to figure out why that is. I don’t mind that much though. When I was young, all the women and girls wanted to fuck me. Unfortunately, all the gay men wanted to fuck me too (even more than the women did), and even some of the straight men wanted to fuck me! I could develop a complex about it, or I could just say, “Dammit, I’m so fucking  hot, everyone wants to fuck me. Women want to fuck me. Everyone wants to fuck me. The whole world wants to fuck me!”

Of course now I’m 63 and no one wants to fuck me. Unless I pay them first, that is, which is really insulting! A young gay man recently informed me that “hot older men like me,” as he put it, are a hot commodity in the gay community. He suggested that if women turned a cold shoulder, I could get a lot of affection from hot young gays looking for a Daddy. I was slightly tempted, but I think I’ll pass. Maybe next lifetime I’ll come back as a fag, and I can make their wishes come true.

I think pretty boy men who look like women and are often as pretty or beautiful as women maybe do elicit a lot of weird feelings from straight men.

After all, straight men aren’t exactly “Chicks turn me on and guys don’t.” They’re more like “things that look and act like women (feminine objects, if you will) turn me on, and things that look and act like men (masculine objects, let’s call ’em) don’t.” Pretty boys, trannys of all sorts, and even gay men join women in the former, and bull dykes join men in the latter.

No man is turned on by a bull dyke, but I’m shocked at how many straight men will have sex with a tranny of some sort. For a long time I thought it was weird, but now I get it. Guys don’t care about cocks. They don’t like cock, but they don’t hate it either. Hell, they even have a cock themselves, and I doubt if many guys hate their own dick!

A tranny is just a woman with a dick! But guys don’t care about dick, so they just pretend it’s not there. Fucking a tranny is about like fucking a woman! Just pretend that cock’s not there, ok? Maybe it’s really the biggest clit you’ve ever seen? Sure, why not. If you have to believe that do it, it makes sense.

Basic Personality Structures of the Three Great Major Races – Blacks, Whites, and Asians

Alpha Unit: Hi, Robert. That was an interesting detour about personality types. How would you describe the Basic White Personality?

I’m not sure. The White man is awful inhibited and repressed, I’ll give you that much. I suppose the pure White personality is seen more commonly in children.

White children are less cruel, sadistic, and antisocial than Black kids but much moreso than Asians.

Whites are less extroverted than Blacks but not as introverted as Asians.

Whites don’t have as high of a sex drive as Blacks, but they have a higher sex drive than Asians.

There’s less lying, cheating, and thieving among (most) Whites (with some glaring exceptions) than among Blacks but more than with Asians.

Blacks have higher psychopathy scores than Whites, but Whites have higher scores than Asians.

White cities are much less chaotic and disordered as Black cities but more disorderly than Asians cities.

Whites don’t commit nearly as much crime as Blacks. Blacks commit 6X the crime as Whites, but Whites commit 5X more crime than Asians, and that applies to violent crime too. It’s more than appropriate for Asians to see us Whites as “a bunch of niggers” because in some ways, that’s exactly what we are to them.

Whites are much more inhibited and polite than Blacks but much less so than Asians, as Whites find extreme Asian politeness to be ridiculous and over the top.

Whites are much more studious than Blacks but less studious than Asians.

Whites are more serious than Blacks but not as serious as Asians.

Whites plan for the future much more than Blacks but not nearly as much as Asians, who literally see the past and future in terms of decades and even millennia. See the recent quotes on this site by Deng Xiaoping and Chau en Lai for examples.

Whites are poorer athletes than Blacks but much better athletes than Asians.

Among males, Whites have less testosterone than Blacks but more than Asians.

Blacks are freer and like to live in a society with loose laws and rules, which Whites find appalling. Yet Whites are outraged by the extremes to which Asian desire for a rules and laws based – and nearly totalitarian – culture goes.

Whites are poorer musicians than Blacks but better musicians than Asians.

Whites have much more capacity for organized violence as Blacks, but possibly Asians may be even more genocidal and mass-murdering than Whites.The capacity for disorganized violence (street crime)  seems to rise as IQ falls, but the capacity for organized violence (mass slaughters and massacres in wartime) almost seems to rise with IQ. Does that seem odd?

Blacks and Asians are both cruel to animals, Blacks due to higher sadism and psychopathy and Asians by a ruthless utilitarianism that sees anything that moves as something to eat. Whites are very softhearted and love and treat animals as human surrogates far more than any other race.

For God’s sake, Whites will shut down development to literally protect a weed, a fly, a frog, a rat,  a minnow, or a shrimp so small you can barely see it. Whites truly see the “glory and beauty of all God’s creation.”

Of course, they were not always this way, and Whites were horribly cruel, savage and even genocidal towards many animal species forever, with the massacres being prevented for millennia only by the lack of good killing tools, although there were some notable and sad examples on many islands. Who can forget the tragic Dodo bird? White men literally stalked and slaughtered these creatures for pure kicks all over the sad island of Mauritius. Having involved on an island with no predators that necessitated flying away from, the poor bird was flightless. And this was in the 1700’s!

Remember how buffaloes were literally shot out of trains for sheer kicks? Remember the White men clubbing those poor baby seals to death. Those were White guys, not gleefully mean Blacks or cruelly efficient and callous Asians.

Of course White boys are generally murderous towards lower life forms as all boys are, with most of their killing impulses directed at insects, then fish, next amphibians and reptiles, then birds, and finally mammals. As we ascend up the scale, the psychopathy level necessary in the boy in order to kill the animal correspondingly increases.

It’s no secret that the man who started a senseless (((war))) that killed 1.4 million Iraqis also used to stick firecrackers into the mouths of frogs and set them off. That’s lamentable and disturbing behavior, but most boys grow out of it and feel bad about it later on as adults. Apparently W. never did as best I can tell, and I wonder if he’s ever felt bad about much of anything.

Mr. Bush definitely had high psychopathy levels, and he was as viciously cynical and devious as any politician. And having read an interview with him after his disastrous terms were over in Rolling Stone, I also realize that he was very smart in a wicked and purely politicized and mercenary way.

His whole worldview was literally boiled down to the most vicious and amoral politicization. Everything was political, probably even the cereal he ate for breakfast. All of life was a form of Politics, as Rove put it so well. There was scarcely a thing in his world that was not politicized and dogmatized. And he had mastered the art of clever lying that any politician does.

