“Black a Block” is not Condescending Benevolence

Well, nobody likes being around people who talk “condescending” to them all the time.  I mean, obviously, Palestinians and South Africans had their fill of asshole high IQ folks around the corner.  In fact, also among whites, the “redneck ones” would rather vomit – as be near the cultural left.

However, though, the idea of spreading out blacks among the population – to where it’s sort of like in Appalachia or Portugal isn’t this thing.

No, the condescending benevolence – is more like what you’d see around Knoxville, TN, in the suburbs of Chicago or New York – stuff like that.  In other words, it’s not really benevolence – but frustration.  You simply have a white population – often far, but sometimes in or near – the black population – and they’re always bitching about the blacks.

Why would we even think it’s benevolence?  Well, some of these idiots actually try to help people they hate – but it’s more along the lines of being bossy bitches – cause simply the hate is just too severe.  Also, some in their own “fantasy” world – think they are helping blacks “in their heart”. Oh, what a joke!

Men’s Rights Movement – A Load of Despicable Creeps

Who are we kidding here?  I mean, these guys wonder why they can’t get laid – and finally come to the conclusion, with the help of Roosh, even @Robert Lindsay, that they aren’t masculine enough.  So in this case, they Roosh out to become the biggest misogynist, racists as possible.

But as mentioned in the below article:

Women Respect Integrity, not Masculinity

It’s all about the integrity, not the masculinity.  In fact, these guys were rejected by women – at first (probably) – because they’re seen as having no integrity, being a bitch, being weird (a big give-away).

But how can we prevent this dilemma with men – and at the same time – massively reduce public shootings?

Well, it’s certainly a tough deal – because the rise in one-parent homes, pornography, dating sites – ensure that a lot “guys with no integrity” will be produced.  I mean, a sure way to get a “wussy son” – in the true sense, is having a mean bossy/un-respectable mom – in either a home where either, the dad is gone or is pussy-whipped beyond recognition.

Note: Some of these guys do get girlfriends and get married at some point.  However, the point being – they were always dooshes to begin with – because they never came on the scene with integrity.  In fact, I’m sure they would have landed things – a whole lot better – if they weren’t so fucking weird.

Women Respect Integrity, not Masculinity

@Robert Lindsay, disagrees, but obviously women only complain about masculinity – after you’ve lost integrity. It’s  kind of a way to “rub it in” on guys they don’t respect.  I mean, you take a guy with integrity – and probably he gets away with being more “woman-like” than other guys.

Well, proof of the matter – is look at all the guys women love who are actually androgynous!

But of course, “mans-sphere” sites like Roosh etc.. rub in the fact men are supposed to act like stereotypes from The Village People – but actually doing that is a – comic waste of time. I  mean, feel free if you want, but it’s unnecessary work – and if you have no integrity – the woman will hate your pussy-ass anyway!

Note: Along with integrity – another thing is social reputation. If you get the rep of “being a bitch”, women won’t like you – along with men.  In that case, you will get a “rubbing it in” from women again.

Effeminate Straight Men Practically Don’t Exist

Responding to parts of the comment referenced on this post:

It’s mostly people who are well off that prefer skinny women and effeminate men.

I would call those men soft or feminine but not effeminate because so few straight men are effeminate like a gay man is. While 70% of gay men are effeminate (act like a woman), only 3% of straight men are.

Most straight men who people call effeminate are not effeminate at all. They might be soft-spoken, quiet, shy, unaggressive, passive, or wimpy and like to read, write, and cook, have good taste in clothes, and spend time on their personal appearance. However none of those activities are for women only.

On a gay forum, one gay men pointed that effeminate straight men don’t exist (I think they do but they are rare), while soft or feminine men are much more common. He also pointed that these feminine men often have a “soft masculinity” about them.

I thought this was absolutely brilliant. No straight man or woman would ever recognize that soft masculinity. It takes a gay man to see it.
The most intelligent things I have heard about subjects like this, including masculinity, were from gay men.

Straight men and women have such poor understanding of masculinity because they simply have too much riding on the question, so they can’t be objective. They’re both right in the middle of the masculinity game, so they can’t see straight. Gay men are not part of this game, and this enables them to sit back at a distance and be completely objective about masculinity, effeminacy, and other related topic.

Straight men don’t know what masculinity is because they tend to have an exaggerated view of masculinity. But straight men are still far better than women. Most masculine men accept and respect me on a certain level on the basis that I “walk the walk and talk the talk.” That’s really all you have to do to get judged masculine in the world of men.

Women are far worse than men when it comes to judging masculinity. They have an absolutely insane idea of what masculinity is. Women think anything less than hypermasculinity is pussy.

Whereas 90% of masculine men accept me on a basic level, at the same time any women in my life would be remarking that I’m pussy or gay. If you want to know who to blame of the toxic masculinity crisis, blame women! Toxic masculinity is 100% the fault of women in my opinion.

Also interesting – ugly or plain women act like they are too good for me and highly attractive women act interested in me.

I get the exact same thing. It’s mostly only attractive or hot women who act interested in me when I am out and about – on dating sites, it’s another matter. When I am out in public, women who are homely or have average looks either ignore me, act hostile to me, or act like they are not interested in me at all. I really don’t understand this.

Why Some Women Prefer Masculine Men

First, my comment in response to a commenter who ridiculed hypermasculinity and described it in a way that made it look like a parody:

“Hypermasculine” or hyper “cartoon caricature of masculine”?

To which I responded:

I live in the hood (barrio). Normative masculinity here does look like a parody.

Sometimes I get upset with myself for being such a wuss and try to ultra-masculinize myself.

It ends up feeling like such a worst joke of a fake parody of manhood that I am sure everyone must be laughing at me behind my back. Interestingly, no one laughs at me, and a lot of super-masculine White men who never acknowledge me start giving me these respectful nods. Sometimes they even give me “shout-outs” with the nods: Yelling “Hello there!” from their cars.

And that’s the only time these Latinas around here look interested in me. Most of the rest of the time, they seem like they want nothing to do with me at all. The Black women around here are mostly ghetto, and women like that never like me. And the White women around here are working class blue collar redneck Whites, and they never like me either. They all want cavemen, and I’m not a Neandertal.

I get on best of all with White women of a certain type, especially if they’ve gone to university or have a university degree. They want a sophisticated man, not a thug. In fact, a lot of them think thuggish cavemen are gross.

I can also get along well with Asian women, who, bizarrely enough, treat me like I am hypermasculine and even a bit frightening. Asian women treat me like I’m Paul Bunyan.

My conclusion is that not only is masculinity a parody of itself, but I am also starting to think that most folks’ behavior is a parody of itself. And if you want to be successful, act like a parody of whatever behavior you are mimicking. Which is not only absolutely ridiculous but also philosophically interesting.

Here is another man responding to me. I really liked his intelligent response.

Among people who grow up around stressful environments (poor people, war zones, ghetto, hood) the men tend to prefer larger asses and thicker women, and the women prefer more muscles and masculinity. It’s a survival mechanism- I read about this years ago but can’t remember exactly where.

It’s not genetic per se – it’s like a gene turns on when you are subjected to a hard life for long enough. For example, in the Middle Ages, bustier women were considered attractive and skinny ones unattractive.

It’s mostly people who are well off that prefer skinny women and effeminate men. Even if you look at East Europe where there is more poverty than in Western Europe – there men and women are behave a little more like the ghetto stereotype.

As a result I have the opposite issue. Most middle class White women act scared of me or treat me badly. East European, Black, and Hispanic etc. women seem attracted to me. Also for some reason natural blond Nordic-type women who seem to prefer more masculine men. With Asians it’s a toss up – depends if the Asian prefers masculine men, which a lot of them do, but a lot of them don’t.

Also interesting – ugly or plain women act like they are too good for me and highly attractive women act interested in me. I feel if I went to Europe (like Germany, Poland or Russia) I would be pretty successful dating.

I am guessing I am too masculine for the typical overweight easy life middle class White American woman. However, wealth and status are important to most women, and my being dirt poor is a problem even though my poverty derives from being discriminated against, dealing with repeated crime, and corrupt cops etc. rather than some deficiency in myself.

Can You Tell if Someone Has Been to College or Not?

I understand that quite a few companies, nonprofits, and perhaps even government enterprises still advertise for “a degree in anything and will train.”

I believe they are doing this less than when I was job-hunting around 1981, when you saw that sort of thing all the time. In fact, I got a job as quality control in a factory and the man who hired me at the interview said, “We are so happy you have a college degree!” And he repeated that several times, “But you have that degree!” that sort of thing.

Keep in mind that this job I am quite sure did not require a degree because the three women who worked the other shifts – two older women, one White and one Hispanic, and one young Black woman – could not possibly have had university degrees based on my contact with them. They were perfectly nice human beings, but no way on Earth had did they have a degree. Just forget it.

And yes, you can tell people who could not possibly have a university degree.  Among other things, they’re just not very smart or educated. So it should be quite clear in a lot of cases who absolutely could not possibly have a university degree.

Keep in mind that there are IQ limits. You really need a 105 IQ to get a university degree. Your average person with a BA has an IQ of 115. You can get a degree with a 100 IQ, but you will have to work very hard for it, it won’t be fun at all, and you will not truly understand much of the material. So if you can figure out the IQ’s of the people who talk to, you can more or less figure out if they went to university or not.

Now, can you tell who definitely has a degree? Not necessarily because many very smart young people do not have a university degree, especially young men in their 20’s. There are lots of quite intelligent young folks who do not have a degree. Most of them prioritized work or relationships over schooling. I am not sure if there are humans who seem so brainy and sophisticated that they must obviously be degreed, unless you know their job, which isn’t a fair way of determining this.

We have a commenter on here saying, “Why not just hire someone without a degree?” Well, would you rather hire someone smart and educated who knows how to think (a degreed person) or a person who is not intelligent or educated and has a dubious ability to think? To me, that’s a no-brainer.

People Who Shouldn’t Be at University

Degrees are not a dime a dozen, as people like to say. However, 30% of Americans do have a Bachelor’s Degree. But that doesn’t mean they are easy to get.

I knew a number of people at university who were not college material. One was one of my best roommates. Almost everyone I knew like that dropped out. And they tended to get C’s.

If you have an IQ  below 100, you probably should not even be at university. Even a 100 IQ is going to be a problem.

I also knew quite a few people who had moved out, worked quite a bit and were also at university. Almost every  single person I knew who was working significant hours on a job while going to university subsequently dropped out.

Our stupid culture idolizes no-fun workaholics who go to school full-time and work full-time and engage in similar types of self-abuse, but the truth is that statistically, the more hours you work while you are at university, the lower your grades are and the more likely you are to drop out. I think people at university could maybe work up to 20 hours a  week and that’s it.

If you’re going to work a lot of hours while going to university full-time, you probably should not even be at university, as odds are you are going to drop out.

The “Worthless Degree” Narrative Is a Rightwing Meme

People pushing the “worthless degree” narrative so popular nowadays might like to know that this is a rightwing meme.

Rightwingers absolutely hate university education period (or at least want to make it all private or nonprofit so only the rich could get a university education) and beyond that, they hate more than anything else the schools of Humanities which they regard as hotbeds of liberalism, Leftism, and Communism who brainwash the young.

Just pointing out that the liberals taking this point of view are pushing a rightwing meme. Not that that means it’s invalid, but to me it implies that it needs looking at.

I mentioned earlier that Japan was thinking of phasing out all Humanities degrees. Japanese are natural-born STEM nerds anyway, so I can see why they feel this way. This was actually a directive that was issued by the government in 2015.

Perhaps due to criticism, the government subsequently withdrew this policy and issued a statement that said in our modern era, Humanities degrees were absolutely beneficial, but not before ~25% of Japanese universities had gone along with the recommendation, which I suppose means that they eliminated Humanities degrees at their schools.

Can You Tell Someone’s IQ by Talking to Them?

Yes, I can sort of figure out the IQ’s of the people I talk to, especially on the lower end. But it’s better  if you spend some time around them so you can really get a handle on them.

For instance, the average Hispanic IQ is 90. My city is full of Hispanics. After a bit, you get a feel for the “average Hispanic” in my town and just how intelligent they are. So there’s your 90 IQ. Now a 90 IQ? They’re not stupid at all. 85 is when people start appearing dumb. But even though they are not dumb at all, I would describe them as “not that smart.”

Your average White has an IQ of 100. I lived in an all-White working class town for a long time. Once again you figure out how smart the average White person is in town and there’s your 100 IQ right there. A person with a 100 IQ does not appear dumb at all.

Nor do they seem like they are “not that smart.” They are quite intelligent and they always surprise me. But they don’t seem like the type of people who we think of as “brainy” (higher than average intelligence) and most of them give off the impression that they didn’t go to university. A lot of them are doing blue collar or working class jobs and they are quite happy that way.

Now that I have lived in two towns, one with 100 IQ and one with ~93 IQ (most of whom  are ~90 IQ), I can tell you right off the bat that the difference is absolutely remarkable.

I was driving around with a friend the other day and he noted that there was sort of a general decline in this Hispanic city compared to an all-White town.

I told him, “That’s the difference of 10 IQ points you are seeing.”

It’s hard to see much intelligence difference at the individual level between average level IQ’s, but you can definitely see cumulative effects when you have two cities, both with  average IQ’s, which are 10 points apart.

The decline is hard to describe in words as it encompasses a lot of things. But at that level the town looks somewhat fallen apart, decrepit and has a  general lackadaisical, don’t give a damn attitude about it. Now mind you the decline is not great. I hate to say it but it’s nothing like the decline when a city from White to Black. But it’s definitely there.

A city going from White to Hispanic definitely undergoes somewhat of a decline and it’s absolutely noticeable.

“Extreme Polarities of Game in Nabokov’s “Lolita”” by Dana Sala

If you all wonder what I do in my spare time, well, I like to feed my brain and work out my brain, mostly by reading things that I find very hard to understand. The harder it is to understand, the more I like it.

Here is an article I read recently. It’s Literary Criticism. Some of this stuff is extremely hard to understand. In fact, it is some of the most hard to understand stuff out there. Some people say that that is because it’s all nonsense, but I think a lot of it is just really thick and hard to figure out. It’s operating on a higher plane that most of us are.

I’m honestly not sure if this article is nonsensical and full of crap or if it actually means something. I think it probably means something, but I’m just not smart enough to figure it out. I’m not sure if Literary Criticism is full of nonsense yet. For some reason I doubt that it is.

Anyway, if you want to see the sort of thing I spend my days reading, here you go. And by the way, you are welcome to try to understand it yourself.

Extreme Polarities of Game in Nabokov’s “Lolita”

by Dana Sala

Abstract:

An aesthetician in the sense of Kierkegaard, Humbert wants to savor life without being limited by moral rules. Any writer might find himself reflected by the myth of Don Juan, identifiable with the eternal seducer of the reader. Lolita is a real presence, not a Humbertian alter-ego. Humbert the Seducer yearns to be seduced.

His existential game can furnish things for analysis to Humbert the Casuist provided that he has a counterpart – the game of Lolita, less spiritualized, less intellectual, but closer to the generic notion of game.

Fluctuating between life and death, the game of Don Juan longs to explore the other type of game, the active one. The game that resents reality (the imaginative game) is challenged by the game that
bravely assumes it (active). A perennial Manichaeism between these disjunctive components renders the necessary tension to any game – ultimately a result of two extreme polarities playing against each other.

Key words: casuistry; innocence; seducer or seduced; active and imaginative game; Nabokov; Lolita; Kierkegaard; seduction of literature; nymphets; kitsch; the ineffable; Narcissus; art and gratuitousness.

Fatally enslaved to innocence, Humbert Humbert cannot escape casuistry, as it offers both a compensatory means of transcending an undesired reality and a way of exploring it. Lolita is frantically desired and perverted during Nabokov’s discourse not by granting her money in exchange for her dearness but because of Humbert’s turning into a casuist.

Innocence cannot be re-found by analyzing a self already schizoid. Humbert can vaguely sense again the innocence in the company of a nymphet, of every nymphet (that’s why his ceaseless hunting of nymphets, even if he must have been satisfied with Lolita, is an impulse of living, not a sign of perversion). Humbert’s real perversion lays in his casuistry.

Another perversion is to be so refined in the art of seducing the reader. None of Don Juan’s acts of seducing could be accomplished without gratuity. An aesthetician in Kierkegaard’s sense, Humbert wants to savor life without being limited by moral rules. Innocence grants both Johann the Seducer (in Kierkegaard’s writings) and Humbert Humbert a life lived within the aesthetic stage of existence.

Paradoxically, Lolita is a consumer without any remorse of what Humbert (and this time Nabokov either) hated most: the stereotyped society, sterile imitation, commercial kitsch. In this respect, Lo is not individualized but conventional, as conventional as a nymphet could be. The difference between Lo as a nymphet and a stereotyped woman (any from Miss Opposite to Charlotte Haze) is that Lolita does not live according to these clichés.

Her life may be governed by them, she is gravitating around them, turning them into commodities, but her nymphic glimpse makes her incorporate all these consuming goods. Thus they are made her own.

Humbert’s narcissism lays in the fact that he is more eager to know the inner world rather than the outer one. The paths of exploring the world go through the inner self. Loving Lolita becomes an act of a 20th Century Narcissus. We are very far from the commonsensical situation when a powerful male personality transforms the beloved one into a reflex of his own self.