Whites are less religious than the wildly religious Blacks but much more so that the brutally atheistic Asians. The life view of Asians is so clinical and near-scientific that it’s almost brutally sad. It’s hard to live a hopeless life no matter how devoted to empiricism you are.

Whites are calmer than Blacks but are appalled by the frozen silence of the Asians. Black 8th graders are a horrorshow. White 8th graders are annoying or possibly worse. Asian 8th graders are merely squirrely and silly.

Blacks are way more fun to be around than boring Whites, but Whites think Asians are dullsville. On the other hand, Whites can be a Goddamned blast once they cut loose. It’s just that Whites think there is a specific time and place to cut loose at which they gleefully untie their moorings. Blacks think the time and place to cut loose is everywhere, all the time.

Sure, it’s never-ending good time, and everyone except prudes, prigs, and humorless SJW’s loves a party, but Blacks also get sick and hurt a lot, die young, and not much gets done in their locales, with a tragic sense of ongoing indifferent decay, possibly due to lack of upkeep because they are too busy living in the moment to repair things when they fall apart.

Whites are not as humorous as Blacks, but they’re funnier than Asians. But all humans love a good joke, and as a White male, of course I’ve gotten the giggles and the uncontrollable laughs, plus I have this Black attitude that everything in life is basically a joke. A sad joke, a mean joke, a pathetic joke? Sure, a lot of the time. But it’s still a Goddamned joke to me. I find it hard to take this world seriously, especially in its Clown World manifestation in the Current Year. I was shocked when I found out of loose Asians got at parties. They drink and laugh it up bigtime. I had actually thought they were incapable of this.

Whites are much better at math and science than Blacks but dramatically less proficient than Asians.

Whites are much more conformist than freedom-loving and wildly creative (and correspondingly chaotic) Blacks, but they find the extreme conformism of Asians to be appalling and anti-human.

Whites are far less lazy and parasitical than Blacks but dramatically more irresponsible and work-shy than Asians.

White men support their children much more than Black men, but there are still quite a few White men who run out on their kids. This sort of thing is almost unseen among Asians.

Blacks love parties far more than Whites do, but Whites party a lot more than staid Asians.

Whites are far quieter and less noisy than animated Blacks, but they find the dead silence and stoicism of Asians to be downright creepy. Of course all three races can get pretty noisy and riled up, and White riots are pretty common – Hell, I’ve even been in a few police riots myself! Ever been in an agitated crowd? Scary, isn’t it? You can easily get crushed. That’s how evil a crowd of Whites can get.

Black toddlers are quite active at an early age. Asian babies and toddlers are calm, cool, and collected as a Zen priest. Whites are somewhere in between. As an aside, Amerindian babies are so silent and unmoving that many people wonder if they are dead. The stoical Indian warrior, silent in the forest as he waits for the deer to come into range.

Blacks are extremely self-centered and even selfish, Whites less so, but still self-centered and even selfish Whites are everywhere you look, probably even in your own mirror. Yet White society still looks down on raw selfishness as disgusting and animalistic and I suspect a lot of Whites have to fight off their self-centered tendencies. Yet Whites find the selflessness and collectivism of Asians to be totalitarian and creepy.

Blacks aren’t particularly competitive. They are too busy having a good time to mess with that, plus they have short attention spans.  Face it – brutal competition is a drag, and it’s going to cut way into the  warmth and gregariousness of hyper-social Blacks. Also, their chaotic tendencies get in the way of nose-to-the-grindstone competitiveness.

I don’t think the chaotic nature of Blacks is necessarily terrible or even bad. I think maybe Blacks just like things, loud, stirred up, adventurous, and maybe a bit dangerous sort of like life is this endless out of control party. We Whites think it’s horrifying and fear for our safety amidst such scenes, but maybe Blacks actually like to live this way. It’s a pretty wild way to live – lots of thrills, chills, and spills – I’ll give them that.

Black behavior is simply too disorderly and disorganized (I don’t mean that in a bad way – more of an “I don’t give a damn, live for the day” sense) to be competitive because competition requires patience, deep attention spans, and very hard, often boring work. Asians are so competitive that to Whites they almost seem anti-human, vicious, brutal, and cruel.

As you can see, the personalities of the three great major races differ quite a bit. Along the lines of Masculine and Feminine Principles, are there White and Asian Principles in the same way that there seems to be a Black Principle described in the early post? It almost seems racist to posit something like that, but maybe it makes sense after all.

A Comparison of Artistic Styles of the Three Great Major Races: Blacks, Whites, and Asians

Black art is often spare and primitive yet still quite good, an African mask for example. Whites take art to the ultimate heights – compare the development of Perspective with an African mask – not the same thing, is it?

To Whites, Asians seem so flat and non-creative that even their art seems to Whites to be odd, spare, trite, and even boring. See classical Japanese and Chinese simple landscapes with birds, water, and low light for example. It’s literally Zen art. On the other hand, my artist friends have told me that it’s fantastic for what it is trying to do.

Black literature can be good, but it tends towards the heavily verbal sort that is so loud and musical that it almost demands to be read aloud for affect.

Whites strive for the heights.

Asians can reduce literature to its utter basics – see the haiku for example. Haikus are often beautiful, but Whites find the spareness and simplicity of these forms to be almost unsettling and odd. However, Asians also stretch art to its ultimate limits – see the great Chinese classics with ~2,300 pages. It’s as if they either try for the perfect bare minimum or the ultimate definition of infinity.

Asians strip art down to the utter basics, Zen-like. There’s a logic to that, but Whites think it’s excessively simplistic.

Whites once again go for the heights.

Great Works of Literature by Whites

Great books by Whites? How bout we look at the Top 50? Oh well, call it Top 54. I couldn’t help but toss a few more in there. Tolstoy (Anna Karenina and War and Peace), Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment), Joyce (Ulysses and A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man), Melville (Moby Dick), Pynchon (Gravity’s Rainbow), Nabokov (Lolita), Shakespeare (Hamlet) George Eliot (Middlemarch), Fitzgerald (The Great Gatsby), Marquez (One Hundred Years of Solitude), Anonymous (1001 Nights), Forster (A Passage to India), Cervantes (Don Quixote), the Brontes (Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre), Austen (Pride and Prejudice), T. S. Eliot (The Wasteland), Pound (The Cantos), Carroll (Alice in Wonderland), Flaubert (Madame Bovary), Camus (The Stranger), Twain (Huckleberry Flynn), Faulkner (The Sound and the Fury and Absalom, Absalom), Dickens (Great Expectations and David Copperfield), Hemingway (The Sun Also Rises), Homer (The Iliad and The Odyssey), Stendhal (The Red and the Black), Proust (Remembrance of Things Past), Kafka (The Trial), Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird), Salinger (Catcher in the Rye), Milton (Paradise Lost), Voltaire (Candide), Carroll (Alice in Wonderland), Sterne (Tristram Shandy), Dante (The Divine Comedy) Chekhov (stories), Heller (Catch-22), Orwell (1984), Borges (Ficciones), Rushdie (Midnight’s Children), Conrad (Heart of Darkness), Virgil (The Aenid), Whitman (The Leaves of Grass), Swift (Gulliver’s Travels), Steinbeck (The Grapes of Wrath), and Woolf (Mrs. Dalloway and To the Lighthouse).