Humbert could be a perfect illustration of the Narcissus myth not because he loves himself in Lolita but because he wants to set in permanent forms the beloved image.

Any writer might find himself more or less anamorphotically reflected by Don Juan’s myth, identifiable with the eternal seducer rather than the ceaseless lover. The exertion of demiurgic valences of an author, generically speaking, could be equated with a Don Juanesque temptation to construct a suffocating intrigue around the victim since the authentic Don Juan will never disrelish demiurgic enticement.

In order to be perfectly overlapped, both writer and seducer must be possessed by the demon of the intellectual game. In Nabokov’s Lolita and Kierkegaard’s The Diary of the Seducer Don Juan is not only an archetype but also the main character, seductive as narrating self, seduced as character.

For Nabokov, fiction is a game and a contest with the reader:

I want my learned readers to participate in the scene I am about to replay. (Nabokov, Lolita: 13).

Like every other bit of existence in this book, game has in turn its right to Siamese twinning. Therefore, an essential distinction in Nabokov’s fiction would be that between the two facets of the twofold game.

One is the imaginative game; the other is the active one. A perennial Manicheanism between these disjunctive components renders the necessary tension to any game – ultimately a result of two extreme polarities playing against each other. Nabokov, the writer who suffered a second exile, a linguistic one

paved the way for the truly postmodernist novels that were to follow

M. Couturier, 1993: 257

The imaginative game is high-minded, aware of its own uncertainties, and non-finite because of its endless combinations of virtual realities. This is the game of fiction, the authorial game, the Humbertian one, the contest of minds with the reader. Humbert is playing this game with the other Humbert, and Nabokov is playing it against Humbert and Quilty, by whom Humbert might be written.

The imaginative game means perpetual replacement and recreation of realities. The so-called active game is the one engulfed by reality. This game resents the non-finite reality of mind, preferring the genuineness of the conceivable world. Humbert Humbert’s game is centripetal; Lolita is centrifugal.

The active game is attempting to find a way of real manifestation. For the fictional game, the outer world is too suffocating, whilst for the active game, the inner world is too broad. Lolita’s playing with Humbert, Lolita’s disclaiming virginity to Charlie Holmes, the nymphic games integrating an immobile Humbert – these all belong to the active nature of the game.

By means of imaginative game, “reality” (one of the few words which mean nothing without quotes) is transcended to the aesthetic level of being. Humbert shares with Nabokov the appetite for autoscopic game. A sample of the authorial imaginative game is the intrusion of a preface teller illustrating the conventional moral view point, telling us what we must not understand from the novel.

Dr. John Ray Jr. would not be able to recognize himself mocked – as a exponent of a certain category of people – since the capacity of reflection, of playing dangerously with your double, cannot be understood by all readers.

As a case history, “Lolita” will become, no doubt, a classic in psychiatric circles. As a work of art, it transcends its expiatory aspects; and still more important to us than scientific significance and literary worth, is the ethical impact the book should have on the serious reader; for in this poignant personal study there lurks a general lesson; the wayward child, the egotistic mother, the panting maniac- these are not only vivid characters in a unique story: they warn us of dangerous trends; they point out potent evils.

“Lolita” should make all of us – parents, social workers, educators – apply ourselves with a still greater vigilance and vision to the task of bringing up a better generation in a safer world.

Nabokov, Lolita: 5

Both Nabokov and Humbert Humbert’s fictional games have no expressed target.

It would be inappropriate to see it as a mere justification of a murder or of a pervert.
Fluctuating between life and death, Don Juan’s game longed to explore the other type of game, the active one. The game that resents reality (imaginative) is challenged by the game that bravely assumes it (active).

Humbert the child was probably playing active games with Annabel Leigh (disclosed later as Annabel Lee with a frankness borrowed from or mimicking nymphic behavior). That must have happened before he was assaulted by two barbarian intruders who actually raped his androgynous clumsiness.

This moment coincides with the implicit revelation of the postponed fulfillment and with the intermission of an irreversible personality split:

My world was split. I was aware of not one, but two sexes, neither of which was mine; both would be termed female by the anatomist. [ … ] Taboos strangulated me. Psychoanalysts wooed me with pseudoliberations or pseudolibidoes. The fact that to me the only objects of amorous tremor were sisters of Annabel’s, her handmaids and girl-pages, appeared to me at times as a forerunner of insanity.

Nabokov, Lolita: 18

While Humbert underwent the inexorable metamorphosis into a mature schizoid, Lolita,
although twofold nature herself, presents the extremes of vulgarity and innocence fused
together. Her personality is not painfully split. Humbert the Casuist admits that Humbert the
Seducer will be lured by the genuineness of a nymphet that refuses to be shaped.

A Humbert, the first or the second, we will never know, is the mirror reflection of the other one. That is why the first Humbert can charge the second Humbert with abominable features, while his true desire is to be seduced by innocence.

Lolita arrived in her Sunday frock, stemming, panting and then she was in my arms, her innocent mouth melting under the ferocious pressure of dark male jaws, my palpitant darling! The next instant I heard her – alive, unraped – clatter downstairs.

Nabokov, Lolita: 66

Lo as a nymphet means a permanent resuscitation of Humbert’s erect attention, as this erotically un-evolved widower will always run away from fulfillment. For Kierkegaard, the happy marriage or happy love is inconceivable. In the same spirit, “Lolita” illustrates the doctrine of Eros Kosmogon, saying that Eros, as a daimon, as a mediator of two principles, exists as long as these two principles fail to unify (see J. Evola).

Therefore the moment of coupling coincides with the annihilation of Eros itself, viewed as longing of the being to be coupled with the non-being.
Nabokov and Kierkegaard’s casuistry reveal the dramatic condition of the overlucid Don Juan endowed with an ontological contempt of the stereotype of femininity.

Don Juan accepts only an equal partner who rejects becoming a mere reflex of his own self. Thus the myth of Pygmalion is reversed. The aesthetic pleasure is not given by the act of engulfing the feminine presence into the male self. On the contrary, Don Juan is attracted only by the ineffable type of women, respecting the noumenal part of femininity.

In this way, Lolita is a real presence, not an Humbertian alter-ego. Humbert the Seducer yearns to be seduced, as his existential game can furnish things for analysis to Humbert the Casuist only when he bumps into a corresponding replay – Lolita’s game, less spiritualized, less intellectual, but closer to the generic notion of game.

As Huizinga stated, game is beyond good and evil. Vladimir Nabokov’s seducer and Kierkegaard’s Don Juan can be looked on as aestheticians, belonging to the first level of being in Kierkegaard’s term.

For Kierkegaard the essence of a man is defined as aesthetic, and this represents the first stage of being. Consequently, the aestheticism is not necessarily the artist but someone who has discovered in pleasure the purpose of his life, denying the presence of good and evil. The
aestheticism’s act of living is achieved through the aesthetics of his self.

Every aestheticism lives so that he could voluptuously respond to all desires commanding him. Moreover, his quest tends to reveal more and more yearnings to be fulfilled. How the outer world reacts to this has no relevance for the aestheticism.

Humbert’s perversion can be seen in his attitude to the reader rather than in his pedophilic propensities. It is the demoniac glimpse which differentiates a nymphet from any other adolescent and helps Humbert Humbert localize her. Humbert’s intention is in fact to suspend the instant and isolate it.

Now I wish to introduce the following idea. Between the age limits of nine and 14 there occur maidens who, to a certain bewitched travelers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as “nymphets”.

Between those age-limits, are all girl-children nymphets? Of course not. Otherwise, we who are in the know, we, lone voyagers, we nympholepts, would have long gone insane.

Nabokov, Lolita: 17.

Humbert Humbert’s aversion to stereotype makes him an unreliable narrator. Craig Raine remarked that

“Nabokov’s galère of unreliable narrators (Hermann in Despair, Kinbote in Pale Fire) represent unreliability in its extreme form. They are reliably unreliable. They get nothing right.”

Craig Raine, Afterword: 322

A twofold nature himself, a paragon of exactitude and a miracle of meticulousness fused with “hallucinative lucidity,” Humbert Humbert abhors the Hollywood stereotype of a woman. Lolita is a consumer of the same type of clichés, but this does not diminish her seductive potencies. She would prefer a Hamburger to a Humburger.

Hummy has striven all way to find an equal partner, double-natured. Vulgarity can coexist with shamelessness and purity. By the end of the novel, Humbert wholly regrets not having taken the angelic line of conduct at the “Enchanted Hunters.” He sees himself now as a maniac who has deprived Lolita of her childhood. Lolita, neither saint nor slut, but a complex mixture.

And neither is she the fragile child of a feminine novel.

What drives me insane is the twofold nature of this nymphet – of every nymphet, perhaps; this mixture in my Lolita of tender dreamy childishness and a kind of eerie vulgarity, stemming from the snub-nosed cuteness of ads and magazine pictures, from the blurry pinkness of adolescent maidservants in the old country and in the very young harlots disguised as children in provincial brothels.

And what is most singular is that she, this Lolita, my Lolita, has individualized the writer’s ancient lust, so that above and over everything there is – Loli ta (Nabokov, Lolita: 44).

Annabel was meant to be the vanished angel. Lolita as her reincarnation outdid the prototype, as she had an extra demoniac glimpse and a twofold nature. On the other hand, Humbert Humbert attempts to analyze the ineffable nature of the nymphets, as he will always long for his androgynous state with Annabel:

My little Annabel was no nymphet to me; I was her equal, a faunlet in my own right, on the same enchanted island of time.

Nabokov, Lolita: 17

Unable to seduce Lolita, who acts physiologically, defying any metaphysical concepts, Humbert seeks compensation in seducing his readers. Humbert the pervert, comparable with Johannes from Kierkegaard’s The Seducer’s Diary, attempts to detect the resort of innocence and fails, perverting it.

Their supreme refinement is the fact they try to do so in writing. Losing virginity coincides with the revelation of the end, of the finite. This is valid for Humbert who becomes from that moment Humbert Humbert. Reaching enlightenment, Humbert Humbert cannot ignore or deny knowing.

It is impossible for him to pretend that the sense of his quest has not changed irreversibly. For Lolita, the Charlie Holmes experience is just a childish game. Her authenticity has not been endangered, and the world has not changed its coordinates.

Lolita’s innocence belongs to the category of “ignorant innocence”. Humbert Humbert, now that he knows the world is limited and love subdued to Death, is fascinated by this type of innocence, totally devoid of shame. All his strategies of seducing Lolita reveal in fact a surprising timidity. Humbert Humbert does not exactly plan how to make Lolita love him but how to derive small satisfactions without her approval.

Recomposing his identity is a playful way of guaranteeing the subjective truth. This attitude is preserved in approaching the nymphet. The greatest Humbertian joy now is to let the nymphic nature fully manifest itself and recompose all these images in silence so that the White Widowed Male could “blissfully digest” the “rare drop of honey”.

In a way, Humbert has the intuition that the besieged Lolita is able to surprise the hunter and turn it into a “Hunted Enchanter”. Her natural way of becoming her stepfather’s mistress is the climax of her nymphic manifestations:

The hollow of my hand was still ivory-full of Lolita- full of the feel of her preadolescently incurved back, that ivory smooth, sliding sensation of her skin through the thin frock that I had worked up and down while I held her. [ … ]I felt proud of myself.

I had stolen the honey of a spasm without impairing the morals of a minor. Absolutely no harm done. The conjurer had poured milk, molasses, foaming champagne into a young lady’s new white purse; and Lo, the purse was intact. Thus I delicately constructed my ignoble, ardent, sinful dream; and still Lolita was safe – and I was safe.

What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another, fanciful Lo1ita –perhaps more real than Lo1ita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness- indeed no life- of her own.

The child knew nothing. I had done nothing to her. And nothing prevented me from repeating a performance that affected her as little as if she were a photographic image rippling upon a screen.

Nabokov, Lolita: 62

Had Lolita remained Humbert’s only in his imagination, she would have perfectly replaced Annabel, and she would have belonged to Humbert’s own reality. But Lolita has a life of her own, a self-sufficient existence that makes no room for moral dilemmas. She needs to be more than a prototype for Humbert’s recreation of another Lolita.

Humbert considers pathetic his hypostasis as a nymphic purity protector. This would be
the only possible way to fix Lolita in eternity, to set her unchanged. But Humbert can do so
only on the realm of arts. Art reconciles and stirs Lolita and Humbert’s games and destinies.

Don Juan is innocently seduced by innocence. The twofold nature of Humbert the Don Juan and Lolita are heaven and hell, life and death:

This is my story. I have reread it. It has bits of marrow sticking to it, and blood and beautiful bright-green flies. At this or that twist of it I feel my slippery self eluding me, gliding into deeper and darker waters than I care to probe.

Thus, neither of us is alive when the reader opens this book.[… ] I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lo1i ta. (Nabokov, Lolita: 309).

The beginning is given new valences. Trying to seduce the illusion of Lolita, Humbert has engulfed the real one so deep inside that he can take her out only for the sake of his autoscopic view: “Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul.”

Works Cited :

Baudrillard, J. (1979) De la séduction, Paris, Galilée.

Couturier, M. (1993) Nabokov in Postmodernist Land, Critique, 34(4): 257.

Evola, J. (1993) Metafisica del sesso, Edizioni Mediterranee.

Jenkins, J. L. (2005) Searching High and Lo. Unholy Quests for Lolita, Twentieth Century
Literature, 51(2).

Kierkegaard, S. (1997) The Seducer’s Diary, with a foreword by John Updike, Princeton University Press.

Nabokov, V. (1995) Lolita, Afterword by Craig Raine, Penguin Books. Copyright The Journal of Humanistic Studies, 2009

Hey Feminists: Men Don’t Actually Hate Women

It is a feminist article of faith that all or most all men hate women. This statement is repeated endlessly and has been stated over and over by all of their biggest heroes and scholars. On feminist sites, the notion that most all men hate women is repeated ad nauseum on a daily basis.

I always found this view odd because I know men pretty well. And over six decades, I have not commonly met men who objectively hate women.

On the other hand, I have met many sexist females who think that men are quite inferior to women. In fact, this is exactly what almost all feminists believe. Feminism is simply female sexism against men. They’re female chauvinist pigs, they’ve been this way from the start, and they’re this way to this very day. I don’t think they’ll ever change because the very notion of feminism is predicated on notions like all men hating women and men being quite inferior to women.

If we men really hated women, you would hear it all the time. I would have been hearing it my whole life. I know this because men don’t hide things like this. If men hate hate something or someone or some group, they just come right out and say it. Men are not embarrassed or ashamed to admit that they hate this or that person(s) or thing(s).

In fact, hating is a very masculine behavior and it is quite encouraged in male society, provided you hate the right things. Men who are incapable of hate are regarded as wimps and pussies who will not stand up and fight for themselves. Cowards, in other words. We think they are pathetic.

Most men absolutely do not hate women. I should know. I’m a man. Now whether we treat them as we should is another matter.

Of course, there are men who hate women, and I have met some of them. It’s not cool in male society to say you hate women. People will call you gay if you do that. In other words, straight men are supposed to love women. If you hate them instead, this means you must be homosexual.

What you do hear is men saying they are done with women, they are over them, women are too much trouble, etc. But that’s not hate. And most of them are not serious because you meet the same guy later on and he’s dating or he’s got a girlfriend or wife. And many women say the same thing about men. You often hear this from members of both sexes after the age of 40. You don’t hear it much before that.

What many men are though is sexist. Sexism is not hate. It’s completely different.

It’s this idea that women are a somewhat inferior form of human. They’re not really on our level. Sure, you love them, but they’re just not on the same level as we are. Sort of like how we feel about kids and our pets. Your cat and your young child are in a sense below you, right? They’re just not on the same level. And in a lot of ways, they your cat and your kid are inferior, at least at the moment. But that’s not hate.

All of these feminist women who insist that men hate women are completely out of their minds. It’s been a mass delusion of feminists ever since day one that men hate women. Feminists want to believe this. They want to believe that we hate them because it’s necessary for their crazy, victim-addicted point of view. It’s the biggest lie of them all.

Another big fat lie is Patriarchy. Yes, men have lorded it over women and kept them down for thousands of years, and even for most of American history. But that’s lifting now. Feminism has succeeded in more or less dismantling patriarchy in the US, and they have instead assembled a Matriarchy in its place which of course oppresses men.

There are still some of the remains of the fortress of Patriarchy left, but a lot of the fortifications have been destroyed by the feminists, to their credit. Get off the paranoid “Patriarchy is out to get you” trip, women! It’s crazy nonsense.

These are just two of the insane lies that feminism peddles. Go study feminism sometime. It’s constructed on a house of cards made up of mostly flat out, straight up lies. Feminists are hostile to science, truth, and facts because it doesn’t back up their stupid lies that they have constructed their entire ideology on.

Say no to feminism. If you’re a woman and you love men, it’s time to stand up and say no to feminism.

Letter to a Boy, 2019

Growing up a boy in the 21st century is not easy. The unhinged ideology of feminism has stifled many aspects about the very nature and essence of being a boy, and it is not right.

– You will be told nothing good about your gender because apparently there is no pride in being a boy.