Great Works of Literature by Blacks

Yes, Blacks have written some great works. But not The Color Purple or Beloved, please, or at least let’s wait a while, and yes, I’ve read both. Neither is in the same category as what follows. They only make the great books list because people are trying to be PC and throw some Black authors in. That’s very nice of them, but it’s not solid Lit Crit, if such a thing even exists any more in these mushy, truth-free postmodern times.

Richard Wright (Native Son) and Ralph Ellison (Invisible Man) come to mind. Also, try Zora Neale Houston (Their Eyes Were Watching God), Chinua Achebe (Things Fall Apart), James Baldwin (Go Tell It on the Mountain and The Fire Next Time), or Jean Rys (Wide Sargasso Sea).

Despite Aphra Behn’s Oronoko – Possibly the first true modern-style novel written in the West! – Blacks got a rather late start at things. Nevertheless, there are some works there that reach for the same skies as the Whites’ works do. Houston’s book in particular nearly matches Eliot’s Middlemarch in the glory of its prose.

Look – I am not saying that Black authors have not done some great work – e.e. cumming’s poetry comes to mind too, but if you notice, this list is a lot shorter than the proceeding one, right? Do check out some of the recent (last 75 years) classics out of Black Africa though. There are some great books in there.

Great Works of Literature by Asians

Where are the comparable great Asian books? From Japan, we have Yukio Mishima (The Sea of Fertility), and of course Murasaki Shikibu (The Tale of the Genji – a very long Chinese-like epic with 1,306 pages). There has definitely been some fine literature coming out of Japan for the last 100 years. Japan also got a fairly late start, only beginning to write Western-style literature ~1900. This work has been greatly accelerating in recent years, but it’s not much read in the West. Haruki Murakami is very good though. When is he going to win the Nobel Prize anyway?

But other than the millennia-old Genji, Mishima is the only one who has seen his work rise to true greatness in the West so far.

China was much later to Western-style literature, only showing up in the last 50 years, if that. Though there are a few stars on the horizon. Previously their works were very different – typically very long epics – Cao Xueqin (The Dream of the Red Chamber – 2,339 pages), Shi Nai’an (Water Margin – 2,304 pages), Wu Cheng’en (Journey to the West – 2,346 pages), and Luo Guanzhong (Romance of the Three Kingdoms – 2,340 pages). Maybe add Lanling Xiaoxiao Sheng (The Plum in the Golden Vase – 3,334 pages) and Yu Xiangdou (Journey to the North – much shorter at 392 pages) while we are at it. Those are all incredible works.

Are they in the same category as the books by Whites? I’m not sure. It’s sort of like the painting. It’s not that Asian painting is bad – it’s incredibly great for what it’s trying to do in its minimalist way.

Are Japanese haikus as good at the great White literature above? I’m not sure. The Asians, with epics stretching for thousands of pages, their spare naturalistic art, and their compact yet gorgeous haikus – the first towards wild excess and the latter two, like a Bonsai garden, towards extreme minimalism – are instead trying to do something completely different from what the Whites have been doing, so any comparison is between apples and oranges. You can’t really compare them.

Asian art and literature is great and so is Western art and literature, but they are trying to do completely different things. I might say the same thing about an African mask. It’s a wonderful work of art, but is it the same thing as a work by Rembrandt, Bosch, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, or even a Picasso or Dali? Well, no. But maybe once again we can’t compare because the Africans were trying to do something completely different than the Whites with their White reach to the skies paintings.

Comparing lions and tigers. Which is better, a lion or a tiger? Besides neither one if I’m walking in the jungle, I’d say neither one in any case. A lion is great at being a lion. Nothing else comes close. Likewise with a tiger. He wins the gold at being a tiger. They’re both the best at being what they are and at what they are trying to do.

Alt Left: Childhood Never Ends: Why Large Groups of Adults Continue To Engage in Childish Games of Sadistic Dominance of Hated Inferiors

Alpha Unit: OK, Jim Crow laws were proposed as a solution to a problem: White Southerners were being ordered to treat newly freed slaves (and free Black people) as equals, when it was clear that newly freed Black people were in no position to live as their equals.

Their solution? Forget all this “equality” stuff; it’s costing us too much. Let’s bring back the old, tried-and-true way we used to do things: Blacks subordinate to Whites and kept in their place. We’ll make sure it’s “legal.”

Occam’s razor. Look for the simplest explanation. This makes the most sense to me. The whole idea that Claudius is putting forward that White folks are just too nice to do this sort of thing, well, nope. Humans have a need to dominate others. The strong dominate the weak and the weak dominate the weaker. See Of Mice and Men and countless other works for more, or, Hell, just read Nietzsche if he makes sense to you.

Also there are different types of sadism.

The First Type of Sadism – the Raw Animal Lust for Cruelty and Love of Humiliating Others Seen Most Prominently in Boys

I’m thinking this type is genetic or biological. This is a pure sadism that can be seen in boys, non-human mammals, and in  adults, most especially in Black adults, especially African Blacks (US Blacks have had a lot of it enculturated out of them, but you still see it a lot). Sure, all the other races display this raw sadism too, especially in times of war, but you see it most prominently in Blacks to the point where some feel it is an essential aspect of the Black Character, Personality, or perhaps, I would argue, Black Principle (if Black is a Principle like Masculine and Feminine are Principles).

This is extremely prominent in Black children, especially boys, and they are much more sadistic than White boys (Yes, I know all boys are sadists). It gets slowly enculturated out of Black boys as they grow up as with most of us males, but you still see it a lot in the ghetto types in young adult men and even women sometimes, where the basic Black Personality is at its rawest and least enculturated. This is a raw delight in torture, torment, inflicting pain, violence, and even death on a suffering and tormented Other. It includes the love of observing a victim’s suffering.