– In society you will experience a system that is tilted against you by branding you a young offender just for typical male behavior.

– Your female peers will be encouraged in every stage of their educational journey and you will not.

– You will be blamed for the oppression of women by just being alive because it contributes to the «upholding of the patriarchy».

– You will be told in university that you’re a rapist in waiting, and you will be forced to attend consent classes.

– Your natural love and affection for women will be described as something awful, making you afraid to even say hello to a woman. One inappropriate remark or a single accusation of making one can destroy your reputation forever.

– If you try to speak out against these injustices, you will be persecuted by rabid mobs of politically correct lunatics.

But despite all of this, young man, I am not worried for you. Because you are a male. We males have overcome impossible obstacles before, and I trust we will again.

But until that day comes young man, you’ll have to live through all of this. And for that, I am sorry.

A Person with a “Worthless Degree” Will Be a Better Employee Than One with No Degree

Jason Y:

Well, I guess a person could work themselves up to management – but they could have just hired someone with no degree.

It’s not worthless. Because the person theoretically now is a well-educated citizen (important to society) and has the ability to think critically (important to society, to himself, and to his employers).

You would be much better off hiring someone with a degree for any position that requires any sort of brains.

Look below:

           IQ   CT   Grit DG   R    WH   TT

Degree     115  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 
No Degree  ~95? ?/N  ?/N  ?/N  ?/N  ?/No ?/No

CT = critical thinking
DG = Delay gratification
R = Responsible
W = Works Hard
TT= Tried and Tested

If you take 1,000 people with a university degree and 1,000 people without a university degree, the degreed people with have a much higher IQ (20 points!), would have better critical thinking skills, would show more ability to delay gratification, would be more responsible, would work hard, and would be tried and tested.

For those who did not get the degree, sure, some might be able to think critically, perhaps if they were autodidacts. Some would have a good ability to delay gratification. Some would be quite responsible. Some would work very hard. And some might be tried and tested in some other way.

But it’s a crapshoot. With the degreed people, you know that they can think critically, can delay gratification, are responsible, will work hard, and have been tried and tested at university.

With the undegreed people, you really have no idea. Maybe they will have these qualities, and maybe they will not, and you don’t have much of a way of knowing these things.

If you’re a betting man or an employer, the degreed person is a much better bet for any position that requires any sort of brains. In fact, I might even prefer degreed people as baristas at my coffee shop or as clerks in my retail outlet. You show me two applications, one with a degree and one without, I will hire the degreed person.

But not necessarily to drive a truck, work construction, pick crops, be an ironworker, lay concrete, or be a welder. People in those jobs typically never had degrees and for all we can tell, they never needed them. In fact, a university-educated man might not fit in well in the macho environment of a workplace like that.

But for anything else, sure. Statistically speaking, the degreed person is going to be a better bet.

Holocaust Denying – Theory # 2

The 2nd theory, considering that “zombie environments” produce the worst in people – and some Holocaust deniers can’t deny that (might be the reason), states that the chaos around World War II stopped “well meaning Germans” from giving Jews proper care – leading to the genocide, well, the unintentional genocide.

Well, this line is also used by Cuba and North Korea to explain problems in their society. In other words, in their cases, the US blockade is causing food shortages – and in the case of North Korea – actual starvation and disease.

Trusting Your Betters

Well, we should always be distrustful of what seems are good intentions.

Twilight Zone Episode Spoiler

I mean, I remember this Twilight Zone episode where these aliens solved all human problems – but the catch was – they were simply farming people to bring them to their home planet (to eat them)!

[collapse]

Anyway, I see this scene all the time.  Smiling people lying in your face – like the O’Jays song (Backstabbers),  Everything is a scam to cheat people.

What happens in zombie environments?

Well, in cases of disaster, the worst in people comes out, not the medium or best.   For instance, look at the Rwanda Genocide.  Look at the attempted crushing of the Haitian Revolution (1792) or the black side of the matter.

Yet, despite this evidence, WNs insist The Holocaust Never Happened.I mean, how many times have we heard this?  Well, it just seems to be a convenient way to explain away something – which obviously gives them, such a bad image, that nobody wants to be a WN.

In fact, I have heard the whole Civil Rights movement in the US came about – simply because racism etc. was on the down-swing – because of the Holocaust and World War II.  

Anyway, another argument against Holocaust deniers – is simply the obvious fact that downtimes in Europe’s history have always lead to Jewish persecution (generally). In fact, The Holocaust is just another savage pogrom.

Deleting Stormfront and The Daily Stormer

It’s illegal – but would someone smirk if some “third party” deleted their websites – with no backup to recover it?

10 million users (or whatever) down the toilet and good reddens (Push the button. nuked, gone! Bye bye.)!

I mean, what good were they to humanity?   But you can’t destroy an idea.  It’s kind of like killing Bin Laden to eliminate radical Islam.

But then again, is Germany different now, compared to 1933.? Did total annihilation change things?

 

Jews Controlling U.S. Porn

No doubt that’s true – but, “What about the fucking buyers?”.   Where’s the accountability of these WN types – who, in many ways, are just as whiny, into victimization – as cultural left types?  I mean, come on, if you play, you’re as much as responsible as the snake selling it to you.

But, anyway, as with the cultural left – and those beholden to it’s mantra – to various degrees (US blacks, Latinos, gays, you name it) – the WNs want to play a childish blame game – and assume they, themselves, are children, totally victimized by predators – poisoning their morally pure existence.

Well, it’s called Playing the Jew Card.

O.K., anyway, what if Jews didn’t sell porn?  Would the problem go away? It wouldn’t go away no more than men’s penises would!   It’s all supply and demand and next someone else would supply it.

But, of course, this is of no matter to @Robert Lindsay and others cause they like porn – but this is odd – cause so many race realists are into puritanism – much like Christian fundamentalists are.  But, I’m never sure how much hypocrisy is thrown into it.  I mean, there was always a double-standard  (maybe a myth or no?) of raping the oppressed – while protecting the prized possessions (white wives, daughters).

The Cussing Pastor?

https://guardianlv.com/2018/09/cussing-pastor-launches-bullsht-from-the-pulpit-tour/

“Yes, I cuss. I’m the cussing pastor, while your motherf*cking pastor ain’t doing a godd*mn thing. If it bothers you that I’m a cussing pastor, then get your motherf*cking ass off my d*mn page.

I don’t know about you but cussing way lowers my respect – of even college professors (not to mention grade-school teachers sheesh!)

Anyway, if I hear cussing on this site, though, it’s not the same thing – because this place was cussing from the beginning and expected to be vulgar/offensive.

Jobs – No Degree or Worthless Degree Required

You don’t even have to set up and market your own blog either!

  • Computer Programmer
  • Computer Security Analyist
  • Computer Support Specialist
  • Database Manager
  • Diagnostic Medical Sonographer
  • Tool and Die Maker
  • Network and Computer Systems Administrator
  • Pharmacy Technician
  • Radiologic Technician
  • Service Delivery Analyst
  • Cardiovascular Technician
  • Cardiovascular Technologist

  • Dental Hygienist
    Diagnostic Medical Sonographer
    Medical Records and Health Information Technician
    Occupational Health/Safety Specialist
    Occupational Therapy Aide
    Pharmacy Technician
    Physical Therapy Aide
    Radiologic Technician
    Radiologic Technologists
    Respiratory Therapists
    Surgical Technologist
    New Collar IT jobs<
    Business Intelligence Analyst
    Cloud Administrator
    Computer Network Architect
    Computer Programmer
    Computer Security Analyst
    Computer Support Specialist
    Computer Systems Engineer
    Cybersecurity Architect
    Database Administrators
    Information Security Analyst

  • Network Administrator
    Network Support
    Service Delivery Analyst
    Server Technician
    Software Developer
    Software Engineer
    Software Quality Assurance Analyst
    Software Quality Assurance Tester
    Systems Support
    Technical Sales Assistant
    Webmaster
    New Collar Manufacturing Jobs
    Blender/Mixer Operator
    CAD Drafter
    Chemical Operator
    CNC Operator
    CNC Programmer
    Computer-Controlled Machine Tool Operator
    Electrical/Electronics Repairer


  • Electromechanical and Industrial Engineering Technician
    Grinder/Sharpener
    Machinist
    Manufacturing Machine Operator
    Manufacturing Production Technician
    Molding/Casting Worker
    Plant Operator
    Printing Press Operator
    Production Supervisor
    Quality Control Inspector
    Security Manager
    Tool-and-Die Maker
    Warehouse Supervisor
    Water Treatment Specialist
    Manufacturing Machine Operator
    Manufacturing Production Technician
    Press Brake Operator
    Water Treatment Specialist
    Welder/Solderer

The Main Reason to Go to College: To Learn Critical Thinking Skills

They’re supposed to get critical thinking skills if they graduated. If they couldn’t get them, they’re likely to drop out before they graduate. I went to university and I saw all sorts of folks dropping out of college at all stages of the game, with many more dropping out at the four year level.

A university education is supposed to teach you critical thinking skills. That’s part of the whole idea of it. I guess you could graduate without learning those skills, but you either got lucky, or the university was not doing its job.

Is It Time for an Experiment?

I would wager that if you took groups of 1,000 university grads and 1,000 non university grads and compared them, the uni grads would have much higher critical thinking skills. Of course IQ could mask that.

Even better match the uni grads and non-uni grads on IQ or factor out IQ, and then test to see if there was an effect for a university education alone or if the higher critical thinking skills rate was just an artifact of a higher IQ in the first place.

Or take two groups at age 18, test for critical thinking skills, then test the same two groups ten years later after uni graduation for one part of the group and then compare for critical thinking skills again. Once again factor out IQ. This would tell us if the college grads already had critical thinking skills before university and uni had no effect on those skills or if their skills improved with uni education.

Critical Thinking Skills as a Value of a University Education: College Teaches You How to Think

Alpha writes:

As for “hiring people with a bachelor’s degree and will train,” I’ve heard that for years. I understand the reasoning behind it. You won’t get any argument from me. The only thing I might differ on is your idea that people with bachelor’s degrees have definitely learned critical thinking in college. This is questionable.

Well, it’s just fine if people want to get the most bang for their buck. But I think that people who don’t care about that or don’t think it is relevant should still be free to get ahead and get a social science degree with their money.

Or with society’s money on the basis that we are at least creating an educated citizen with good critical thinking skills and basic knowledge, both of which are important for a functioning society and as an employee skill. They can try to get one of those “Bachelors degree and will train” jobs, or they can teach themselves new skills easier or we can just settle for the notion that educated, critical thinking people are good for society.

When people say that I am not using my degrees, I beg to differ. I did get a degree in Journalism and I am a Freelance Journalist. A broke one but nevertheless one that has put out a lot of output. You could argue that I don’t use my Linguistics degree. However, I do publish in peer reviewed Linguistics journals, which makes me a Linguist, and I am now a Published Author in the field. I’m a broke linguist but so what?

Another thing I would like to point out is that all those years of education and getting that advanced degree taught me how to think. I am so much smarter with all those years of education behind. Of course I am an autodidact too but the university education really helped. And I am so smart now that I can actually teach myself whole new skills that I have no degrees in or just learn whole new skills and jobs simply by getting a bunch of books like “How to Be a ‘Whatever'”.

I knew nothing about field linguistics or writing an alphabet, dictionary or phrase book of a language. I simply went out and got a bunch of books on how to do those things and read them.  Then I called up expert linguists all over the country and asked them how to do it.

I got some books on how to write a dictionary. And then I got some more books on how to write a phrase book, and I got some phrase books to use as examples. Then I did a lot of work on a basic dictionary, and I got halfway through a phrasebook.

For the phrasebook, I actually designed the book itself as a Book Designer, writing mock-ups of every page including what text would go on it and what illustrations would go where. I simply got some books on how to design a book and then I did it. I’d never had a course in such a thing, and I was never trained in layout in my years of journalism.

In the course of the book chapter I published, I did a lot of work with a graphics artist with maps and putting various languages on the maps and mapping the territories where they were spoken. Basically working as a Map Designer.

The work was exceedingly difficult as we had several sources, including several maps, of some or all of these languages. And the maps and sources were all wrong in one way or another and they were all wrong in different ways.

I was first of all able to figure out that they were all wrong in the first place, and then I was able to figure out how each map was wrong, and based on that was able to figure out the best place to draw in the best speaker area for these languages. I’ve never done any Map Design before.

My Graphic Artist drew the maps, but I worked with him and told him where exactly to put each language on the maps and how to fix the maps that were wrong. I had had one Geography course 35 years prior.

At the same time they needed an ethnology or cultural history of their tribe.  So I read through the ethnologies currently available, of which they were a few, including a full blown doctoral dissertation, the author of which I spoke to.

Then I got a number of books on “How to Be an Anthropologist.” And then I started doing a lot of  anthropological work with the tribe and was given a secondary job title of Cultural Anthropologist. I had had only one class in anthropology in college, and that was 20 years before.

Decades ago, a friend of my Mom’s said there was an opening for a paralegal at her legal office. So I went in and applied for it, and the guy hired me on the spot. Many people take paralegal courses and get paralegal certificates, but I just asked the lawyer what he wanted done and went in and did it.

I wasn’t even trained on the job. I simply taught myself how to do this sort of paralegal work (mostly digesting depositions and summarizing documents, both of which were murderously hard).

It is illegal to call myself one, but I basically work as a Therapist or Life Coach now. I have to call myself peer counselor for legal reasons, but for all intents and purposes I am doing psychotherapy, or at least Life Coaching or mentoring if you will.

I had nearly enough Psychology courses for a Minor in Psychology at university. Then I ended up studying psychology and psychiatry on my own. I studied psychology for 40 years and psychiatry for 20 years. I spent years reading peer reviewed journals in both fields at a university library. And I had 30 years of off and on psychotherapy myself, in addition to being on psychiatric drugs for decades, for the most part antidepressants.

And now I do peer counseling, working with one particular disorder.  And I am so good that psychiatrists have described me as an expert on this condition. Let’s say there are 500, 1,000 or X number of experts on this disorder in the US. I would be among that number.

I’m not as good as some of those people who charge up to $350/hour, but at less than 10% the pay rate, I don’t say I am. I now get clients coming to me on referrals from all over the world. I do a lot of work with clients in Europe, Canada, and Australia. I don’t get much work from the rest of the world because my pay scales are higher than the wages in most of those places.

I knew nothing about Cryptozoology but I quickly became a top expert on Sasquatch and broke a number of important stories on this phenomenon. I got interviewed on the radio a few times and had a few offers to be on TV due to this expertise. I never took a single course (such as Wildlife Biology) to learn how to be a cryptozoologist. All self-taught.

I recently got paid to do some work in Conflict Resolution between a client and graphic artist. I did some reading on how to do it, and then I just did it.

I did a bit of work as an Agent for a Graphics Artist though I had no training in that.

I had a Graphic Arts, programming, and web design business for a while. We didn’t make much money but we did make a bit. I simply hired out people to do that work, although I never had any training in any of those things. I even fixed a program that didn’t work myself although I knew little about computer programming, could not program myself, and never took a course in it.

I just studied the code and figured out that it was a rules-based language system like the Linguistics I had been trained in. All human languages are rules-based language systems also. Once I figured out the “syntax” of the program, after a while, I figured out what was wrong and was able to fix the program so it worked. And this was a problem that had baffled my programmer.

I set up and ran a forum dealing with True Crime or Criminology although I never had one course in the subject. We did excellent work and I made thousands of dollars. I got to be such an expert on one famous crime that I had an offer to be on Inside Edition.

I recently founded a whole new political movement though I never had a Political Science course. I’ve just been reading about politics for decades now, and that’s all it took to be a Political Activist.

Now perhaps this is all an artifact of a stratospheric IQ. But I would also like to believe that all those years of education taught me how to think.

And ideally once you learn how to think very well, you can do all sorts of jobs that require little more than being smart or very smart. You simply get some books and teach yourself how to do it. You don’t need courses, degrees, certificates, or licenses, though for some jobs, you are breaking the law if you are working unlicensed.

A Really Bizarre Youth Crime

This is an old story (from 2015) – but I’m wondering, “How can preteens do this?”.  Well, I suppose children are up to do whatever adults do – as difficult as this is to accept.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/girls-charged-slender-man-stabbing-stay-adult-court-article-1.2320939

The girls are both from Waukesha, a conservative Milwaukee suburb. They each face a charge of attempted first-degree intentional homicide in connection with the May 2014 attack on their classmate, Payton Leutner. According to a criminal complaint, the girls plotted for months before they lured Payton into some woods after a sleepover and attacked her with a knife. Payton was stabbed 19 times but survived.

Morgan Geyser admitted to police that she lured another 12-year-old into the woods of Waukesha, Wisconsin after a sleepover and stabbed her 19 times. (Abe Van Dyke)

 

The girls told investigators they hoped killing Payton would please Slender Man, a character they had read about in online horror stories. The tales describe Slender Man as an unnaturally thin, faceless creature who preys on children.

Police captured the girls on the outskirts of the city that same day. They told investigators they planned to walk 300 miles to the Nicolet National Forest, where they hoped to live as Slender Man’s servants in his mansion.

All three girls were 12 years old at the time. Anyone 10 or older charged with first-degree attempted homicide is automatically considered an adult under Wisconsin law.