Of course, you also see this same sadism in young White men (college boys in particular can be terribly cruel), but it’s just not as prominent as in Blacks. Also White culture profoundly dislikes displays of childish sadism in White adults. As an man, you’re supposed to have grown out that boyhood crap or had it beaten out of you if you were particularly diabolical.

Many people have commented on how important this is as a basic part of the raw Black personality.

In some ways, this sadism can be fun. I recall a Black man I knew. He hung out with this other Black artist who was very introverted and odd. He couldn’t get laid with God’s help. His name was Charles.

The cool guy’s name was Michael and he was a White-acting Black artist with a university degree. I was over at a mutual friend’s house and our friend commented that William had a date. I was absolutely dumbfounded.

“What?!” I nearly shouted across the room. “No way does William have a date! No way! That’s not even possible! Tell me you’re joking!”

Of course this was a pretty mean thing for me to say, but I can be a dick. The Black guy, Micheal, roared with laughter so hard he nearly rolled on the floor for ten minutes. As you can see, he was laughing his ass off at the cruelty of my comment. So Blacks can be a lot of fun if you want to get down with some mean, no holds barred humor. A lot of humor is cruel – face it – but Whites’ distaste for sadism limits their potential for humor a lot. We see this especially in the dour, party-pooper, no-fun SJW crowd, where every other joke is an evil bigoted crime that someone needs to get fired over.

In many ways, Idi Amin was the ultimate primal Black man. He displayed most of the raw material of the Black personality to an exaggerated degree. Not all of it is bad. He was wildly extroverted, always smiling and happy, had a nearly inborn sense of humor to the point of being a natural humorist, loved to party and have fun, and had a tremendous love of promiscuous sex. Idi Amin was a good time! As long as you were on his good side, that is. And then there was his bad side, also in spades.

Whites and most other races probably used to be like this too, but centuries of civilization may have bred it out of us culturally and genetically. We can surely see a lot of examples of horrific sadism in Whites and Asians only centuries ago. One argument is that for a thousand years of civilization, most White criminals were quickly killed, often by public hanging. The idea is that this bred a lot of the criminal genes out of us.

Blacks from Africa, never having good through this process of weeding out criminal genes by execution, didn’t experience such a cleansing. On the other hand, perhaps White and Asian cultures have also accelerated so much in civilizational terms that this behavior is enculturated out of us.

That this love of sadism and cruelty appears so normally and freely in boys of all races suggests that it’s still part of the raw human personality. Although the dramatically morally superiority of US Blacks as opposed to African Blacks suggests that 300 years of exposure to White Christian civilization has had a calming, civilizing, and perhaps eugenically intelligence-increasing effect on US Blacks, which argues for the effects a more advanced civilizing culture can have on a population of any race.

The Second Type of Sadism – The Dominant Lording It Over Their Brutalized Inferior Victims

I’ve thought about this a lot, and there is another sort of sadism, that of the dominant inflicting their sadistic lordly violence against those they see as inferior.

Look at the delighted faces of those German policemen tormenting Jews in the street. You can say it’s revenge, but isn’t it more than that?

Look very closely at the faces of those Whites at those lynchings – boys, girls, men, women. There’s that same wicked gleeful look of the dominant bully inflicting torture and/or death at a contemptuously hated inferior. This poor Black sod’s hanging from a tree with his neck broken in a sickening way, and these Whites who look like your nice White relatives at Thanksgiving are having the Goddamned party of their lives.

What was all that crap about calling Black men boys and Black women girls about?

Why were Black children forced to apologize to White children they bumped into by addressing the White children as Mr. or Mrs.?

Why were the schoolbooks given to Black schools the refuse of the White schools, ripped, torn up, wrecked, while coming with a sticker on them saying that they were too destroyed to be of use to White kids so they were only worthwhile for Black kids?

Why the torching of the Black business district in Tulsa?

Why were Black men lynched and murdered for the crime of standing up to White men and fighting back against them, even if the Whites were trying to kill them? The message was that of the bully: We will attack you in any way we choose and if you dare to fight back and hurt one of us, you will die.

Why did White children torment their Black “friends” by forcing them, like slaves, to carry their books to and from school for them?

Why did White  boys manipulate and laugh behind the backs at their Black male friends and encourage them to commit crimes, so if anyone was caught, the Black would take the blame?

Why were Blacks waited on last in stores, and, even after waiting an hour, passed over again if a White person walked in?

Why did Whites whose land had been sold to Blacks long ago return to their land 50 years later and demand that Blacks hand over the sold land to its original owners, or else?

Why did even White women tell Black men who talked back to them, “I could have you hung from a tree just like that.”? See Of Mice and Men – and this was California in the 30s!

This is all nothing but raw, naked cruelty, and furthermore, there’s a brutal logic behind it: the societal enforcement of White dominance and superiority over Black submission and inferiority. That’s all it is. No need to conjure up fancy theories. Back to Occam’s again.

They did all of this abject and totally unnecessary cruel stuff because otherwise Blacks would commit a lot of crime? Get out. If anything that treatment is designed to push people to their limits. Look at how Gypsies are (deservedly) treated in Europe? Does it stop them from committing crimes?

No, all of these were done to enforce the sort of gleeful domination you see on the faces of the schoolyard bullies in 8th grade as they torment another of their designated victims.

And no, adults are not too mature to regress to childish games of sadistic dominance. I’ve seen so many cases of adults the world over delighting in the sadistic dominance of hated inferior Other to believe otherwise.

They’re not doing it to stop crime. They’re doing it to get off. To get a rush. To get that glorious sadistic delight in tormenting an innocent victim you remember from boyhood. Remember how fun that was? Remember how tall it made you feel? Well, those adults are doing the exact same shit.

Alt Left: Pixies, “Where Is My Mind?”

Remember this great song from that awesome movie Fight Club? Wow, too much, man. The footage in this video is from another great movie, Trainspotting, which unfortunately I have not yet seen!

Pixies, a great late 80’s-90’s band. Described as Alternative, but I always thought they had a punk sound about them. Oh well, let’s call it post-punk and make it a day, ok? From their first album in 1988, Surfer Rosa. I think I remember hearing them for the first time in the early 90’s. See? Now here I am, nostalgic for the Goddamned 1990’s! WTH.

It must have been that great music. Couldn’t have been much else. Bill Clinton was president busy trying to be a Republican and triangulating his way to compromise after compromise with the Republicans. The decade when this clown issues his famous last words, “The era of big government is over” and “This is the end of welfare as we know it.” Remember NAFTA?

Obligatory political rant having nothing whatsoever to do with the video as usual follows:

Sometimes I think the best propagandists for Republicans are Democrats. The Republicans are always screaming, “The Democrats are stealing our ideas!” I agree that’s disgusting, but from the Republicans’ point of view, why does it matter, other than for vanity? I don’t get it. They’ve always got to be in the limelight?

The US of course wrote the book on shitty politics. And the way this particular atrocity of shitty politics goes is:

  1.  Republicans come up with some awful, shitty, and ultimately sad idea.
  2.  They pound it into the peoples’ head, Goebbels-style for however long it takes until habituation is achieved and the people salivate when the year the Republican bell sound.
  3.  Democrats come along and decide that the reason they are losing is because they don’t act like Republicans enough. Yeah I know? Dumb or what?
  4.  The living abortion called the DNC is spawned from Satan. Their motto, “We’re just like the Republicans, only cooler and not as square! We’re Number 2. We try harder. But please vote for us anyway. Vote for us, the fake Republicans. Please don’t be fooled and vote for the real deal.”
  5.  Democrat achieves Presidency back when we had fair elections.
  6.  Rightwing hate-storm steams up.
  7.  Democrat spends four years denying he’s a Democrat and insisting he’s really a Republican after all. Takes a bunch of the Republicans worst Big Lies, whittles them down a bit, draws cute things on them, and gaslights us by call them niceness and liberalism, and then actually implements these atrocities.
  8.  Then in the mid-terms the people decide that if there’s a choice between the fake Republicans called Democrats and the real Republicans called Republicans, why buy a fake when the real thing’s better and costs less? They vote for the real thing.
  9.  After the mid-term shellacking, the Democrats conclude (Again!) that they didn’t act like Republicans enough, so they bring in (((fakester))) Republicans pretending to Democrats like (((Tricky Dicky Morris))), triangulate away trying to split the difference between good and evil by acting evil half the time (!), thereby making their own people hate their guts, while the Republicans just keep hating them anyway.
  10.  The Republicans see how the Democrats nicened up some awful Republican idea and complain about policy plagiarism, then, because they must always be to the right of the Democrats, move the Overton Window to the right again. The things that were so horrible one could not speak of them in public before are now normalized, we’ve left Reality and entered the Matrix again. Insanity and evil become normalized and we think they’re sane and good. We tell ourselves we were being gaslit before and we came to our senses.
  11. Rinse. Repeat. Steal another election. Rinse. Repeat. Have another drink. Etc.

 

Alt Left: Republicans Do Their Best When They Are Out of Power, Sort of Like the Jews

Doesn’t it always seem like the Republicans do better when they’re out of power when they can scream about Billary or Birtherism or Death Panels or whether Michelle’s really a man, Barack Hussein Obama the Muslim?

They’re kind of like the Jews, doing better in the Diaspora. Give em a state and they wreck everything and make all their neighbors want to kill them on sight.

Republicans sure live it up in opposition, don’t they?

They get the Presidency by stealing the election with the voting machines or whatever device is on hand (Republicans stole every election they won since 2000 – they haven’t won a fair election in 32 years), and they elect one anti-intellectual village idiot after another, first this illiterate cowboy who’s never read a book in his life, next this professional white collar criminal, lifelong con artist, and narcissistic psychopath wannabe dictator who doesn’t even know what a book is or what one looks like and doesn’t care either way anyway.

The Republican Clown Car stays in power for what seems like the longest four years ever, with the whole nation spending most of every day with their palm in their face asking, “What next? Is this real or is it the Matrix? Why isn’t this a movie – reality can’t be this awful and stupid at once?”

Rolling Stones, “Paint It Black”

Set against footage from the Vietnam War. From their album, Aftermath, 1966. It’s actually about breaking up with a lover. Jagger took inspiration from James Joyce’s Ulysses, especially the novel’s theme of desperation and desolation (insert standard Doomer themes). That’s a sitar in the background. Jagger latter said that the song has a “Turkish” rhythm.

Kim Carnes, “Bette Davis Eyes”

From her 7th album,  Mistaken Identity, 1981. Song was originally written by Jackie De Shannon in 1974 but never got big until 7 years later. Waddy Watchel on guitar, from Linda Ronstadt’s band. That’s the LA rock hippie crowd from the 1970’s. They lived it up in the canyons of the Hollywood Hills. Linda’s home was Party Central. The song is supposedly about cocaine, but I don’t understand that part.

Her hair is Harlow gold
Her lips sweet surprise
Her hands are never cold
She’s got Bette Davis eyes

She’ll turn her music on you
You won’t have to think twice
She’s pure as New York snow
She got Bette Davis eyes

She’ll expose you, when she snows you
Off your feet with the crumbs she throws you
She’s ferocious and she knows just what it
Takes to make a pro blush
All the boys think she’s a spy, she’s got Bette Davis eyes

She’ll let you take her home
It whets her appetite
She’ll lay you on her throne
She got Bette Davis eyes
She’ll take a tumble on you
Roll you like you were dice
Until you come up blue
She’s got Bette Davis eyes

And she’ll tease you, she’ll unease you
All the better just to please you
She’s precocious
And she knows
Just what it takes to make a pro blush
She got Greta Garbo stand-off sighs, she’s got Bette Davis eyes

She’ll tease you,
She’ll unease you
Just to please ya
She’s got Bette Davis eye
She’ll expose you
When she snows you
Cause she knows you
She’s got Bette Davis eyes
She’ll tease yous

She’ll expose you,
when she snows you
Off your feet with the crumbs she throws you
She’s ferocious, and she knows just what it
Takes to make a pro blush
All the boys think she’s a spy, she’s got Bette Davis eyes

Well, isn’t that just beautiful? Music doesn’t have to be serious. But the best music is always beautiful. That’s the whole idea of it. What is Aesthetics after all? The same as any disciple of science:

The Search for the Perfect Relationship*.

*Among things that is, not people.

Alt Left: Patti Smith, “People Have the Power”

Patti Smith, 1979. From her debut album,”Horses.” With Fred “Sonic” Smith, late of the great MC5.