The girls could face up to 65 years in the state prison system if they’re convicted as adults. The juvenile system, in contrast, is geared more toward rehabilitation than punishment. The girls could be held as juveniles for only five years.

Their attorneys had argued they belong in juvenile court because their brains aren’t fully developed, they suffer from mental illness and they won’t get the treatment they need in the adult system. They also asked Bohren to find the state law forcing 10-year-olds into adult court unconstitutional because it leads to cruel and unusual punishment.

Anissa Weier is accused of helping plot their friend’s murder for months before carrying out the attack. (Abe Van Dyke)

Bohren refused to find the statutes unconstitutional on Thursday, writing that juveniles aren’t as culpable for their actions as adults but that doesn’t exempt them from adult sentences.

He rejected the rest of the defense teams’ arguments on Monday. He acknowledged what he called the girls’ delusions and mental illness, but said if he moved them into the juvenile system they’d be free and clear at age 18 with no oversight and no more treatment. If they are convicted as adults, they’d eventually be released on extended supervision and treatment would continue.

He said keeping the girls in the adult system would protect the community, noting again that their alleged crime was no accident.

“This was an effort to kill someone,” the judge said. “This was premeditated murder.”

The judge set the girls’ arraignment, the point in the criminal justice system when defendants enter pleas, for Aug. 21.

The Associated Press isn’t naming the girls because an appeals court could still move their cases to juvenile court, where proceedings are closed to the public.

 

 

“A Bachelor’s Degree in Anything and Will Train on the Job”: What Is Wrong with This Older Model of Hiring Workers?

Sigh.

Color me exasperated.

In response to this article, a couple of commenters (actually the two people who much to my gratitude help me run this site) left a bunch of comments that didn’t even deal with the premise of the post and instead gave the appearance of not reading the post. To which I say:

Did you all even read the article?

I was talking about not too long ago when many corporations and perhaps even government agencies used to ask for “A bachelor’s degree in anything.” Because most jobs, especially in government and business, don’t really need a degree. Most jobs are pretty much trainable on the job. So they hired people with “a degree in anything” and then trained them on the job and moved them up the ladder if they prospered in their positions.

Unfortunately, corporations and perhaps even governments have gotten away from this, and have started demanding all sorts of silly more or less nonsensical degrees in all sorts of joke fields in order to do some job that doesn’t even need a degree in the first place because it’s trainable on the job.

My statement was that this worked for many years. “A Bachelor’s Degree in anything” and then train you on the job. Somehow we have gotten away from this. Believe it or not even back then people talked all the time about worthless social science degrees that wouldn’t get you a job anywhere.

The reason corporations and governments did this was because “a Bachelor’s degree in anything” showed that you probably had an IQ of ~115, which is in the top 20% of the population. You also have quite a bit of the self-discipline, stick-to-it-iveness (or grit), responsibility, promptness, and ability to delay gratification necessary to obtain a BA degree at a US university.

So you’re smarter than 80% of the population, you’re responsible and diligent, and you have a great work ethic. Wouldn’t you want to hire someone like that? Also you have definitely been taught critical thinking skills and you have the basic background of a well-educated human being, which, believe it or not, transfers into even the knowledge needed to do all sorts of jobs.

Instead of acknowledging that “a Bachelor’s degree in anything and then train” was a good model that we might want to get back to, I got a bunch of tone-deaf comments about “worthless social science degrees.” The implication being that the commenters did not read the degree.

I don’t mean to insult my esteemed colleagues here, but it might be nice to hear their views on the premise of the article. If you all don’t wish to discuss the premise of the piece, fine, but please don’t derail into things that imply you didn’t read the piece.

Now these commenters are both quite intelligent, and one is very intelligent. Hence I might be interested to hear their views on this interesting topic that never gets discussed:

Please debate the following: In the past many jobs advocated “a Bachelor’s degree in anything and will train on the job beyond that.” We have now gotten away from that. The fact that this was policy in many enterprises for decades showed that for a long period in this country, those degrees were not worthless at all.

Discuss.

The Politics of the El Paso Mass Shooter: The Rise of a Racist Left?

As you well know a few weeks ago, a young White man went into a Walmart in El Paso, Texas and shot the place up. He was angry about mass Hispanic immigration to Texas, which he described as an invasion. His targets in the store were mostly Hispanics.

He admitted that he was motivated by Brandon Tarrant, the New Zealand mosque shooter.

He felt that with increasing Hispanic immigration, Hispanics would take over the state and Hispanic culture would be writ large there. Further, once they had control, they would try to put in Open Borders because that is what most Mexican immigrants want: Open Borders, at least for Mexicans.

I’m not trying to justify this guy’s monstrous crime, but that last paragraph is probably straight up true and it’s something we might want to think about, seeing as we are dead set on turning this country into yet another Latin American country.

He was actually leftwing on economics. He was definitely not a conservative Republican, that’s for damn sure. His manifesto was all about the workers, and it attacked corporations for being anti-worker. His beef against immigrants was that they were taking jobs from natives. The piece was very anti-corporate and condemned both the Democratic and Republican parties. His piece also had strong environmentalist overtones.

This is pretty typical nowadays. Tarrant, the New Zealand mosque shooter, was also mostly on the Left other than race.

These guys are not exactly on the left or right in an American sense. They are more like Third Positionists, who are left on economics and right on social issues. Third Positionists are considered to be neither left nor right.

How on Earth can they call this El Paso guy hard rightwing when he slams corporations, is strongly pro-worker, and condemns the Republican Party? Since when is anyone on the US Right pro-worker or anti-corporate? If you are those things, you are not a part of the US Right de facto.

I am wondering if we are seeing a Racist Left or maybe the left wing of the White Nationalist movement here.

Problems Associated with Mass Third World Immigration since 1965

Lot of interesting food for thought here.

From a conversation on the Net. I didn’t write the text below! So please don’t blame me for it. Another man wrote this in the course of a conversation I was having with him on a website, American Renaissance of all places.

What I have noticed is that you have a tipping point that changes a community. Let’s say you are in a community of 90% White and 10% Black. The community will largely reflect White values and norms. If you have 60% Black, 40% White, things shift, and the community largely reflects Black norms.

And it is similar if we use I.Q. instead of race or some other measure. What has happened is mainstream American culture has radically changed since 1950 or even 1980.

I have witnessed this myself. You have massive amounts of crime and corruption everywhere, along with a lack of professionalism, and a lack of accountability (for bad police, bad teachers, bad CEOs etc.). Even in majority White areas there is usually this culture of incompetence.

With the huge influx of Mestizos you have a blending of American culture- American society just tends to look and act a little more Mestizo, as the genetic tendencies and intelligence of the community become more like Mestizos.

In the early 1900’s you had the opposite effect in the United States, which blossomed into the 1950’s heyday.

Germans are one of the most successful people in the world. Germany is generally cleaner, less corrupt, and more prosperous than other European nations. And where Germans go their success usually follows. There was a huge influx of German immigrants to here around the early 1900’s. More Germans immigrated in the United States than any other group (although the Irish come close).

This had a civilizing effect on America. The English are very similar to Germans but they had largely sent their criminals, chronically poor, etc. to populate their colonies. America blossomed into a clean, well oiled, low corruption society. After WW2 Operation Paper Clip brought Nazi scientists to the U.S., we had the greatest innovation the world has ever seen. Most scientific inventions seem to be done by white males of Germanic ancestry.

Similarly, a large influx of Yiddish Jews contributed to the financial dominance of the United States in the world and the country’s dominance in the arts (such as Hollywood).

After the 1950s, as we began to get immigrants from less successful races, we have seen the effect on our society- we are less competitive in the world of cutting edge science (although we still hold the lead), corruption is more commonplace, and academic test scores are down (although there is a lot of effort to conceal this fact).

American society more and more resembles a Second or Third World nation and less resembles the exceptional achievements you find in German or Yiddish communities.

“Head Start Doesn’t Work” – A Longstanding Rightwing Lie

There are various arguments in favor of the Head Start program. First of all, it’s not all a bunch of “niggers and beaners wasting hard-working White taxpayer dollars,” which is 100% of the reason behind all anti-Head Start arguments. I spoke to a man who lived in rural Western Pennsylvania. He worked somehow for the local Head Start program, and it was filled up with the children of low income rural Whites there. So White kids use it too.

How about this? Moneyed people get to send their kids to preschool, right? Ok, well then, as it sounds like a basic right like food and health care, why don’t low income and poor people get to send their kids to preschool too? It’s only for the rich and the middle class? You are punishing little children for the low incomes of their parents. What you are saying is that these kids messed up by picking the wrong parents, so we have to punish them by denying them this program.