All right, that does it. Enough of this slacking off and lollygagging around.

Time to get back to some serious leftwing politics, back when that meant something sane and worthwhile. But beyond whatever Left distortion, contortion, freakshow, or Clown World du jour is playing in the Current Year, what is the Left really all about, since its very inception in the French Parliament, on the left side of the room, natch?

Left politics is about the spirit. The spirit of the Left. The dream. The dream of a better world. The dream of liberation. The dream of freedom. The dream of something resembling justice. And and even smaller something resembling equality. No matter how badly it was implemented, it was always the spirit that mattered.

Everyone likes to dump on East Germany. For all I know, maybe it did suck. But what was important about East Germany? It was the spirit, the dream, the rebellion, the fist on the air, the power of the people. Sure, it all came crashing down. But that’s not the point. The point was the death of the East Bloc was the death of a dream. These people dared to dream of a better world. Something we in the capitalist world don’t even bother to do because better worlds aren’t possible under capitalism. All you can is paint the turd, polish it up, put some fancy decorations on it. It’s always still capitalism and it always still blows in exactly the same way, like clockwork. Or physics, almost.

The only time it’s halfway ok is when it’s shot through with a huge dose of socialism to smooth out the shittiness and polish up the considerable good things.

Capitalists: A better world is not possible. This is capitalism we’re talking about, guys! Come on! This is as good as it gets. And it works. It sucks, it’s shitty, it’s evil, but it works.

The Left: A better world is possible. And if it’s not, we will dream anyway. Because the purpose of the Left is not the achievement itself but the spirit. And the dream. We at least dared to dream enough to try to create a better world. At least we tried. No matter what, you always had a roof, clothes, a job, and food. We let people survive. For this, the crime of letting, nay demanding, that people have the basics to survive, we are condemned as Pure Evil itself. It was good and it didn’t blow, nor was it shitty in the capitalist sense, but it doesn’t really work.

Pick your poison, boys.

Something evil that works.

Something good that doesn’t work.

And you only get to pick one, although I think right now the capitalist model is not only evil but it doesn’t even work. So as usual, we get the worst of both worlds.

Pretenders, “I’ll Stand By You”

Genau.

Well, isn’t that just perfect? From 1994 no less! Here we go with the 90’s nostalgia again. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe a lot of non-shitty music actually was made in the 1990’s. Silly me. I got that decade confused with the sick joke decades that followed. The music made in which, don’t even get me started. This monitor cost me a pretty penny. I don’t want to break it.

Want to listen to one great, beautiful album? Check out their very first album, The Pretenders, released in 1980. A tour de force, with nothing missing. Not a bad song on it. Plus it all flows together like the best concept albums. That’s one fine goddamn album, man.

Sheryl Crow, “If It Makes You Happy”

A truly excellent song. That’s some real rock and roll too! 1996. Apparently we were still making some good music all the way into the 90’s.

Obligatory Doomer essay follows:

Look in the comments section where many folks are harping on about their painful nostalgia for the 1990’s. The 90’s were literally the good old days! Sad!

Yeah, I know. That 1990’s. I don’t get it either.

Well, I guess no matter what decade it is, the time you came of age is always the good old days, and everything that comes after, no matter how good, never quite reaches that peak. That’s why most people’s musical tastes are formed from 15-30 and stay that way for life.

I must say that’s truly pathetic. I knew modern music was crap, but I had no idea modern life blew too. I dropped out so long ago I barely even know what year it is. Don’t even ask me for the month, much less the date or especially the day of the week. They all run together for me anyway, especially as every day’s a weekend, except it’s one where not much is happening. Oh well, could be worse. At least I am free! Free and broke, sure. But free nonetheless.

Recall when they say you can have Blacks, freedom, or security, except you can only pick two? As long as we are playing that game, remember most of us peons either have money or time but never both. Only the idle rich living off their rents can afford such hedonism. And they often complain of boredom. Maybe we need a little shittiness in our lives, just to stir things up, to clear the air, to make us see clearly again, no? But then life always steps in, piles it on, throws a turd in the punchbowl and wrecks the party.

Too much bread and circuses. Nah, that’s boring. Then we’ll just take dope every day and live in a haze and burrow away from life. No wait. We’re all already doing that. The overdose deaths tell us as much.

tl/dr: Modern life must truly be horribly pathetic if people are actually, literally nostalgic for the fucking 1990’s. The 90’s! No, really. I’m not kidding. Just when you think you see every bad movie that’s ever bad made, you look outdoors and realize that even the worst B-cinema can’t compete with the depths of shittiness to which “actually existing reality” can plunge, especially in the Current Year.

What a man to do as long as he’s moored on this Clown Rock? Don’t ask me. I never have any solutions to anything, mostly because there aren’t any. We’re lucky if we can settle for amelioration or more commonly, merely arresting of the decline.

Well, there’s always the dope. And the booze. Which reminds me. There’s a Tequila bottle sitting here next to me that’s calling my name. See ya all in a bit.

Alt Left: A Discussion about the Motives for Instituting Jim Crow in the South

Claudius: I think their explicit intent was just a moral justification for their practical solution. That’s how politics works. The name or expressed mission bears no realty to the actual motivation or outcome which in this case was, keep non-wealthy Whites separate from lowly blacks.

This is literally what they said. Claudius’ explanation doesn’t follow. He says that Whites have a hard time being so evil, yet evil was pretty trivial to come by for White folks 150 years ago. They had a very different moral compass than we had. Also Claudius claims that the real reason was understandable and reasonable – stopping Black crime. But the stated reason was diabolical – to keep the niggers down.

For God’s sake, if I am going to do something halfway reasonable, why on Earth do I lie and say I am going to do something wicked instead. It’s the other way around. Humans do monstrous things while couching them in terms of at least reasonableness. A favorite among genocidal aggressors is “We were just fighting back.” But of course every bully on Earth is always fighting back even if the victim has never lifted a finger against him.

In fact, the freed Blacks were so poor and unemployment was so bad that they were besieging their former masters’ plantations pleading for work doing something, anything.

Claudius: I suspect many smart Blacks fled the south and went North leaving behind a slightly dumber freed Black population for regular Whites to contend with. And interesting snippet corroborating this hypothesis:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-25/what-happened-when-blacks-moved-north-during-the-great-migration

Your facts are not wrong, Alpha, but I think the general common wisdom about what was in Whites’ hearts when they did this is dead wrong. I’ve known too many American Whites to believe they could be so stupidly cruel. Only Cultural Leftists are so cruel en masse. When conservative Whites do “bad” shit en masse, it’s usually for a good reason.

Yes, but Whites in the South used to be just that – stupidly cruel. And they really got off on it too. Look at the party atmosphere at those lynchings, the sadistic grins on the faces of men, women, and children alike. Humans get off on being evil if you only let them. The trick is just don’t allow it in the first place! Our demon child personalities of childhood never left us. They just went underground and can come out quite easily. Mine’s locked in a maximum security prison in my gut, and the Hell he’s getting out, but a lot of people are not so cautious or guilty-minded.

Alpha responds to Claudius’ theory: The architects of Jim Crow were explicit about why they were instituting it. It was all about maintaining what they considered the God-given superiority of Whites and keeping Black people “in their place.” They particularly didn’t like the fact that Black people in the South were rising to positions of authority during Reconstruction.

The thing is that Alpha is probably right. We sit here at our vantage point in time looking out over the Hellscape of Black crime, especially violent crime, and assume that the architects of Jim Crow were trying to stop just this very thing by constructing their apartheid system. But they probably weren’t. We are trying to transport 22nd Century minds, methods, and motivations into the heads of Whites of the 1950’s to a century before. They say hindsight is 20-20 but in other ways, it’s often not accurate at all.

By the time that Jim Crow was instituted, the freed Blacks were mostly too terrified and terrorized by a century and a half of slavery to be much of a problem. The crime rate was pretty low back then. Also people, both Whites and Blacks, were very religious, and this tends to make people act pretty good.
Black people don’t automatically act bad, you know.

Yes, some bad things happened after the Civil War. Some freed slaves murdered their former masters and other White men. There may have been a few rapes of White women here and there. But overall, there was not much of this going on.

But the few cases that occurred literally struck terror into the hearts of the Whites. This was their worst nightmare – the Blacks returning to exact revenge on them for the crime of slavery. There has been quite a few slave rebellions in the US over a century and a half, and they tended to be bloody affairs. The Blacks spared no White – women, children, and old men were all fair game and were often killed in horrific ways. Beheading was common.

Also the Blacks put into positions of power were completely incompetent, not the least because they typically had zero education. So you had Black mayors, school boards, police, the whole nine yards, and they were so incompetent it would be laughable if it were not so tragic. It was downright stupid to throw out all the Whites and put a bunch of incompetent Blacks in charge.

The purpose of this was to punish the South. Look what happens when you punish losing parties in a war. The losing party Germany was punished after World War 1 and look what happened. It didn’t take much of this nonsense before the KKK was riding at night. The sun had scarcely set on the Civil War before the first nightriders appeared a mere three years later in 1868.

I’m not sure lynching was done to stop Black crime either. There wasn’t that much of it in the first place. The Black man during Jim Crow was a beaten-down soul. You still see many obsequious Blacks like this in the Deep South, especially in places like Mississippi. They act almost ridiculously friendly and helpful. Black hotel workers are typical in this regard. A terrorized man is a well-behaved man.

I suggested to my mother that lynching was done to stop Black crime, but she said the Whites were just doing it to terrorize Blacks and assert their dominance over them. Humans really get off on blatantly lording it over others if you haven’t noticed, even to the point of humiliation and rubbing it in. I think my Mom was right.

Malignant Narcissism Redux: The “Personality of the Dictator” and How to Be a God among Men

Ted Bundy was a malignant narcissist. Donald Trump literally has the same psychiatric diagnosis as Ted Bundy. Sit back and let that sink in a moment.

I noted that the malignant narcissist is “the personality of the dictator,” as I call it. Is Mr. Trump not an incipient dictator, cut loose at the last moment by his long-suffering subjects? Most malignant narcissists are not dictators, of course. There aren’t enough job openings for that position to go around. But are they nevertheless, shall we say, dictators among men? Perhaps.

In the World of Women, Ted Bundy stood tall. He strode like a king. One could even say that he reigned supreme. If God is the dictator of the cosmos, Ted was an earthly counterpart. Ted held the power of life and death over countless women. That’s what God does. He holds the power of life and death over humans.

Was that why he did it? Who knows? After decades of studying psychopaths, I’m about ready to throw in the towel. It’s one of those crazy things where after studying  something for many years, it seems like you know less than when you began. When you started out, your mind was full of certainties. Now that you have plumbed to the depth of the subject, they’ve all dissolved into unanswerable questions that only beget more and more questions in a maze with no beginning, no end, and no escape.

I think the only way to understand someone like that is to be one, and even if you were one, you might not be able to explain why you act that way. For while these people are not crazy at all and are in fact some of the sanest people on Earth, at the same time, they are profoundly sick, and in some ways, while being formally sane, I now believe that these are some of the most disturbed people around. Disturbed? Yes. Sick? Yes. Bad, evil? Yes. Crazy? ‘Fraid not. Sane? Sadly yes, and this is precisely why they are so dangerous. If they were nuts, we could more easily spot and protect ourselves form them.

Most people can’t wrap their minds around that conundrum at all. How can you be sick, disturbed, bad, and evil and yet completely sane and not the slightest bit nuts? Think about it. See if you can get it. I only figured it out in the last 10 years or so. I’ll give you a gold star if you can see it.

Ever felt like killing someone? Of course, being human and especially male, I’ve had these feelings.

Once I discussed them with a therapist. I told him about how sometimes I couldn’t get rid of them, so I would just sit there and be with them and try to get as comfortable as I could, knowing I wouldn’t do it.

“I am going to kill you,” I would think.

“And how does that feel?” he asked.

“Wow!” I said. “It’s the most powerful feeling you can possibly imagine! You sit there looking at someone and thinking, ‘I am going to kill you right now’ (though you know you won’t do it), and you get calm and relaxed with it, and you are literally one hundred feet tall! You feel like God! Like God himself!”

“That’s right,” he said. “Only God can give and take a life. When you assign yourself that power, you are as big as God. That’s one reason people do that, kill people. To feel as big as God. It’s the ultimate power rush.”

I don’t recommend feeling that way but it’s not a bad way to feel if you really, really hate someone.

How to Fight Back Against a Tireless Psychobitch

Ever had someone you were with all the time, say a girlfriend, who would not stop attacking you for hours on end no matter how much you fight back, nothing works? If that’s all she’s doing, just get rid of her. Throw her in the trash and let the next sucker pick up the garbage. But if she’s an evil bitch half the time, and the ultimate love of your life the other half the time, and an insatiable nympho for hours on end every day, maybe you want  to put up with some some shit if only to collect the loot when she’s done.