How about another one? The argument against Head Start makes no sense whatsoever.

The argument says that Head Start is absolutely worthless and all benefits fade after 2-3 years, so there’s no point in having the program. It’s true that what look like remarkable gains do indeed fade after a few years, but there are lower level gains that are sustained far into adulthood as I will show below.

But let’s look at this argument itself. There’s nothing special or automagical about Head Start. It’s not some kooky program dreamed up by liberal fools. Head Start is nothing other than preschool. Preschool for children from low income and poor families. It’s no different from the preschools the moneyed folks send their super special children to. Not even 1% different.

But wait a minute. If Head Start doesn’t work or is worthless, isn’t that argument saying that preschool doesn’t work or is useless? Well if it’s useless, why do these same moneyed parents who spend good money to send their kids to preschool even bother? It doesn’t work, right?

But moneyed parents send their kids to preschool because they are convinced by many good arguments that it works, is good for their kids, and is worth the money. So preschool is necessary and it works great for our kids, except that it’s useless and fails for those other people’s kids?

Well for Chrissake. Does it work or not? If it fails, for God’s sake, pull your rugrats out and save some cash. But if it works, as moneyed folks are convinced, then they need to explain how it somehow works for their special pale kids, but it doesn’t work for those blighted duskier kids over yonder?

Preschool works great, except when it’s called Head Start, and then it doesn’t work at all and is a failed program that needs to be eliminated. I suppose they could craft an argument that Head Start works great for kids from moneyed backgrounds, but it fails for those darker Brown and Black kids, I guess because those kids are too inferior to make use of it or something.

It’s all nonsense. Preschool works. Preschool works for moneyed and lighter skinned kids when it’s called preschool. It works, apparently just as well, for poorer and darker kids when it’s called Head Start.

The argument against Head Start lies demolished before we even get to the studies. It’s dead before it’s even left the starting gate. It failed even as a hypothesis.

But just for the sake of shooting fish in a barrel, let’s look at the figures for Head Start:

Granted the grandiose claims of its supporters when Head Start was begun have not panned, but so what?

How about if we judge the program on one and only one variable? Is it cost-effective.

The kids who go through Head Start don’t end up Rhodes Scholars, but they end up better on many different variables. Less mental retardation (under 70 IQ), more high school graduation, lower arrest rates, and welfare use. In fact many studies have shown that Head Start is actually cost-effective and cheaper than no Head Start. It’s not a miracle cure, but it’s worth the money economically.

No Child Left Behind was a rightwing plot to destroy our public schools. Bush required public schools to improve their scores each and every year into eternity! Seriously. If not, there were serious punishments funding-wise.

Well, of course this is not possible, so much test faking and cheating ensued, for which I don’t blame them. My family were children of the US public schools. I do not look kindly on rightwing attempts to destroy our public schools that so many good White kids literally depend on. It’s viciously anti-White.

Peak Oil and Peak Coal

Looks like we just hit Peak Coal in 2012 and Peak Oil in Summer 2018. That means that the world’s coal and oil production hit its ultimate peak in those years, and every year after that, production is going to drop. Production could peak for a lot of reasons.

One reason would be that the resource is becoming exhausted. However, in the case of coal, it is possibly just that coal has hit peak demand and the world is weaning itself off the stuff.

Although we did hit peak oil, I suppose it’s possible to hit it again as many producers have reduced their output to drive up prices. Venezuela and Iran have seen output plunge due to crippling sanctions the US put on both of them. Many oil fields are not even fully exploited and there is always the argument that you can find new fields.

More importantly, no more than 10% of the oil can be extracted from any underground oil basin. The rest is simply not reachable for some reason.  However, new technology is enabling us to get up to 25% of the oil from a basin. This could also ramp up production.

The fact that we are resorting to the awful, and deadly polluting process of fracking of oil shale seems to show that humanity is nearing  the limits of the oil it can scrape out of the ground. Shale oil fracking looks like a desperate attempt to grab even the haziest and most dubious extractable oil in a desperate attempt to head off Peak Oil. And even that’s not working.

After Peak Oil, oil production is supposed to decline every year after that. Quite a few folks think this will be a catastrophe but that may not be so. One thing is that oil demand will drop for a lot of uses in the coming decades. A lot of enterprises that burn fossil fuel and move off it onto renewables, with the generation of electricity leading the way so far.

Cars are another matter. Demand for oil for cars rose every year in the last decade. That is because the world continues to add more and more cars, especially in emerging markets like China.  And 97% of cars run on oil. Ethanol never panned out and it has to be mixed with oil to work anyway.

Oil is used for other things. 10% of oil is used to produce plastics. I don’t understand why we should not continue to pump oil to make plastic. I mean oil and coal are only problems when you burn them to create energy. Oil is simply transformed as a raw material in the production of plastic so this use of oil does affect Global Warming at all. Actually even coal has other uses besides burning. It is also used in the production of various manufactured products.

The nonsense about “clean coal” has been a mantra for over a decade now. Obama was fond of that one. Apparently it’s a big fat lie. My research has found that there is no such thing as clean coal. So-called clean coal is dirty as Hell. If anyone has any contrary information about clean coal, I’d like to hear it.

The thing is is that demand for oil, as for coal, may decline in coming years at least for certain uses such as electricity. And if the price does go up, oil producers usually respond to increased demand by increasing supply. When the price drops or demand falls, producers simply reduce production.

All of these factors make it so that skyrocketing oil prices are not necessarily going to happen with Peak Oil, or at least not for some years if ever. There’s a lot more to prices, supply, and demand of products than production of the commodity peaking out.

An Argument for the Utility of a Four Year College Degree, in Anything, Yes, Anything at All

I would like to make an argument for the utility of a four year college degree in absolutely anything at all with possibly a few lightweight exceptions.

Here it is:

I majored in General Ed in junior college. I have a Masters Degree and a genius level IQ (over 140). 😉

Most of the work coming out of Studies departments nowadays is quite poor. Sociology, Anthropology, and Pedagogy are badly corrupted by PC. My own field, Linguistics, is a PC hellhole. Even Psychology is becoming badly corrupted.

You would be surprised that Criminal Justice is actually a very liberal field of study. Generally considered part of Sociology. All of the social sciences are very leftwing, History included. Also a notorious black hole of theory, as no one really knows what causes crime or makes it go up or down.

I suppose you do need to write well even in a Studies field. I have met some people with “Studies” majors, one a feminist with a Gender Studies degree. They were often very intelligent. Not sure what good the degree is.

You know, 30-40 years ago, many entry level jobs said “a Bachelors degree in anything.” This was intelligent as these folks felt that getting a BA in most things is not easy at all, and the person probably has at least a 105 and probably a 115 IQ. They probably don’t have a 100 IQ.

On top of that, the BA should have at least taught them the critical thinking so necessary in the workplace. I still believe that a degree in anything shows that this person has been taught the critical thinking skills necessary for higher level work in our society. So those junk degrees are at least valuable in that sense.

About Those “Worthless Social Science Degrees”

The argument that social science degrees are absolutely worthless for getting a job in modern society has been coming up for decades, but it has grown louder in the last ten years.

Supposedly these degrees are absolutely useless in terms of finding a job, so they are a  waste of money. Further, they are a waste of society’s money.

This argument mostly comes from conservatives, but some liberals have taken it up too. I’d like to point out that the roots of this argument lie in laissez faire free market neoliberal capitalism. So all of you making this argument are in bed with Milton Friedman. I hope you’re happy.

This is so because the only degrees that are said to be worthwhile are those degrees that are useful in a sociopathic hyper-individualistic anything goes free market economy such as we are blighted with here in the US.

The only degrees that are worthwhile are those that will get Bill Gates,  Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump, Betsy DeVos, Howard Schmidt, Jeffrey Epstein, Steve Jobs,  or other semi-sociopathic heartless maniac billionaires to hire you for whatever capitalist scam they are cooking up at the moment.

And everything else, everything that doesn’t allow you to be a cog in a lying, cheating, thieving corporate world, is completely and utterly useless. Because the Market is everything and everything is the Market.

In such a society it should not be surprising that conservatives, mostly conservative males, say that anything other than a math, science, tech, business or management degree is utterly worthless.

Japan is thinking of phasing out all of its social sciences in the next decade or two. There have been many calls to reduce or eliminate social science programs at US universities. These calls go right along with the total commodification of life that we are experiencing.

Furthermore, they display a contempt for knowledge and the scholarship needed to obtain it as a core value of human existence. Why are we here anyway? How about to learn? That would be one of my arguments. Not that most folks have any use for much learning, but the species as a whole does. It’s a value. No you can’t slap a dollar sticker on it and it often has little or no monetary value.  In modern society that means it is utterly worthless. Why? Because it doesn’t make a buck.