I had a girlfriend like that once. She was my worst enemy on Earth for the first half of the day, and then for the second half, she loved me more than any woman before. But of course that’s how it works.

It was pretty fun in a sick way. Everywhere we went in the daytime, as she beat up on me all the time and I tried every flawed strategy I could to stop her (and of course nothing worked) I found myself settling into my best serial killer imitation, “I’m going to kill you, bitch.” We’re at the supermarket shopping. She’s bitching me out while we’re in line. I look at her. “I’m going to kill you, you fucking bitch. As soon as we get home, I’m going to murder you. And I hope everyone in this store can see the look on my face and figure that out.”

If you’re with a hellion who won’t quit bitching you out, go ahead and try every trick in your little black bag. Mine’s as big as Felix’s. Nothing’s going to work because nothing stops a bitch on a run like that. But go ahead and try them all anyway. One sure way to fight back though is just to settle into murderer mode. The whole time you are with her, just keep that thought in your head, “I’m going to murder you, you fucking bitch. As soon as we get home.”

Make sure you know you’re not going to do it! It makes you feel pretty good, nice and powerful, amidst the annoyance of all of that abuse. And if you do it right, you’re a hundred feet tall. Not many things in life will get you up to that size. From up on high like that, looking down at the peons scurrying like roaches below, it’s a Hell of a fine view.

Love and Hate Are Very Close

Love and hate are very close, and if you can’t see that, you were dozing in Life Class.

Most people strongly resist that counterintuitive assumption, as it upsets too many of our carefully set-out apple carts. Those apples taste good and we spent a long time collecting them and we don’t like to see them dirty and bruised on the ground.

Furthermore, we humans have a hangup over the word “hate.” Supposedly it doesn’t really exist much, mostly we just “don’t like” folks, albeit strongly, instead. I beg to differ. That’s crap that we don’t hate. Of course we do. That’s not a mud puddle I would recommend wallowing in, but many things are worthy of righteous hatred. As are many people. It sounds cruel, but if they don’t want to be hated, how bout acting halfway decent?

It’s ok to hate. Just recognize that hate is a powerful tool, sort of like LSD. It’s strong stuff. Too much and you can cause a lot of problems. Use it carefully. Set limits on it. But fear it not. It is after all the other side of the mirror of love and one could argue according to moral philosophy that one cannot exist without the other, that is, without hate or evil there can be no love or good as these things only exist in opposition to each other.

Alt Left: The Worst Person on Earth

Elon Musk. No ifs, ands, or butts about it. Actually, Donald Trump, another billionaire – natch – is so much worse, but for the purposes of creative flair, let’s keep the title the same. Besides, he deserves the reverse accolades.

Ok, he’s the second worst person on Earth.

Donald Trump is the worst person on Earth. He is also a narcissistic psychopath, or a malignant narcissist. This personality, the early researchers of which designated it “the closest thing on Earth to ‘pure evil’ to me is “the personality of the dictator.” I believe many dictators, especially the murderous ones, were malignant narcissists. His own father was a psychopath and possibly a malignant narcissist himself. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Got it. Now who’s the third worst person on Earth? Could it be anyone but the Libertarian (obviously – what else could he be) Jeff Bezos?

Bezos, a billionaire, is the richest man on Earth. He is also the third worst man on Earth. His income has doubled in the last year while the economy crashed and burned and the real humans writhed in the burning rubble, mouthing silent screams that no one heard.

Donald Trump, a billionaire,

Elon Musk, a billionaire, is the third richest man on Earth. he is the second worst person on Earth. His income also doubled in the last year in the midst of the worst economic crash since the Great Depression. He is mentally ill. He has Bipolar Disorder. Most of the time he is in the manic or hypomanic phase of the disorder. This is also part of why he is such a huge asshole, as manics are commonly some of the biggest assholes around.

Sometimes I call mania “Asshole Personality Disorder.” Musk also appears to have a serious narcissism problem and he may well have Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Of course, mania and narcissism go together. One paper reckoned that everyone in the manic phase of the disorder met criteria for NPD.

Bernard Arnault is the second richest man on Earth. He is a billionaire. I know nothing about him, except that he probably adds very little value to the human race.

Mark Zuckerberg is a billionaire. He is easily the fourth richest man on Earth. Like Musk and Bezos, he is also extremely dangerous. In fact, Musk, Bezos, Trump, and Zuckerberg are probably the four most dangerous men on Earth at the moment. Zuckerberg is the fourth worst person on Earth, though it’s a close call between him and Bezos.

Bill Gates is the fifth richest man on Earth. He’s retired from business, so that means he can’t do any (or much) more damage. Notice when these guys quit the job of making money, they often turn into dramatically better human beings. While he was making money of course, Gates was a complete monster, with a moral compass as cockeyed as Ted Bundy’s.

In fact, I would call Bill Gates the Ted Bundy of the IT industry. He lied to, cheated, stole from and backstabbed everyone who ever had the misfortune of partnering with him (ring a bell with Mr. Trump?).

I doubt if Gates was a psychopath or a malignant narcissist as he seems cured now, and those disorders are incurable if anything is. But he sure acted the part. There is such a thing as “Antisocial Behavior” absent psychopathy. Many criminals fall into this category. Mafioso and their soldiers come to mind. They act terrible but they aren’t really terrible people deep down inside. It’s not that they are bad. It’s more that they act bad. Notice the difference.

Now that he has quit making money and hence has no need to foment evil anymore, Gates has, with the major assistance of his heartfelt wife, turned into a much better person. Has he yet dumped all of his antisocial BS? I’m not sure. But he’s a much better man than he used to be and in some ways, he is indeed a good person, maybe even a very good person.

Notice all it takes to turn a stone evil man into a near-saint? Just stop trying to make money. That’s all it takes. Making money turns you evil, by necessity probably. When you stop making money, the need for the evil behavior evaporates and one is free to act a lot better, assuming you have it in you in the first place. And Gates does.

While we are on the subject of monsters and billionaires, let us discuss…drum roll…Steve Jobs! A true monster among men, testified by everyone who ever worked with him, seconded by his very own long-suffering family. Jobs absolutely had Narcissistic Personality Disorder. One wonders if he was a malignant narcissist too.